10/31/2009 9:55:00 AM DEQ pushes for increase in permit fees
By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- Facing a cutback in state funding, the state's top environmental regulator wants businesses to pay more for the permits they need from his agency.
Benjamin Grumbles, who took over earlier this year as director of the Department of Environmental Quality, said the money coming in only covers a fraction of the costs. The difference was made up with money his agency got in state tax dollars.
But Grumbles noted that the Legislature, anxious to plug holes elsewhere in the budget, is both cutting back on those dollars as well as "sweeping' the cash from various special funds. That, he said, requires a change in thinking.
"It's a focus on sustainability and fees and embracing the principle of the beneficiary should pay, or the user should pay,' he explained. "We're focusing on increased fees or new fees in some key areas so that we can continue to provide environmental services and do so in a sustainable way.'
If Grumbles gets his way, the higher fees will kick in when the new budget year begins July 1.
David Kimball, a Phoenix attorney who co-chairs the environmental committee of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, said Grumbles may not get a fight
"We're not opposed to fees as long as we get value for the money,' said Kimball, whose legal practice includes representing companies in environmental litigation.
"The business community recognizes we're tied at the hip to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,' he said.
"If ADEQ doesn't have the ability or resources to do the necessary operating permits, we're not going to be able to operate,' Kimball explained. "Nor are we going to be able to expand. We are really dependent on them.'
But Kimball said the business community's ultimate position will depend on exactly what Grumbles wants -- and exactly what costs he hopes to cover.
One of the biggest changes would occur in the program that issues aquifer protection permits. These are required for any company or individual that discharges a pollutant either directly into an underground aquifer, or even onto the land in a manner there is a "reasonable probability' the chemicals would reach an aquifer.
Permits are required for everything from surface impoundment ponds and mine tailings to septic tank systems.
The agency's fees for doing the research, a process that can take more than a year for permits that are designed for a specific facility, is now capped at $61 an hour. Grumbles wants to double that.
"The numbers don't lie,' he said.
"And the numbers tell us that the cost of running a first-class aquifer protection program are greater than the revenues we're getting from fees or from the general fund of the (state) budget,' Grumbles said. "We know there's important work ahead that will rely on ADEQ's permitting program to protect aquifers, different types of projects involving mining or waste water treatment plants or development in general.'
What is troubling Kimball, though, is Grumbles request to include not only direct costs in that hourly rate but also indirect costs.
"We'll pay for the services of the employee when they're dealing with our particular permit,' he said.
"The indirect costs -- the building, the lights, those kind of things -- those really should be the function of government,' Kimball continued. "They're the ones that should be essentially paying for that infrastructure.'
He called it a "slippery slope' to have businesses picking up costs for everything right down to the pencils the agency buys.
"That means, essentially, you're going to have people that are paying for services that they're not getting any value for,' he said. "We don't want to end up having to be just an open account that any agency staffer can charge, regardless of whether they're performing a valuable function or not.'
But Kimball conceded that, after all is said and done, the business community may have no choice but to pay those indirect costs.
"If there isn't any general funding (for indirect costs) and there's not going to be any likelihood of general funding, then, for Pete's sake, we would be between a rock and a hard place,' he said.
"I can tell you, our preference is we're certainly going to opt for the permit even if it costs us more,' Kimball said.
"Without the permit we don't operate,' he explained. "We don't operate, we don't have an economy. We don't have an economy, we don't have people employed. And we need employment to get ourselves out of this (economic) pickle.'
Grumbles said he's not saying that businesses should cover the entire cost of what his agency does.
"An individual discharger shouldn't have to pay for the state's responsibility and effort to monitor for surface and ground water quality across the state,' he said. "All Arizonans benefit when the environment in Arizona is clean and healthy.'
