EPA will accept comments through Dec. 12 on its proposed rule to require facilities to electronically report most water discharge data, a 45-day extension requested by two groups of state regulators (the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)) that say they need more time to weigh the proposal's effects on state budgets and processes.

The groups say the rule would affect state priorities, resource allocations, data collection, management and reporting efforts and technology updates. It also could require updates to state laws or regulations and spur modifications of thousands of discharge permits - "and all during difficult economic times." The agency's proposed rule, issued July 30, would require dischargers to electronically submit most data currently required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.

EPA has already pledged to submit a supplemental notice, with an additional comment period, if it receives comments requiring significant changes - a possibility seen as likely. The agency had hoped to complete the final rule by late 2014 or early 2015. Once finalized, the rule would start the clock on a one-year deadline to electronically submit the first phase of data - discharge monitoring reports and reports for facilities operating under a federal general permit. Two years after the rule is complete, electronic reporting of all data would be required, including reports from facilities with a state general permit and reports associated with a host of programs - concentrated animal feeding operations, separate and combined sewer systems, pretreatment programs, biosolids generators and municipal separate storm sewer systems.

Cash-strapped state regulators are worried the rule will be a budget burden, at least initially. The rule's economic analysis estimates that initial data entry would collectively cost states $13.2 million. Other significant state costs include a projected $6.4 million over two years to upgrade existing data collection systems and $840,000 to modify discharge permits to include electronic reporting requirements. EPA has stressed that the rule would not force states to develop their own data systems and that they can save money and effort by using EPA-developed tools. After a two-year implementation, the agency estimates the rule would save states $28.7 million annually and eliminate some reports that states must currently complete. Additionally, the agency projects $1.2 million in cumulative savings for permitees, mostly from reduced paper and postage costs.

At the ECOS annual meeting, state regulators approved a resolution outlining general principles regarding an agency-wide effort called E-Enterprise to encourage greater electronic data collection and monitoring. The resolution largely recognizes the value of increased electronic data, though it stresses most collection is handled by states and says changes such as the NPDES rule would need significant state input.

During a committee meeting about the resolution, officials agreed to adopt the document so it can inform the group's comments on the NPDES rule. But several state regulators said they would continue to revise the resolution to strengthen language regarding state costs to collect and manage data.

Recently, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation Pennsylvania Office distributed a fact sheet to members of the Senate and House saying manure-laden runoff is not the leading cause of nitrogen pollution from Pennsylvania going to the Chesapeake Bay. In fact, recently the Department of Environmental Protection informed its Citizens Advisory Committee that sediment pollution is the Commonwealth’s greatest challenge in the Chesapeake Bay clean-up with roughly 609 million pounds of sediment reductions necessary by 2025. In comparison, necessary nitrogen reductions are roughly 32.5 million pounds of nitrogen and 940,000 pounds for phosphorus pollution. Because manure is a rich source of nutrients, it’s a valuable resource for farmers growing crops.