240 likes | 242 Views
Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship. Presentation to New Hampshire Water Pollution Control Association by Robert L. Moylan Jr. P.E. Commissioner of Public Works and Parks Worcester MA 6/13/2013. Overview.
E N D
Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship Presentation to New Hampshire Water Pollution Control Association by Robert L. Moylan Jr. P.E. Commissioner of Public Works and Parks Worcester MA 6/13/2013
Overview • What is the Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship (MCWRS)? • What is its purpose? • Why was it formed? • What has it done? • What has been its impact?
Who is the Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship? • It is a group of cities and towns and sewer authorities across Massachusetts who banded together in June 2007 and who share a common concern with how EPA writes and enforces NPDES permits • Recently established as a 501(c)(4) non-profit and elected Board of Directors
What is its purpose? • To speak for the regulated community with one voice • To object to unreasonable and costly unfunded mandates • To seek real environmental improvements by making cost/benefit a fundamental consideration of any permit requirement • To engage the rate paying public about the costs and other impacts of NPDES permits (CSOs, POTWs, Stormwater) • To restore the partnership that once existed between federal/state regulators and the regulated community
Why was it formed? FRUSTRATION!!! • We have all been there. Dealing with EPA is a difficult and frustrating experience because they come from a different planet • They don’t have to face ratepayers; thus cost is not a consideration • Their permits often lack valid science • They have compartmentalized permitting so that the “big picture” is often lost • They fail to consider sustainability when establishing permit requirements • They do not communicate well
What has MCWRS done? • In November 2007, issued a “White Paper” with 10 recommendations for change • In April 2008, met in Washington DC with the full Massachusetts federal delegation and Region 1 EPA to discuss the recommendations of the “White Paper” • Met monthly from May-December 2008 with DEP and EPA to explore White Paper recommendations. Results of these meetings were compiled in a report to the Mass. Congressional delegation. • Received NACWA’s Special Recognition Award in 2009 • We have since held 4 Symposiums to discuss NPDES permits in general, develop strategies for reform, and offer reasonable alternatives to EPA’s heavy handed approach
White Paper recommendations • Base permits on peer reviewed science and holistic watershed planning • Costs and cost/benefit must be considered • Focus on biggest problems first • Develop longer permit terms • Open dialogue with regulators and stakeholders • Coordinate permits by watershed • Numerical limits must be based on valid science and pragmatic watershed needs • Commonwealth to assume primacy
Outcome of EPA/DEP/Coalition Meetings • Agreements • Better communication needed • Watershed based planning and permitting needs to be re-considered and must involve all stakeholders • Innovative permitting, especially pollutant trading should be considered • Compliance costs are a significant factor • Good science should form the basis for regulatory decision making • DEP and EPA should explore authorization of NPDES permitting program in Massachusetts
Outcome of EPA/DEP/Coalition Meetings (cont.) • No Agreement/Continue Debate • Cost and affordability: EPA maintains the CWA does not give them discretion to consider costs and that they address the issue through compliance schedules and Use Attainability Analysis. • Coalition wants longer permit terms as 5-year term is unreasonable given costs and project funding; EPA says CWA dictates term • EPA maintains that it uses the best available science; Coalition claims that EPA often ignores better science if it refutes their own studies • Coalition believes permits should consider sustainability in terms of energy use and overall environmental impact; EPA says CWA does not allow for such consideration
Outcome of EPA/DEP/Coalition Meetings (cont.) • Recommendations • Congress, EPA, DEP, and Coalition all have role to play • Amend the CWA • Promote and incentivize pollutant trading • Reconsider watershed planning and permitting • Explore full realm of UAA • Reassess 2% HMI test for affordability • Fund river studies • Review and amend TMDLs • Revise water quality standards to consider urban areas
The CWA in 1972 • Created at a time when federal funding was the norm and no consideration that this funding stream would disappear • Hugely successful at addressing gross contamination of waters • Built sewage treatment plants where there were none • Modernized existing sewage treatment plants • Brought everyone together: shared costs, shared goals, noticeable benefits
The CWA Now • State and federal government no longer have a financial interest in financing CWA requirements; costs do not concern them; they have taken a walk • Science supporting CWA requirements is often lacking; it is the public’s money, shouldn’t we have the best science? • Appeal of EPA’s mandates is costly and severely biased in favor of EPA; process is rigged • Costs are borne entirely by local by ratepayers • The game has changed-the target is now fine tuning waterways that have been vastly restored. The goals, expectations and strategies for success are more nebulous….how clean is clean? • The current process is totally adversarial; it’s a loser!
Examples of the Regulatory Excess • UBWPAD (POTW) • $180M upgrade to meet 0.75P and other improvements in 2001 permit • EPA’s latest permit (2008) requires: • $200M to meet 0.1P and 5 N which will increase debt service another $10M/yr and O&M by $5M/yr • Cost to average customer in Worcester will increase by about $2.25/CCF • Based on same science as their 2001 permit
Regulatory Excess UBWPAD (cont.) • Our model of river shows: • New limits will have little effect on river beyond that of current upgrade • New limits will increase the “carbon footprint” • 20% increase in electrical power (600 homes) • 21 million ft³ of natural gas (500 homes) • 1.8 million gals. of ferric chloride • 8.2 million gals. of sodium hydroxide • 150,000 gals. of methanol • 50% more sludge ash
Regulatory Excess (cont.) • Worcester Stormwater NPDES permit • Phase 1 community…..1st in EPA Region 1 • Cost to comply with current draft permit as estimated by CDM is $1.2 BILLION! • The goals of our permit will be required by all other communities • Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) is no longer the standard….meeting numeric limits is expected • Stormwater effluent to TMDL impaired waters cannot “cause or contribute to an exceedence” • TMDL of dubious quality drive permit requirements
What’s next? • EPA has estimated that over the next 20 years it will cost $1 trillion dollars to meet the requirements of the CWA…..this cost will be borne completely by local ratepayers • Nitrogen and Phosphorous will continue to be the pollutants of concern. Dischargers will be required to implement LOT processes to meet new standards because dischargers are the easy targets • Individual stormwater permits for private properties with >2 acres impervious area (i.e., Bellingham, Milford, & Franklin MA)
What’s next (cont.) • Stormwater Permits with have numerical limits; MEP will be superseded • Eliminate CSOs and SSOs • More guidance, regulations, and exceedance of statutory authority with increasing intrusion into local control • Stricter NPDES limits and more control is equal to higher rates • Can you say “Live Free or Die”
What are we up against? • Environmental extremists (both inside and outside of EPA) manipulate CWA to drive their agenda. Money is no object and saving the environment has no limit. • Environmental advocates are well organized, well funded, entrenched within the agencies, and are masters at manipulating public thinking through emotional and oversimplified views. • The most powerful environmental groups use the media and the courts to convey their message and intimidate the agencies.
What can you do??? • Work together and speak with one voice and a consistent message. • Get involved in reviewing/commenting on other permits – not just your own. • Educate and inform the public on the status of your dealings with EPA. Explain the costs and benefits of the permit. • Learn from the environmental groups approach: this is not a technical fight; it is a political fight. • Contact your congressman • JOIN A COALITION!
What is My Message? • You as City and Town Officials are: • Stewards of your community’s natural resources • Pragmatists and practitioners of common sense • Managers of complex infrastructure systems • Responsible for the prudent expenditure of the your town’s money • Know the challenges and priorities of your community better than anyone else
Message (cont.) • EPA is not all knowing….nor do they walk with the angels as some might have you believe • They have a job to do and are narrowly focused on that job but they are not concerned with you or your problems…they are looking out for themselves! • They are driven by environmental purists • The CWA was not intended to bankrupt cities/towns
Message (cont.) • You have an obligation to call attention to the issues • You must advocate that permits • Be based on good science • Consider cost/benefit • Consider community’s affordability • Be sustainable – Meet the Triple Bottom Line • Stormwater Permits should be based on MEP
Message (con’t) • Recognize that stormwater issues are largely linked to population density….it is a problem that has developed over 220 years during which time the country has grown to over 300 million people…it won’t be solved in one 5 year permit term • Perfection will take time to achieve….in the meantime accept continuous improvement
Message “The enemy of the good is the perfect” -Voltaire