Stormwater continues to be a major source of pollution to the Great Bay estuary. When it rains, runoff carries a wide range of pollutants – from dog waste and lawn fertilizers, to gasoline and oil, to heavy metals, nutrients and sediments – that flow into our waters with little or no treatment.

To combat this pollution, the UNH Stormwater Center and other local groups are working with Seacoast communities to implement projects at a neighborhood level to reduce the flow of untreated stormwater reaching the estuary. While many of these projects are small in scope, they demonstrate the value of dealing with stormwater close to home. One of the most interesting approaches is based on a program that was developed in Maine.

In 2009, the Kennebunkport Conservation Commission, in partnership with the University of New England, the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and others, developed the Lawns for Lobsters program. The program’s goal is to educate homeowners on steps they can take to ensure a healthy lawn with minimal impact on the environment. The program was also recently renamed Lawns to Lobsters, giving greater emphasis on the flow of water from our lawns to the ocean.

Other communities are now adopting the program, including one in New Hampshire. New Castle, the only town in the state composed entirely of islands, covers approximately 500 acres and sits at the mouth of the Piscataqua River. With a residential population of slightly more than 1,000, the town’s Conservation Commission is committed to reducing the impacts from non-point sources of pollution and launched the Lawns to Lobsters program last summer.

Residents who want to participate in the program take a pledge to use sound stewardship principles in managing their own property. This includes testing the soil before using a fertilizer, applying the correct amount, and not applying fertilizer if rain is predicted in the next 48 hours. Other measures include keeping the grass at least three inches in length (tall grass needs less water), planting clover as a fertilizer substitute, properly disposing of dog waste, and using herbicides and insecticides sparingly. Homeowners also are asked to consider replacing all or part of their lawn with native plants.

Long term, the town wants to encourage citizens to install rain gardens and vegetative buffers as a way to prevent polluted runoff. In a compact community such as New Castle, all of these steps can add up and help to protect our waterways. You can read more about the New Castle Conservation Commission’s efforts to protect the Great Bay estuary here.

In partnership with the Great Bay Stewards and the NH Department of Environmental Services, we plan to launch a similar program for homeowners next spring. The program will be based on the Department’s Homeowner’s Guide to Stormwater Management. Stay tuned for more information!  In the meantime, there are lots of resources available to homeowners on how to install a rain garden. The University of NH Cooperative Extension Services offer an excellent guide called Landscaping at the Water’s Edge.

As Waterkeeper, I find it encouraging that New Castle is addressing the serious issue of stormwater pollution. We all need to work together to solve the problem. By becoming responsible homeowners, New Castle residents are taking an important first step.

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.

Image courtesy of eutrophication&hypoxia @ flickr. Creative Commons

Massachusetts lacks money and needs clean water. This bind – one in which the state found itself following a June report – has forced a discussion policies that are raising the hackles of Massachusetts residents.

According to a report by the Massachusetts Water Infrastructure Finance Commission released in June, Massachusetts has a statewide “funding gap” of $21 billion to pay for its drinking water and wastewater systems over the next twenty years.  The report found that cities and towns across the state are dealing with aging water and sewer systems – some from the 1800s. The cost of mere maintenance is substantial – let alone expansions of infrastructure to keep up with residential and commercial growth.

The Commission considered a variety of strategies to raise revenue, including new taxes on fertilizers or pesticides, a new bottle bill, and a statewide water surcharge. A surcharge would likely be 1 mil per gallon, or about $23 per year for the average individual. Naturally, the surcharge proposal has run into the loudest opposition.

In response, petitions are circulating for a 2012 ballot initiative which would cap water and sewer rate increases at 2.5% per year. Before rejecting rate increases, Massachusetts citizens should consider the true costs and benefits of water management systems.

Most municipal water systems combine stormwater and sewage, meaning that storms are causing sewer overflows because older systems aren’t equipped to handle large volumes. Nutrient pollution from inadequate sewage treatment creates toxic algae blooms, shuts down beaches, and disrupts ecosystems and tourism. The solutions to these problems may not be cheap, but they’re desperately needed. Until we manage wastewater and stormwater effectively, we aren’t paying the true costs of the infrastructure that delivers clean water to our homes and businesses.

Recognizing this need for massive investment in our nation’s infrastructure, the Obama administration proposed a “national infrastructure bank” over the past few months. The proposal would help local governments finance infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, and sewer systems. The bill passed the U.S. Senate with bipartisan support, but does not appear to have the same level of support in the House of Representatives. So states like Massachusetts may need to act on their own to ensure that municipalities have the resources they need to protect the public from sewer overflows and antiquated wastewater treatment systems.

Unless we want to face an uncertain future, our cities need the capability to repair, maintain, and enlarge their water and sewer systems when necessary. They also need capital to invest in green infrastructure projects like permeable pavement, rain gardens, and green roofs, which absorb and filter rainwater and decrease the amount of water pouring into sewer systems.  Green infrastructure projects ultimately save cities money in the long run by reducing sewer inputs and thereby reducing the need for old-fashioned (“grey”) infrastructure like underground tanks and tunnels. Meanwhile, communities enjoy the benefits of new green space, carbon-mitigating wetlands, and Cities like Philadelphia and New York are already investing extensively in green stormwater management techniques, and anticipating millions in savings.  (The Philadelphia Water Department has estimated that its new stormwater policies have diverted a quarter billion gallons of water from the sewer system, saving the city $170 million.)

Let’s stay tuned for the Commission’s final recommendations for Massachusetts, and consider all the options for financing our infrastructure needs in an equitable and manageable way.

In an insightful reaction to President Obama’s health care speech to a joint session of Congress, noted author Michael Pollan (Omnivore’s Dilemma, In Defense of Food) said something very provocative on the pages of the New York Times.  Unlike South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, he didn’t accuse the president of lying.  But he did make pretty clear that the health care debate thus far has ignored a very significant part of the problem: an acknowledgment that our transformation into a fast food nation is playing a huge role in making health care more costly and less accessible for all Americans.

In his Op-ed titled “Big Food vs. Big Insurance“, he writes:

Cheap food is going to be popular as long as the social and environmental costs of that food are charged to the future. There’s lots of money to be made selling fast food and then treating the diseases that fast food causes. One of the leading products of the American food industry has become patients for the American health care industry.

He’s got a very compelling point, and it becomes even more compelling if you follow the “environmental costs” thread that he mentions only in passing.

Much of federal food policy is all about subsidies for corn, both as a feed crop for fatty meats raised under inhumane conditions on “factory farms” and for use in the ubiquitous sweetener high-fructose corn syrup found in calorie-laden soda and other processed foods throughout the supermarket.  Most of the corn grown in this country requires intensive application of nutrient-rich fertilizers, especially those with nitrogen.  A lot of the fertilizer gets dumped into rivers either through excess application onto the fields or through the mishandling of manure from the animals who eat all that corn without fully digesting the nutrients.

The water pollution problems caused by our heavily-subsidized fertilizer- intensive agriculture only serve to exacerbate our reliance on cheap and unhealthy food.  The result are seasonal “dead zones“: areas in polluted waterbodies like the Gulf of Mexico where algae blooms fed by the fertilizer runoff deplete waters of oxygen that fish need to live.  So to grow corn to fuel the increasing consumption of unhealthy process foods and soda related to the explosion of costly and increasingly-common health problems like Type 2 diabetes, we’re using fertilizers that destroy the capacity of fisheries to provide alternative sources of much healthier nutrition.  A vicious cycle if ever there was one.

Self-defeating food policies that poison and destroy fisheries aren’t the only link to rising health care costs.  As CLF reported in our “Conservation Matters” article on mercury pollution, “there is a high correlation between children with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and other neurological disorders and mothers who have ingested high amounts of methylmercury from poisoned fish and water.”  To prevent these costly, life-long health conditions Northeastern states warn pregnant women and young children not to eat freshwater fish from the over “10,000 lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, as well as more than 46,000 miles of river deemed too toxic for fish consumption.” The pollution comes from coal-fired power plants whose owners refuse to sacrifice a small part of their enormous profits to install readily-available mercury pollution controls. CLF is continuing to fight for tougher mercury standards in hopes that New England’s freshwater fisheries–a historical source of great sustenance for our region’s people–will once again provide safe, nutritious food rather than potential health hazards.

There’s no doubt that health insurance reform is desperately needed, but to succeed in controlling costs and making us healthier it must accompanied by reforms to our food and environmental policies.