On Thursday, February 9, the EPA is holding a public hearing on a new Clean Water Act discharge permit for the City of Dover’s sewage treatment plant. The hearing involves a decision that will be critical to the health of the Great Bay estuary. We urge all who care about the future health of the estuary to attend. The hearing takes place at 7:00 pm in the McConnell Center located at 61 Locust Street (Room 306).

The proposed permit contains important new wastewater discharge limits needed to control the single greatest threat to the Great Bay estuary: water pollution caused by excess nitrogen. You can learn more about problems associated with nitrogen pollution and eelgrass loss, and the need to reduce pollution from sewage treatment plants, at our Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper website.

CLF strongly supports the draft permit’s important provisions addressing nitrogen pollution, and we commend EPA for taking this essential step toward restoring the estuary’s health. As the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, I encourage you to attend the Dover public hearing and voice your support for these needed protections.

The Great Bay estuary is a natural treasure that is intractably linked to the local economy and culture of the Seacoast region. Please join me in the effort to save this critical resource. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, please contact me so I can share with you other opportunities to protect the estuary.

Thank you for standing up for the future health and protection of the Great Bay estuary!

For additional information about the Waterkeeper, visit us on our website or Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Me on a recent beautiful day on the Great Bay estuary.

I’m thrilled to be launching an important and much needed effort to restore and protect the health of our treasured Great Bay estuary: CLF’s new Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper program.

As the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, I’ll be devoting all my time and effort to protecting this remarkable water resource – a resource that is threatened by pollution and deserves all the attention it can get. It’s a place I’ve come to know well through 20 years of managing the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and by living in nearby Newmarket. The threats to the Bay have never been clearer, the opportunity to fix them never greater.

The objective of the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper program is to work for and protect the health of the waters making up the Great Bay estuary – our major bays (Great Bay and Little Bay), our tidal rivers (the Piscataqua, Salmon Falls, Cocheco, Bellamy, Oyster, Lamprey, Squamscott and Winnicut Rivers), and our wonderful harbors and creeks (Portsmouth and Little Harbor; Spinney, Spruce and Sagamore Creeks). Each of these water bodies, on their own, is an important natural resource. Together, they comprise a remarkable and rich ecosystem that is under threat..

Population growth, sprawl, and outdated water infrastructure are all contributing to the decline of the Great Bay estuary. Pollution levels have increased, leading to the loss of critical habitat within the estuary. Reversing these trends will require a multi-pronged approach including: the need to invest in improved  infrastructure, such as sewage treatment plants; innovative approaches to reducing existing stormwater pollution; and better planning to prevent future sprawl development and the water pollution it causes.

My work as the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper will include:

• advocating for needed policies and compliance with environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act,
• working with scientists and the many stakeholders involved in efforts related to the Great Bay estuary, and
• keeping a watchful eye on waters within the estuary.

Most importantly, I look forward to building a much stronger public voice for the estuary. Just as there are many people and organizations that care about the health and future of the Great Bay estuary, there are many more people who will care, and lend their voices to protecting this amazing water resource, once they learn more about the threats it’s facing. It’s my goal to grow the chorus of concerned citizens about our Great Bay.

I first learned about Great Bay 40 years ago as an undergraduate at the University of New Hampshire. I quickly fell in love with its beauty and richness and worked with others to reject the proposal by Aristotle Onassis to build the world’s largest oil refinery on the shores of Great Bay. These efforts led to the creation of the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve – a Reserve I had the privilege to manage for more than 20 years, from its inception in 1990 to 2011.They were rich, wonderful years that provided me the opportunity to work with a wide diversity of dedicated individuals committed to saving this very special place.

Having worked on Great Bay matters for more than two decades, I am deeply concerned about the declining health of the estuary. Just as its threats are many, so too are multiple solutions are needed. We’re all in this together; only through greater public action can we protect the valuable ecological, recreational and cultural benefits of this remarkable resource. It’s a major challenge, but it’s one I welcome working on with you.

Please contact me with questions or concerns about the Great Bay estuary (603.498.3545, or pwellenberger@clf.org), and stay informed about my work by visiting www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper.

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.

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

On November 15, 2011, CLF led a coalition of 14 other environmental groups in sending a letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency that called for swift implementation of permit controls at a Massachusetts facility that is discharging directly into the Blackstone River.

The coalition letter was written in response to a July 20, 2011 letter sent by the Massachusetts’s Department of Environmental Protection in which the MADEP asked EPA to consider delaying the installation of new permit controls at the Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District (UBWPAD). MADEP argued that the delay would allow for further study of the river before we ask the UBWPAD to install costly new controls. CLF and the other signatories to the letter argued that any additional delay will further degrade the water quality of the Blackstone, and will also be  contrary to the permit requirements established by the Clean Water Act. A copy of the letter can be found here.

Every day, the UBWPAD discharges as much as 56 million gallons of wastewater into the Blackstone River. This is not the time, or the place, for delay. We’ve studied the river to death.  Now we have to begin protecting it.

The litigation deciding where the permit limits for nitrogen and phosphorous discharges at the UPWPAD should be set will be decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit before the summer of 2012.  Oral argument is set for this coming January. Stay tuned for an update – we’ll provide you one here on CLF Scoop.

Zak Griefen

CLF is pleased to welcome Zak Griefen, a Vermont native and former litigator for Cheney, Brock and Saudek, in the newly created role of environmental enforcement litigator. Based in CLF’s Vermont office, but working on cases throughout New England, Zak will be focused initially on cleaning up our region’s inland and coastal waters by ensuring that polluters are aware of their Clean Water Act permitting requirements and bringing federal litigation when necessary. The environmental enforcement litigator position was created to hold polluters accountable for the violations of environmental regulations—Clean Water Act and others—that are rampant across New England, compromising our region’s health and the health and safety of our citizens.

Zak has a BA from the University of New Mexico, and earned his JD, cum laude, and Master of Studies in Environmental Law, magna cum laude, from Vermont Law School in 2005, where he was an editor of the Vermont Law Review. Admitted to practice in VT and MA, he served for two years as clerk to the judges of the Vermont Environmental Court, and then practiced civil litigation in Montpelier, where he lives with his wife and two children. Zak, who served as a summer intern at CLF in 2004, is an avid angler and is particularly interested in protecting healthy streams and promoting sustainable land use.

This is the fifth and last post in our Shark Week Series. Happy Shark Week, everyone!

Many rational people are very afraid of sharks. We can tell ourselves that the odds of attack are extremely low, especially in New England, but the primal image of the gaping maw and jagged teeth is hard to drive away with logic. As David Ropeik points out in his thought-provoking book, How Risky Is It, Really?, a risk feels bigger if you think it can happen to you, regardless of the odds. Sharks attacks are easy to imagine. However, if you look at the numbers, you should be way more worried about the drive to the beach, or lightning. The odds of death by shark each year in the U.S. are 1 in 3,748,067. You are way more likely to die from a dog attack. Here are some other things that are deadlier than a shark:

• Car accident – you have a 1 in 84 chance of dying in a car crash each year
• Death by sun/heat exposure – 1 in 13,729 per year
• Death by fireworks – 1 in 340,733 per year

I do worry about sharks. Almost anyone who spends time in the ocean thinks about them. But I worry a lot more about getting sick from polluted water.

Potentially harmful bacterial pollution enters our coastal environment in partially or untreated wastewater and stormwater, in septic and cesspool waste, and from animal waste on or near beaches. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, illnesses caused by recreational use of contaminated water are on the increase. For the fifth year in a row, beach closure or advisory days in 2010 topped 24,000 nationally, the majority which are due to bacterial contamination. Swimming in pathogen-contaminated water can result in respiratory infections, pink eye, stomach flu and many other health problems.

Many popular beaches have water-testing programs to help keep swimmers safe, but the testing is generally not daily, and the results are not “real time.” It’s a good idea to avoid the water during or after a storm, when bacteria levels are likely to be higher, since some of our stormwater is untreated. Worse still, many towns and cities in New England have antiquated Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) systems that are designed to release untreated sewage and stormwater into our rivers and oceans during storms. Some beaches close down as a result of storms, without even being tested, if it is known that CSOs will be flowing into the water. Fortunately, some CSOs are being upgraded and eliminated. But for now, there is still a very real risk of illness from swimming in contaminated water.

There is risk in everything we do. I’m willing to risk an encounter with one of the “Men in Gray Suits” if it means I get to keep surfing. But I’m going to be very careful about swimming in polluted water.

My point is not that we should be too afraid to enjoy our amazing beaches and ocean life. But, that we should work to protect them. Join CLF in advocating for our National Ocean Policy, in protecting the Clean Water Act, and in ensuring we leave a legacy of protecting these special places.

Cynthia Liebman is a staff attorney at CLF Massachusetts. (Photo credit: Leslie Boudreau)

The most expensive stormwater runoff problem to fix is the one that’s not addressed. That’s the first point CLF Massachusetts Staff Attorney Cynthia Liebman makes in this smart letter to the editor published yesterday in the MetroWest Daily News. The letter is in response to the paper’s July 26 article stating that officials in the town of Milford, MA are considering suing EPA over the costs of EPA’s proposed regulations to clean up toxic stormwater runoff.

“Toxic algae blooms and other symptoms of pollution from paved areas undermine the clean water and recreational opportunities that make our towns desirable places to live, visit, and do business,” she writes. “EPA’s new pollution control program in the communities that discharge into the Charles River and its feeder streams provides more equitable cost sharing than the status quo.” More >

Last night, I sought refuge from the oppressive heat by taking a long swim in the cool, clean water of our local lake.  Families and young children packed the shallows where they found relief from record-breaking temperatures.  Floating along in this happy summer scene, I could not help but think of how fortunate we are to live in a country where our laws recognize that our happiness, our safety, and our economy depend on our ability to keep our water clean.

Thanks to the Clean Water Act, many waters are safe for swimming. Call your Senators to let them know you support this important law and want to ensure that all of our waters are safe for swimming, drinking, and fishing before it's too late.

In many places across the nation, the freedom to swim safely on a hot summer day was only a dream a generation ago when raw sewage and industrial pollution choked our nation’s waters.  Without the pollution controls and infrastructure investments required by the Clean Water Act and the work of groups like CLF to ensure that the law was being followed over the last forty years, water that is “drinkable, fishable, and swimmable” would still be beyond the reach of most Americans. Yet there remain many rivers, lakes, and bays from New England to the Gulf of Mexico and beyond where the Clean Water Act’s promise of water safe for recreation, drinking, and wildlife conservation have yet to be fulfilled.

POLLUTION CAN MAKE YOU “DEATHLY SICK”

Earlier this month, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe–one of the most anti-environmental members of Congress–received a stark reminder of how the dream of a swim on a hot summer day can quickly become a nightmare when we don’t have enough clean water.  Inhofe reported getting “deathly sick” from an upper respiratory illness he contracted when he swam in Oklahoma’s Grand Lake during a recent blue-green algae bloom caused by the combination of excess pollution and extreme heat. Fortunately, his 13 year-old granddaughter had the good sense not to join him in the illness-inducing swim.

Despite searing heat, swimmers stayed out of the slime-coated waters of Lake Champlain's St. Albans Bay most of last summer. Earlier this month, the Vermont Health Department warned swimmers about blue-green algae blooms that have appeared in the Bay again this summer.

From Vermont’s Lake Champlain to Cape Cod to Rhode Island’s Narragansett Bay and in many lakes, rivers, and streams along the way, pollution from poorly-treated human waste and dirty runoff from streets, parking lots, and agricultural operations is feeding the growth of harmful blue-green algae of the sort that made Senator Inhofe feel “deathly sick.”  Added runoff from extreme rainfall events and hotter temperatures caused by global warming, will require even stronger clean water restoration and protection measures as we adapt in a changed climate.

THE CLEAN WATER ACT IS UNDER ATTACK

Sadly, some in Congress are attacking the EPA and the Clean Water Act, cynically attempting to free polluters of accountability under the false claim that pollution control is bad for the economy.  Click here to read about some of the “dirty water” bills being pushed through Congress by the Tea Party and some powerful Democrats who are in the pocket of the coal companies.

Twenty-eight years ago, the heavily-polluted Boston Harbor beaches were the poster children for the unfulfilled goals of the Clean Water Act.  Using enforcement tools under the Clean Water Act, CLF and U.S. EPA forced the beginning of a cleanup effort that many an overheated Bostonian can be grateful for as they head to the water this summer. The tremendous economic development that has occurred on the Boston waterfront as the water became cleaner is powerful proof that the Clean Water Act is a responsible and balanced tool for achieving many of society’s goals.  CLF and EPA are continuing the work under the Clean Water Act to ensure that Boston Harbor beaches remain safe for swimming and that citizens in upstream communities along the Charles, Mystic, and Neponset Rivers enjoy the same freedom to boat and swim without fear of becoming sick from pollution.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

As the U.S. Senate starts to consider the “dirty water” bills coming from the House, Senators are faced with a clear choice.  You can make a difference by calling or emailing your Senator and urging them to reject attempts to gut the Clean Water Act and weaken the EPA. Click here to find the phone number or email address for your Senator.  Join CLF in speaking up for clean water before it’s too late.