# B IG 

# D ATA 

# : A G AME 

# C HANGER FOR


# E NVIRONMENTAL 

# M ANAGERS 

# , A DVOCATES AND 

# R EGULATORS 

# ?

Environmental Law Institute

October 22, 2013

Omni Shoreham Hotel
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn

Association of Clean Water Administrators“Records analyzed by The Times indicate that

the Clean Water Act has been violated more than 506

, 000 times since 2004

, by more than

23

, 000 companies and other facilities, according

to reports submitted by polluters themselves

. Companies sometimes test what they are dumping only once a quarter, so the actual

number of days when they broke the law is often

far higher

. And some companies illegally avoid reporting their emissions, say officials, so infractions go unrecorded

. ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?pagewanted=2 What does this mean for water quality?

# K EY TO 

# S UCCESS 

# = T IMELY 

# , A CCURATE 

# , C OMPLETE 

## D ATA

• 

### Improving data quality/quantity by creating new web

- based data collection

tools

• 

### Increasing data quality/quantity via tools that leverage the existence of the

information in an electronic format

• 

### Using data to communicate and manage

• 

### Identifying performance metrics to show



### how the data leads to improved compliance rates, program efficacy, & environmental improvement

# D ATA 

# F LOW IN THE 

# F IELD

• 58 % of respondent states use data

- yielding technology as part of the inspection process:

• Hand

- held devices, tablets, GPS, digital cameras, GIS tools, and field computers

• Monitors and airplane flyovers.

• Standardized report forms with evaluation areas and a large pick list of common

deficiencies

• Improves data collection and transfer

• Promotes consistency between inspectors

and a more certain process for facilities

• Increases ability of the state to effectively enforce the CWA as well as do more with limited inspection staff

# D ATA 

# F LOW FROM THE 

# D ESK

• 

### 55 % of respondent states utilize an eNOI* tool or 

### other eApplication process

• 

### 73 % of respondent states use an eDMR/NetDMR tool

• 

### Automated systems for sending notices for untimely submissions and permit limit violations

• 

### Electronic forms = improvements in timeliness and accuracy of reporting, some resource savings,



### more informed regulated community

• 

### Compliance assistance via a click

# M AKING 

# D ATA 

# A

VAILABLE TO THE 

# P UBLIC

• 

### 56 % of states’ DMR data is available on a public

website

• E.g., tracking applications, locating active permits, enforcement actions

• 

### 31 % of respondent states have a

violations webpage

• 

### 56 % have an electronic citizen complaint system

• 

### 42 % report using GIS for decision making, and 70% 

### of those respondents make that data directly available to the public

# M AKING 

# D ATA 

# A

VAILABLE TO 

# M ANAGERS

• 

### 29 % of respondents report prioritizing

which facilities to monitor based on risk

• Generating data via incentives

– participation encouraged via reductions in permit or annual fees; participation in electronic programs a condition of

settlements ; purchasing computers for the regulated community • 66 % of respondent states’ permits require

experts or third parties to certify data in application for and in renewal of NPDES permits, enhancing efficiency• Resources

• Measuring Success

• Prioritization

• Program Management

• Program Oversight

• Push vs. Pull • Defining Transparency

• Burden Reductions Can Be Found

• Approaches to Data

– What States
& Federal Gov’t Need is Different

• Big Data and Really Big Data

• E.g., DMR monthly reporting

• E.g., annual CAFO report

• Historic data? E.g., CSOs, Major
Sources