Page 3 of 7

So if the spillers aren't required to test the water and the enforcers aren't doing it, then how does anyone know what the heck is going on?

They don't, says frustrated Catawba Riverkeeper Donna Lisenby, who likens the whole situation to the police working together with perpetrators of a crime in an effort not to collect evidence.

"An environmental crime is like any other crime," says Lisenby. "You have to gather evidence to prove it occurred and who was responsible. If the state fails to collect evidence, then the polluters will get away with the crime every time. It's like a shoplifter being required to prove that they stole something."

After our interviews with Rozzelle and other enforcement officials, CL remained uncertain what, if any, purpose the county department serves when it comes to monitoring spills.

What is clear, though, is that both the enforcers and the spillers seem to operate on a sort of "professional judgment" honor system that bears little resemblance to state enforcement guidelines. But then, as staff members at all levels of the system have repeatedly reminded CL, they are just guidelines, not laws.

Rozzelle says MCWQP only conducts fecal tests to confirm that there has been a spill, or if a sewage spill reaches a lake or river since those are swimming areas. Of course, how MCWQP would know a spill didn't reach a lake or a swimming area via a creek or stream without conducting water quality tests is uncertain.

Part of the problem here is that the way state guidelines are written allows enforcers so much leeway that 815 spills by CMU over three years went unfined. The guidelines, which are fairly simple, were revamped in 1999 to put more emphasis on the speed with which local authorities respond to a spill and report it to NCDENR regional offices. Essentially, the spiller must report the spill to state authorities within 24 hours of the time they learn of its existence or they'll receive a fine of at least $4,000. They then have five business days to turn in a written report about how they responded to the spill or they'll get a minimum $500 more in fines.

How well the spillers respond to a spill is supposed to be scored on a points system, and the final score is supposed to determine whether they get a fine. But CL could only find one instance in which the point system had actually been used by anyone in the NCDENR regional office to score a spill. Even if it were regularly used, the system is so heavily weighted toward how quickly spillers respond to the spill that if they simply show up rapidly and have their report in on time, it doesn't seem to matter how much damage the spill has caused, how large it was, or how many other spills preceded it.

"Volume doesn't dictate the fine," says Seneca. "They may have a major discharge, but they may have done all the things they are supposed to do."

Even if the spillers do everything they are supposed to do according to the state's guidelines, the sewage system permit holder is still supposed to be held liable for "damage" to the waters. Damage is defined as a fish kill or benthic, amphibian or crustacean kill; a violation of water quality standards based on upstream and downstream data taken at the time of the spill; or a negative impact on surface water in which it becomes so polluted that it can't be used for its intended purpose, like swimming. If damage to waters is found after a spill, the spiller or permit holder is supposed to pay for fish replacement costs and the costs of the investigation, regardless of how quickly they responded to the spill.

This second part of the guidelines -- the part that actually holds spillers accountable -- appears to have been largely ignored by state enforcers. And again, if the county's investigators aren't required to conduct water quality tests, it is difficult to prove that any damage was done anyway.

Although CMU accounts for nearly all the county's sewage spills in terms of volume, some smaller, private companies also foul the waters. These companies, who have less experience than CMU in navigating the system, have ended up with $10,000 fines for small spills that did little damage, but to which they did not respond quickly. Repeat spillers like CMU have figured out that it's easier to get to a spill quickly and fill out the proper paperwork than it is to make the multi-million dollar repairs and upgrades to their system that would help prevent the spills. Obviously, it works for them as they've yet to be fined.