Missouri Policymakers looking for delicate balance between economics and environmental protection
by Missouri LSEN Staff
Proposed legislation focused on alleviating the regulatory burden of wastewater discharge standards for ammonia is drawing attention to how environmental mitigation sometimes can disproportionately affect low-income communities and families.
HB 525 requires the Department of Natural Resources(DNR) to conduct a use attainability analysis on waters of the state before limiting ammonia discharges from point sources. The bill’s sponsor is Rep. Kent Haden (R-Mexico), representing the 43rd district (Audrain and Callaway counties) since 2018. The DNR permitting process for wastewater runoff and discharge seeks to limit the amount of ammonia in the runoff. The pollutant is identified as a threat to certain species of mussels and snails endemic to the streams of southern Missouri.
For more explanation, see the EPA recommended ammonia criteria in this 2014 fact sheet.
All nitrogen fertilizers, including anhydrous ammonia, can ultimately convert to nitrate in the soil, particularly with warmer temperatures. Excess nitrate runoff can lead to eutrophication (also known as algae blooms), and is a primary driver for hypoxia (low oxygen) and dead zones. See the MOST Policy Initiative Science Note on anhydrous ammonia, prepared by MOST Policy Fellow Dr. Jenny Bratburd.
Recouping the cost of improvements.
As an impetus for HB 525, Haden points to Benton City, a village in Audrain County, that has 70 homes or users on its sewer system. The burden to upgrade its system to meet ammonia discharge regulations is greater than the cost that a city like Mexico can absorb, he says, and paying for system upgrades must be recouped in higher bills to the system users.
“If you’re in poverty or on a fixed income, that’s money that you don’t have,” he adds, questioning whether the lower ammonia levels are even realistic or achievable.
He also worries that as regulations become more stringent, they will be unaffordable for the smallest systems, such as a trailer park outside Mexico that could result in 100 or more people displaced if the trailer park must close because it cannot afford the necessary system upgrades.
Some communities and wastewater treatment facilities have no tax base to support water and sewer systems, with user fees the only option for revenue. And that means increasing those fees to pay for upgrades and improvements.
“Very few people have tied the economic impact of a DNR regulation to low-income communities. It is real,” Haden added.
Aging infrastructure.
The economic impact question will likely become even more prevalent in the future because water and sewer infrastructure are expensive items. Much of the existing infrastructure was put in place 50 or more years ago and may need upgrading. The cost issue is present regardless of other issues such as ammonia and related water quality concerns.
A recent MOST Policy Initiative Science Note that examines how we think about water affordability, for instance, explains that user rates are often based on median household income. When that is the case, the users at the lowest income levels may have the greatest economic burden.
For additional discussion of how user rate structures can disproportionately affect low-income users, see the MOST Policy Initiative Science Note, “Water Infrastructure,” prepared by MOST Policy Fellow Dr. Jenny Bratburd.
The EPA’s Environmental Equity Working Group issued a report in 1992 showing that minority and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental pollutants. Two years earlier, the National Law Journal published a study finding that EPA penalties differed in Black and white communities. (For study backgrounds and additional footnotes, see this 2019 report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.)
The environmental impact on minorities and low-income communities is just one part of the equation. The other part is that mitigation efforts to improve water and wastewater systems also often have disproportionate impacts on minorities and low-income communities. In response to the 1992 EPA report and the agency’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, then-President Bill Clinton issued an executive order that directed agencies receiving federal funding to address those disproportionate impacts of their policies and programs on communities of color and low-income communities.
A north and side divide.
Regarding HB 525, another important note is a geological distinction. The proposed legislation recognizes that northern Missouri has a different environment than the southern part of the state in that northern streams are predominantly clay bottom and southern streams are rock and gravel bottom. The ammonia discharge regulations are aimed at protecting certain mussels and snails that live in the southern streams. The regulations are part of the larger scope of the Clean Water Act provisions to make Missouri’s streams and other water bodies compliant with “full-body contact” rules that essentially mean those water bodies are swimmable and fishable.
Haden says his bill would require the DNR to show scientific evidenceprove the science that the stringent ammonia regulations are necessary for systems in northern Missouri. The potential for a subsequent loss of housing — whether via enforcing ammonia regulations or other rules that may disproportionately affect low-income users and areas — is an issue for all parts of the state, he says.
“Is this the answer? I don’t know,” Haden added. “I’m trying to call attention to it.”
He also knows that DNR is working under the auspices of the EPA and that any push-back on ammonia discharge regulations could cause EPA to step in. “We do not want to push this to the point of EPA taking over.”
HB 525 testimony.
Testimony in support of the bill has come from various leaders and elected officials, and the Audrain County Commission, including Presiding Commissioner Steve Hobbs, who previously served in the Missouri House representing Audrain County.
See the public testimony on file in support and in opposition here.
Opposition has come from Jay Hoskins, chairman of the Missouri Water Environment Association’s government affairs committee. Hoskins, forwarding and echoing similar comments from others, says DNR already has the authority to perform a use attainability analysis “when necessary,” and that the bill could have “serious unintended consequences” for water systems north of the Missouri River by leading to an EPA takeover of permit reissuances. Requiring DNR to perform a use attainability analysis would create “unnecessary bureaucracy” and waste valuable resources for other water quality programs, Hoskins testified.
As others testified, Hoskins repeated that communities that are impacted disproportionately by water quality regulations should ask the DNR for compliance assistance.
Other notes from testimony in opposition to the bill:
- The Sierra Club advocates for eliminating wastewater discharge entirely, instead using a land application system — where treated wastewater is applied to cropland or green space.
- Wastewater discharge permittees already have the ability to seek variances or an extended compliance schedule.
- While much of the opposing testimony agreed that HB 525 is “well-intentioned” and that current ammonia limits are “challenging,” there are existing regulatory tools to address the issues.
Starting the conversation.
Haden said he expects some amendments are coming to improve his bill.
“Everybody wants clean water and clean air,” he noted, adding that the ramifications and unintended consequences of regulations must always be part of the conversation. “You’ve got to get people thinking about it first.”
For additional resources, check the MOST Policy Initiative website, the Local Science Engagement Network, and a DNR fact sheet on evaluating wastewater treatment alternatives for small communities with lagoons.
