Less than a week after I posted my blog post about the environmental and health problems associated with road salt, the Boston Globe published an article about de-icing alternatives some Massachusetts communities are turning to. Boston has received almost 50 inches of snow this winter compared to a total of 17 inches on average around this time. We can only assume that it means we’re using record amounts of salt to combat all this snow. While it is difficult to say if the increased snowfall we’re seeing is directly related to climate change, increased temperatures tend to increase evaporation thus resulting in increased precipitation.  (In the Northeast, there has been a 5 to 10% increase in annual average precipitation since 1900.) More generally speaking, scientists are increasingly concerned about the link between global warming and anomalous winter weather (such as the bizarre snowstorms seen recently in the South). As such, it is encouraging to hear that towns are looking to more environmentally friendly alternatives to deal with our new weather conditions as the planet continues to warm.

Besides rock salt (sodium chloride), calcium chloride and magnesium chloride can be used in colder temperatures but unfortunately, they are significantly more expensive than the traditional rock salt. Instead a growing number of Massachusetts communities are returning to an age-old solution: brine. The mixture is a combination of rock salt and water. Applying brine before snow falls and ice forms on the roadway (known as “anti-icing”) can prevent snow and ice from sticking to roads. Unlike plain old rock salt, this stuff doesn’t bounce or get blown off the roads like we’ve all seen. As such it dramatically reduces the amount of salt used and the time it takes to remove snow and ice from the roads in turn saving towns money. A study done in Oregon and Washington state showed that anti-icing can decrease costs by more than 50% compared to conventional de-icing. And it reduces the amount of salt that gets into our drinking water and the negative impacts on the environment.

This yet again reinforces the idea that solutions that are good for the environment are often also good for people and the economy.

MONTPELIER, VT January 24, 2010 – The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has issued the following statement in response to today’s decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw its approval of Vermont’s 2002 water quality plan for Lake Champlain. The decision comes almost two years after CLF first challenged EPA’s approval of the Plan in federal court.

“Today’s decision by the EPA to re-examine Vermont’s water quality plan for Lake Champlain is the key to bringing the Lake back to health,” said Louis Porter, CLF’s Lake Champlain Lakekeeper. “The EPA has reviewed the existing pollution budget and concluded, correctly, that there has not been enough improvement in the health of Lake Champlain under the current plan. Now, with a new administration in Vermont and a new water quality plan on the way, Vermont can begin a new, science-based approach to cleaning up Lake Champlain and making sure it remains a safe and enjoyable resource for swimmers, boaters, anglers, and the more than 200,000 people for whom it provides drinking water.” More >

It was thrilling to attend the meeting of the RI Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) last night, where the Council voted unanimously to reject the application of Champlin’s Marina to expand by several hundred feet into the Great Salt Pond of Block Island. The vote probably brings to a final conclusion a lawsuit that CLF has been fighting for the last seven years in the CRMC, in the Superior Court, and in the R.I. Supreme Court.

Champlin’s originally filed its application to expand in 2003. In February 2006, the CRMC voted (the first time) to deny the application. Champlin’s took an appeal (as they were legally allowed to do) to the Superior Court.  They won the appeal in Superior Court and were granted the permit. CLF and the Committee for the Great Salt Pond appealed to the Supreme Court, where we won – and the case was remanded (sent back) by the Supreme Court to the CRMC for a new vote.

It was that vote that was taken last night.

CRMC member Bruce Dawson made the motion to reject the Champlin’s application outright.  He cited the unique ecological value of the Great Salt Pond, and concluded by saying he could not support this expansion.

A vote was taken on the Dawson motion to deny the permit.  It was approved 7 to zero.

What about an appeal?  While Champlin’s could appeal, any such appeal would almost certainly fail. Not only is this a very old case, but legally, any new appeal would be severely limited to only what has happened since the Supreme Court remand. Such a narrow time period provides almost no basis for an appeal.

The meeting was well-attended. Despite the impending storm, the auditorium at the Narragansett Town Hall was almost full. Finally, I must say that there was an outpouring of warm feeling toward CLF and the Committee for the Great Salt Pond. After the meeting, a steady stream of well-wishers from the Island came up to thank the lawyers on our side. After a very long (and very difficult) litigation, this was enormously gratifying.

It’s difficult to imagine a day like today in Boston without the aid of salt to make our roads safe to use. For those of us in the snowier parts of the country, road salt is a necessary and accepted part of our winter. It’s cheap, effective and it allows commuters, motorists and emergency vehicles to safely reach their destinations in harsh conditions. According to the Salt Institute, Americans used 22 million tons of road salt in 2008. In a different study by the National Research Council, Massachusetts tops the list of of states with the highest road salt-use at, 19.94 tons per lane-mile each year, surpassing even New York, with 16.6 tons per lane-mile. Under MassDOT salt policy, salt or sodium chloride is applied at 240 pounds per lane-mile. In other words, trucks in Massachusetts are dumping more than a ton of salt every 10 lane-miles in a single application! Salt does not evaporate or otherwise get removed, so one has to ask: what is the fate of all this salt that is dumped on our roads?

Unfortunately, most of it is washed off of roadways by rain runoff and snow melt and enters our rivers and streams or percolates through the soil into our drinking water supplies. That’s the situation that Cambridge, MA has been combating for years. This densely-populated city gets its water from two reservoirs, both located next to Route 128, making it particularly susceptible to salt contamination. Another town suffering from the same issue is Boxford, MA. The town launched a suit against the state highway department, MassHighway, to close its salt storage shed, contending that it was responsible for contaminating at least 30 local wells. Aside from the ecological damage of excess salt, there are also health and financial burdens associated with high salt levels in public and private water supplies. High salt levels can result in skin and eye irritation and pose a danger for individuals with sodium-restricted diets, according to the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.

MassHighway is already under court order to manage stormwater runoff after CLF’s successful suit in 2008. Hopefully this effort will divert some of the salt from our waters and, in turn, lead to better health for both the environment and the MA residents who live in it.

In a boost for clean air and clean water, the mismanaged and ill-conceived Circ highway planned for Vermont’s Chittenden County faces a potentially fatal blow.  The head of EPA in New England described the project as environmentally devastating.

“Even if the mitigation were fully implemented, the proposed project would cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the U.S. in violation” of federal law and should not be permitted, according to the EPA.

The EPA concluded the highway “will have a substantial and unacceptable impact on aquatic resources of national importance,” in that December letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a more forceful follow-up to the original letter and assessment EPA sent on November 15.  EPA makes a strong argument against issuing the environmental permits needed for the largest single destruction of wetlands in Vermont’s history.

EPA’s objections are bolstered by the support of a diverse coalition of organizations in Vermont, including CLF.  If the Corps issues permits despite these objections the EPA could block those permits with a veto.

CLF continues to support cleaner, lower cost and more effective solutions in place of a new highway that damages or eliminates hundreds of acres of wetlands, increases sprawl development, contributes to global climate change, wastes limited public funds and fails to meet modern transportation needs.   At a cost of tens of millions of dollars, the Circ only saves four minutes of travel time and offers less relief from traffic congestion in the areas most troubled traffic spots compared to cleaner and lower cost solutions that modernize existing roadways.

Today, the U.S. EPA announced that it will join CLF’s lawsuit against the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) for violations of the Clean Water Act. The suit, filled by CLF in U.S. District Court in February 2010, states that BWSC has failed to control polluted discharges from its storm water system, allowing it to carry raw sewage and excessive levels of bacterial, copper and zinc into Boston’s waterways, threatening the health and well-being of the surrounding communities.

BOSTON, MA  December 22, 2010 – The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has issued the following statement in response to the motion filed today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stating that it will join CLF’s lawsuit against the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) for violations of the Clean Water Act:

“The complaint against the Boston Water and Sewer Commission documents serious failures in the system that are allowing ongoing unlawful pollution of Boston’s waterways, including the Charles, Mystic and Neponset Rivers, in some the city’s most economically-challenged communities,” said Christopher Kilian, director of CLF’s Clean Water and Healthy Forests program. “The federal government’s entry into this case is a clear indication of the urgency of the matter and the priority EPA places on it. BWSC’s inability to maintain a system that ensures clean water is a violation of the law and an affront to the people of Boston. The United States agrees with CLF that BWSC must make a major commitment now to improve water quality, as other cities have done, and restore these resources to health for everyone’s benefit.” More>>

(Photo credit: Cynthia Liebman)

The view from the corner office at CLF Boston is not always glamorous.  For the past few days, the sights and sounds outside our building on Summer Street have been dominated by environmental remediation trucks.  With their humming, rattling pumps, hoses and generators, it’s admittedly been a little distracting to those of us on the other side of the windows.

However, it’s a welcome intrusion to those of us who know what’s going on under the surface of the street.  The trucks are performing vital maintenance on the underground storm sewers that pipe rainwater from our streets into rivers and out to sea.  When the catch basins under the street grates become clogged with debris and leaves, they no longer trap trash and pollutants as designed.  So regular clean-outs (often done with a large vacuum truck) are vital.  And the network of sewer pipes under the City of Boston (like many municipalities) is aging and needs repair as well.  Rumor has it that cameras are being installed to monitor for leaks or cracks in the pipes underground.

As an organization that’s spent decades fighting for clean water throughout New England, the maintenance of the water infrastructure right under our feet is one of those scenes that, quite literally, drives the original goals–and results–of our advocacy home.

In an effort to clean up the Charles River—and as the result of years of CLF advocacy—residents in Bellingham, Franklin, and Milford, MA may soon be obligated to comply with a proposed EPA mandate to reduce phosphorus runoff by 65 percent. As with most important initiatives to restore our environment, implementing this program will cost money, and there are constituencies opposed.  This Milford Daily News article chronicles some of the factors at stake and how residents have reacted to the news.

What’s most exciting about the public dialogue is to see that the discussions have advanced to real thinking about HOW to finance cleanups through stormwater utilities and other fee structures for reducing polluted runoff.  In Massachusetts, polluted runoff is the number one cause of water pollution.  Conversations about how to secure dedicated funding to solve the problem have generally only happened in a few communities under enforcement orders. They had to sort out issues of what’s fair, what’s practical, and what’s most palatable to residents in order to finance the fixes.  Now we’re seeing similar discussions in more communities where new stormwater regulations are proposed. These communities can serve as a model of forward-thinking investment in the clean waters that are critical to a thriving New England.

Learn more about CLF’s work to restore and protect New England’s waterways.

The Boston Globe ran an interesting essay in its Ideas section on whether we should do “randomized trials’ of new laws before applying them to our entire society and economy.

Louis Brandeis, a great Boston lawyer before ascending to the Supreme Court once eloquently and clearly presented the mechanism we have long had in place for doing something of the sort:

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” – New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311, 52 S.Ct. 371, 386-387, (1932) (dissenting opinion of Brandeis, J.)

Back in 1932 a knuckle-dragging Supreme Court invalidated a law enacted by the State of Oklahoma that required  people who wanted to manufacture, distribute or sell ice obtain a license first.  In the dissent quoted above Justice Brandeis blazed a path that continues today – a path based on the clear recognition that states should be generally allowed to enact their own laws subject only to clear preemption by federal law.

This history has served the environment well.  Over the last 40 years the great advances in clean air, clean water and toxics reduction have come from the states – with the Federal Government following along. Sometimes these efforts have been states going it alone and sometimes it has been coordinated action by a group of states.  Two key examples of that kind of collective action are the way that automobile emissions regulations were developed by California and then adopted by a range of states, led by the New England states and the development of a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative by the states of the East Coast.

“The states as laboratories” does not have all the virtues of randomized trials like the experiments used in the pharmaceutical world but it does have the advantage of being very real.