- Report Published -
|Permit Fee Program Evaluation - January, 2004|
|Department of Environmental Quality|
|This report evaluates the implementation of permit fee programs at the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as required by Sections 10.1-1322, 10.1-1402.1 and 62.1-44.15:6 of the Code of Virginia. These sections state that:|
“On January 1, 1993, and January 1 of every even-numbered year thereafter, the Board [State Air Pollution Control Board, State Water Control Board, Virginia Waste Management Board] shall evaluate the implementation of the permit fee program and provide this evaluation in writing to the Senate Committees on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources and Finance; and the House Committees on Appropriations, Conservation and Natural Resources, and Finance. This evaluation shall include a report on the total fees collected, the amount of general funds allocated to the Department, the Department's use of the fees and the general funds, the number of permit applications received, the number of permits issued, the progress in eliminating permit backlogs, and the timeliness of permit processing.”
In addition to the general requirements identified above, Section 62.1-44.15:6 sets out the following specific requirements for the Water Permit Program.
“Beginning January 1, 1998, and January 1 of every even-numbered year thereafter, the Board shall make a report on the implementation of the water permit program to the Senate Committees on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Committee on Appropriations, the House Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Finance. The report shall include the following: (1) the total costs, both direct and indirect, including the costs of overhead, water quality planning, water quality assessment, operations coordination, and surface water and ground water investigations, (2) the total fees collected by permit category, (3) the amount of general funds allocated to the Board, (4) the amount of federal funds received, (5) the Board’s use of the fees, the general funds, and the federal funds, (6) the number of permit applications received by category, (7) the number of permits issued by category, (8) the progress in eliminating permit backlogs, (9) the timeliness of permit processing, and (10) the direct and indirect costs to neighboring states of administering their water permit programs, including what activities each state categorizes as direct and indirect costs, and the fees charged to the permit holders and applicants.”