By now, you’ve heard about Governor LePage’s regulatory “reform” proposals that threaten to dismantle four decades of sound environmental regulations and put Maine’s environment and economy at risk.

CLF is already hard at work evaluating these “reform” proposals and their sources, and has submitted a formal request under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act for the documents, communications and other materials that served as the basis for this proposal.  CLF is ready to work with the new administration to create proposals that make existing regulations and institutions more efficient; however, we are also prepared to hold the LePage administration legally accountable for the changes they propose to implement.

Here’s how you can help:

1. Attend a Hearing

The LePage administration is moving quickly to codify the proposals with a public hearing on LD 1, the vehicle for making these concepts law.  Come stand with CLF and our allies to support Maine’s environment and voice your opposition to these “reforms” by attending the public hearing on LD 1 on Monday, February 14 at 9 a.m. at the State House in Augusta, at which the Joint Standing Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform will take testimony on the Governor’s proposals.

Public Hearing on Governor LePage’s Regulatory Reform Proposals
Monday, February 14 at 9 a.m.
Maine State House
100 State House Station
Cross Building, Room 208
Augusta, ME 04333

Stand with CLF and tell the Governor that his proposals will:

• Threaten Maine’s economy by endangering the natural resources that bring businesses and tourists to Maine from all over the globe and $10 billion annually;
• Eliminate environmental safeguards that have been in place for decades to ensure clean air, clean water and a clean food supply;
• Endanger the health of all Maine residents;
• Perpetuate our dependence on oil; and
• Tear down the solid regulatory foundation that benefits every family and business in Maine.

2. Send a message to the LePage Administration

If you are unable to attend the hearing, you can submit your comments online to Governor LePage and the committee chairs for the Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform.

Protect Maine. Tell Governor LePage and the committee chairs, Senator Jonathan Courtney and Representative Jonathan McCain, that these proposed “reforms” will threaten the future of the Maine we know and love.

Want to learn more? Check out what CLF Maine director Sean Mahoney had to say on the subject in this Solve Climate News article.

Any doubts that Maine’s new Governor Paul LePage is intent on rolling back decades of environmental protections were put to rest this week with the release of Phase 1 of the governor’s regulatory “reform” (rollback) proposals. The proposals are sweeping in nature, including:

• Requiring at least  3 million acres in the North Woods be zoned for development without any of the current protections against sprawl;
• Weakening the legal standard for reviewing decisions by agency professionals;
• Repealing the requirement that used hypodermic needles be shredded before disposal.

CLF has decried the proposals, as have the Natural Resources Council of Maine, Environment Maine and the Maine League of Conservation Voters, who called them “reckless and appalling.” The Bangor Daily News summed it up well in the title of its January 25 editorial, “Moving Maine Backward.”

The proposals focus extensively on the Department of Environmental Protection and the laws and regulations it is responsible for implementing. For instance, the governor proposes to abolish sound recycling policies, reverse a ban on the toxic, cancer-causing chemical BPA, remove a minimum penalty amount for violators of environmental laws, allow construction in sensitive sand dunes, and weaken water quality measures.

As the Environmental Roundtable should have made clear to the governor last week, a healthy environment protected by science-based rules and regulation is treasured by the people of Maine and essential to the state’s economic future.  But apparently this governor has not yet figured out that he governs for all the people of Maine (and not just the 38% of the voting population who supported him) and that he certainly has not been given a mandate to dismantle four decades  of sound environmental regulations.  The proposals are clearly the wish list of a few select special interest groups that have dominated  this new administration.

The proposals will be the foundation for the series of public meetings being held by the Legislature’s Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform, the first of which was held earlier this week in Presque Isle, and will be the basis for the first bill of the session, LD1, “An Act to Ensure Regulatory Fairness and Reform.”

People who care about Maine’s environment, who understand that a strong and healthy environment is necessary for a strong and healthy economy, need to stand up and make their voices heard by the governor.  Phone calls, letters, emails to the governor’s office and to legislative leaders are critical, as is a strong turnout at the remainder of the regulatory reform hearings.  Before this train leaves the station, we need to do all we can to try and keep it from going off the rails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s say you are a state agency tasked with making a tough choice on how to spend your money.  Your options are:

a.      Spend $150 million on widening 9 miles of highway despite the fact that volume has waned;

b.      Spend $56 million on building another toll booth;

c.       Spend $3.8 million on expanding an existing, highly successful bus service that will benefit thousands of commuters.

Did I mention that you have to do this all while complying with a state law that requires you to give preference to existing systems and other transportation modes (such as bus transit) prior to increasing highway capacity through road building activities?   The obvious answer here is (c), expanding bus service, specifically the ZOOM bus service that is operated by the Maine Turnpike Authority.

Currently, the ZOOM bus runs a limited service between Portland, Biddeford and Saco.  The primary hubs are Park & Ride lots, if you’ve driven by those lots, you will see they are chock full.  Those crammed lots are a glowing testament to the resounding success of the ZOOM.

In an effort to build on that success, last year the Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation approached the Authority to see if it would consider expanding the bus service up to Lewiston and Augusta.  Along the way, West Falmouth, Gray, Sabbatus and Auburn would finally get much needed access to public transit.  But the Authority remained convinced that answers (a) and (b) were right.   After all, highway widening remains a popular solution to just about any transportation problem, despite the fact that, time after time, massive multi-million dollar widening projects only result in more traffic and more congestion. [the fact is, these roads never pay for themselves via tolls or otherwise.]

Does Portland really need another highway widening?

No, and the numbers prove it:

But transit advocates, CLF among them, were not dissuaded.   We found a savvy supporter in Representative Bradley Moulton, a newly elected Republican, who decided to sponsor the ZOOM bus bill, known formally as “An Act to Expand Fiscally Responsible Transportation Through Increased ZOOM Bus Service.”

And fiscally responsible it is.  Not only for the average commuter struggling with rising gas prices, but in the broader context of how Maine decides to spend money on transportation.  The days of subsidized highway widening projects are over.  With the fiscal belt tightening, now is a good time to make some smart decisions on transit.  The ZOOM bus goes a long way towards accomplishing that goal.

CLF intervened today in proceedings regarding the proposed Northern Pass electricity supply and transmission project in New Hampshire. The proposed project, which involves creating 180 miles of new transmission lines in the state and installing new transmission infrastructure in the White Mountain National Forest, is intended to import 1,200 megawatts (MW) of electricity generated in Canada by Hydro-Quebec, the Canadian public utility. If constructed, the project would have significant impacts on New Hampshire communities and the environment.

CONCORD, NH  December 16, 2010 – The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) intervened today in the Presidential Permit proceeding recently initiated by the U.S. Department of Energy, for the proposed Northern Pass electricity supply and transmission project.  The proposed project – involving 180 miles of new transmission lines in New Hampshire – is intended to import 1,200 MW of electricity generated by Hydro-Quebec, in Canada.

“This project could profoundly affect New Hampshire’s energy future,” said Jonathan Peress, director of CLF’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program.  “It remains to be seen whether it will help or hinder our efforts in New Hampshire and New England to achieve necessary greenhouse gas reductions and develop a clean energy economy.  Unfortunately, the application is more noteworthy for what it omits, rather than the sparse information it provides.”

The proposed project would include the construction of new transmission corridor in northern-most New Hampshire, as well as the installation of new transmission infrastructure through the White Mountain National Forest. Read more>>

Recent headlines over a strategically thinking Bald Eagle in Wiscasset brought a wry smile to my face because this bird somehow managed to undo what dozens of fiscally prudent Mainers have been unable to do for the last decade: stop the DOT.

It is only with a modicum of irony that it took the American Bald Eagle, our symbol of freedom, to loosen the shackles of an oppressive, fiscally irresponsible DOT plan to build the Wiscasset Bypass.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with Wiscasset’s seasonal traffic congestion, let me paint the scene:  let’s say you are “from away” and traveling to Midcoast Maine.  You are heading north on I-295 and you see a sign that says “Coastal Route”, doesn’t that sound charming?  “Let’s take that route!” exclaim the passengers in your car, and so you dutifully exit.  You are cruising along, everything is fine, and you soon approach the town of Wiscasset that declares itself to be “The Prettiest Little Village in Maine.”  Lovely!  You make a few winding turns, catch a glimpse of the water through some Victorian homes, your expectations soar and then suddenly you find yourself in a bit of traffic.  Maybe there was a fender bender, no one is moving.  You inch forward after a few minutes. 17 minutes and 43 seconds go by.  Still stuck.  You move agonizingly slow through this “Pretty Little Village” that seems uglier by the minute because all you can see is a line of brake lights a mile long.  You make one last turn and then the full scope of the traffic is revealed, and it is a brutal scene.  Idling cars are backed up for miles, for no apparent reason other than a bunch of flip-flop clad pedestrians scrambling to cross the road back and forth a zillion times so they can taste for themselves if the lobster rolls at Red’s Eats really are the best in Maine.  It is well known that the summer tourists queuing up for a lobster roll at this well-known eatery, located practically on Route 1 itself, is a significant contributor of the infamous start-and-go pile-ups along Route 1.  By the time you make it through this, everyone in the car is fighting, you have no idea why you thought a vacation to Maine would in any way constitute an “escape”, you are cranky, hungry (because there was no way you were going to contribute to the problem by actually eating at Red’s Eats), and you openly wonder why they don’t just build a pedestrian bridge for crying out loud!?

The truth is, it is a valid question. A pedestrian bridge or tunnel to alleviate the bottleneck at Red’s Eats is such an obvious solution that you really do have to wonder why it doesn’t already exist.  Yes, there are some historical compatibility issues, but it is relatively inexpensive and logical solution.  Yet it was summarily dismissed by the DOT.  So what about the installation of traffic lights at both the intersection of Route 1 and 27?  How about the prohibition of left hand turns in the downtown area?  What about a reconfiguration of parking along Route 1?

Source: Maine DOT

Which of these solutions did the experts agree was a reasonable approach?  None of the above.  Rather, after a decades-long planning process, the alternatives flirted with three bypass options, N8C, N2F and N2A, noted in the diagram above.  All three are wildly expensive, in the $85-$100 million dollar range, (this in a state that lacks funds for even basic road maintenance), all have impacts on environmentally sensitive lands, and all, even the shortest option, double the route.  This will waste travel time, cost drivers more money and burn more dirty fossil fuels.  The negative impacts don’t stop there.  The existing Davey bridge will cease to become a priority and when limited state coffers must choose on repairs, it will be the sacrificial lamb, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.  In addition, let’s think about what the by-pass is actually “by-passing.”  It’s the entire commercial center of Wiscasset.  The charming antique shops: by-passed.  The funky art galleries: by-passed.  The gift shops, well, you get the idea.   All seasonal traffic will be diverted away from the hard working Mainers that rely on tourists for their yearly revenue.

In the wake of the eagle nest discovery, the DOT has indicated that it is “evaluating whether to resubmit an application to support one of remaining alternatives as the preferred option for a bypass.”  But perhaps the evaluation should take a step even further and not start with the assumption that a bypass to alleviate seasonal summer traffic is the only option.  Let’s go back to the drawing board on this one and come up with a solution that reflects our fiscal reality and that can actually be built in under a decade.  The Wiscasset Task Force will meet on December 15 at 6:30 to drill down into these issues and hopefully come up with a sound solution.

The news from the Nation’s Capitol is bleak.

The United States Senate will not consider anything remotely like comprehensive energy and climate legislation before its August recess.

While it is good that they will be looking at legislation to address oil spills and laudable energy efficiency efforts like HomeStar the decision to not address the underlying climate and energy crisis is tragic. However, even after the BP oil disaster, Congress still continues to leave New England’s ocean and our coastal communities at risk of the next big spill.

Effectively, Congress is turning its back on the science that describes the fundamental peril facing our climate, the families who need the jobs that a surge of green development will bring and embracing a course of continued dependence on imported oil and dirty coal.

The handful of Senators who have blocked progress on this critical legislation should be ashamed of the damage they are doing to our environment, our economy and our communities.

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.