Christopher Kilian, CLF VP and Vermont Director, talks at the signing of H.258 with Gov. Peter Shumlin beside him. CLF Staff Attorney Anthony Iarrapino and Lake Champlain Lakekeeper Louis Porter are in the background.

A bill giving citizens more information about, and more say over, environmental enforcement cases in Vermont was signed into law by Gov. Peter Shumlin yesterday, the successful conclusion of a several-year-long effort by Conservation Law Foundation.

Under current law in Vermont, when environmental pollution cases brought by the state are settled, citizens often don’t know about it, and even if they do they have little chance to bring evidence they may have to light – even when they have been directly affected by those violations.

In July, when the newly signed act goes into effect, that will change. Anyone with an interest in such cases will be able to file comments, and those who can demonstrate that an interest of theirs was harmed by the pollution will be able to request a hearing before a judge to present their evidence.

The new law applies to both Vermont environmental laws and national programs administered by the state, a lack which had put the state at odds with federal requirements.

Shumlin said the change in the law will make state government more transparent, a priority of his administration.  CLF Vermont Director Christopher Kilian agreed, adding that the new law is “a big step forward for Vermonters to participate in their government”

The bill was worked on by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and was sponsored by Rep. Tony Klein and Rep. David Deen, the heads of the two environment committees in the Vermont House. In the Senate, it was championed by Sen. Ginny Lyons’ and her Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

During the two legislative sessions lawmakers worked on the measure several industry and business organizations which originally had concerns about the measure came to support its passage. Tom Torti, the president of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, who joined the administration and CLF at the signing, said it is important to hold those who break environmental laws to account.

The Burlington Free Press story about the bill signing can be found here.

Keeping the spotlight on administrative agencies is often the best way to ensure that they perform as intended and in the best interests of the people. It’s not sexy and it doesn’t make for good headlines, but it’s true – as we at CLF saw this Valentine’s day.

As I detailed a few months ago in two blogs (Malpractice post , Patricia Aho post) and in Maine’s newspapers (Sun Journal article), outside the glare of the spotlight the Maine DEP deliberately waived Maine’s rights under the Clean Water Act to control and mitigate the water quality impacts to Flagstaff Lake of the hydropower project owned by Florida Power & Light. We challenged that decision (Aho Letter) and sought to hold the DEP accountable.

We also turned our focus, and spotlight, to a similar situation pending at Brassua Lake. (Brassua letter 1-24-12, Brassua letter 2-13-12). For those who have been been there, Brassua Lake is situated in the northern county of Somerset. It sits to the west of Moosehead Lake, to which its connected by the Moose River.

At Brassau, we were specifically concerned with the water quality certification (WQC), on two accounts:

1. First, in 2004, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) found that the original WQC was not legally sufficient. We asked Commissioner Aho of the Maine DEP to clarify whether it was or was not sufficient.
2. Secondly, as I wrote, “another FPL Energy hydropower project, Brassua Storage Project, raises similar concerns to those previously raised by the Department about the Flagstaff Storage Project, concerns still shared by the EPA and many stakeholders. A WQC application for the Brassua project has been filed, withdrawn and re-filed for a number of years now. Most recently, that application was withdrawn and re-filed on March 24, 2011, requiring a decision by March 24, 2012.”

We asked Commissioner Aho to advise as to whether the Department intends to waive its rights under the Clean Water Act for the Brassua WQC as it did for the Flagstaff Storage Project and the basis for such a waiver.

Our efforts were rewarded on Valentine’s Day when the DEP confirmed that rather than waive Maine’s right, the dam owner was forced to withdraw its application and refile it, starting the clock over and maintaining Maine’s rights to control its water quality standards (FPL Letter).

We plan to keep the spotlight on DEP and the LePage administration, to acknowledge and thank them when they do right by Maine’s environment and to expose and hold them accountable when they do wrong.

The Vermont Statehouse

A bill nearing completion will soon give the public much more say in environmental enforcement actions in Vermont.

Historically in Vermont, agencies and violators of environmental laws have often negotiated resolutions behind closed doors without notice to affected members of the public. The results have often been weak penalties and ineffective remedial action by polluters, a problem which Conservation Law Foundation has long worked to correct.

Vermont’s exclusion of the public from environmental cases was not only bad policy, but contrary to the requirements of federal environmental law, as pointed out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Vermont Environmental Division Judge Thomas Durkin.

The issue is also part of CLF’s petition asking the EPA to revoke delegated authority for the state to administer the Clean Water Act unless shortcomings in the program are corrected.

Last year, CLF and Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources, which helped draft the bill co-sponsored by Rep. Tony Klein and Rep. David Deen, brought the issue before the Vermont Legislature. A long effort in the House, including many versions of the bill and testimony from a wide variety of interests in two committees, paid off in a 109-25 vote of support.

This year, the second of Vermont’s legislative biennium, the work was taken up in the Vermont Senate by Sen. Ginny Lyons’ Natural Resources and Energy Committee. Another round of rigorous review by legislators resulted in broad support for the bill, which won final support on a voice vote Thursday after Tuesday’s roll call of 27-2.

If the bill moves on to be signed by Gov. Peter Shumlin as anticipated, Vermont will not only come into compliance with federal requirements, but it will help make sure that environmental cases are fairly and thoroughly dealt with, including consideration of evidence, where deemed worthwhile by a judge, from those affected by pollution.

The measure goes beyond federal programs like the Clean Water Act – it offers the same opportunity for public participation in state environmental cases as well.

CLF was helped in its work on the issue by the Vermont Law School’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, by members of CLF’s Vermont Advisory Board and by fellow environmental organizations, in particular the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Furthermore, as the bill was worked on and considered, some companies and industry groups who originally opposed the measure came to support its passage, helping to secure support by wide margins in both houses of the Vermont Legislature.

At a time when our governors and our President were preparing to address their constituents, CLF was (and is) making news – news that raises a series of enduring questions: In our country, where is the line between federal and state authority? How clear is it? Who gets to draw it? Why would you draw it in one place instead of another?

These questions are so challenging because they are so fundamental; Americans have wrestled with these same questions for over 200 years. You’ll recall that our first national government, under the Articles of Confederation, was too weak to do the job. The Constitution granted greater power to the national government, but had to be balanced by the Bill of Rights, securing the rights of individuals and of states. The rest of our efforts to get the federal/state balance right has been marked by long periods of contentious negotiation and flashbulb moments of fractious history –national banking, secession and the Civil War, the busting of industrial trusts, the New Deal, and civil rights for all.

Protecting our health and our environment has been a part of the national and regional negotiations for decades. Recent events have provoked further discussion.

By the 1960’s and ‘70’s, when Congress began to address environmental protection and energy in a serious way, its constitutional authority to do so was relatively clear. It exercised that authority boldly, for the great benefit of generations of people and other species. However, as in much of our federalist system, there’s still a sharing of power between national and state governments, both by design and by default. The zone between federal and state authority is sometimes gray. It’s in that messy, gray area that many of our most controversial environmental issues are being debated.

These debates continue to this day. Take two of CLF’s hot issues recently in the news: Vermont Yankee and Cape Cod nitrogen pollution.

Vermont Yankee

The first is the adverse federal court decision CLF (and the State of Vermont) received on Vermont Yankee, the aging nuclear power plant in Vernon, VT. The decision affirmed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s broad authority over safety issues relating to nukes. It  preempted a role for states and handed a major victory to Entergy Corporation.

However, as Anthony Iarrapino points out in this blog post, the fight is far from over. There is a clear role for states in shaping our energy future; in the absence of federal action, states are leading the effort in promoting a clean energy future. Furthermore, as Anthony pointed out in his post, the court said:

“This Court’s decision is based solely upon the relevant admissible facts and the governing law in this case, and it does not purport to resolve or pass judgment on the debate regarding the advantages or disadvantages of nuclear power generation, or its location in this state. Nor does it purport to define or restrict the State’s ability to decline to renew a certificate of public good on any ground not preempted or not violative of federal law, to dictate how a state should choose to allocate its power among the branches of its government, or pass judgment on its choices. The Court has avoided addressing questions of state law and the scope of a state’s regulatory authority that are unnecessary to the resolution of the federal claims presented here.”

Even in the highly “federalized” area of nuclear power there is an undeniable role for states.

Cape Cod

The second is a settlement in principle of our litigation to clean up pollution from sewage on Cape Cod. This is a great step forward – one that  has attracted the focused attention of anti-environmentalists in Congress, as this article attests.

They preposterously allege collusion between environmentalists and the EPA in cases like this to expand federal jurisdiction beyond what Congress authorized in the Clean Water Act, thereby trumping state authority.  However, the federal/state line under the Clean Water Act is about as blurry as they come, in part because the facts relating to pollution and its impacts are extremely complex. As in all cases, the facts matter. Careful, dispassionate assessment of the scientific facts about discharges and pollution, and how the law applies to those facts – not political grandstanding by Members of Congress – is what’s necessary to achieve the visionary goal Congress as a whole committed to decades ago: the elimination of polluting discharges to United States waters, by 1985! It’s time we lived up to that commitment.

There is opportunity in messy, gray areas like the shifting federal/state interface: we can go forward or backward. That is, we can develop sensible allocations of authority between federal and state governments to achieve the public goals behind all of these public initiatives – a healthy environment and a healthy economy, or we can descend into politically motivated mudslinging that obscures the real issues and thwarts real progress.

At CLF we are committed to rational, fact-based discussion of the issues, and prudent forward motion that yields a thriving New England, for generations to come and for all. We know this terrain well. You can count on us to keep working it.

Last Friday, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), together with the Buzzards Bay Coalition (BBC), announced they had reached an agreement in principle with EPA to settle two lawsuits regarding nitrogen pollution on Cape Cod. In making the announcement, we released a statement, which can be found here.

In that statement, CLF’s Chris Killian responded to attacks by a group of Congressional Republicans seeking to limit EPA’s authority and advance their anti-environment agenda. You can read the full statement here. In it, Chris said:

“It is our experience that EPA has been a formidable opponent in clean water cases, and to imply that the agency is colluding with environmental organizations to expand its own authority is preposterous,” said Christopher Kilian, director of Conservation Law Foundation’s Clean Water and Healthy Forests program. “These are complicated cases, made more so by developing science and changing environmental stressors, and it is never an easy road to reach a resolution. The real issue is whether the parties are acting in the best interest of those who rely on the resource for their health and well-being. These Congressional leaders seem to suggest that EPA should take a hard line against the interests of citizens and the environment and protect the rights of polluters.”

We at CLF have been involved in the litigation and related issues on an ongoing basis. To help you find CLF’s resources, we’ve included a few curated links below.

Blog posts:

CLF Cleaning up the Cape’s Algae Problem
Clean Water: It’s Your Call or Click

Statements:

Joint Statement Between CLF and Buzzards Bay
CLF and Buzzards Bay Coalition Press EPA for Action in Cape Clean Up

News coverage:

The Cost of Doing Nothing: Toxic Algae Bloom Hurts Tourism, Changes Senator Inhofe’s Tune

Court Filings:

CLF, Inc., et al., v. Lisa P. Jackson, et al. (Complaint, September 19, 2011)

August 25, 2010: CLF, Inc., et al., v. Lisa P. Jackson, et al. (Complaint, August 25, 2010)

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to be in touch!

Breaking News: In response to today’s decision by the U.S. District Court that Vermont Yankee may continue operation beyond March 2012, Sandra Levine, a senior attorney in CLF’s Vermont office said, “This is a setback for Vermont and a setback for clean energy.  This decision forces Vermont to prop up an old, polluting nuclear reactor, and its untrustworthy owners. This matter will likely go back to the Vermont Public Service Board.  We hope they will confirm that Vermont Yankee has outlived its useful life and is ready to retire.  It is time to end Entergy’s legacy of broken promises and lackluster oversight.  Vermont is ready to join New England’s move away from obsolete, dirty, power plants and lead the region in its transition to clean, renewable energy. We hope the State will appeal the Court’s decision and seek to affirm its right to determine its energy future.”

A little background on a long-running case: By the terms of a Vermont law passed in 2006, as well as the 2002 approval of the sale of Vermont Yankee, and a 2002 express agreement with Entergy, approval by Vermont is needed for the plant to continue to operate after 2012. In 2002, the Vermont Public Service Board approved the sale of the Vermont Yankee facility to Entergy.  The sale included an agreement by Entergy not to operate the plant after 2012, when its license expires, without obtaining regulatory approval from the Vermont Public Service Board. Concerned about whether it would be good for Vermont if Vermont Yankee to operated past 2012, the Vermont Legislature passed a law in 2006 requiring approval of the Legislature before the Public Service Board could issue a new license. In 2008 and 2009 proceedings were underway at the Public Service Board to consider a license extension.  In an historic vote in 2010 the Vermont Senate declined approval.  In April 2011, Entergy filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging Vermont’s authority to regulate and license the power generation facilities operating in the state. Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Public Interest Group (VPIRG) later intervened on Vermont’s side in the lawsuit. For a complete timeline of the activities leading up to today’s decision on Vermont Yankee, click here.

Sometimes, the failure to act is as harmful as an act itself.

Yesterday, I sent a letter to Patricia Aho, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, whose recent failure to act on water certification standards for Flagstaff Lake has resulted in the state losing its ability to have any say in the matter for the next 25 years. You can access a copy of that letter here, or read it in full below.

Documents obtained through a Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) request now lead us to conclude one thing: we believe Aho’s failure to act was intentional. Consider the following two points, outlined in the letter:

• Aho had been briefed on the status of the water quality certification application for the Flagstaff Storage Project by the applicant and its attorney and had met with Mr. Mullen, the head of the lead bureau on that application;
• Aho and her staff were aware of the options available to the State with respect to the application.

As stated in the letter, “this makes Ms. DePoy-Warren’s statements of December 9, 2011 that the failure to act on the application in a timely manner was due to reorganization efforts and changed assignments at best completely uninformed and at worst deliberately false… Even more troubling is the conclusion one can logically draw” that Aho “made the decision to not act on the application and thereby waive the State’s rights to certify whether the Flagstaff Storage Project’s new license meets our water quality standards.”

This deliberate inaction is troubling. As I said in a recent joint statement, it not only hurts Maine people who use Flagstaff Lake, but also “raises real concerns about the DEP’s ability and willingness to exercise Maine’s rights to control, manage and protect our natural resources.”

For the full letter, keep reading.

January 3rd, 2011

Patricia Aho, Commissioner January 3, 2012
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0017

Re: Flagstaff Storage Project #L-19313-32-G-N

Dear Commissioner Aho:

We have finished a review of records provided by your Department pursuant to a December 9, 2011, Freedom of Access Act request from our organization, the Conservation Law Foundation.  That review leads us to conclude that the Department, under your direction, intentionally waived the State’s rights under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a), to certify that the relicensing of Florida Power & Light’s Flagstaff Storage Project meets Maine’s water quality standards.  That conclusion is contrary to the assertions of the Department’s spokeswoman, Ms. DePoy-Warren, who publicly stated that the failure to act in a timely manner on the FPL application was neither intentional nor insidious.  While we will never definitively know about the latter, as set forth below, we believe the failure to act was certainly intentional.

As you know, for the past several years, a new license for the Flagstaff Storage Project, #L-19313-32-G-N, had been stayed by FERC based on the denial of the Section 401 water quality certification by the Board of Environmental Protection in 2004, a decision appealed and upheld by the Maine Law Court in 2007. Since then, FPL had filed an application for a water quality certification for the Flagstaff Storage Project as a placeholder while it worked with the Department staff to identify a means to meet the water quality standards identified by the Board in its original order.  The Clean Water Act provides that if an application for water quality certification is not acted upon within a year of its submittal, the State is deemed to waive its right to make or to withhold such a certification. To avoid such a waiver, the Department’s practice had been to request FPL to withdraw and refile the application. Failing that, the Department would deny the application.  FPL, as it had with its other hydroelectric projects, would withdraw its application for this project and then re-file, thereby “re-starting the clock.”  (This is a practice followed not just by FPL but by most other owners of hydropower projects seeking water quality certification from Maine.)  Thus, FPL filed its water quality certification application for the Flagstaff Storage Project with the Department on November 15, 2009, then withdrew and re-filed its application on November 16, 2010.

As you also know, action by the Department on water quality certifications applications had for many years been coordinated by a longtime Department employee, Dana Murch.  Mr. Murch announced that he would retire at the end of the summer in 2011 and documents produced in response to our FOAA request establish that he began preparing for the transfer of his responsibilities to other employees at the Department in early summer.  Specifically, in June, Mr. Murch and senior managers at the Department, including Michael Mullen, current head of the Department’s Land and Water Bureau, scheduled a series of meetings to discuss the transition of his work load. These meetings specifically included discussion of the Flagstaff Storage Project water quality certification application. Indeed, Mr Murch prepared a memorandum to the file dated July 13, 2011, concerning the history and status of the Flagstaff Storage Project and specifically noting that “Unless DEP acts to approve or deny the pending application for water quality certification on or before November 15, 2011, certification will be deemed waived by operation of law.”

On June 17, 2011, you were named acting Commissioner of the Department, subsequently nominated to take that position permanently on September 9, 2011 and confirmed on September 28, 2011 by the Senate. The documents produced by the Department in response to our FOAA request establish that shortly after you were named acting Commissioner, Pierce Atwood’s Matt Manahan, a partner at your former law firm and FPL’s attorney, contacted you to discuss FPL’s Flagstaff and Brassua Storage Projects and requested a meeting with you, Mr. Murch and representatives of FPL.  A meeting that you organized was set for August 5, 2011 at your office. On the following Monday, August 8, 2011, you sent an email to Mr. Mullen (delivered at 8:11 a.m. and read at 8:40 a.m.) stating the following – “Hi Mike – We need to talk about Flagstaff and Brassawa [sic] when you get a chance.  Thanks!  Pattie.”

A subsequent memorandum from Mr. Murch dated August 12, 2011 to DEP staff, including Mr. Mullen (who was by then overseeing all staffing of hydropower projects for the Department) attached a spreadsheet that listed the staff that would be overseeing the various hydropower projects in the state.  Ms. Dawn Hallowell was listed as being responsible for the Flagstaff Storage Project but it is our understanding that, at the direction of the Commissioner’s office, Ms. Hallowell never received that file.

Thus, by the time that Mr. Murch retired on August 31, 2011, the documents strongly support the following: you had been briefed on the status of the water quality certification application for the Flagstaff Storage Project by the applicant and its attorney and had met with Mr. Mullen, the head of the lead bureau on that application; and that you and your staff were aware of the options available to the State with respect to the application.  This makes Ms. DuPoy-Warren’s statements of December 9, 2011 that the failure to act on the application in a timely manner was due to reorganization efforts and changed assignments at best completely uninformed and at worst deliberately false.

Even more troubling is the conclusion one can logically draw that after you met with the FPL and its attorney, you made the decision to not act on the application and thereby waive the State’s rights to certify whether the Flagstaff Storage Project’s new license meets our water quality standards.  While the Department is legally authorized to make such a decision under the Clean Water Act, the manner in which this decision was made, particularly after the State had invested significant resources over the last 7 years in defending the right to determine when a project does or does not meet our water quality standards, and the subsequent response by the Department when the waiver came to light, is unacceptable.

We feel strongly that the documents we have seen to date support our conclusion.  If, however, we have not reviewed all of the relevant documents or there are other facts we are not aware of, we would be most interested in meeting with you to discuss them.  If we are wrong and this was indeed a case of a blown deadline, then the Department should be aggressively acting to ensure that FERC condition the license for the Flagstaff Storage Project to ensure that Maine’s water quality standards are met and instituting procedures to prevent such failures in the future.  If our current understanding of the situation does not change, we believe that at a minimum you should clarify that the Department decision to waive its rights to determine if the Flagstaff Storage Project met Maine’s water quality standards was in fact intentional and should include an apology to the stakeholders who were counting on the State to exercise its rights under the Clean Water Act.

Respectfully,
Sean Mahoney
Vice President and Director
CLF Maine

cc: Peter J. Carney

Courtesy of Putneypucs @ flickr. Creative Commons

In talking with guests at CLF’s holiday party last week, I was reminded of something simple and powerful: In this movement, we’re all leaders.

Helping New England thrive is a group effort.  It’s also CLF’s vision. To make it happen we work with  our colleagues, our allies, and our friends – many of whom were present at the party.

These guests included elected officials, heads of state and government officials, business and nonprofit CEOs – even an international delegation. CLF staff and alumni were there. Board members, families and friends joined us.  And also many dedicated people who help New England thrive by doing their part – sometimes small but always heartfelt – every day, week or month.

Talking with many present, I was reminded of what I have often thought: To succeed, we need each other.

I was also reminded of the story of an 8 year old girl with courage and a voice, but struggling against acute asthma. At a hearing for a proposed project in western MA that would aggravate her asthma and further threaten her community, she was sitting with my colleague Sue Reid, vp and director, CLF Massachusetts. She had in her hand a one page handwritten statement she was prepared to deliver that said, among other things, “It’s not fair!” After the committee spoke, she turned to Sue and said: “This really isn’t fair!”

She was right. We have followed her lead, and are working hard for fairness and justice for her community. We all should learn from her, and be inspired by her. She is a leader in our movement.

Reflecting on our holiday season, this message seems appropriate: we are sustained by the work of our allies and friends. In this movement, it does take a village. And everyone truly is a leader.

To all those who have worked with us, to our donors, sponsors, and allies, and to our friends and family, thank you. Without your leadership, we couldn’t do what we do.

May have you have a wonderful Holiday season.