It’s July 4^th – as you head out to your favorite swimming spot, consider this…

While New England is home to many clean, scenic beaches, the sad truth is that hundreds of beach closures occurred in 2010 across the New England states.  Check out NRDC’s new report, Testing the Waters to see where your state ranked, and how clean your favorite beach was last year. (Spoiler alert: if you’re in Maine, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island, there’s room for improvement).

Why are these problems so pervasive?  Polluted stormwater runoff and sewage overflows are the major culprits – making beach closures more likely after it rains.  In Massachusetts, 79% percent of ocean beach standards violations happened within 24 hours after a rainstorm, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.  

The solutions are not cheap – to tackle this set of problems problem will require a sustained commitment to fixing and improving underground sewer pipes, enlarging wastewater treatment plants, and installing green stormwater treatment to capture and clean runoff from roads and parking lots.  

The cost of doing nothing is also significant.  The US EPA estimated that in one year, 86,000 people lost a chance to swim because of beach closures in areas affected by stormwater pollution.

Clean water is essential to a thriving New England.  That is why CLF is applying legal leverage to improve management of sewage and stormwater runoff across the region.  We’re working toward a day when the pollution that causes beach closures will be a thing of the past, and swimmers will have their pick of beautiful New England beaches – whether or not it’s recently rained.

We wrote about the Legislature’s wrongheaded – fically and environmentally -  pursuit to acquire the leaking and contaminated Dolby landfill two weeks ago. Despite the opposition of several representatives and senators, and a request by Senators Cynthia Dill and Elizabeth Schneider for an opinion from Attorney General William Schneider on the constitutionality of the law, the bill passed and on June 17, Governor LePage signed into law, LD 1567—Resolve, To Authorize the State to Acquire a Landfill in the Town of East Millinocket. If and when the Katahdin mill’s owner Brookfield lines up a buyer for the mills, which currently appears to be International Grand Investors Corp., a Delaware corporation owned by Chinese investors in Taiwan, the state now has the authority to bring the deal to fruition by accepting, on behalf of the State of Maine, Brookfield’s generous donation of the Dolby landfill.

Despite the Dolby landfill’s projected $250,000 in annual operating costs and an estimated $17 million in closure and cleanup costs, the Attorney General’s office concluded on its response to the Senators’ request for a legal opinion  that LD 1567 does not trigger the $2 million debt limitation threshold contained in Article IX, section 14 of the Maine Constitution. Although that result appears counterintuitive given the staggering costs associated with the Dolby landfill, the AG’s office reasons that “LD 1567 does not commit the State to the assumption of any particular debts or liabilities associated with the landfill” and suggests that the SPO can contract away some or all of that liability. Unfortunately, the version of LD 1567 that was passed and signed into law did not incorporate the Attorney General’s suggestion that LD 1567 be amended to require that any contract entered into by the SPO to acquire the Dolby landfill contain a clause limiting the State’s liability for pre-acquisition operation of the landfill.

Although the authority granted under LD 1567 apparently does not trigger Article IX, section 14, the AG’s office concedes that the terms of Article IX, section 14 “will be relevant to the terms of [an] agreement” by which the State takes title to Dolby. Thus, Article IX, section 14 remains part of the conversation. But the extent to which it does remains unclear. To that end, legislators have requested an additional legal opinion from the AG’s office regarding the relevancy of Article IX, section 14 to any contract transferring ownership of the Dolby landfill to the State. Given that Brookfield is just as steadfast in its resolve to dump the landfill as the State is in its resolve to acquire the landfill, it is hard to fathom that Brookfield would agree to remain responsible for the majority of the $17 million in closure and cleanup costs or to indemnify the State for pre-acquisition liabilities associated with the landfill. Would a contract that failed to limit the State’s liability for the Dolby landfill to less than $2 million be subject to approval by two-thirds of the Legislature and a popular vote? Stay tuned . . .

Yesterday in Augusta, CLF and members of the Environmental Priorities Coalition (EPC) today jointly hailed the work by the 125^th Legislature in exercising restraint in the wake of a record number of proposed bills that sought to weaken Maine’s environmental regulations.

The deregulation effort started with Governor LePage’s proposed rollbacks that were released in early January.   Over the course of the session, that proposal became LD1, “An Act to Ensure Regulatory Fairness and Reform” an umbrella bill that encompassed a wide variety of issues that would significantly harm Maine’s air, water, landscapes and public health.  With over 50 rollback bills in play, the EPC had a busy agenda protecting Maine’s environment but the organization drew on its many coalition partners to target areas of expertise for each bill. Read more >

East End Beach. Photo credit: bvohra, flickr

Last night, the Portland City Council took a big step forward in addressing one of the city’s dirtiest little secrets – the discharge of literally hundreds of millions of gallons of untreated sewage and stormwater into Casco Bay every year.

This discharge is a result of stormwater overwhelming the city’s sewer system. In order to relieve that pressure, the city had a system of combined sewer overflows, or CSOs, that would bypass the normal treatment facility in the East End and discharge sewage and stormwater directly into Casco Bay. That toxic brew has closed shellfish harvesting areas in Casco Bay and kept the East End beach closed on many a day.

Since 1993, the city has been obligated by an administrative consent agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection to remove the CSOs, but for many years has dragged its feet. However, in recent years, with a mix of state and federal funding, the city has made significant progress, and has changed the focus from removing the CSOs to providing greater storage for the first flush of the stormwater/sewage brew so that it can be treated after the storm event and capacity opens back up at the East End treatment facility.

To achieve that goal will be expensive – current estimates are that the remaining work on CSOs will exceed $125 million and other related work could bring the price tag up to $170 million. City staff had recommended that work be spread out over 25 years; however, after testimony by CLF and others, including the Casco Baykeeper and Friends of Casco Bay, City Council rejected that notion and adopted the 15-year schedule that CLF had recommended. And that is a good result for the health of Casco Bay.

With the passage of the state budget this week, the Maine legislature put politics ahead of the people in rejecting the Efficiency Maine Trust’s effort to maintain its funding for electrical efficiency programs. The Trust was proposing to increase a charge to electricity ratepayers in order to to sustain its funding levels for electric efficiency over the next three years and replace drained federal stimulus funds.

This was the perfect opportunity for our elected officials to help fulfill their campaign promises to produce growth and economic development in the state. How surprising then, that when presented with a chance to invest in a program that provides at least three dollars of return for every dollar invested, create thousands of jobs in Maine and stimulate commerce, the legislature’s Republican majority and Governor LePage openly rejected it.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the vote was at least in part a product of bias among  conservatives against a program that, because it happens to be good for the environment and was widely supported by Democrats, is perceived to have liberal leanings. In reality, the Trust and its programs are just as much about energy cost savings and economic development, goals to which both parties should aspire. The Trust is the public entity that helps to fund projects that enhance the energy efficiency of Maine’s homes, businesses and industries.

The work of the Trust is important for several reasons.:

• The financing provided by the Trust inspires the replacement of outdated technologies, from machinery to light bulbs, in favor of more energy efficient alternatives that reduce overall energy consumption.
• Less energy consumption means lower electrical bills for the recipient, lower energy prices and less frequent costly upgrades to our electrical transmission infrastructure to accommodate increasing demand, savings that are shared by all Mainers.
• The funding provided by the Trust is only a portion of the overall efficiency investment. The Trust’s “seed money” results in significant private investment, borrowing from banks and other forms of financing. In short, the added push of the Trust’s funding for a project results in a commercial ripple effect that benefits many sectors of our economy, providing jobs and demand for products.
• Greater energy efficiency means less electricity needs to be produced, which translates into reduced consumption of fossil fuels and reduced pollution.

But increasing electricity charges can’t be good for Mainers you might suggest. Therein lies the rub. First, the proposed increase was small, approximately one dollar a month for the average household—the cost of a cup of coffee. Second, the economy is not going to rebound while we stand by idly wishing for a miracle, it takes investment to get a return and the Trust is proven to produce returns. In 2010, the EMT saw its $17 million investment in efficiency projects render a lifetime energy savings valued at $95.7 million and serve as the impetus for an additional $76.9 million in private investment in businesses and homes across Maine. Efficiency spending not only saves money– it is an economic driver. Indeed, the Trust funding that the Legislature just denied was predicted to produce an $840 million benefit to Maine energy consumers.

So why would our governor and the legislature effectively defund a program that could generate such significant financial benefits to the state? The answer appears to be party politics that defy logic and economic policy and theory. Perhaps worst of all, it also happens to deviate from state law which requires that Maine, through the Trust, fund and pursue maximum achievable cost-effective levels of energy efficiency.

Welcome to Omaha? This is the first year that the College World Series will be played at the new TD Ameritrade Park. Business owners are concerned that the event will be remembered instead by the smell of sewage. (Photo credit: Stadium Journey)

On Monday, June 20, the Portland City Council will vote on a proposal for the Tier III projects of its Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Plan. Pursuant to this vote, the city will decide how long it wants to continue discharging sewage and other pollutants from industrial wastewater and stormwater runoff into Portland’s waterways through its combined sewer overflows (CSOs).

Portland’s CSO abatement project originated in 1991 when the city entered into a Consent Decree with the Board of Environmental Protection to resolve the city’s ongoing violations of state and federal law through its unpermitted discharges into waterways. Under the city’s initial Master Plan, it agreed to abate discharges from 33 of its CSOs by 2008. Although 2008 has come and gone, the city is still years away from completing its CSO abatement project. More specifically, the city is debating whether Tier III of its abatement plan should be completed in 15 years or in 25 years. The project is going to cost ratepayers under either time frame, but the sooner the city abates these discharges, the sooner water quality in Portland improves and the businesses that depend upon good water quality benefit.

While it may be easy to overlook water pollution since it can be difficult to see, it is not easy to ignore the unpleasant and unmistakable stench of untreated sewage. Just ask the residents and business owners in Omaha, Nebraska, as well as the thousands of people descending upon Omaha for the college world series, which Omaha is hosting for the first time—in a brand new stadium.

Like Portland, Omaha still has a CSO system in place.  And right now, Omaha is discharging sewage into the Missouri River because the Missouri’s flooding has overwhelmed Omaha’s wastewater treatment system, just in time for “record crowds” which must reluctantly tolerate the stench.  Some business owners have expressed concern over the affect that the smell of sewage will have, but as the stadium’s marketing manager pointed out, there is not much that can be done other than “deal[ing] with it” and hoping that visitors’ lasting impression of Omaha is one of great baseball rather than the foul smell of sewage.

Fortunately for Portland, it has been spared such unfortunate circumstances—for now. But instead of just tolerating the problems caused by continued use of its CSO system, Portland should, as urged by CLF, “deal with it” by abating CSO discharges sooner rather than later, a task that the Public Works Department, through its work in recent years, has shown it is more than capable of handling.  Twenty-five years is too long to sit around holding our breath and hoping that what is happening in Omaha does not happen in Portland.

Photo credit: christiannealmcneil, flickr

The City of Portland just launched a new website to make it easier for developers to comply with new planning requirements that incentivize alternative commuting strategies through transportation demand management plans, or “TDMs.”  The TDM requirement evolved out of a recognition that a city full of parking garages was not the best use of prime real estate – it isn’t attractive and it only encourages continued reliance on single occupancy vehicle use.  In Maine, 80 percent of employees still drive to work alone every day.  In an effort to shift commuters over to alternatives, such as METRO bus, GoMaine car and van-pooling service, biking and walking, the City of Portland passed a mandatory TDM plan for site plan approval for new developments over 50,000 square feet and for institutions serving more than 100 employees or students. There is also a voluntary TDM plan that companies may want to utilize to help their employees save money at the pump or reduce their overall carbon footprint.

In an effort to navigate the TDM requirements, the City launched a new website, found here at: http://www.tdm2go.info/.  The site is an easy, practical guide that provides a glossary of terms and high-lights case studies.  Four businesses featured on the site include Oak Street Lofts, the Portland International Jetport, St Lawrence Arts Center and Maine Medical Center (MMC).  In the case of MMC, the busy and ever-expanding hospital saw a 15 percent reduction in single occupancy vehicle use in the one year that its “Get On Board” program was implemented.  That impressive result was reached by installing numerous bike racks throughout the MMC campus, offering 50 percent off METRO tickets and providing free parking in the Gilbert St. garage to car-poolers that also had the extra amenity of enjoying the perks of first floor parking, so no stairs, no waiting for elevators, and instant access to the first floor cafe.  Plus, bike lockers and a group tool shed were installed.  These may seem like small perks, but the results speak for themselves – employees like perks!  The efforts by MMC successfully changed the culture of commuting at this major employer and in the process of doing so, they enrolled 734 employees in the program, 221 of those don’t use any carbon emitting vehicle at all – they are biking or walking to work.

What can other employers throughout the state learn from these successes?  First, brainstorming with employees on how to maximize the best alternative transportation mode is critical.  Second, a full educational campaign that informs employees on what their options are is instrumental in making the switch to alternative modes stick.  Resources on both of these are available on the City’s new site and the GoMaine website: http://gomaine.org/.  The benefits to employee’s pocketbooks and overall morale is worth the investment of some bike racks and educational information on our region’s transit services.

Photo credit: CLF

For those of you following Maine Governor Paul LePage’s assault on the state’s environmental protections, check out this op-ed by CLF Maine Director Sean Mahoney, which appeared June 3 in the Bangor Daily News. Here, Mahoney rebuffs LePage’s claim that generating more energy from renewable sources in Maine, as required by the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, means higher energy prices for Maine consumers, and rejects his so-called “solution,” a bill entitled “Act to Reduce Energy Prices for Maine Consumers.” Want to hear four reasons why LePage’s Act and attitude are bad for Maine? Mahoney has them here. Read more >

The state of Maine is steadily moving forward in its quest to potentially purchase an East Millinocket landfill as part of an effort to save two paper mills that are responsible for hundreds of jobs in the Katahdin region.  The State’s rationale is that in order for the mills to be acquired and reopened by a new company, the liability of the landfills that have been the recipient of waste from the mills for decades must be separated from the mills themselves.

While the intent of the State to try and resurrect the source of up to 600 jobs in the Katahdin region is a good one, this action brings to mind the old saw that “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.” If the state were to acquire the landfills, the facility’s operations and maintenance costs alone are estimated to be a minimum of $250,000 a year.  Those costs pale in comparison to the estimated $17 million to clean up and close the landfills (which only have a few years of capacity left) and does not include costs to clean up groundwater or soils contaminated by more than two decades of unpermitted landfill leachate (liquid that moves through or drains from the landfill) that has been discharged into the groundwater and surface waters in the region, discharges that are ongoing and in violation of both state and federal laws.

CLF raised these concerns in a letter to the Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee last week, and called for the Committee to thoroughly explore the liability issues the state might incur as a result of purchasing the landfill, as well as how the State would provide funding to properly close and clean up the contamination associated with the landfill. Right now, the state has no dedicated source of funds to meet those costs. In addition, there is a potential constitutional issue concerning the State’s ability to take on such a large liability without a two-thirds vote of support in the Legislature and approval by the people.  CLF will continue to review this issue and determine whether or not action is necessary to address the issue of unpermitted discharges with the DEP and the Legislature.