Defining ORSANCO’s Role in Water Resources Management

1. Defining ORSANCO’s Role in Water Resources Management

2. Who/What is ORSANCO • Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission • an interstate pollution control agency • Powers derived by 1948 Compact signed by state governors and approved by Congress • Consists of representatives from eight states (6 main stem states, NY and VA) and the federal government

3. Mission of ORSANCO • Implement the Compact through direct action and coordination of state activities • Wastes discharged in one state shall not “injuriously affect” the waters of another state • Compact authorizes Commission to adopt rules, regulations and standards

4. Commission • 3/state (Governor appointed); 3 federal (President appointed) – Total 27 • One of state’s commissioners is state EPA director • One federal is EPA regional administrator (longstanding practice) • Mix is 1/3 State/Fed Agency & 2/3 other

5. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) Full-time staff – 23 Annual Funding for Operations (Base Budget): States - $1.4 M* Fed. - $1.4 M $2.8 M HQ – Cincinnati State funding levels are set by the Commission and prorated per proportionate land mass and population in the drainage

6. Programs • Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment • Biological Studies • Pollution Control Standards • Spill Detection and Notification • Organics Detection System • Public Information and Education • Water Resources

7. ORSANCO and Water Resources Mission (per the Compact) has been focused on water pollution abatement But, to some extent, water quantity (i.e. resources) is an inherent interest (e.g. 7Q10 for NPDES Permitting

8. ORSANCO and Water Resources (cont’) • Questions from time-to-time why are there two organizations( ORSANCO &Ohio River Basin Commission) • Growing importance of integrating quality and quantity management • Droughts and shortages…not just a “west of the Mississippi” issue anymore • Need for an Ohio River Basin organization with powers/authority to regulate inter –basin transfers of water

9. ORSANCO and Water Resources (cont’) February 2009 Strategic Planning Workshop Outcome….ORSANCO should become more “holistic” in its services to the states Task Force formed to evaluate options June, 2010, Task Force recommended change in ORSANCO’s Bylaws to establish a new standing Water Resources Committee

10. ORSANCO Committees Commission Staff* Commission Legal Counsel Standing Committees SpecialCommittees Program Advisory Committees Advisory Committee Audit Registry of Distinguished Operators WaterUsers Bylaws Congressional Liaison ORSANCO/Ohio River Users Program Public Interest Executive Public Information Directors Water Resources Publicly Owned Treatment Works Nominating Special Project Steering Committees Pension Subcommittees: Biological Water Quality Stream Quality Criteria Monitoring Strategy NPDES Power Industry Personnel Program & Finance *Note: Commission Staff provides liaison to each Committee, Subcommittee or Workgroup including meeting arrangements and secretarial services. Workshops: 305b Report Coordinators Emergency Response Nonpoint Source Strategy Implementation Combined Sewer Overflow Program Biocriteria Development Standards Technical Water Quality Review

11. Water Resources Committee • Bylaws “…shall serve to provide counsel and direction to the Commission and shall study, discuss and evaluate water resources issues of concern or interest to the Commission and basin states. • Leadership • Chaired by Ron Potesta • ORSANCO Commissioner • Former Director of WV DNR • Must be financially self supporting as present ORSANCO Charter allows funding only for water quality related programs

12. Role of Water Resources Committee • Will guide the Commission in defining role in water resources management • Develop and implement Commission’s water resources program • Provides forum for states to discuss water resources issues • The Committee will set its own agenda based on the collective needs of its member states

13. Status of Membership • Membership open to: • All Basin States (14) • US Army Corps of Engineers • US Geological Survey • Committee may recommend additional parties • Current members:

14. Additional Members? • Discussions ongoing with remaining states encouraging participation • Anticipate new members in near future • Illinois – budgetary issues and management turnover • North Carolina? – current budgetary constraints prohibit out-of-state travel • Additional federal agencies? • Tennessee Valley Authority (Added in 2011) • NOAA / NWS • Natural Resources Conservation Service

15. First Meeting – February 9, 2011 • Set operating parameters (e.g. frequency of meetings) • Identified common water resources program needs and priorities among states and federal agencies • Water allocation • Drought and flood management • Maintaining minimum flows for aquatic life • Need for framework to address inter-basin withdrawals

16. First Meeting (cont’) • Identified three additional agencies for consideration for inclusion on the Committee • TVA, NWS, NRCS • Held initial discussion regarding Commission’s water resources options • Work through Committee within existing Compact authorities • Pursue Governors Memorandum of Understanding • Amend Compact to include water resources authorities • First charge is to consider the desirability, content and timing of Governors MOU

17. Second Water Resource Meeting • Held in Pittsburgh in June 2011-funded by Benedum Foundation • Nationally recognized water resource experts present • Discussion of status of each states’ Water Resource Program and their priority issues • Discussion seeking Foundation funding of ORSANCO Water Resource effort

18. Recent ORSANCO Water Resource Accomplishments • Request funding from Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and Cincinnati Foundations to carry out a three year effort • Received commitments for $315,000 of Foundation funding with additional $85,000 grant pending • Established three year grant framework/schedule for “Building ORSANCO’s Capacity to Address the Water Resources Needs in the Ohio River Basin” • Developed Memorandum of Understanding for signature by Governors of the member states supporting and endorsing ORSANCO’s Water Resources efforts • Fall 2011 ORBWRA ( ORBC) disbands and members are transitioned into the Water Resources Committee

19. ORSANCO Water Resources Grant Activities • 1) Complete studies to characterize the water resource management needs in the Ohio River Basin • 2) Provide operational support to the C0mmission’s Water Resources Committee • 3) Provide travel support for consultation visits with state agencies and other relevant parties to define the appropriate role for ORSANCO to facilitate effective management of water resources in the Basin.

20. Memorandum of Understanding would authorize • Investigate, study, and review water related problems and issues in the Ohio Basin • Provide forum for Ohio Basin states to study, discuss and develop regional policies on common interstate water resource issues • Assist in providing training related to water resources for state officials in the Basin • Coordinate water resource planning in the Ohio Basin and to encourage coordinated and cooperative action by the Basin states in water resource management

21. MOU Authorizations con’t. • Provide representation of the regional interests of the Ohio River Basin before Congress and federal agencies responsible for planning and management of water resources of the Basin (using Ohio River Congressional Caucus)

22. Water Resource Activities needing amendment to ORSANCO Charter • The regulation of water withdrawal as requested and conferred by individual states, establish guidelines, protocols and regulations for intrastate withdrawals • Where an “emergency” situation is deemed to exist, establish temporary regulations • Establish regulatory authority related to inter-basin transfers, including regulatory authority to recover, for the benefit of the member states, the economic value of the water being transferred out of the basin • Establish an overall program for effective management of water resources in the Ohio River Basin

23. Where do we go from here? “When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water” Ben Franklin

24. DRCB and SRBC Authorizations • DBRC • •Delaware River Basin Compact, • 32 P.S. §815.101 et seq.(1961) • Project review triggered by withdrawals of • 100,000 GPD or more (ground or surface water) • Southeast (PA) Groundwater Protected Area: • Groundwater withdrawals of 10,000 GPD or more • SRBC • •Susquehanna River Basin Compact, • 32 P.S. §820.1 et seq.(1970) • Project review triggered by withdrawals of 100,000 GPD or more (ground or surface water) or • Consumptive uses of 20,000 GPD or more • Municipal regulation of water withdrawals preempted by SRBC, if conflict • Levin v. Benner Township, 669 A.2d 1083 • (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), aff.689 A.2d 224 (Pa. 1997)

25. A Short Review of Pennsylvania • Water Law • Presented by • Pamela Bishop, Assistant Counsel • Bureau of Regulatory Counsel • Office of Chief Counsel • PA Department of Environmental Protection • February 2006

26. Access and Allocation of Water in PennsylvaniaThis 20-page publication provides an overview of water rights for citizens, farmers, rural business owners, and elected and appointed officials. It introduces the legal background, terms, and issues about water rights. The discussion is introductory and does not provide legal advice regarding water rights conflicts, nor is it a substitute for advice from a qualified lawyer.Department: Agricultural Economics & Rural SociologyCatalog Number: UA445 • View PDF How to Order

27. River Basin Approaches to Water Management in the Mid-Atlantic StatesInterstate conflict over water resources is growing in the Mid-Atlantic region. As population increases and industries and energy sources shift, water becomes in greater demand. This publication was written to give readers an understanding of river basin commissions and other regional water management institutions, their powers, and stakeholders; basinwide water management issues; and how stakeholders can more effectively participate in these bodies’ decisions. Highlighted are five emerging water management concerns: (1) out-of-basin diversions and population growth, (2) shale gas extraction, (3) climate change, (4) aquatic invasive species, and (5) improving water quality in Chesapeake Bay. Photos are included.Department: Agricultural Economics & Rural SociologyCatalog Number: UA466 • View PDF How to Order

28. Fish and Boat Commission suggests charging for river water • By Bob Frye, TRIBUNE-REVIEWWednesday, March 14, 2012 • Similar program • There is precedent for a program that would charge for industrial use of public water. • John Arway, executive director of the Fish and Boat Commission, pointed out that the state already collects a fee from dredgers that pull sand and gravel from the river bottoms in Western Pennsylvania. • "It's a common property of all the people," he said. • It's not a stretch to think that companies should likewise pay for water from those rivers, he said. • About the writer • Bob Frye is the Tribune-Review outdoors editor. He can be reached at 724-838-5148 or via e-mail. • Ways to get us • Be a Facebook fanFollow us on TwitterE-mail NewslettersOn your mobile • You can lead a horse to water, but can you make him pay for it? • That's something the executive director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission figuratively is asking. • While delivering the commission's annual report to the House of Representatives Game and Fisheries Committee at the state Capital in Harrisburg, John Arway suggested that lawmakers should start charging industry for the water it takes from the state's rivers and streams. • Right now, that's not happening. • The Susquehanna River Basin Commission charges industry about 27 cents per 1,000 gallons of water from that river, or just enough to replace what's removed; the Delaware River Basin Commission charges about 8 cents per 1,000 gallons, Arway said. No one regulates who takes water out of the Ohio River drainage, nor does anyone pay to replace it. • The commission itself makes a little money by selling water. It's getting $5 per 1,000 gallons taken from Donegal Lake in Westmoreland County. The water is being purchased by a Marcellus Shale deep-well driller. • But beyond that, the state is letting industry take its water for free. That's the way things have been for a long time, Arway added. • "Shallow-well gas drillers in the Allegheny National Forest have been pulling all of the water for their operations from our rivers for decades without paying a penny for it. Farmers do the same," Arway said. "Anyone with a tanker truck can pull up to our water and take what they want without the commonwealth getting a thing for it." • That's not the way things work elsewhere, he said. In the West — where water is a scarce commodity — industry routinely pays for water, he said. If Pennsylvania started doing the same, it could reap tens of millions of dollars in benefits, if not more. • Lawmakers on the committee expressed some interested in the idea, though it's clear a lot of specifics would have to be worked out. • Rep. John Evans, the Crawford County Republican who serves as majority chairman of the committee, asked how money generated from selling water should be allocated. His first impression seemed to be that Arway was asking for the commission to get all of the money. • "Shouldn't the commonwealth receive the funds because the water belongs to it?" Evans asked. • That is indeed the case, Arway said. He said he would expect that lawmakers would decide how to allocate that money, with some going to townships for repair of bridges over streams and rivers, some going to water treatment facilities — and some going to the Fish and Boat Commission, because anglers and boaters use the waterways from which the water is being taken. • Exactly who should get money and in what proportion is something the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee could determine, he suggested. • "It's unlimited, how this could be constructed," Arway said. • Whether there's any interest in the idea may become clear soon. Arway said he will be "going on the road" to talk about the idea with constituents — from sportsmen to lawmakers — in the near future. • "It's a message we want to get out and see how it resonates," Arway said. • More Outdoors headlines • Game Commission cracks down on poachers • Trout's first day a big draw • Local men behind new predator decoy • Orange rules may change for hunters • Opening day of trout approaches • Lack of volunteers may doom cooperative nursery • Weekly tips for the area outdoorsmen • Notes from the outdoors • Subscribe to the Tribune-Review today • Read more: Fish and Boat Commission suggests charging for river water - Pittsburgh Tribune-Reviewhttp://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/outdoors/s_786159.html##ixzz1sLfqGfeB

29. Some think commission should oversee Ohio River Basin • By Rick Stouffer, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEWSunday, July 25, 2010 • Photos • click to enlarge • River traffic Keith Hodan | Pittsburgh Tribune-Review • Basin commissions at a glance • River basin commissions have worked on water-related issues within the east half of Pennsylvania for at least 40 years. The organizations deal with issues such as water quality and supply, flood control and drought management. • • The Delaware River Basin Commission was formed in 1961, by Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, New Jersey and the federal government. Headquartered in West Trenton, N.J., the basin commission oversees water resources in an area covering 13,539 square miles, more than half of which are located in Pennsylvania, running from Hancock, N.Y., to Delaware Bay. Its annual budget is $6.2 million. • • The Susquehanna River Basin Commission was formed in 1970, by Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York and the federal government. Headquartered in Harrisburg, the commission oversees water resources in an area covering 27,510 square miles, stretching from Otsego Lake near Cooperstown, N.Y., to Chesapeake Bay. Its annual budget is $11.5 million. • A forum for water issues • Forming an Ohio River Basin Commission isn't a new idea. President Richard M. Nixon and the governors of 11 states believed in the need for a commission, with the organization established by Presidential Executive Order in January 1971. • The Ohio River Basin dwarfs many of the country's river basins. It covers 204,000 square miles in all or portions of 15 states. Major tributaries include the Allegheny, Monongahela and Beaver rivers in Pennsylvania, the Kanawha River in West Virginia, Muskingum River in Ohio, Tennessee River in Kentucky, and the Wabash River on the Illinois-Indiana border. • The Ohio basin commission never had any regulatory authority, its original intent was to develop a plan for managing the basin's water and related land resources. An executive order from President Ronald Reagan in 1981 revoked federal support for the commission because, according to the federal government, its mission had been fulfilled. • "We would do the studies, we would do the legwork, then present our findings," said Larry Feazell, the organization's executive director and lone employee, who joined the commission in 1980. Feazell's salary has been about half the commission's annual budget of about $100,000. • Since the early 1980s, the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky have continued to pay membership dues -- $13,000 paid by Pennsylvania for the past two fiscal years. Through some fiscal maneuvering, Feazell said this year's dues have been reduced to $9,000. • A year ago, the commission's name was changed to the Ohio River Basin Water Resources Association, to better reflect its purpose: to provide a forum to discuss water-related issues, Feazell said. • Ways to get us • Be a Facebook fanFollow us on TwitterE-mail NewslettersOn your mobile • More than one billion gallons of water were pushed a mile underground through mid-June of this year by companies wanting to dislodge Marcellus shale formation natural gas within Pennsylvania's portion of the Ohio River Basin. • The 231 permits approved to drill the wells within the 24-county western region were directly handled by the state Department of Environmental Protection, the DEP. In contrast, the same approvals for how water is dispersed in much of Pennsylvania east of Johnstown are controlled by multi-state river basin commissions. • Some experts believe having DEP personnel making water usage decisions is questionable, even dangerous -- because the stretched-thin organization only is going to be faced with more work as Marcellus shale-related activity increases. • "Marcellus shale drilling is ratcheting up statewide -- we may have 8,000 wells drilled by the end of 2010," said Kent Moors, director of Duquesne University's Energy Policy Research Group. "DEP is working on a permit-by-permit basis, it doesn't work off an overall water usage plan for the Ohio River Basin, and it won't be able to detect total water needs within the basin." • Moors said a lack of manpower precludes the DEP from providing a region-wide view of how water is utilized, treated and retained, not just for Marcellus shale drilling, but for all agricultural, industrial and recreational uses -- including human consumption. • A recent study by the environmental group Clean Water Action found the current DEP budget is just 40 percent of the size it was a decade ago. Despite fee increases due to increased natural gas drilling, "this has neither been able to meet the inspection needs for the five-fold increase in Marcellus shale natural gas wells in the past two years, nor has it been able to meet the overall monetary needs of the DEP as a whole," the study said. • "We're very concerned with the lack of DEP resources," said Myron Arnowitt, Clean Water Action's Pittsburgh-based state director. "A state entity like the DEP can't look at an entire watershed like a river basin commission can." • The recently signed state budget for the fiscal year that began July 1 includes an 8.7 percent decrease in DEP funding. DEP's budget for the year ending June 30, 2011, is nearly $145.2 million, down from $159.1 million in the previous year. • Despite the cutbacks, the DEP is confident it can handle the additional workload prompted by Marcellus shale drilling, said DEP spokesman Tom Rathbun. "Oil and natural gas staff is funded by money collected through drilling permits. Our new permit fees based on well depth and type are providing sufficient revenue to add 100 monitoring and compliance staff and open offices in Williamsport and Scranton." • Even so, Moors and other experts would like to see this region follow the Susquehanna River Basin Commission model, an organization established in 1970 among Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland, and the federal government. • "We regulate the use of every gallon of water in the Susquehanna basin," said Susquehanna spokeswoman Susan Obleski. "Users apply to us if their source of water is surface water, like a lake or stream, or ground water." • The Susquehanna commission's founding agreement states that one reason for establishing it was because "demands upon the water resources of the basin are expected to mount because of increases in population and by reason of industrial and economic growth." • Each well drilled into the Marcellus shale formation consumes 3 million to 7 million gallons of water, used to fracture rock a mile underground and allow natural gas to flow to the surface. • Major operators in the Marcellus shale formation say they have a good relationship with the Susquehanna Basin commission, and are reticent to say anything negative about their dealing with the DEP. • "The Susquehanna River Basin Commission has been a model agency for Marcellus development, which is why Range began voluntarily following their standards a few years ago across Pennsylvania," said Matt Pitzarella, spokesman for Range Resources Corp., of Fort Worth. • Pitzarella pointed out that last year, the DEP developed a water management plan, which he called a "cradle-to-grave" process for water operations related to Marcellus development, basically applying Susquehanna River Basin Commission standards statewide. • "We support any effort to improve the waterways in Southwest Pennsylvania," Pitzarella said. "But it's a decision for policymakers and the people of the region to determine if a new river basin commission should be created for the region. If there is a new commission, we believe the Susquehanna commission would be an ideal model." • The Army Corps of Engineers, in a December study of the Ohio River Basin, stated that in order to prevent future conflicts over water issues, perhaps a multi-state river organization should be reinstituted. An Ohio River Basin Commission was formed in 1971, but never had regulatory powers. • Not every industry organization is gung ho about forming a new commission. • "Establishing another regulatory body doesn't immediately mean better environmental performance," said Kathryn Klaber, president of the trade group Marcellus Shale Coalition. "Saying the DEP doesn't have the resources to handle water resources-related duties is a spurious premise." • Establishment of an Ohio River Basin Commission would take time and the approval of legislators for states touched by the river and its tributaries during its 981-mile journey from Pittsburgh to Cairo, Ill. • "If, indeed, the DEP is stretched too thin to handle its workload, we would need to verify that situation with them," said Patrick Henderson, aide to state Sen. Mary Jo White, R-Venango County, chairman of the Senate's Environmental Resources & Energy Committee. • Henderson said how a river basin commission is structured is key, adding that his boss and a number of other state legislators are concerned with how the Delaware River Basin Commission is reacting to Marcellus shale drilling. • The West Trenton, N.J.-based Delaware commission recently adopting a Marcellus shale drilling moratorium until the organization formalizes its drilling policy. The decision has enraged some landowners within the basin who have signed natural gas leases and who may see their royalty payments canceled if the moratorium isn't soon lifted. • More Business headlines • Aetna exec: Regulators must break Highmark dominance • Spanish auction relief boosts European markets • Obscure Green Tree firm ISS fills niche in global steel services • Reactor pumps bound for China in Ma • Aging transit systems face repair backlog • Increasing pump prices fail to hurt retail sales • Apple drags down Nasdaq • Alcoa delivers components for Navy ships • Subscribe to the Tribune-Review today • Read more: Some think commission should oversee Ohio River Basin - Pittsburgh Tribune-Reviewhttp://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_691883.html##ixzz1sLkMKpr4