EPA and Estuaries
Some of us were not too surprised when the Prime Minister pulled the plug on the passage of legislation to establish an environmental protection agency (EPA). Along with colleagues from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (WG) and other environmental organisations, we had been advocating for a strong independent authority that would meet the requirements set out in the review by Graeme Samuel of the federal EPBC Act. This review built on successive State of Environment reviews (one of which I chaired 2001) that showed Australia needed to revise its national law and thereby enhance its capacity to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and waterway health. The Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek, planned to proceed in separate tranches and reportedly had struck a deal with the Greens to pass that related to an EPA before the end of 2024. However, the PM halted proceedings apparently promoted by political considerations linked to mining and logging interests (see article by O’Malley and Hall in Sydney Morning Herald, 7/12/24).
Negotiations leading to the EPA bill over the past year or so raised many issues that led to the compromise that came before the Senate in December. At this point a climate change trigger had been ruled out. But I had other misgivings along the way which I shared with my WG colleagues. I felt it was too focused on development approvals and not more broadly on ways to manage pressures on matters of environmental significance. My thinking was largely influenced by knowledge of the operations of the EPA in the USA. In 1972, under President Nixon, Congress passed three long-lasting pieces of environmental law (Clean Air, Coastal Management and Clean Water Acts) each demonstrating how a federated system of government could work in the national environmental interest in partnership with state governments and other organisations. The US EPA has roles and responsibilities under these Acts. Here I will discuss one such role that shows just how limited in scope has been our thinking around an Australian EPA.
In response to threats to many of the nation’s estuaries, the EPA was empowered in 1987 (under s320 of the Clean Water Act) to establish a “place-based program to protect and restore the water quality and ecological integrity of estuaries of national significance”. As a result 28 estuaries along US coasts are designated as NEPs. They are located in a variety of institutional settings, including state and local agencies, universities and not-for-profit organisations. The EPA provides annual funding, national guidance and technical assistance. Each NEP has to develop and implement an approved Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) containing actions “to protect and restore water quality and living resources”. This is often undertaken in the context of watershed management. In consultation with the EPA, the challenges, priorities, actions and management arrangements in each CCMP are determined by the range of stakeholders appropriate to a given area (details on all NEPs can be found online https://epa.gov/nep/learn-about-national-estuary-program).
In recent years the EPA has quite explicitly recognised that estuaries face unique impacts from climate change. This has been a position held with some difficulty through various administrations. Impacts from sea level rise, higher temperatures, severe storms and increased polluted runoff degrading estuarine water quality are factors that the EPA requires NEPs to address. Support for risk assessment and planning as well as restoration, monitoring, water infrastructure and research have been provided to various NEPs. The EPA even assisted some NEPs with adaptation plans and vulnerability assessments through the EPA Climate Ready Estuaries program even to states such as Florida.
Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the EPA will distribute $132m through 2022 to 2016 to expand and accelerate the implementation of projects in CCMPs. This effectively doubles the annual appropriation in recent years. At a federal level it demonstrates recognition of the need for more support. BIL funds aim to accelerate implementation of long-term projects; ensure benefits reach disadvantaged communities through elevating environmental justice efforts such as reducing nonpoint source pollution affecting disadvantaged communities; and building adaptive capacity of ecosystems to address climate change impacts in watersheds working with federal, state and local partners. Support for cooperative arrangements in improving health of watersheds/catchments is also typified by EPA funding of a national nonprofit alliance called Restore America’s Estuaries that will help implement actions identified in CCMPs.
This is a small snapshot of what a federal EPA can do in the management of nationally significant estuaries. The US example rests on acceptance across the political spectrum of a legal framework for the administration of funds and other support to states and local governments. It is a partnership model that is clearly articulated in federal law. We do not have such a system. Since 1979 through many inquiries there have been attempts to convince successive federal governments of the advantage of the partnership model. But even small steps like those we witnessed this month in the failure to establish a more limited version of an EPA shows a lack of willingness to move from the status quo. In the meantime our estuaries around which live the bulk of the population do not benefit from initiatives and investment as has occurred in the USA. One can only hope that we can learn lessons from their experience, and that with Trump Mk2 the US sustains its EPA-led endeavours.
Bruce Thom
Words by Prof Bruce Thom. Please respect the author’s thoughts and reference appropriately: (c) ACS, 2024. For correspondence about this blog post please email admin@australiancoastalsociety.org.au
#270