1.1                          A bill for an act 
  1.2             relating to the environment; requiring new procedures 
  1.3             for water quality standards review; appropriating 
  1.4             money; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota 
  1.5             Statutes, chapter 116. 
  1.6   BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 
  1.7                  WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW ACT
  1.8      Section 1.  [116.542] [PURPOSE.] 
  1.9      (a) The purpose of sections 116.543 to 116.548 is to place 
  1.10  into disinterested and qualified hands the primary 
  1.11  responsibility for research and analysis of the social, 
  1.12  scientific, and technical data relevant to the determination of 
  1.13  whether certain existing and all future water quality standards 
  1.14  of the Minnesota pollution control agency and their applications 
  1.15  to particular cases are reasonable under risk and cost-benefit 
  1.16  analyses.  Such analyses are necessary because: 
  1.17     (1) the agency has estimated that over $781,000,000 in 
  1.18  wastewater and associated infrastructure needs will exist 
  1.19  through 2002; 
  1.20     (2) the impact of water quality standards and the 
  1.21  complexity of scientific analysis required is so substantial as 
  1.22  to require that the standards must be based on the most recent 
  1.23  scientific knowledge and are reasonable and cost-effective; and 
  1.24     (3) the primary focus of the agency is regulation and the 
  1.25  economic and scientific analysis necessary is better suited to 
  2.1   an entity whose primary focus is research. 
  2.2      (b) It is recognized that an understanding and appreciation 
  2.3   of the social, scientific, and technical data involved in such 
  2.4   risk and cost-benefit analyses require scientific and technical 
  2.5   expertise. 
  2.6      (c) The Minnesota center for environment and health policy, 
  2.7   a division of environmental and occupational health in the 
  2.8   school of public health at the University of Minnesota, is a 
  2.9   public body which combines the disinterestedness and expertise 
  2.10  necessary for reliable risk and cost-benefit analyses of water 
  2.11  quality standards and their applications to particular cases. 
  2.12     Sec. 2.  [116.543] [DEFINITIONS.] 
  2.13     Subdivision 1.  [SCOPE.] For the purposes of sections 
  2.14  116.543 to 116.548, the definitions in this section have the 
  2.15  meanings given. 
  2.16     Subd. 2.  [ADOPTION.] "Adoption" of a water quality 
  2.17  standard means the establishment or alteration of such a 
  2.18  standard by the agency pursuant to its authority under section 
  2.19  115.03, subdivision 1, clause (c). 
  2.20     Subd. 3.  [AGENCY.] "Agency" means the Minnesota pollution 
  2.21  control agency. 
  2.22     Subd. 4.  [APPLICATION.] "Application" of a water quality 
  2.23  standard by the agency includes any order, permit, denial of 
  2.24  permit, variance, denial of a variance, schedule of compliance, 
  2.25  or other action by the agency by which it imposes a water 
  2.26  quality standard upon a person pursuant to the agency's 
  2.27  authority under section 115.03, subdivision 1, clause (e). 
  2.28     Subd. 5.  [CENTER.] "Center" means the Minnesota center for 
  2.29  environment and health policy, a division of environmental and 
  2.30  occupational health in the school of public health at the 
  2.31  University of Minnesota. 
  2.32     Subd. 6.  [COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.] "Cost-benefit analysis" 
  2.33  means identifying and comparing the environmental, social, and 
  2.34  economic benefits to the environmental, social, and economic 
  2.35  costs of each of the probabilities of occurrence as identified 
  2.36  by risk analysis.  It includes, but is not limited to: 
  3.1      (1) a description of the persons and classes of persons who 
  3.2   will probably be affected by the standard or application of a 
  3.3   standard, including those who will bear the costs of the policy 
  3.4   or action and those who will benefit; 
  3.5      (2) a description of the environmental impact on water 
  3.6   organisms and wildlife affected by the standard or application 
  3.7   of a standard; 
  3.8      (3) the probable costs to the agency and to any other state 
  3.9   or federal agencies or political subdivisions of the state, of 
  3.10  application and enforcement of the standard, and any anticipated 
  3.11  effect on state revenues; 
  3.12     (4) the probable impact on city sewer rates and fees 
  3.13  charged to users as a result of the application and enforcement 
  3.14  of the standard; 
  3.15     (5) a determination of whether there are less costly 
  3.16  methods or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of 
  3.17  the standard or the application of the standard; and 
  3.18     (6) an assessment of any differences between the standard 
  3.19  and existing federal standards and a specific analysis of the 
  3.20  need for and the reasonableness of each difference. 
  3.21     Subd. 7.  [EXISTING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.] "Existing 
  3.22  water quality standards" means those water quality standards 
  3.23  adopted prior to the effective date of this section. 
  3.24     Subd. 8.  [PERSON.] "Person" has the meaning given in 
  3.25  section 116.06, subdivision 7. 
  3.26     Subd. 9.  [PROPOSED FUTURE WATER QUALITY 
  3.27  STANDARDS.] "Proposed future water quality standards" means 
  3.28  those water quality standards adopted by the agency after the 
  3.29  effective date of this section. 
  3.30     Subd. 10.  [RISK ANALYSIS.] "Risk analysis" means 
  3.31  identifying the probabilities of occurrence, including adverse 
  3.32  human health and environmental effects, resulting from adoption 
  3.33  or application of a water quality standard as well as from the 
  3.34  failure to adopt or apply a water quality standard. 
  3.35     Sec. 3.  [116.544] [STANDARDS AFFECTED.] 
  3.36     Subdivision 1.  [PROPOSED FUTURE STANDARDS.] The agency 
  4.1   shall submit to the center all proposed future water quality 
  4.2   standards for risk and cost-benefit analyses. 
  4.3      Subd. 2.  [EXISTING STANDARDS.] The agency shall within 30 
  4.4   days of the effective date of this section submit to the center 
  4.5   the following existing water quality standards for risk and 
  4.6   cost-benefit analyses: 
  4.7      (1) phosphorus, as defined in Minnesota Rules, part 
  4.8   7050.0211; 
  4.9      (2) ammonia, as defined in Minnesota Rules, part 7050.0220; 
  4.10     (3) mixing zones, as defined in Minnesota Rules, part 
  4.11  7050.0210, subpart 5. 
  4.12     Sec. 4.  [116.545] [DUTIES OF THE CENTER.] 
  4.13     (a) The center shall conduct risk and cost-benefit analyses 
  4.14  of the standards submitted to it.  The center shall complete its 
  4.15  analyses and issue publicly its factual findings and 
  4.16  recommendations within one year. 
  4.17     (b) The factual findings and recommendations shall be in 
  4.18  writing, and they may: 
  4.19     (1) agree with the agency's existing or proposed future 
  4.20  standards; or 
  4.21     (2) reject, in whole or in part, the existing or proposed 
  4.22  future standards and recommend alternatives. 
  4.23     Sec. 5.  [116.546] [DUTIES OF THE AGENCY UPON RECEIPT OF 
  4.24  THE CENTER'S FACTUAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.] 
  4.25     (a) Upon the issuance of the center's factual findings and 
  4.26  recommendations, the agency shall within 180 days publish notice 
  4.27  of intent to adopt a rule in accordance with sections 14.05 to 
  4.28  14.28.  The proposed rule shall: 
  4.29     (1) incorporate the standards as recommended by the center; 
  4.30  or 
  4.31     (2) reject, in whole or in part, the standards as 
  4.32  recommended by the center. 
  4.33     (b) If the agency rejects any portion of the center's 
  4.34  standards, it must:  
  4.35     (1) in its notice of intent to adopt a rule: 
  4.36     (i) specify those of the center's factual findings with 
  5.1   which it disagrees; 
  5.2      (ii) specify, and identify the source of, its data which is 
  5.3   inconsistent with the center's data; and 
  5.4      (iii) explain in detail the reasons for rejecting the 
  5.5   center's recommendations; and 
  5.6      (2) proceed directly to a public hearing pursuant to 
  5.7   sections 14.14 to 14.20.  At the hearing, the findings of fact 
  5.8   of the center shall be presumed correct, and the presumption 
  5.9   shall be overcome only by a preponderance of the evidence. 
  5.10     Sec. 6.  [116.547] [CHALLENGES TO APPLICATION OF 
  5.11  STANDARDS.] 
  5.12     (a) A home rule charter or statutory city or a local unit 
  5.13  of government permitted by the agency to discharge wastewater 
  5.14  may petition the agency for submission of a standard and/or 
  5.15  application to the center for risk and cost-benefit analyses if 
  5.16  it is affected by the agency's application of any proposed 
  5.17  future water quality standard or of any existing water quality 
  5.18  standard, not limited to the three existing standards identified 
  5.19  in section 116.544, subdivision 2. 
  5.20     (b) The petition shall be in writing and made within 60 
  5.21  days of receipt of the agency's written notice of its 
  5.22  application of the standard. 
  5.23     (c) The petition shall specify all challenged water quality 
  5.24  standards and all challenged applications of those standards. 
  5.25     (d) Upon receipt of the petition, the agency shall within 
  5.26  30 days forward the petition to the center. 
  5.27     (e) The center shall complete its analyses and publicly 
  5.28  issue its factual findings and recommendations within one year 
  5.29  thereafter.  The factual findings and recommendations shall be 
  5.30  in writing, and they may: 
  5.31     (1) agree with the standard and/or application; or 
  5.32     (2) reject the standard and/or application and offer 
  5.33  alternatives to the standard and/or application, in whole or in 
  5.34  part. 
  5.35     (f) Upon the issuance of the center's factual findings and 
  5.36  recommendations, the agency shall within 180 days: 
  6.1      (1) apply the standards as recommended by the center and in 
  6.2   the manner recommended by the center; or 
  6.3      (2) apply standards other than as recommended by the 
  6.4   center.  If the agency does apply standards other than as 
  6.5   recommended by the center, then it must in writing: 
  6.6      (i) specify those of the center's factual findings with 
  6.7   which it disagrees; 
  6.8      (ii) specify, and identify the source of, its data which is 
  6.9   inconsistent with the center's data; and 
  6.10     (iii) explain in detail the reasons for applying the 
  6.11  standards other than as recommended by the center. 
  6.12     (g) A local unit of government challenging the application 
  6.13  of a standard must pay one-half the cost incurred by the center 
  6.14  to analyze and issue its factual findings and recommendations 
  6.15  under this section. 
  6.16     Sec. 7.  [116.548] [JUDICIAL REVIEW.] 
  6.17     (a) A home rule charter or statutory city or a local unit 
  6.18  of government permitted by the agency to discharge wastewater 
  6.19  may seek judicial review pursuant to sections 14.63 to 14.69 if 
  6.20  it is affected by an application by the agency of a water 
  6.21  quality standard. 
  6.22     (b) The scope of review shall be in accordance with section 
  6.23  14.69 except that applicable findings of fact of the center 
  6.24  shall be presumed correct, and such presumption shall be 
  6.25  overcome only by a preponderance of evidence. 
  6.26     (c) Pending the center's issuance of its factual findings 
  6.27  and recommendations and pending any judicial review under this 
  6.28  section, a challenged standard or a challenged application of a 
  6.29  standard shall not be enforced, civilly or criminally, by the 
  6.30  agency unless the agency finds that there is an immediate and 
  6.31  direct threat to public health or safety. 
  6.32     Sec. 8.  [APPROPRIATIONS.] 
  6.33     The following amounts are appropriated from the general 
  6.34  fund for the biennium ending June 30, 1999, to the University of 
  6.35  Minnesota to be used by the Minnesota center for environment and 
  6.36  health policy for the following purposes: 
  7.1      $....... for risk and cost-benefit analyses conducted on 
  7.2   existing standards specified in section 3, subdivision 2; 
  7.3      $....... for risk and cost-benefit analyses conducted on 
  7.4   standards petitioned under section 6; and 
  7.5      $....... for proposed future water quality standards of the 
  7.6   pollution control agency.