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.

The recent Congressional hearing entitled “EPA Overreach and the Impact on New Hampshire Communities” accomplished one thing – it proved that to some, politics are more important than cleaning up the Great Bay estuary.

Congressmen Guinta (R-NH) and his colleague from California, Congressman Issa (who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) came to Exeter on June 4 for one reason – to seek confirmation of what they already believed: that EPA is somehow engaging in “overzealous” regulation or “overreach” in taking action required by the Clean Water Act to reduce nitrogen pollution in Great Bay. The only invited speakers were four representatives of the Municipal Coalition – a small group of vocal municipalities doing everything in their power to delay EPA’s permitting process – and EPA Region 1 Administrator, Curt Spalding. Notwithstanding a packed room, the public was not allowed to speak.

Despite numerous claims by the Municipal Coalition that the science is flawed, not a single scientist was asked to testify about the real pollution threats to the Great Bay estuary. Instead we had a Congressman from California listening to a paid consultant from Washington, DC whose only apparent objective was to bash EPA.  Hardly a sound or non-biased approach to determine what action needs to be taken to save our estuary.

The mere title of the hearing made it clear that Congressmen Guinta and Issa had their minds made up before the hearing even began, and that they had one goal in mind – to undermine EPA’s approach to reducing nitrogen pollution in the estuary.  In fact, EPA is proceeding on sound science – based on years of analysis – and doing exactly what is required to restore and protect the estuary before it reaches a tipping point.

At a time when we need to be solving the serious pollution problems threatening the Great Bay estuary, it’s disturbing to see such a concerted effort to denounce the science that clearly documents the estuary’s continuing decline and the need for meaningful action. While other Great Bay communities are willing to move constructively toward solutions, it’s especially sad to see the small handful of communities comprising the Municipal Coalition resort to raw politics and attempt to capitalize on anti-environment, anti-EPA currents in D.C.

Rather than playing politics with the estuary in an effort to disrupt the permitting process, we would better served by Rep. Guinta if he helped communities secure funding to help with upgrades to wastewater treatment plants. Those sorts of solutions – not obfuscation – are what I expect from my government officials.  And we certainly don’t need someone from California telling us in New Hampshire how to clean up our waters.

In the end, the only real outcome from Monday’s hearing was another day wasted. EPA staff had to invest time defending themselves in a hostile and politically motivated environment rather than proceeding with real solutions required to restore and protect the Great Bay estuary.  Enough is enough. The time has come to take real action and support EPA in its efforts.

In a recent blog and in other outreach, I encouraged people to attend the EPA public hearing or contact EPA to support its draft discharge permit for the City of Dover’s sewage treatment plant. To ensure a cleaner and healthier Great Bay estuary, we must treat our wastewater to the highest standards possible.

In response to my call for action, it was inspiring to receive a copy of a letter written by a concerned citizen, Brian Giles, who lives in Lee and has been involved in environmental issues in the Seacoast for the past twenty years. In voicing strong support for the EPA’s proposed action, Brian’s letter discusses the significant losses of eelgrass in the Piscataqua River and Great Bay and the need for prompt, meaningful action to reduce nitrogen pollution.  His letter goes on to state:

“The Piscataqua River and Great Bay belong to the people of New Hampshire, Maine, and the residents of the Seacoast area. These waters have high commercial and recreation value for swimming, boating, fishing, bird watching, open space, and a sense of place. Equally important, thousands of birds, mammals, fish and other wildlife depend on these habitats to live, feed and reproduce. No one group of citizens has the right to put these waters at further risk because of perceived financial hardship.”

Brian’s letter concludes with the following statement: “All municipalities have an inherent moral and ethical responsibility to take care of their own waste products.”

I couldn’t have said it better. Protecting and restoring the Great Bay estuary – and averting the ecological collapse that could happen if current threats are left unchecked – is no small task.  But we have a moral imperative to do so – for all of us, and for future generations.  With more people like Brian championing the need to clean up the estuary, we’ll make it happen.

If you would like to know how you can become more involved, please email me. Great Bay needs you and I hope you too are inspired to make a difference.

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

CLF's Peter Shelley accepts EPA's Environmental Merit Award on behalf of CLF and CRWA. (Photo credit: Emily Long)

Yesterday, CLF and the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA)  received an Environmental Merit Award from the New England office of the U.S. EPA in recognition of their exceptional work on reducing discharge of heated water from the GenOn Kendall Cogeneration Plant (formerly known as Mirant Kendall) in Cambridge, MA. The award was presented at a ceremony at Faneuil Hall in Boston.

Led by CLF Senior Counsel Peter Shelley, the two groups and other key stakeholders, undertook five years of negotiations to reduce the massive amounts of heated water that the plant was discharging into the Charles River, killing fish and destroying the river ecosystem. As a result, in February 2011, EPA issued a new water quality permit that requires the plant to reduce its heat discharge and water withdrawal by approximately 95 percent, and to ensure that any heated discharge does not warm the river enough to cause harm. In addition, the plant will capture most of the heat generated by the plant and distribute it as steam through a new pipeline to be built across the Longfellow Bridge over the next few years, at which point the excess steam will be used to heat buildings in Boston. More >

As part of the national effort to streamline and improve regulations launched by President Obama in an Executive Order the Environmental Protection Agency is soliciting comments on what regulations should be “modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed” — so tell them what you think! They have a webpage that explains what they are looking for and provides an opportunity to submit comments online.

At a recent “listening session” held in Boston CLF offered these thoughts to EPA.  The deadline for comments is April 4, 2011– let your voice be heard !