By Ken Ward, Jr. (This article appeared in the Charleston Gazette on October 27, 2000)

Federal regulators have decided to take over the writing of a water pollution rule meant to keep the state’s streams from becoming polluted further.

In a letter to the state Environmental Quality Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it would prepare its own version of a stream "anti-degradation" implementation plan.

EPA Regional Administrator Brad Campbell said that the state waited too long to write its own plan, and then proposed a version that was far too weak.

"There appears little prospect that the flaws in the current proposal will be remedied by the West Virginia Legislature in a manner that could lead to EPA approval upon enactment," Campbell said in his letter dated Wednesday.

"Accordingly, EPA is immediately proceeding to prepare a draft proposal for Federal procedures that will be applicable in lieu of state promulgated procedures," Campbell wrote.

Under the federal Clean Water Act, states are required by EPA to have anti-degradation policies. The idea of the policy is to keep clean streams from being made dirty.

Streams are only supposed to be "degraded" if regulators study proposed developments and determine their social and economic benefits would outweigh the pollution they would cause. Under the law, if states do not implement anti-degradation policies, EPA must step in and do so.

West Virginia did not have an anti-degradation policy until 1995, and has still not implemented that policy. Previous efforts to do so stalled when industry opposed the implementation.

This year, the board is under increased pressure from EPA to win legislative approval of an implementation plan. Lawyers for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition have twice threatened to sue EPA if the federal agency did not force the state to act.

In his letter, Campbell noted that EPA had previously warned that board that the state’s proposal contained too many problems, including language for many exemptions.

"Notwithstanding the strength of EPA’s objections, the board did not respond to EPA’s concerns and instead incorporated changes that further weakened the proposal earlier published for comment," Campbell said.

Campbell also wrote that, "West Virginia’s protracted delay, and the Board’s ultimate ineffectiveness, in developing proper implementation procedures for anti-degradation in its water quality standards program also suggests the need for additional oversight measures to ensure that the protection of water quality in West Virginia is not diminished by the continuing failure to have anti-degradation procedures in place.

"EPA will immediately initiate discussions with DEP to address this issue," he wrote. "We also will be raising with DEP the consequences of this failure in terms of EPA’s continued funding of West Virginia’s water quality programs."

Campbell added that, "There may be an opportunity for West Virginia to reassert its leadership in resolving this issue.

"[But] EPA’s experience with the board on this issue over the past decade gives little room for optimism, however, and so the process of federal promulgation should begin now."