The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has criticized EPA's new storm water management requirements for home builders.

Beginning this month, EPA will start placing stricter limits on the amount of pollutants in storm water legally allowed to leave a construction site after a rainfall and require that water be virtually free of soil or
sediment. A year ago, EPA proposed rules that for the first time incorporated so-called Effluent Limit Guidelines for the construction and development industry. The agency released the proposal under a court order after a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group argued that builders, whose "discharges" under the Clean Water Act are the result of rainfall and sediment running off construction sites, should be treated like commercial and industrial enterprises, which discharge water and chemicals via pipelines.

NAHB asserted that the requirements would place significant burdens on the home building industry and result in higher costs for home buyers.

"That's a standard that no builder, anywhere, can consistently expect to achieve -- and EPA's own studies show it's not the answer to reducing pollutants in our nation's waters," said NAHB Chairman Joe Robson, a builder and developer in Tulsa, Okla.

The guidelines set out requirements without regard to the type of soil on the jobsite and how likely it is to absorb excess rainwater, according to NAHB. "The 'turbidity' limit -- the amount of sediment in the water -- does not take into account the natural turbidity of nearby streams or other water bodies. And the rules require stepped-up state enforcement but no accompanying guidance on how to monitor compliance or money to pay for the additional administrative and inspection costs. Further, the additional requirements are more difficult -- and in some cases impossible -- to meet on smaller lots and in urban redevelopment, severely hampering 'smart growth' projects and transit-friendly building."

The rule will cost the home building industry approximately $1 billion per year to achieve compliance once full implementation begins, Ty Asfaw, an environmental policy analyst for NAHB, told GBI. When asked what plans, if any, NAHB has for challenging the rule either in court or through the congressional approach, he said, "We are reviewing the rule and impact on industry to determine future activities."

EPA's Response

In response to NAHB's assertions, EPA spokesperson Enesta Jones provided GBI with the following statement: "There are two provisions of this rule. First, there is a requirement for sites of one or more disturbed acres to implement a set of best management practices (BMPs). Most sites across the country have been complying with similar BMPs for years, and we expect compliance with these BMPs to be relatively straightforward. The industry will need to comply with these BMPs by February 2010. A second requirement of the final rule is for construction sites that disturb 10 or more acres to comply with a numeric discharge limit. This numeric limit will be phased in over four years. 

"Starting in August 2011, construction sites that disturb 20 or more acres at one time will be required to conduct monitoring of discharges and comply with the numeric limit, and in February 2014 the monitoring requirements and numeric limit will apply to all sites that disturb 10 or more acres at one time. Compliance with the numeric limit represents a change for many in the industry though there are sites in the country where this is already happening. Recognizing this challenge, we have provided for a four-year phase-in period. We will be working with industry and states to provide guidance about the new requirements.

"The final rule offers significant environmental benefits. The rule is projected to reduce the amount of sediment discharged from construction sites by about four billion pounds each year. There will also be reduced discharges of nutrients and other pollutants normally contained in the soil at construction sites."

When asked what estimates, if any, the agency has made regarding the cost to the construction industry for implementing these requirements, Jones said, "We have thoroughly analyzed the affordability of the final rule on the industry looking at possible firm closures, firm financial performance, and possible employment losses. We concluded that the final rule was affordable even given current industry conditions. Moreover, the requirements of this rule will be phased in over several years."