In 2010, CLF and three other Massachusetts conservation groups walked away from water policy discussions, terminally frustrated that the talks would produce any meaningful change that would stem the increasing trend of streams being drawn dry by public and private water suppliers.  To his credit, Governor Patrick encouraged us to come back to the table with a promise that the fundamental protection for fish provided under the water supply law, the so-called “safe yield” limit, would be interpreted by the state to protect fish populations.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has now released the long-awaited fruits of those renewed discussions: the “Sustainable Water Management Initiative” Framework. The Commonwealth promotes this initiative, called SWMI, as a “substantial improvement” on the regulatory framework for providing for essential public water supply services while protecting the Commonwealth’s freshwater fish and other aquatic populations. But is it? What benefits does SWMI produce over current conditions? Does this effort still fall short of the Governor’s promise?

On the positive side, SWMI vaults Massachusetts into the forefront in the country in my opinion with respect to its knowledge base of its rivers and streams. The state’s partnership here with the U.S. Geological Survey has produced a set of stream and stream flow analytical tools and a streams data base that allow the state to understand the ecological impacts of various flow regimes  in a stream, very close to the gold standard.

Similarly, Massachusetts regulators and biologists are now much better informed on the risk to wildlife and river ecosystems associated with water withdrawals for water supplies. It turns out that these aquatic biological communities are much more sensitive to stream flow fluctuations than previously assumed. While this linkage might have been qualitatively suspected before, the last two years of analytical work have now unequivocally quantified that fragile connection.

Massachusetts also has demonstrated through this process that it has some remarkable and dedicated public employees who performed the work with the highest level of professional skill. The Commonwealth is in very good hands at a technical level.

Finally, this initiative will help ensure that some of the highest quality streams in the Commonwealth will be protected to a greater degree than they are today against degradation. While the additional levels of protection will depend on the regulations that are ultimately passed and the implementation of those regulations by the agency, SWMI will provide another level of protection to those near-pristine stream segments.

Where the technical side of SWMI is robust and innovative, however, the policy side of SWMI is compromised and unlikely to produce significant ecological protection in more heavily impacted stream segments or restore stream flows to rivers that are currently being drawn dry by water supply withdrawals.

The “safe yield” tool in SWMI, which the Governor Patrick assured us would include an environmental protection factor, doesn’t really protect the environment. “Safe yield” is a stream flow calculation that is meant to set a maximum amount of water that can be diverted from a water source without adversely affected native biota.

SWMI throws out this tool as a regulatory limit for all practical purposes in many rivers including, for example the Ipswich River, an important water body that water suppliers drain every year in the summer. This results from the fact that SWMI averages the safe yield calculation over the whole watershed and on an annual basis. Because this averaging includes the late winter and spring floods, it shows high levels of safe yield even when a river is going dry in August.  It just isn’t a protective approach in any sense.

SWMI and the Commonwealth rely on other tools and regulatory tactics to avoid this result by requiring water suppliers to minimize their adverse stream impacts “to the maximum extent practicable.” The policy also goes to great length to protect water allocations from the 1980’s when the water supply law was first passed. There is nothing in the law that requires this continued grandfathering of water withdrawals in situations where there is harm to streams and such an outcome is just not good enough.

Massachusetts is fortunate to have abundant natural water supplies, receiving some 44 inches on average a year–Los Angeles gets about 10-11 inches. There is no real conflict between essential water services and healthy stream flows in Massachusetts that cannot be technically solved at reasonable costs. Unfortunately, however, while the framework may drive water use down, SWMI seems to reduce rather than increase the incentives water suppliers and municipalities have to use water smarter. All CLF can do at this point is wait to see whether the Commonwealth demonstrates through its implementation of SWMI that CLF’s concerns are misplaced.

MassDEP and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs worked hard to find a path forward that municipalities and conservationists could both embrace. And the answers, needless to say, are not easy. The politics of water supply in Massachusetts are complex and often confrontational as they are in most states. Nevertheless, we had hoped for more for the Commonwealth’s rivers and streams.

Today,  Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke made the decision to reject Governor Patrick’s request for emergency action to increase catch limits for Massachusetts fishermen, in violation of the groundfish management plan that CLF helped to pass, which has been in effect since May 2010 and was helping to create positive, sustainable change in the state’s fisheries. Several weeks ago, the Governor petitioned Secretary Locke to declare a state of economic emergency in Massachusetts fisheries and was supporting a lawsuit that challenged the plan, putting fish and fishermen at risk.

“With his decision to reject Governor Patrick’s request to increase catch limits, Secretary Locke has rightly rejected the notion that the new fisheries management plan is contributing to an economic crisis in the Massachusetts fishery,” said CLF Senior Counsel Peter Shelley. “On the contrary, fishing industry revenues in Massachusetts are up 21.9 percent over 2009 in just the first seven months under the new “catch shares” management system.  The Governor’s demand for emergency action was more politics than economics.” Read more >

Patrick Administration offshore wind expert Greg Watson with an artist's rendering of the future wind blade/turbine port facility. (Photo credit: Sue Reid)

At an event Wednesday afternoon in New Bedford, Governor Patrick, Congressman Frank, Mayor Lang, Secretary Bowles, Senator Montigny, DOER Commissioner Phil Giudice and a host of other local, state and federal officials together announced that New Bedford’s South Terminal will be developed as a deepwater port to serve the Cape Wind project and other offshore wind projects to follow.

Congressman Frank at the podium. (Photo credit: Sue Reid)

It was a rare chance to celebrate the progress that has been made in bringing the nation’s first offshore wind project to fruition after so many years.  And it was striking to see longshoremen side-by-side with electrical workers, environmental advocates, renewable energy industry stakeholders, politicians and former politicians, such as former New Bedford Mayor John Bullard who long has championed the benefits of wind power — on land and offshore alike. The key message of the day was hammered home by speakers who highlighted the New Bedford wind port as a compelling example of the sort of convergence between economic and environmental objectives that we all seek.  Exactly.

Read more about CLF’s work on Cape Wind and other renewable energy initiatives at clf.org>>

Massachusetts State House in downtown Boston.

Last night, in keeping with the long and rich tradition of Massachusetts political debate, the candidates in this fall’s gubernatorial election appeared at Boston’s Old South Meeting House to discuss the most pressing environmental issues facing the Commonwealth. Several hundred people attended the Gubernatorial Forum on Energy and the Environment, which was sponsored by CLF and a coalition of other local environmental organizations. Governor Deval Patrick (Democrat), Dr. Jill Stein (Green-Rainbow Party), State Treasurer Tim Cahill (Independent) and State Representative Brad Jones (appearing as a representative for Republican Charlie Baker’s campaign) appeared in succession, each presenting opening remarks and then answering questions from panelists and audience members. The forum was moderated by George Bachrach, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, and panelists included Beth Daley of the Boston Globe and Steve Curwood of Public Radio’s “Living on Earth.”

Governor Deval Patrick appeared first, highlighting his administration’s environmental achievements on climate change mitigation and land conservation, among other programs, and voicing his continued support for the Cape Wind project to put offshore wind turbines in the Nantucket Sound. Dr. Jill Stein spoke next, presenting herself as a Beacon Hill outsider and charging the current administration with not taking sufficiently strong action on issues such as greenhouse gas reduction and funding for environmental programs. Treasurer Tim Cahill took the podium third and struck an honest tone, explaining that while his lack of party affiliation would allow him to consider all sides of a debate, in a conflict between protecting the environment and growing the economy, he would take a pro-growth stance. Finally, Rep. Brad Jones appeared on behalf of Republican candidate Charlie Baker, who was absent due to a prior commitment. The audience was keen to hear Rep. Jones’s response to questions about Baker’s previous remarks that some interpreted as skeptical of climate change. Rep. Jones explained that while Baker does not believe he has the technical knowledge to discuss the science of climate change, he does support renewable energy projects.

The overtones of a struggling economy were heard throughout the forum as candidates disucssed such issues as green jobs, a dwindling state budget, and of course, the economic viability of renewable energy. While Governor Patrick defended his decision to offer tax incentives to companies to create green jobs, Dr. Stein argued that the money spent on tax breaks should instead be used to close the funding gap for state environmental programs. While the Governor discussed the future economic and environmental benefits of Cape Wind, Treasurer Cahill declared offshore wind to be a prohibitively expensive technology.

The audience, for its part, was respectful but responsive, asking detailed questions and frequently interrupting candidates’ statements with supportive applause. While the event was capped at two hours, there’s no doubt that it could have gone on much longer. All in all, it was a successful airing of the candidates’ environmental views. Thanks to the groups, candidates, moderator, and panelists who made it possible and to all of the concerned citizens who attended the event!

Click here to watch video clips, courtesy of ELM.