ADEM holds public hearing on proposed revisions to state water-quality standards

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management held a public hearing Feb. 5, 2025, in Montgomery to accept public comment on proposed revisions to state water-quality standards in chapters 335-6-10 and 335-6-11 of the Alabama Administrative Code. The hearing was recorded and a transcript will be included in the public record.

Jennifer Hasselbauer, chief of the Standards and Planning Section in ADEM’s Water Quality Branch, summarized the proposed changes, saying, “Water quality standards are adopted by the state pursuant to state and federal law to protect the quality of Alabama’s waters.” She described revisions to a series of rules in chapter 335-6-10 that update aquatic-life criteria for several toxic pollutants, clarify existing language, and add numeric nutrient criteria in the form of a growing-season mean chlorophyll a for Woodruff Lake in the Alabama River Basin.

Hasselbauer also described proposed changes in chapter 335-6-11 to water-use classifications. The department proposes removing public-water-supply classifications from water bodies that are not currently used as a public-water-supply source; upgrading Buck Creek in the Cahawba River Basin from “limited warm water fishery” to “fish and wildlife”; adding water bodies identified as part of the original Treasured Alabama Lake designation to Lake Martin; and correcting upstream and downstream locations for several water bodies.

Copies of the proposed rule revisions and the summary of reasons were made available for public inspection at ADEM field offices in Birmingham, Mobile, and Decatur and at the ADEM main office in Montgomery, as well as on the agency’s website at ADEM.Alabama.gov. The hearing officer said the final hearing record will include the transcript, all written submissions and exhibits, and a department response to each relevant comment received by 5:00 p.m. on Feb. 5, 2025, at the ADEM offices in Montgomery.

No members of the public registered to speak, and the hearing officer noted there was no oral testimony. ADEM staff indicated they would be available after the hearing to answer questions and assist with requests for additional information. Once ADEM completes its response to comments, it will forward the final draft of the proposed rule revisions, the hearing record, and, if conflicting views are submitted, a concise statement of principal reasons for and against adoption to the Environmental Management Commission for consideration and possible adoption.

The hearing was not a question-and-answer session; presenters were told lengthy technical statements should be submitted in writing and that written comments receive the same consideration as in-person testimony. The department emphasized that oral testimony would be limited to factual statements addressing the subject of the hearing.