Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship

1. 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

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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!

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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)

17. 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”

18. 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.

19. 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!

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Message “The enemy of the good is the perfect” -Voltaire