Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship

Presentation to New Hampshire Water Pollution Control

Associationby 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