In a move that will further delay progress cleaning up the Great Bay estuary, the Cities of Rochester and Dover, NH, have appealed a critical permit recently issued by the EPA to address the mounting problem of nitrogen pollution in the Great Bay estuary.

Whose permit did they appeal? Incredibly, Rochester and Dover are expending resources not to appeal a permit that affects their sewage treatment plants. Rather, in the height of arrogance, Dover and Rochester are appealing a permit granted by EPA to the Town of Newmarket, for Newmarket’s sewage treatment plant. Apparently, Rochester and Dover have decided that when it comes to the health of the Lamprey River in Newmarket, and Great Bay, they know best.

In a press release issued by the Town of Newmarket on December 10, the Town stated that “it is in the best interest of our community to work with the EPA to protect Great Bay instead of entering into a lengthy and costly legal process.” The Town has recognized this is not something that can be put off and hopes to move quickly to build a new, much-needed sewage treatment plant.

Unfortunately, Newmarket’s desire to constructively move forward with solving the problem of nitrogen pollution in the Lamprey River and Great Bay means nothing to Dover and Rochester. Filing this appeal could delay final permitting of the Newmarket sewage treatment plant for years, jeopardizing the health of the estuary. Click here to read more about Newmarket’s reaction to this unfortunate and unexpected legal maneuver by Dover and Rochester.

It is outrageous that Dover and Rochester – purportedly acting as the Great Bay Municipal Coalition, of which Newmarket is a part – would bring a legal action challenging another town’s permit. And if interfering in the affairs of Newmarket is not enough, Dover and Rochester – along with the City of Portsmouth – also recently filed a lawsuit against EPA challenging the regulatory process in the estuary (after having a similar lawsuit against the NH Department of Environmental Services thrown out by the Merrimack County Superior Court).

How much money do these communities plan to spend in their seemingly endless effort to delay cleaning up the estuary? In September, they had spent more than $750,000. Of course, the tab only continues to grow. Do the residents of Dover and Rochester really want their valuable city resources being used to prevent other communities from taking constructive action to protect their local waters and Great Bay?

If you are as outraged as I am by this latest development, please contact me at pwellenberger@clf.org to learn how you can help bring real progress to protecting Great Bay – now, and for future generations.  Enough meddling – we need to get to work and clean up the estuary.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and on Twitter.

As I travel around the Seacoast, it is such a pleasure to talk with people who share my love for Great Bay.  Recently, I made a presentation to the Durham Garden Club – a group that recognizes the importance of clean water – and ran into an old friend who cares deeply about the health of the estuary.

Dennis related his own experiences as a scuba diver and the changes he has witnessed beneath the surface in our coastal waters. I was so moved by his comments, that I asked him to write a letter to the local papers. His letter appears in both the Portsmouth Herald and Foster’s Daily Democrat, and I urge you to read it. As you’ll see, Dennis poses the question – based on his personal observations as a scuba diver – “Where have all the fish gone?” He notes significant and troubling changes, including “a huge decline in fish populations along our coast” in recent years, and “marked reductions” in critical habitat in the Great Bay estuary rendering it “largely inhospitable for fish to spawn.”

The changes Dennis describes are not easily evident viewing Great Bay from the shoreline, which is what makes his observations so important – observations that confirm the urgent need to reduce pollution in the Great Bay estuary before it’s too late.

As Dennis concludes:

“These changes negatively impact both the sport and commercial fishing industries and the recreational value of the Great Bay estuary and of our coast. We need to require that all of the municipalities upgrade their sewage treatment facilities to reduce nitrogen pollution before it is too late. We have an environmental catastrophe in the making.”

Again, I urge you to take a look at Dennis’s excellent letter as well as his underwater photography presented in the above slide show, as it provides a view of the Great Bay estuary that is largely invisible to so many of us.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Two years ago, Republicans dominated New Hampshire’s elections at every level, winning races for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, taking complete control of New Hampshire’s Executive Council, and locking up strong majorities in the state legislature.  On Tuesday, the political pendulum swung back in a way that is likely to end some unfortunate politics that have dominated the last two years, and to advance needed efforts to protect the health of New Hampshire’s environment and communities.

Democrat Maggie Hassan won the race for governor; Democrats Anne McLane Kuster  and Carol Shea-Porter won seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, making New Hampshire the first state in the Union to have an all-female Congressional delegation; the Executive Council shifted to a 3-to-2 Democratic majority; and Democrats reclaimed a majority in New Hampshire’s 400-seat House of Representatives and nearly drew even in the Senate.  (To learn more about changes in the state legislature, click here and here.)

So, what do these changes mean for the environment and the issues CLF is tackling in New Hampshire?

Clean Energy & Climate Change: At the state level, the last two years have been marked by aggressive efforts in the legislature to end New Hampshire’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or “RGGI,” and to preclude New Hampshire from participating in region-wide efforts to adopt clean-fuel standards aimed at reducing global warming pollution.  Governor-elect Hassan has made no secret of her support for RGGI, and a more balanced legislature should put an end to the sort of extreme, anti-science/anti-climate-change ideology that distracted the legislature – particularly NH’s House – over the past two years.  At the federal level, where Representative Charlie Bass has acknowledged the need for action on climate change and has on many occasions cast votes in support of renewable energy and protecting air quality, Representatives-elect Kuster and Shea-Porter will be allies in the effort to address the threats of global warming and to build a clean energy economy. (Click here to read about the recent Bass – Kuster debate and the candidates’ discussion of climate change.)

Northern Pass: Senators Shaheen and Ayotte, and Representative Bass, have continued to be proponents of a fair permitting process in the controversial Northern Pass project. We’ll be working hard to engage Representatives-elect Kuster and Shea-Porter and Governor-elect Hassan to build an even stronger voice for a fair permitting process – one that protects New Hampshire’s environment and secures a clean energy future for the Granite State.

Great Bay: In the past two years, Representative Frank Guinta has worked to undermine efforts to solve water pollution problems in the Great Bay estuary, going so far as to introduce legislation aimed at preventing EPA from issuing new permits to reduce nitrogen discharges, and politicizing the issue of nitrogen pollution – and EPA needed action – in a Congressional “field hearing” in Exeter. Representative-elect Shea-Porter, who has met with Great Bay stakeholders in the past, will provide a needed respite from such political theater.

The Capitol Corridor Rail Project: This year, New Hampshire’s Executive Council voted 3-2 (with Councilors Ray Burton and Ray Wieczorak in the minority) against receiving federal funds to study the re-establishment of train service from Boston to Concord, via Nashua and Manchester. Fortunately, the opportunity to accept these needed federal funds has not yet disappeared. The election of Debora Pignatelli, Chris Pappas and Colin Van Ostern – each of whom has been highly critical of the Executive Council’s vote to reject these funds – signals a bright future for getting the Capitol Corridor rail project back on track.

Stormwater continues to be a major source of pollution to the Great Bay estuary. When it rains, runoff carries a wide range of pollutants – from dog waste and lawn fertilizers, to gasoline and oil, to heavy metals, nutrients and sediments – that flow into our waters with little or no treatment.

To combat this pollution, the UNH Stormwater Center and other local groups are working with Seacoast communities to implement projects at a neighborhood level to reduce the flow of untreated stormwater reaching the estuary. While many of these projects are small in scope, they demonstrate the value of dealing with stormwater close to home. One of the most interesting approaches is based on a program that was developed in Maine.

In 2009, the Kennebunkport Conservation Commission, in partnership with the University of New England, the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and others, developed the Lawns for Lobsters program. The program’s goal is to educate homeowners on steps they can take to ensure a healthy lawn with minimal impact on the environment. The program was also recently renamed Lawns to Lobsters, giving greater emphasis on the flow of water from our lawns to the ocean.

Other communities are now adopting the program, including one in New Hampshire. New Castle, the only town in the state composed entirely of islands, covers approximately 500 acres and sits at the mouth of the Piscataqua River. With a residential population of slightly more than 1,000, the town’s Conservation Commission is committed to reducing the impacts from non-point sources of pollution and launched the Lawns to Lobsters program last summer.

Residents who want to participate in the program take a pledge to use sound stewardship principles in managing their own property. This includes testing the soil before using a fertilizer, applying the correct amount, and not applying fertilizer if rain is predicted in the next 48 hours. Other measures include keeping the grass at least three inches in length (tall grass needs less water), planting clover as a fertilizer substitute, properly disposing of dog waste, and using herbicides and insecticides sparingly. Homeowners also are asked to consider replacing all or part of their lawn with native plants.

Long term, the town wants to encourage citizens to install rain gardens and vegetative buffers as a way to prevent polluted runoff. In a compact community such as New Castle, all of these steps can add up and help to protect our waterways. You can read more about the New Castle Conservation Commission’s efforts to protect the Great Bay estuary here.

In partnership with the Great Bay Stewards and the NH Department of Environmental Services, we plan to launch a similar program for homeowners next spring. The program will be based on the Department’s Homeowner’s Guide to Stormwater Management. Stay tuned for more information!  In the meantime, there are lots of resources available to homeowners on how to install a rain garden. The University of NH Cooperative Extension Services offer an excellent guide called Landscaping at the Water’s Edge.

As Waterkeeper, I find it encouraging that New Castle is addressing the serious issue of stormwater pollution. We all need to work together to solve the problem. By becoming responsible homeowners, New Castle residents are taking an important first step.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

I love rivers.  In fact, I love all things water. And so today I’m celebrating the 40^th birthday of the Clean Water Act, perhaps America’s most effective and far-reaching environmental law.

I grew up on a farm in upstate New York and spent a lot of time stomping around in our ponds, streams, and wetlands catching frogs, listening to spring peepers, watching birds and muskrats and ermine. We fished whenever we could and had a family challenge about who would be the first in the water after ice-out in the spring and last out before (or after) the frost in the fall. We marked the seasons by the coming and going of the ice, by the water temperature in the ponds, and, in some years, watched anxiously as drought lowered water levels and put our water supplies at risk. All of this has led to a connection to waters that has infused my life, including my professional career.

One of my earliest memories from over 40 years ago and leading to my lifetime of advocacy for clean water is of my father taking me to the Cayadutta Creek in Fonda, New York to see the stream running bright red and foul from pollution from the tanneries in Gloversville and Johnstown. I was overwhelmed by the image of the creek flowing by as a river of blood. My dad fumed that creeks and rivers all over were being poisoned by such pollution.

Cuyahoga River Burns in 1969

So it’s not a surprise that my family watched the news with outrage as America was shown the image of the Cayahoga River in Ohio literally burning in 1969. Perhaps we were told at the time that the river had burned on nine occasions in the prior 100 years. But in any case, that fire became the symbol of unacceptable water pollution for us and for millions of Americans who called on Congress for action. It helped spur the first Earth Day in 1970, and thankfully, it contributed to the political urgency for passage of the Clean Water Act on October 18^th 1972, 40 years ago today.

Passage of the Clean Water Act by the United States Congress marked the end of an amazing political process. On this day 40 years ago with strong, bi-partisan votes in the House (247 yes and 23 no (with 160 not voting)) and Senate (52 to 12 (with 36 not voting)), Congress overrode the wrongheaded veto of the law by President Nixon. Many members of Congress from both parties voted yes, but just as significant were those that didn’t vote. By consciously withdrawing from the debate, many Republicans heeded the voices of their constituents, defied a President of their own party, and allowed the override votes to succeed.

What has been the result of this historic event? The Clean Water Act became law and much of the severe industrial and sewage pollution of our precious waters has been brought in check. The Cayadutta Creek no longer runs blood red, and the Cuyahoga has recovered to the point that it won’t catch fire. That is a 40^th birthday present that we all can enjoy.

But, it also raises the question: if the Cuyahoga were burning today, could we pass the Clean Water Act?

I like to think that Americans would pull together again and demand action. However, the reality is that we are now living with “dead zones” that are threatening our communities and industries in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, on Cape Cod, and in Lake Champlain. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ranges from 6-7000 square miles – bigger than the State of Connecticut! This is the result of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that is pouring into our waters from agriculture, lawn fertilizing, excessive development, and sewage discharges.

Blue-Green Algae Fouls Lake Champlain 2011

And, just two years ago, we all watched with horror, as the Gulf burned from the BP oil spill.

So, this 40^th birthday of the Clean Water Act should also serve as a reminder to us all that clean water is as important now as it ever has been and there is still much more to do.

Here at CLF, we have a long legacy of fighting for clean water across New England. CLF filed the Federal Court lawsuit that led to a clean Boston Harbor. We have held numerous polluters accountable for discharges into New England’s waterways. We stopped oil and gas drilling off of New England’s coasts.

Today, we are fighting to protect waters from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from Cape Cod to the Charles River, New Hampshire’s Great Bay to Long Island Sound, and from Narragansett Bay to Lake Champlain.  We are working with cities and towns to create green infrastructure that cleans up stormwater pollution and beautifies our communities.  All of our efforts are possible because of Congress’s action 40 years ago today.

Happy 40^th Birthday Clean Water Act!

Officials from Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester – in their continuing campaign to delay critically important pollution reductions in the Great Bay estuary – have put the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on notice that they intend to file suit over the nitrogen discharge levels being proposed in their wastewater treatment permits.

As part of this campaign of delay, these municipalities have already sued the NH Department of Environmental Services, claiming regulators cannot proceed with requiring certain nitrogen pollution reductions unless and until the State has first engaged in a formal rule-making process. Now, they intend to pursue a similar theory in federal court in a lawsuit against EPA.

This latest move comes on the heels of claims from these same officials that conditions in the Great Bay estuary are improving. Extracting data from the upcoming State of the Estuaries Report to be published by the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP), and selectively focusing on certain brief time periods, they are attempting to make the case that nitrogen levels are dropping and eelgrass beds are coming back. While variations from year to year can always be expected, the long-term trends have not changed. Total nitrogen loads remain higher than they were in the early 2000’s and eelgrass health continues to decline.

What is even more disturbing is the statement made by Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester officials that eelgrass coverage is on the “rebound in Great Bay and Little Bay.” In arguing that eelgrass conditions are improving, they rely heavily on so-called “eelgrass cover” data – data showing the spatial distribution of eelgrass. While data may show eelgrass cover increasing in some places in the estuary, this can actually be a sign of severe stress. When eelgrass beds are in decline, it is not uncommon for the surviving plants to send out lots of new shoots in attempt to re-establish the bed. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the new shoots will mature into reproducing adult plants.

Rather than eelgrass cover, eelgrass biomass – which measures the total plant density in a given area – is a much more reliable indicator of ecosystem health. Unfortunately, even though eelgrass cover may occasionally increase in some places, the total biomass of eelgrass in the estuary has decreased dramatically – from 1,807 metric tons in 1996 to 545 tons in 2011. That’s a seventy percent decrease in eelgrass biomass over the course of fifteen years. This unfortunate fact contrasts sharply with the picture of ecosystem health that certain municipal officials are trying to paint.

At a time when we need to be solving the serious pollution problems threatening the Great Bay estuary, it is discouraging to see officials from a small group of municipalities once again attempt to delay needed pollution reductions. One of their own attorneys has publicly acknowledged that a lawsuit against EPA is likely to cost several hundred thousand dollars. That’s on top of the over $800,000 Portsmouth, Dover, Rochester, Exeter and Newmarket (the so-called “Municipal Coalition”) have already spent trying to undermine and delay needed regulatory decision-making. Wouldn’t these funds be better spent reducing pollution from aging and outdated wastewater infrastructure?

Newmarket and Exeter, also members of the Municipal Coalition, have not joined Portsmouth, Dover and Rochester in this latest tactic against EPA and hopefully will decide that cleaning up the estuary is a far more important productive path to follow. Durham and Newington are working to implement constructive solutions to the problems facing the estuary. We hope the Municipal Coalition will follow their lead and end this campaign of delay.

As I drive around the Seacoast, I see a lot of people getting their driveways resealed. Perhaps people are anxious to get this done before the onset of winter. I wonder, though, if homeowners realize there are different types of sealcoats and that choosing the right one can help protect the environment and our health.

Most sealcoats are made of either an asphalt emulsion or a refined coal-tar pitch emulsion. Although the two sealcoats are similar in appearance and cost, coal-tar pitch sealers contain much higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, more commonly known as PAHs. Present in crude oil and diesel fuel, these organic compounds are known to cause cancer.  Incredibly, the concentrations of PAHs are up to 1,000 times higher in coal-tar-based sealcoats compared to asphalt sealers, posing a threat to fish and humans.

The UNH Stormwater Center has been studying the impact of coal-tar based sealcoats and found that soil at the edge of the pavement contained several hundred parts per million (ppm) of PAHs compared to less than 10 ppm where no sealcoat was applied.  Soil samples taken three years after the initial application remained high in PAHs. This means that dust from sealed pavements, with elevated levels of carcinogens, can track to areas like playgrounds and homes.

The presence of high PAH concentrations in your driveway pose a threat to your family’s health. Studies at the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health found that constant exposure to PAHs can affect cognitive development and cause asthma and other respiratory problems in children.

Toxic to aquatic life, the presence of PAHs is also on the rise in the sediments of Great Bay, adding yet another stress to the estuary and putting its health at risk. UNH researchers are currently trying to determine if sealants are the major source of PAHs to the estuary and hope to build a model that links the contaminant to its source.

Unlike many environmental choices, this one is fairly simple – avoid coal-tar based sealcoats in favor of asphalt-based ones or, better yet, no sealcoat at all. Home Depot and Lowes no longer sell coal-tar based sealcoats, but they are still available at some other retailers. You can tell if a product contains coal tar by looking at the materials list for words like “coal tar”, “refined coal”, “refined tar”, and “coal-tar pitch.” If you hire a commercial sealcoat company, insist they only use an asphalt-based sealer and only apply if the outside temperature is at least 60 degrees F, with no rain forecasted for at least two days after application.

Maintaining a driveway in New England is never easy. Constant freezing and thawing can lead to lots of cracks, often made worse by plowing, causing homeowners to protect their driveways by using a sealcoat every couple of years. However, proper repair of cracks in your driveway can delay and potentially avoid the need to sealcoat.

To repair driveway cracks, which can lead to pavement deterioration, homeowners typically use a cold asphalt patch to fill cracks. One new product now available is called GreenPatch, an environmentally friendly cold asphalt patch that does not contain petroleum based solvents. This makes GreenPatch a VOC compliant material that is healthier for your family.

As consumers, we are faced with many choices. If you are planning a new driveway, alternative surfaces such as gravel, concrete or porous pavement are great options as none of these require the use of sealants. Since most of us already have an asphalt driveway, the choice is even clearer – maintain your driveway to avoid the need to use sealants, and if sealants are necessary, never use a coal-tar based product

Scammell Bridge looking toward the Bellamy River.

There are seven rivers that drain into the Great Bay estuary, carrying freshwater runoff – as well as pollutants – from 52 communities including 10 in Maine. The Bellamy River, which flows into Little Bay, originates from Swains Lake in Barrington and flows east through the Bellamy Reservoir in Madbury and then through the City of Dover. Seacoast residents might be most familiar with the mouth of the Bellamy, which flows under the Scammell Bridge on Route 4.

Even though I have been working in the Great Bay estuary for nearly twenty-five years, I had never actually been on the river. Last week, I finally got that chance and was amazed by the lack of development along the shoreline. Starting from Little Bay, we cruised all the way to the former Sawyer Woolen Mills in Dover. Other than the occasional truck noise from nearby Spaulding Turnpike that runs parallel to the river, the Bellamy offers one of the best wilderness experiences in all of Great Bay.

Wildlife is abundant along the river, in part due to the presence of two large preserves. Located near the mouth of the Bellamy and Royalls Cove is the Bellamy River Wildlife Sanctuary.  Owned and managed by New Hampshire Audubon, the Sanctuary consists of twenty six acres of prime wildlife habitat. To learn more about the Sanctuary, visit the NH Audubon web site.  For a more detailed description of the hiking trails available, go to Hike New England.

Just above the NH Audubon Sanctuary is the Bellamy River Wildlife Management Area (WMA), managed by the NH Fish and Game Department. The area was acquired in early 1990’s using State land protection funds and protects 400 acres of tidal creeks, wetlands, woodlands and fields. Common wildlife found here are deer, pheasant, bobolinks, meadowlarks and waterfowl. You can learn about hiking opportunities by visiting the Fish and Game website.

Fall is the perfect time to hike all of the protected lands around Great Bay including the two areas above. The Scammell Bridge is also a popular fishing spot for local anglers. However, if you really want to enjoy the abundant birdlife along the Bellamy, I would recommend kayaking the tidal portion of the river.

You can leave right from the Scammell Bridge Access Point. You can park on the north side of Route 4 and from here head up river.  In addition to great blue herons, you can expect to see lots of other bird species especially as fall migration season begins in September. Keep in mind to always check the tides when kayaking in the estuary. The Bellamy River is best enjoyed at high tide providing easy access to the numerous tidal creeks found along the way.

Exploring the Bellamy reminded me why Great Bay is such a special place. As the overall health of the estuary continues to decline, we need to protect this remarkable resource for future generations. To learn more about my efforts to help rescue Great Bay from further decline, click here. You can also sign our online petition to support clean water in the estuary.

An algae bloom in the Winnicut River, NH. Photo by Peter Wellenberger.

A week ago I had the pleasure of attending an event to celebrate the restoration of a tidal river. The Winnicut River – primarily located in Greenland, NH – is now the only dam-free river in the Great Bay estuary. Thanks to the hard work of the Winnicut River Watershed Coalition and numerous state and federal agencies, the project includes a new fish passage and, in addition to the dam removal, a restored shoreline.

Despite being a beautiful July summer day, the event was marred by one distinct image. The free-flowing river now supports a large area of abnormal algae growth – the direct result of excessive nutrients. Standing on the water’s edge, it was impossible to miss the mat of green slime. This certainly put a damper on the celebration.

The Winnicut River is not the only site in the estuary where algae is now taking over. Large mats of macroaglae can be found in the Lubberland Creek area, and algae has been taking over places where eelgrass – the ecological cornerstone of the estuary – historically grew. However, the Winnicut River provides a valuable lesson that despite our best efforts, the Great Bay estuary faces the risk of further degradation that could lead to a collapse of its sensitive ecosystem. Our only option is to invest in the needed improvements to our infrastructure to dramatically reduce the amount of nitrogen pollution from wastewater treatment plants and stormwater.

This is why it’s so important to build a stronger voice for the estuary, and why I’ve been working so hard to build the Rescue Great Bay coalition. In a previous blog, I discussed the formation of this new collaboration – at that time consisting of eight founding members: the NH chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, the NH Coastal Protection Partnership, the Great Bay chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Town of Newington, the Winnicut River Watershed Coalition, the NH Rivers Council, EcoMovement, and CLF’s Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper.  I’m pleased to say that in the last month alone, six more organizations have joined the effort – the Great Bay Stewards, New Hampshire Audubon, the Exeter-Squamscott Local Advisory Committee, the Lamprey River Watershed Association, the Oyster River Watershed Association, and Green Power Management Holdings, Inc. of Newmarket, NH.

As Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, I’m pleased to serve as the lead for Rescue Great Bay. We are building a common voice for Great Bay to educate the public about the need for immediate action to clean up the estuary. Everyone has who has joined the group understands what is at stake – the longer we wait to take corrective actions, the more the estuary is at risk.

Part of our effort is to show that the public cares about the Great Bay estuary and wants to see meaningful action.  Toward that end, we now have a “Rescue Great Bay” petition that hundreds of people throughout the Seacoast have signed.  It reads:

“We, the undersigned, believe that clean water and a healthy Great Bay estuary are essential to the quality of life in New Hampshire’s Seacoast region and southern Maine.

“We also recognize that the health of the Great Bay estuary is in decline as a result of  water pollution from sewage treatment plants and stormwater runoff.

           “We understand that public investments will be necessary to clean up the Great Bay estuary and keep it healthy now and for future generations, and we support prompt action to reduce water pollution in accordance with the full protections of the Clean Water Act, including the most stringent limits on nitrogen – the pollutant of greatest concern – from NH and Maine sewage treatment plants affecting the estuary.”

Sign The Petition Here

From Market Square Day in Portsmouth, to other events, it’s been great to engage concerned citizens with this petition, and to see how strongly people feel about protecting the estuary.  If you have not already signed, I urge you to do so by clicking here, where you’ll find an online version of the petition. Please also consider forwarding  the link below to your friends and neighbors and anyone else who cares about the future of this remarkable resource.

Let’s put an end to the sort of water quality problems I saw in the Winnicut River, before it’s too late. Together we can help ensure a cleaner and healthier future for the Great Bay estuary.

Sign The Petition Here