We didn’t always have a love affair with our lawns. Until the late 18th century, most rural homeowners had a patch of packed dirt outside the front door or a small garden that contained a mix of flowers, herbs and vegetables. Up until then, lawns were not practical and were seen strictly as a luxury for wealthy landowners who could afford grounds keepers to maintain the grass with hand tools.

That all changed with the invention of the rotary mower and garden hose. Since then, green, weed-free lawns are common today and millions of Americans spend billions of dollars on landscaping companies to cut and maintain their grass. According to a 2000 Gallup survey, over 26 million US households hired a professional landscaping company. That little patch of green has become a big business.

Unfortunately, when homeowners over-fertilize or apply fertilizers incorrectly they are contributing to the nutrients pollution problem facing so many of our waters. The Great Bay estuary is no exception. The total nitrogen load to the estuary has increased significantly in recent years leading to declines in water quality, as evidenced by significant losses of the estuary’s cornerstone habitat – eelgrass. Preventing nitrogen pollution from lawn care is one of the steps needed to restore water quality and the health of the estuary.

Personally, I have never understood the allure of a green lawn. I don’t want to spend my weekends cutting grass or hire someone to do this work. However, if you prefer having a lawn it is important to make it as environmentally friendly as possible. First, consider downsizing your lawn by planting native shrubs and flowers. Most of my yard is a wild field or landscaped with native plants which provides excellent wildlife habitat. My family enjoys watching all the birds that are attracted to the diversity of plants living here.

Many people choose to have low-maintenance lawns which require no fertilizer. This is a great way to have an environmentally friendly lawn that does not impact water quality. For those who choose to use fertilizer, I encourage you to get your soil tested at the NH Cooperative Extension to learn what fertilizer best meets your needs and how best to apply it.

If fertilizer is required, the best strategy is to use an organic (not synthetic), slow-release nitrogen fertilizer. On the back of the bag, slow-release nitrogen is listed as “water insoluble nitrogen.” By using a slow-release type fertilizer, fewer applications are needed and some experts suggest only fertilizing once a year in the fall. Always remember to carefully follow the directions, as applying any kind of fertilizer can have an adverse impact on water quality. You should only use fertilizer with a content of at least 50% water insoluble nitrogen to protect against adding excess nitrogen to the groundwater that could eventually flow into the estuary.

Other tips for maintaining a healthy lawn with less environmental impact include:

Mow High – Taller grass has deeper, healthier roots; 3 inches or higher is recommended;

Leave Grass Clippings Behind – Grass clippings are a free source of nutrients;

Aerate Your Soil – Aeration allows water, air and nutrients to reach the soil more easily;

Fescue Seeds – Use seed mixtures with a high percentage of fescue grasses, which require less watering and mowing.

More free tips on low input lawn care are available from the UNH Cooperative Extension. The Extension also offers an excellent publication called Landscaping At the Water’s Edge, which provides excellent advice on how to create a natural buffer between your lawn and a waterway.

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 Twitter.

On Monday, June 4, Congressman Darrell Issa of California and Congressman Frank Guinta of New Hampshire are hosting a hearing in Exeter entitled “EPA Overreach and the Impact on New Hampshire Communities.”

Based on the title of the hearing, it appears Congressmen Issa and Guinta already have made up their minds, before the hearing even begins, that EPA is somehow ‘overreaching’ in its approach to reducing nitrogen pollution in the estuary. This is simply not the case. EPA is proceeding on sound science and doing exactly what is required to restore and protect the estuary before it’s too late. 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 biased and overtly political response.

If you care about the future of the Great Bay estuary, I urge you to attend this politically motivated hearing. But don’t expect to be allowed to speak – only invited guests are given that right.  Would it surprise you to learn that four of the five invited speakers represent the Municipal Coalition, the very group of communities – Exeter, Newmarket, Dover, Rochester and Portsmouth – that have brought suit against the NH Department of Environmental Services and are doing everything in their power to delay action on cleaning up the Bay?  The sole person testifying on behalf of the EPA will be Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding.  Not exactly a balanced panel.

In a prepared statement issued on Thursday, Rep. Guinta said that he’s concerned with “over-zealous regulation.”  We cannot escape the need for immediate action.  Further delays will only lead to more pollution, further degradation, and higher costs. The science continues to tell us that the health of the estuary is in decline and asking communities clean up their act is hardly over-zealous regulation.

I urge you to join at the hearing and silently voice your support for EPA and the need to take immediate action for a clean and healthy estuary. The hearing will be held at the Exeter Town Offices, 10 Front Street, beginning at 9 am. If you would like more information, please contact me to learn how you can help save Great Bay.

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

I am pleased to announce the launch of our new e-newsletter – Great Bay Currents. As the Great Bay-Piscataqua Waterkeeper, my goal is to build a stronger public voice for protecting the Great Bay estuary and for meaningful and immediate actions to address the threats facing this remarkable natural treasure.

To accomplish this goal, I need your help.

The health of the Great Bay estuary is intractably linked to our quality of life on the Seacoast – in New Hampshire and southern Maine.  It’s key to our local economy, to the recreational opportunities we enjoy, and to the health of the marine environment. Unfortunately, the estuary is approaching a tipping point, and time is of the essence in solving the water pollution problems that threaten it.

I hope you’ll sign up for Great Bay Currents to keep informed, and that you’ll join me in the effort to save this critical resource. Help us build a stronger voice for the estuary. Encourage your friends to stay informed by forwarding them this message or sending them this link to sign up for Great Bay Currents.

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

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

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.

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.

At a time when our governors and our President were preparing to address their constituents, CLF was (and is) making news – news that raises a series of enduring questions: In our country, where is the line between federal and state authority? How clear is it? Who gets to draw it? Why would you draw it in one place instead of another?

These questions are so challenging because they are so fundamental; Americans have wrestled with these same questions for over 200 years. You’ll recall that our first national government, under the Articles of Confederation, was too weak to do the job. The Constitution granted greater power to the national government, but had to be balanced by the Bill of Rights, securing the rights of individuals and of states. The rest of our efforts to get the federal/state balance right has been marked by long periods of contentious negotiation and flashbulb moments of fractious history –national banking, secession and the Civil War, the busting of industrial trusts, the New Deal, and civil rights for all.

Protecting our health and our environment has been a part of the national and regional negotiations for decades. Recent events have provoked further discussion.

By the 1960’s and ‘70’s, when Congress began to address environmental protection and energy in a serious way, its constitutional authority to do so was relatively clear. It exercised that authority boldly, for the great benefit of generations of people and other species. However, as in much of our federalist system, there’s still a sharing of power between national and state governments, both by design and by default. The zone between federal and state authority is sometimes gray. It’s in that messy, gray area that many of our most controversial environmental issues are being debated.

These debates continue to this day. Take two of CLF’s hot issues recently in the news: Vermont Yankee and Cape Cod nitrogen pollution.

Vermont Yankee

The first is the adverse federal court decision CLF (and the State of Vermont) received on Vermont Yankee, the aging nuclear power plant in Vernon, VT. The decision affirmed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s broad authority over safety issues relating to nukes. It  preempted a role for states and handed a major victory to Entergy Corporation.

However, as Anthony Iarrapino points out in this blog post, the fight is far from over. There is a clear role for states in shaping our energy future; in the absence of federal action, states are leading the effort in promoting a clean energy future. Furthermore, as Anthony pointed out in his post, the court said:

“This Court’s decision is based solely upon the relevant admissible facts and the governing law in this case, and it does not purport to resolve or pass judgment on the debate regarding the advantages or disadvantages of nuclear power generation, or its location in this state. Nor does it purport to define or restrict the State’s ability to decline to renew a certificate of public good on any ground not preempted or not violative of federal law, to dictate how a state should choose to allocate its power among the branches of its government, or pass judgment on its choices. The Court has avoided addressing questions of state law and the scope of a state’s regulatory authority that are unnecessary to the resolution of the federal claims presented here.”

Even in the highly “federalized” area of nuclear power there is an undeniable role for states.

Cape Cod

The second is a settlement in principle of our litigation to clean up pollution from sewage on Cape Cod. This is a great step forward – one that  has attracted the focused attention of anti-environmentalists in Congress, as this article attests.

They preposterously allege collusion between environmentalists and the EPA in cases like this to expand federal jurisdiction beyond what Congress authorized in the Clean Water Act, thereby trumping state authority.  However, the federal/state line under the Clean Water Act is about as blurry as they come, in part because the facts relating to pollution and its impacts are extremely complex. As in all cases, the facts matter. Careful, dispassionate assessment of the scientific facts about discharges and pollution, and how the law applies to those facts – not political grandstanding by Members of Congress – is what’s necessary to achieve the visionary goal Congress as a whole committed to decades ago: the elimination of polluting discharges to United States waters, by 1985! It’s time we lived up to that commitment.

There is opportunity in messy, gray areas like the shifting federal/state interface: we can go forward or backward. That is, we can develop sensible allocations of authority between federal and state governments to achieve the public goals behind all of these public initiatives – a healthy environment and a healthy economy, or we can descend into politically motivated mudslinging that obscures the real issues and thwarts real progress.

At CLF we are committed to rational, fact-based discussion of the issues, and prudent forward motion that yields a thriving New England, for generations to come and for all. We know this terrain well. You can count on us to keep working it.

Just over a year ago, CLF and the Buzzards Bay Coalition sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to expedite the clean up of a nitrogen pollution scourge  on Cape Cod that was threatening the Cape’s bays and the local economy that depends on them. Today, CLF and the Bay Coalition filed a second lawsuit against EPA that focuses on the Agency’s failure to regularly approve and update a critical wastewater management plan that, if implemented, might have averted the crisis. CLF and the Bay Coalition’s actions seek to move the clean-up forward before it is too late.

In a press release, Chris Kilian, CLF’s director of Clean Water and Healthy Forests, said, “Cape Cod is on brink of ecological disaster. We need enforceable regulatory commitments to ensure that the clean-up happens before it is too late. The discussions of what solutions will work and how to pay for them are critical and must continue, but they can’t go on forever. We intend to hold EPA accountable for its obligations to review, update and enforce a working, time-bound plan to stop the flow of nitrogen-laden wastewater and stormwater into the Cape’s bays. It is the keystone of this clean-up effort.”

The parties will commence a mediation process known as Alternative Dispute Resolution on Wednesday, September 21 at EPA’s offices in Boston. The deadline for a resolution is December 6, 2011.

Read the full press release.

Credit: Cynthia Irwin

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency took an important step in putting New Hampshire’s Great Bay estuary on the path to recovery.  As a direct result of CLF’s advocacy, EPA issued a draft Clean Water Act discharge permit for the Exeter sewage treatment plant requiring — for the first time — nitrogen pollution limits.

Exeter’s facility — one of the largest sewage treatment plants in New Hampshire’s Seacoast — discharges directly into the Squamscott River, which flows downstream into Great Bay.  As EPA’s fact sheet for the draft permit explains, EPA began the re-permitting process for the Exeter plant in 2007.  Noting significant pollution problems in the Squamscott River and Great Bay, CLF objected to the 2007 draft permit for its failure to regulate nitrogen.  Based on those concerns, as well as further data showing the estuary’s decline – including the loss of essential seagrass habitat — EPA’s draft permit now proposes much-needed discharge limits to control nitrogen pollution from the Exeter sewage treatment plant.

Finally controlling nitrogen pollution from this significant discharge will be essential to protecting the health of the Squamscott River, which has experienced excessive levels of chlorophyll-a, depressed levels of oxygen, and the loss of important eelgrass habitat.   It also will help tackle nitrogen pollution problems in Great Bay.  But as EPA and the Department of Environmental Services know, reducing pollution from stormwater and other sewage treatment plants will be critical for the health of the Great Bay estuary.  Of the 18 sewage treatment plants discharging into the estuary, not one has a nitrogen pollution limit.  Exeter’s will be the first, and it’s an important step in the right direction.

EPA’s draft permit will be finalized after a public comment period which expires July 22.  A public hearing on the draft permit is scheduled for June 9 (6:30 p.m. at Exeter Town Hall).  You can help secure needed protections for the Squamscott River and Great Bay by weighing in!