Last week, I discussed how the municipalities that comprise the so-called Great Bay Municipal Coalition took the unfortunate step of filing a lawsuit against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, challenging its analysis of nitrogen pollution in the estuary. In an effort to prevent delays in solving Great Bay’s pollution problems, late last week CLF filed a motion to intervene in that lawsuit. You can find a copy of the motion here.

As I said in my last post, the declining health of the Great Bay estuary is well documented, particularly in regards to the effects of nitrogen pollution, which has reached unsustainable levels. We cannot afford to wait any longer in taking action to clean up the estuary. It’s time to start implementing real solutions, not to roll them back.

To learn more about our intervention filing, you can read our press release or our motion.

Stay tuned for more. I’ll be writing about this topic on a regular basis.

–

For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Just a few weeks ago, a group of municipalities calling themselves the Great Bay Municipal Coalition – Dover, Portsmouth, Exeter, Rochester and Newmarket – took the unfortunate step of filing a lawsuit against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, challenging its analysis of nitrogen pollution in the estuary. Despite the need for prompt action to protect the Great Bay estuary from pollution, the municipalities have chosen to attack NHDES’s nitrogen analysis on procedural grounds, claiming NHDES should have engaged in formal rule-making.

The declining health of the Great Bay estuary – and the effects of nitrogen pollution – is well documented. According to the most recent State of Estuaries report, nitrogen concentrations in Great Bay have increased to unsustainable levels. And the loss of eelgrass – the cornerstone of the ecosystem that provides essential habitat for juvenile fish (and is therefore a critical piece of the food web) — has been particularly dramatic, with some areas now completely devoid of this critical habitat.

Fortunately, some communities aren’t following in the path of these municipalities. Newington, for example, has been a strong supporter of recent regulatory efforts to reduce nitrogen pollution from sewage treatment plants. And Durham made the specific decision not to litigate against NHDES, and to instead work collaboratively with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) while at the same time exploring ways to reduce stormwater pollution.

Great Bay is approaching a tipping point and the recent lawsuit by the Municipal Coalition does nothing more than delay implementation of the necessary actions that are needed to prevent a collapse of the estuary. The waters of Great Bay belong to all of us.  It’s time for every community along its shores and within its watershed to start investing in real solutions and stop angling for delay.

–
For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

Aerial View of Site - Porous Asphalt Shows as Dark Gray

In 2003, a large retail development was proposed to be built on the banks of Pickering Brook, roughly a mile upstream of Great Bay. CLF voiced major concerns about the many pollutants that would run off of the retail center’s massive parking lots – pollutants such as metals, bacteria and nutrients – and the harm they would cause to Pickering Brook and Great Bay. In response, the project’s developer agreed to work with CLF and the UNH Stormwater Center to re-design their approach to managing stormwater.

The result? With guidance from the UNH Stormwater Center, the developer constructed a large portion of its parking lot using porous asphalt – an innovative approach that allows rainwater and snowmelt to percolate through the paved surface into a layer of sand and gravel, below. Porous pavement is an important and highly effective new tool in reducing polluted runoff; the Greenland installation is the largest porous pavement facility in the Northeast.

The developer also constructed a gravel wetland to treat stormwater from the site, before it reaches Pickering Brook. Recent monitoring by the UNH Stormwater Center confirms that these innovative systems are working – greatly reducing pollution that would otherwise occur.

Working together, CLF, the UNH Stormwater Center and the developer showed that innovative approaches can work – and can make a difference. To put Great Bay, the Piscataqua River and the estuary as a whole on a path to recovery, innovation and creative solutions will be essential. One of my primary tasks as the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper is to work with stakeholders to identify and promote innovative solutions to the problems facing the estuary. We’re extremely fortunate to have the Stormwater Center as a resource not only for Great Bay, but for the nation. And we’re fortunate to have successful models to be replicated in the future.

To view the UNH Stormwater Center’s “case study” description of this project, click here.

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

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.

Last Friday, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), together with the Buzzards Bay Coalition (BBC), announced they had reached an agreement in principle with EPA to settle two lawsuits regarding nitrogen pollution on Cape Cod. In making the announcement, we released a statement, which can be found here.

In that statement, CLF’s Chris Killian responded to attacks by a group of Congressional Republicans seeking to limit EPA’s authority and advance their anti-environment agenda. You can read the full statement here. In it, Chris said:

“It is our experience that EPA has been a formidable opponent in clean water cases, and to imply that the agency is colluding with environmental organizations to expand its own authority is preposterous,” said Christopher Kilian, director of Conservation Law Foundation’s Clean Water and Healthy Forests program. “These are complicated cases, made more so by developing science and changing environmental stressors, and it is never an easy road to reach a resolution. The real issue is whether the parties are acting in the best interest of those who rely on the resource for their health and well-being. These Congressional leaders seem to suggest that EPA should take a hard line against the interests of citizens and the environment and protect the rights of polluters.”

We at CLF have been involved in the litigation and related issues on an ongoing basis. To help you find CLF’s resources, we’ve included a few curated links below.

Blog posts:

CLF Cleaning up the Cape’s Algae Problem
Clean Water: It’s Your Call or Click

Statements:

Joint Statement Between CLF and Buzzards Bay
CLF and Buzzards Bay Coalition Press EPA for Action in Cape Clean Up

News coverage:

The Cost of Doing Nothing: Toxic Algae Bloom Hurts Tourism, Changes Senator Inhofe’s Tune

Court Filings:

CLF, Inc., et al., v. Lisa P. Jackson, et al. (Complaint, September 19, 2011)

August 25, 2010: CLF, Inc., et al., v. Lisa P. Jackson, et al. (Complaint, August 25, 2010)

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to be in touch!

The nation’s attention may be focused right now on the twists and turns of New Hampshire’s First in the Nation primary. But new pollution data from the Environmental Protection Agency put a more troubling spotlight on New Hampshire – and on its largest utility, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH). 

According to the data, PSNH is the region’s top toxic polluter, and PSNH’s coal-fired power plant in Bow, Merrimack Station, releases more toxic pollution to the environment than any other facility in New England. Because of PSNH, New Hampshire as a whole is first in New England in toxic pollution.

The numbers tell a striking story.  In 2010, Merrimack Station released 2.8 million pounds of toxic chemicals to the environment, mostly in air pollution.  That’s an astonishing 85% of the 3.3 million total pounds of toxic pollution released in New Hampshire in 2010. When you add in PSNH’s coal-fired Schiller Station in Portsmouth and its gas and oil-fired Newington Station in Newington, PSNH was responsible for a total of 3 million pounds of toxic pollution in 2010, more than 90% of New Hampshire’s toxic pollution. 

PSNH’s pollution isn’t saving energy consumers anything – PSNH’s rates are among the highest in New England because of the escalating costs of maintaining PSNH’s old, inefficient power plants. And those rates are slated to steadily climb as PSNH customers – mostly residents and small businesses – watch large commercial and industrial customers reject the costs of PSNH’s above-market coal-fired power to buy from cost-effective, competitive suppliers. As a result, most New Hampshire residents are left with the raw deal of paying among the highest rates for the dirtiest power in New England.

The data is a fresh reminder of why CLF is fighting so hard to hold Merrimack Station accountable for violating the Clean Air Act. In November, CLF made the case in federal court that PSNH’s failure to obtain permits for changes at Merrimack Station has meant that PSNH has evaded requirements for state-of-the-art pollution limits that would reduce its emissions of a wide range of toxic and other pollutants.

It’s true that PSNH’s much-touted and hugely expensive scrubber project now coming online at Merrimack Station will ultimately reduce some types of toxic pollution to the air. But PSNH wants to increase its energy rates by 15% to pay for the scrubber. Other required pollution controls, including those imposed by important new federal rules, may lead to further costs. This will make PSNH’s power plants an even worse deal for New Hampshire ratepayers.

Merrimack Station also sends more carbon dioxide into the air than any other source in New Hampshire, and the scrubber won’t change that. Burning coal is a dirty way to generate power that imperils the climate, and it is time for New England to abandon it for cleaner alternatives that safeguard our health and environment and transition us toward a new energy system.

New Hampshire may never be willing to relinquish its leading spot on the presidential primary calendar. But living with New England’s largest source of toxic pollution despite its unacceptable costs – to ratepayers and the environment – is a distinction that New Hampshire should be doing everything in its power to lose.

Image courtesy of dsearls @ flickr. Creative Commons.

While the job of cleaning up New England’s power plants is not complete, we have made a good amount of progress: we have reduced emissions from the plants that are still running and are moving towards closure of some of the oldest, dirtiest and most obsolete plants, like the Salem Harbor Power Plant.

But as Ken Kimmell, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, noted in this radio story, his department still has to advise people not to eat fish caught in streams and lakes: “The mercury levels in the fish are still too high for it to be safe to eat and that’s because we’re still receiving an awful lot of mercury from upwind power plants,” Kimmell says.  The Commissioner is making the essential point here – we are making progress here at home but if we want to truly end the threat of neurotoxic mercury in fish (and the other health effects of power plant pollution) we need to look towards national efforts.

The path forward is clear.  We need to maintain pressure on the sources of pollution here in our region, like the the Mount Tom power plant on the Connecticut River in Massachusetts, while making a strong, affirmative move towards clean energy resources like energy efficiency, wind power, solar, and smart electric storage.

Meanwhile we need for the federal government to stand firm and implement long overdue rules to reduce pollution from the power plants to our west.  The Mercury and Air Toxic Rules that EPA is releasing will prevent hundreds of thousands of illnesses (like asthma attacks) and up to 17,000 deaths each year.  The effect of these regulations will be overwhelmingly positive. For instance, every dollar spent on power plant emissions reductions yields $5 to $13 in health benefits.

We all deserve to breathe easier, our children deserve to be free from the dangerous neurotoxic effects of mercury in our air, and our communities deserve the reduced health care costs and increased job opportunities that will flow as we build a new clean energy economy.

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.

Rotten eggs and black mayonnaise – sights and smells that, to the dread of many, are becoming increasingly common across Cape Cod. Over the 30 years, increased development and insufficient wastewater treatment systems have degraded the quality of Cape Cod’s waters. CLF, in association with Buzzards Bay Coalition, are working to clean up the Cape – work that was recently covered by David Abel in The Boston Globe.

The eggs and mayonnaise (a description David used to open his piece) are but two signs of a growing body of evidence, both visible and disturbing, of degraded water quality. While visitors and residents depend upon Cape Cod’s pristine waterways – suitable for swimming, conducive to ocean life – instead they find ponds and bays that, in warm months, can be covered in a film of algae, while the water itself turns an opaque copper color.

This degradation is the consequence of too much nitrogen, the result of improperly treated  wastewater, primarily from the Cape’s preponderance of septic tanks. In the Cape’s loose, sandy soils, wastewater moves quickly through the ground, and iscarried into the bays and estuaries before it can be adequately filtered. The region’s economy, ecology, recreation and beauty have all suffered as a consequence – and will suffer more if stakeholders continue to delay action on a clean up plan.

In September, our staff at CLF, together with Buzzards Bay Coalition, filed a federal lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency. Our claim: that the EPA failed to fulfill its responsibilities to oversee a regional water quality plan as required by the Clean Water Act. This lawsuit was CLF’s second showing EPA’s failure to address the Cape’s nitrogen pollution problem. The first, concerning point sources, was filed in August, 2010, and can be found here.

Why is this so important? The regional plan under question has not been updated since 1978, despite predictions at the time about the environmental risks of unchecked nitrogen pollution. Today, the consequences of decades of inaction are clear: badly degraded waterways, with mounting costs for solutions and little time left to ponder them while the region’s ecology and economy hang in the balance..

The answer, CLF argues, is a legally enforceable, coordinated blueprint to clean up the Cape. “It’s our firm belief that a coordinated regional approach is necessary – not individual towns trying to solve the problems on their own,” says Christopher Kilian, a senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation as quoted in The Boston Globe article.

The approach EPA will ultimately take is the subject of ongoing negotiations between CLF and the Buzzards Bay Coalition, EPA and Barnstable County officials. A report to the Court is due December 6th. Stay tuned.

For more on CLF’s efforts on cleaning up the Cape, read our release on our recent lawsuit, filed with the Buzzards Bay Coalition.

You can also find out more at the website of the Buzzards Bay Coalition.