Proposed EPA Policy Update Misses the Mark on Water Quality Trading

FallStream_BPortlock_1171x593

Forests are some of nature's best filters, trapping soil and nutrients on the land so they don't wash into rivers and streams as pollution.

Bill Portlock / CBF Staff

Markets that incentivize conservation practices could significantly cut costs to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways. But only if they’re done right.

Water quality trading might just be the white whale of watershed restoration—long sought-after, elusive, and really hard to get right. Touted for decades as a cost-effective way to reduce pollution in the nation's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, markets have nonetheless struggled to gain traction.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded this is a problem worth fixing. Unfortunately, EPA's solution not only misses the mark, it aims entirely in the wrong direction.

The agency is closing a public comment period this month for one of six policy proposals it outlined earlier this year aimed at stimulating existing markets and encouraging the creation of new markets. But in its effort to increase the quantity of water quality trades, the agency's proposals at best would muddle the regulatory framework for markets and at worst could allow trades that don't create real benefits for water quality.

Federal policy guidance does not have the weight of law, but it effectively sets the ground rules for water quality trading programs nationwide. The changes, if EPA decides to pursue them, therefore have the potential to affect watershed restoration efforts across the country, including here, in the Chesapeake Bay.

An Urgent Opportunity

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has studied the potential benefits and barriers to water quality trading in the Bay watershed for nearly two decades.

Well-designed, well-implemented trading programs could make it both cheaper and faster to clean up pollution in the Bay. Moreover, they could address the two sources of pollution that historically have been the most difficult to tackle: polluted "nonpoint source" (NPS) runoff from agricultural lands and urban areas.

The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint, developed under the Clean Water Act, sets a cap on the amount of pollution that can flow into the Bay. Each of the six Bay states and the District of Columbia is responsible for reducing its share of pollution to meet the cap. But the cost of reducing pollution is not equal across the watershed.

Retrofitting city streets, parking lots, and homes to stem the flow of polluted runoff from developed areas is many times more expensive than upgrades at wastewater treatment plants or conservation practices on farms that reduce the same amount of pollution.

Water quality trading, in theory, could reduce the financial burden of cleanup efforts by allowing sources that can reduce pollution cheaply, like farms, to cut pollution beyond their requirements and sell those surplus reductions as credits on the market. Sources with high costs, such as nearby cities, could buy the credits from farmers in order to meet some of their pollution reduction requirements in a more cost-effective manner than expensive infrastructure upgrades.

As the Blueprint's 2025 deadline fast approaches and development continues across the watershed, addressing polluted runoff from urban and suburban areas will only become more urgent. 

What's Stopping Water Quality Trades

Despite the promise of water quality trading, markets have been slow to get off the ground in the Bay watershed and across the country. EPA's proposed policy changes largely seek to spur trading by lowering the requirements for nonpoint pollution sources—such as farms—to generate credits.

Current water quality trading policy underscores the importance of meeting certain baseline criteria before a farm or other source can sell credits on the market. Typically, this requires farms to first reduce their own pollution to the extent required by the watershed's pollution cap. Only after achieving those initial pollution reductions are they eligible to generate credits for sale.

EPA argues that these requirements are too stringent and should be more flexible in order to encourage market participation and generate more credits. But it misses the point.  CBF has found there are lots of farmers within the Bay watershed that already implement good conservation practices on their land and would be eligible to generate credits.  What often holds water quality trading back is not a lack of credit supply, it's a lack of demand—that is, strong enforceable permit limits that can be directly tied to the need to reduce pollution.

A second barrier is the lack of clear regulatory frameworks for how water quality trading could help municipalities comply with stormwater permit requirements. While water quality trading programs exist in all three of the states that account for roughly 90 percent of the Bay's pollution—Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—the programs differ greatly in their design and effectiveness. In Pennsylvania, for example, uncertainty about permit requirements held back progress on a project designed to explore potential trades between cities and farmers.

EPA's proposed policy changes address neither of these issues. Instead, by proposing to loosen baseline requirements for nonpoint sources looking to generate credits, the changes could actually hinder water quality improvements.

Making Water Quality Trading Work

Water quality trading programs in the Bay watershed, and across the country, can certainly be improved. Successful trading, though, requires key safeguards to ensure pollution reductions are real and have verifiable benefits for water quality. Some of those safeguards include:

  • Ensuring trades do not degrade local water quality by concentrating pollution reductions in only one area of a watershed while allowing pollution elsewhere to continue unabated.
  • Using independent third parties to verify and monitor pollution reduction practices that generate credits for trading.
  • Creating legal mechanisms, such as contracts, that ensure the necessary pollution reductions are achieved when credits are sold.
  • Ensuring transparency and accountability in the market by providing public access to information on proposed trades and opportunity to provide input.

Instead of changing established policy, EPA could be most helpful by clearly identifying tools that help farms and cities measure pollution reductions, and by offering guidance on how cities, which face the steepest costs, can meet their pollution reduction requirements through trading.

Beth McGee, CBF Director of Science and Agricultural Policy

Issues in this Post

Federal Regulations   Green Infrastructure   Water Quality   Federal Affairs Office  




DISCLAIMER

PLEASE READ OUR TERMS OF USE

The views and opinions expressed in the media, articles or comments on this site are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by CBF and the inclusion of such information does not imply endorsement by CBF. CBF is not responsible for the contents of any linked Web, or any link contained in a linked Web site, or any changes or updates to such Web sites. The inclusion of any link or comment is provided only for information purposes. CBF reserves the right to edit or remove any comments and material posted to this website and to ban users from the site without notice. Partisan, pornographic or other inappropriate content, product or service promotion, foul language or bad behavior is expressly forbidden and will be removed.


Share Your Clean Water Story

What does the Bay, its rivers and streams mean to you? What impact have the Bay and its local waters had on your life? We'd like to know.

Share Your Story

Stay Up-to-Date on Bay News

Want to stay up-to-date on all news and happenings in your region and across the Chesapeake watershed? Join our digital community.

Sign Up
x
This website uses cookies to tailor and enhance your online experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more information, including details on how to disable cookies, please visit our Privacy Policy. Close