In a move that will further delay progress cleaning up the Great Bay estuary, the Cities of Rochester and Dover, NH, have appealed a critical permit recently issued by the EPA to address the mounting problem of nitrogen pollution in the Great Bay estuary.

Whose permit did they appeal? Incredibly, Rochester and Dover are expending resources not to appeal a permit that affects their sewage treatment plants. Rather, in the height of arrogance, Dover and Rochester are appealing a permit granted by EPA to the Town of Newmarket, for Newmarket’s sewage treatment plant. Apparently, Rochester and Dover have decided that when it comes to the health of the Lamprey River in Newmarket, and Great Bay, they know best.

In a press release issued by the Town of Newmarket on December 10, the Town stated that “it is in the best interest of our community to work with the EPA to protect Great Bay instead of entering into a lengthy and costly legal process.” The Town has recognized this is not something that can be put off and hopes to move quickly to build a new, much-needed sewage treatment plant.

Unfortunately, Newmarket’s desire to constructively move forward with solving the problem of nitrogen pollution in the Lamprey River and Great Bay means nothing to Dover and Rochester. Filing this appeal could delay final permitting of the Newmarket sewage treatment plant for years, jeopardizing the health of the estuary. Click here to read more about Newmarket’s reaction to this unfortunate and unexpected legal maneuver by Dover and Rochester.

It is outrageous that Dover and Rochester – purportedly acting as the Great Bay Municipal Coalition, of which Newmarket is a part – would bring a legal action challenging another town’s permit. And if interfering in the affairs of Newmarket is not enough, Dover and Rochester – along with the City of Portsmouth – also recently filed a lawsuit against EPA challenging the regulatory process in the estuary (after having a similar lawsuit against the NH Department of Environmental Services thrown out by the Merrimack County Superior Court).

How much money do these communities plan to spend in their seemingly endless effort to delay cleaning up the estuary? In September, they had spent more than $750,000. Of course, the tab only continues to grow. Do the residents of Dover and Rochester really want their valuable city resources being used to prevent other communities from taking constructive action to protect their local waters and Great Bay?

If you are as outraged as I am by this latest development, please contact me at pwellenberger@clf.org to learn how you can help bring real progress to protecting Great Bay – now, and for future generations.  Enough meddling – we need to get to work and clean up the estuary.

For more information about the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper and my work to protect the Great Bay estuary, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/. You can also follow me on Facebook and on Twitter.

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.

The Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, along with the Coastal Conservation Association of NH, Great Bay Trout Unlimited and the NH Coastal Protection Partnership, coauthored the following editorial to The Portsmouth Herald.

A copy of this OpEd was originally published in The Portsmouth Herald. You can find a copy of it online here.

April 13 — To the Editor

The Great Bay estuary is in decline. That’s the inescapable message of the Piscataqua Region Estuary Partnership’s (PREP) most recent (2009) State of the Estuaries report, which tracks the health of the Great Bay and Hampton/Seabrook estuaries.

Of 12 primary indicators of the estuary’s health tracked by PREP, 11 show negative or cautionary trends, including two very troubling negative trends: nitrogen concentrations in Great Bay are increasing, and eelgrass vegetation — the cornerstone of the Great Bay ecosystem, and an important nursery for fish and other marine species — is in sharp decline.

Consistent with findings in the 2009 State of the Estuaries report, the N.H. Department of Environmental Services and Environmental Protection Agency have acknowledged that waters throughout the Great Bay estuary are impaired, meaning that their health is in jeopardy. Based on the overwhelming evidence that immediate action is needed to clean up the estuary, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun issuing draft permits to limit nitrogen pollution from sewage treatment plants affecting the estuary (there are a total of 18 such facilities, 14 of them in New Hampshire; none currently has a nitrogen pollution limit).

In sharp contrast to the need for urgent and meaningful action, however, a small group of municipalities calling themselves the Great Bay Municipal Coalition — Dover, Portsmouth, Exeter, Rochester and Newmarket — persistently have tried to claim “the science is in doubt” and to delay needed improvements to their sewage treatment plants.

In the face of the pollution problems plaguing the estuary, rather than taking meaningful steps to solve the problem, the municipal coalition has engaged in a withering, all-out assault on the N.H. Department of Environmental Services and EPA. Last summer they sought assistance from a New Hampshire member of Congress, resulting in a bill calling for a five-year moratorium on any EPA permitting activity in the Great Bay estuary. Most recently, the municipal coalition filed a lawsuit against the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, challenging — on procedural grounds — the legality of its analysis regarding nitrogen pollution in the estuary.

Members of the municipal coalition have been sure to explain that they care about the Great Bay estuary, and that they want to be part of the solution. They say they’re committed to “immediately” upgrading their sewage treatment plants to reduce nitrogen pollution. But their words ring hollow. In fact they’ve made clear that while they’re willing to “immediately” upgrade their sewage treatment plants to reduce pollution to a certain level, if they’re required to do more they will litigate the validity of their permits, and they’ll do nothing to upgrade their sewage treatment plants while that litigation is pending. Actions speak louder than words, and so far the municipal coalition’s only actions have been to delay what must be done to save the Great Bay estuary.

The Great Bay estuary belongs to us all. The health of its waters is inextricably linked to tourism and the local economy, and to what makes the Seacoast such a special place. We cannot allow the health of Great Bay, Little Bay, the Piscataqua River, and all the waters comprising the estuary to be held hostage. The estuary is approaching a tipping point which, once crossed, will make its recovery all the more expensive, if not impossible. Just ask the folks struggling to reverse the collapse of the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland, alone, is expected to spend — conservatively — $11 billion to clean up the bay.

We simply can’t afford to keep kicking this can down the road. It’s time for the municipal coalition to start investing in real solutions rather than paying lawyers and outside consultants to thwart needed action. It’s refreshing to see the town of Newington, which will be subject to EPA permitting, embracing the protections required to save Great Bay; and it’s encouraging to see another community, the town of Durham, choose not to follow the municipal coalition down the path of litigation and delay. We all benefit from a clean, healthy Great Bay estuary. Now is the time for action.

Derek Durbin
Chairman, New Hampshire Coastal Protection Partnership

Mitch Kalter
President, Trout Unlimited, Great Bay Chapter

Don Swanson
President, Coastal Conservation Association, N.H. Chapter

Peter Wellenberger
Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation