PCA water fees make a splash with some legislators

The Pollution Control Agency is looking to comprehensively raise water fee revenue for the first time since 1992, causing some lawmakers to call for closer legislative oversight.

Sponsored by Rep. Matt Bliss (R-Pennington), HF2940 would prohibit the PCA from increasing fees for certain water-related activities and require the agency to submit a report to the Legislature on water quality permit fee revenues.

Approved Wednesday by the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee on a split-voice vote, the bill was sent to the House floor. Its companion, SF2637, sponsored by Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen (R-Alexandria), awaits action by the full Senate.

Bliss argues the bill clarifies what is already laid out in the state statutes.

“We don’t believe [the PCA] has that right. Actually, it’s stated in statute they don’t have that right,” Bliss said.

The bill comes less than a year after the PCA floated planned amendments to agency rules that would increase the fees the agency charges for water quality permitting and certifications.

Permit fees do not cover the full costs of PCA’s seven storm water, wastewater and feedlot water quality programs. The remaining costs are covered by a number of state funds, including the Environmental Fund, Clean Water Revolving Fund and the General Fund.

Greta Gauthier, PCA legislative director, said the agency opposes the bill because the Legislature already has sufficient opportunities for oversight.

“The bill adds a step to our process, to come back to the Legislature after our rulemaking,” Gauthier said. “The commissioner feels that this would add time to our process and add costs.”

Gauthier also claimed a 2015 decision by an administrative law judge grants the agency authority to raise the fees.

“Really, the purpose of this bill is to reinforce the Legislature’s authority and, as I understand it, that is what the department is objecting to,” said Rep. Paul Torkelson (R-Hanska).

Gauthier said the agency is trying to adjust a structural imbalance in their budget as a result of fee revenue dropping from covering 50 percent of program costs, as it did when the agency was founded in 1967, to covering an average of 17 percent of current costs.