Fort Smith City Administrator filed formal dispute resolution against EPA on consent decree

The city of Fort Smith has filed a formal dispute resolution in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) denial of a request to spend money in-city rather than sending the funds to Washington, D.C., as part of the $480 million consent decree leveled against the city for violations of the federal Clean Water Act.

City Administrator Carl Geffken told Talk Business & Politics the resolution was filed around Feb. 14, and confirmed on Thursday (Feb. 23) the city has yet to receive a response. The dispute resolution originated with a $120,900 stipulated penalty that is part of the order.

“We sent out a letter saying we want a formal dispute resolution because these are things you put us into the consent decree to handle, and it’s not been through malfeasance, misconduct, or anything. Okay, we get it. It was agreed. But it’s wrong,” Geffken said, adding that the reason for stipulated penalties “is to cure bad behavior.”

He continued: “We were hit with the heaviest rains this region’s had in 100 years, and you all know that we suffer from sanitary sewer overflows, so you want to charge us and send the money to Washington? For what purpose? We’ll pay it, but we want to put it back into the cleaning of sewer pipes.”

Geffken said in spite of pleas to the EPA to spend the money in Fort Smith, “They said ‘no,’ and that’s why we’re doing the formal dispute resolution process.”

Along with the dispute resolution, Geffken added, “We’ve said, ‘Yeah, we want to talk about modifying the consent decree’” as well, noting that some in Congress are looking at massive EPA budget cuts during a Trump administration as well as the possibility of “getting rid of all regional offices.”

“Part of Washington is looking to eliminate the federal Clean Air Act and the EPA work people side of the house, so I don’t know. I do feel there will be a more sympathetic ear for the plights of cities like Fort Smith, but it’s a fluid situation,” Geffken said.

Geffken’s hunch appears to have some merit.

Myron Ebell, the President’s EPA transition team leader whose regular position is with the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Associated Press in a previous interview, “A $1 billion budget cut in the first fiscal year coming up is reasonable” and that “the EPA’s work has largely been accomplished in terms of protecting our environment — clean air and clean water.”

In the interview, Ebell said the EPA’s 15,000-strong staff could be cut by half and its overall budget sliced by two-thirds. On Feb. 16, Reuters reported President Trump is expected to soon target the agency with “a handful of executive orders.”

The President’s controversial pick to head the agency – former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt – is a climate change denier and has sued the agency 14 times. He was confirmed in a 52-46 vote by the Senate that ran along mostly partisan lines on Feb. 17. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote against while Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota were the only yes votes on the Democratic side.

The proposed budget for the EPA’s 2017 fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2016 to Sept. 30, 2017) is $8.2 billion, down from FY2016’s $8.6 billion.