In their rush to exploit recovery efforts from Tropical Storm Irene, ideologues who perpetually fight against regulation and science and who posture as the defenders of traditional “Yankee” values are forgetting two important rock-ribbed principles.

The first is frugality. There has been a lot of loose talk about how much money was supposedly saved by largely ignoring environmental review and permitting as bulldozers, excavators and dump trucks rushed into rivers across Vermont in dozens of places. Understandably, given the dire situation facing the state at the time, these claims are based on initial, back-of-the-envelope cost estimates made with little or no analysis. However, using those alleged savings to argue for a change in policy is irresponsible as a matter of policy, and discourteous to basic math.

The accounting trick the deregulation folks are trying to pull off ignores the near-term and future public and private costs that Vermonters will inevitably incur and in some cases are already incurring to fix the problems caused by hasty “restoration” that did more harm than good. The overall restoration effort was extraordinary, and the state’s road system has been rebuilt quickly. But as any old hill farmer can tell you, a quick repair is rarely the last fix you need, and haste, even when necessary, makes waste.

Camp Brook in Bethel is a prime example where "restoration" work done hastily in the throw-the-law-and-science-out-the-window free-for-all that followed Tropical Storm Irene is now being redone, at additional cost to taxpayers, to minimize new flooding risks caused by the hasty Post-Irene stream alteration

The second Yankee principle ignored by those who don’t want to let modern understandings of river physics, science-based laws and common sense stand in the way of their crusade against regulation is that we don’t solve our problems by pushing them on to our neighbors.

One of the purposes of the science-based river alteration regulations that have evolved in Vermont during the last few decades is to minimize and prevent flooding altogether rather than simply transfer problems onto neighboring properties. Mining gravel from the stream next to your house might prevent – for a time – your fields from flooding. But it increases the likelihood of your neighbor’s house getting washed away. Striking the balance calls for smart regulation such as Vermont has developed. To do river work right, is to do right by your neighbors.

And, although some would not have it so, those principles of true frugality, quality workmanship, and true community remain in Vermont, and must be restored along with our roads, homes, and towns.

Take for example the case of Camp Brook in hard-hit Bethel.  As reported in Sunday’s Times Argus and Rutland Herald (sorry I can’t link to the story it is behind a paywall), the bulldozers are back in the river.  But this time scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and volunteers from nonprofit White River Partnership are guiding their work closely.  You see, the bulldozers are there trying to fix the mess (likely made with the best of intentions) that the early recovery efforts made of the Brook; a mess that, according to the news report, actually increased the risk of flash flooding and threatens upstream and downstream bridges along Rt. 12 with erosion around their abutments and more intense flows from a river artificially straightened after Irene.  Here is an excerpt that sums up the status of the Brook as a result of the rush job:

“[N]o one in the excavators really knew what the brook had looked like before.  The valley was flattened.  Berms stood mid-slope.  Where the lawn had once been, the river now braided over dirt and rocks, with no banks to direct its flow.  There were no boulders or even large rocks to add burbles to its sound or prevent flash flooding.”

After weeks of careful remediation, the new science-guided effort is restoring Camp Brook to a healthy functioning stream with natural structures that will help prevent future flooding and restore habitat for fish.  Even though it’s buried in the back pages of the paper, it’s good news for people who care about protecting property and maintaining healthy streams.  It’s bad news for the deregulation crowd because it directly contradicts the claim that we can save money by gutting environmental regulations that require recovery work to be done carefully in a manner that is consistent with science-based state and federal laws. In the long run it is cheaper for us and for those downstream to do a job right the first time lest we keep having to relearn the lesson that haste makes waste.

Zak Griefen

CLF is pleased to welcome Zak Griefen, a Vermont native and former litigator for Cheney, Brock and Saudek, in the newly created role of environmental enforcement litigator. Based in CLF’s Vermont office, but working on cases throughout New England, Zak will be focused initially on cleaning up our region’s inland and coastal waters by ensuring that polluters are aware of their Clean Water Act permitting requirements and bringing federal litigation when necessary. The environmental enforcement litigator position was created to hold polluters accountable for the violations of environmental regulations—Clean Water Act and others—that are rampant across New England, compromising our region’s health and the health and safety of our citizens.

Zak has a BA from the University of New Mexico, and earned his JD, cum laude, and Master of Studies in Environmental Law, magna cum laude, from Vermont Law School in 2005, where he was an editor of the Vermont Law Review. Admitted to practice in VT and MA, he served for two years as clerk to the judges of the Vermont Environmental Court, and then practiced civil litigation in Montpelier, where he lives with his wife and two children. Zak, who served as a summer intern at CLF in 2004, is an avid angler and is particularly interested in protecting healthy streams and promoting sustainable land use.

It had been more than a month since Tropical Storm Irene when I returned to kayak my favorite whitewater rivers in Vermont: the Middlebury and the New Haven. The massive flows from Irene moved some small rocks around, but in most places the overall character of the these rustic rivers remained the same, even after the storm. Sadly that is not true about sections of the rivers near roads where in the name of “repair” bulldozers literally flattened the rivers, excavating giant boulders, dredging gravel, and leaving the once vibrant river an unrecognizable shell. Rapids that used to be complex, multi-tiered stretches, supporting important habitat had transformed into homogeneous flat spots.

The untouched segments of river far from the road looked very different from the dredged and flattened stretches that destroyed not only a magical recreation space but crucial fish habitat as well. The contrast was stark and disturbing.  The river tamed unwillingly and transformed into little more than a pipe, losing its resilience, beauty, and health.  I thought again how important it is to protect these valuable and magical places.

Returning to these spots reminded me of the beatings we continue to inflict on our local waters: from stormwater and nutrient pollution to the destruction of fish habitat as we recover from Irene.  Our precious river ecosystems deserve better.  We can learn from their ability to heal after a hurricane.  We can stop treating our rivers like pipes and sewers and tell our friends, neighbors, and elected officials “enough is enough.” It is crucial that we do not ignore science and continue to reverse decades of recovery in our rivers.  We can contact our local town officials and request that they take a step back and seek expert advice before digging into your local river. The more actions we take as individuals, the more we can collectively do the work that will allow our rivers to heal.

Starting tomorrow, those concerned about Lake Champlain and interested in helping outline how to deal with nutrient pollution threatening its future will have a chance to make their opinions heard.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the help of Vermont’s Department of Environmental Conservation, is in the process of re-writing the Lake Champlain Phosphorous Total Maximum Daily Load. This effort must be successful if we are to reduce phosphorous pollution to our great lake and keep one of Vermont’s most important resources swimmable, fishable and drinkable.

As you may know, the TMDL is an important technical document which acts as a phosphorous pollution budget so Vermonters can plan for reducing how much phosphorous we ask Lake Champlain to handle. We currently add much more phosphorous – well over twice as much in some years – than is safe for the lake ecosystem. The result, excess weed growth, potentially toxic blue-green algae blooms and low dissolved oxygen, makes the lake less usable. And those problems are likely to become more widespread, particularly with two floods of historic proportion this year.

Thanks to the work of Conservation Law Foundation, the EPA ruled earlier this year that the TMDL approved in 2002 was not adequate to truly protect and restore Lake Champlain. Now federal and state authorities have organized a set of public meetings to help in reworking the TMDL which will take place over the next week and will be focused on the northern portion of the Lake Champlain basin. A second set of meetings focused on the southern portion of the lake is scheduled for November 14th through November 18thand I will send you more details when they are finalized.

As you can see from the schedule below, the first set of meetings are roughly organized by sector of interest. Given that a draft of the new TMDL is still in the works, I expect the topics covered during these conversations will be quite broad and include questions of funding, how to structure the TMDL and possible barriers to implementing it. I encourage you to attend one of them if you are at all interested in learning more, and especially if you have concerns or thoughts about the way this issue has been addressed and how it will be addressed in the future.

I plan on going to most of these meetings and will be taking notes, so if you are interested in the subject but cannot attend one of the meetings I am happy to provide you with my unofficial minutes of those I have attended (lporter@clf.org).

You can file written comments if you are unable to attend and the state has asked that, if possible, you let them know if you are planning on going to one of the meetings so they can make sure the rooms are large enough. Both can be sent to Michaela Stickney, VTDEC Lake Champlain Basin Coordinator, michaela.stickney@state.vt.us.

The EPA’s disapproval decision finding that the 2002 TMDL is inadequate can be found here:

http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/tmdl/pdfs/vt/LakeChamplainTMDLDisapprovalDecision.pdf

Vermont’s revised implementation plan for the TMDL can be found here:

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/cleanandclear/news/TMDL%20impl%20plan%20final%20-%20011510.pdf

The Lake Champlain Basin Program’s State of the Lake Report, which includes information on Phosphorous loads, can be found here:

http://www.lcbp.org/lcstate.htm

1.       Tuesday October 4, 10am – 12pm
Agricultural Sector
Winooski Natural Resources Conservation District (NRCD)

617 Comstock Rd, Suite 1
Berlin, VT

Phone: (802) 828-4493 Ext. 113
► (meet in the UVM Extension conference room in the complex)

 2.       Tuesday October 4, 3-5pm
Northern Municipality Sector
Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NRPC)

155 Lake Street
St. Albans, VT

(802) 524-5958
► (meet at NRPC offices)

3.       Wednesday October 5, 11:30am-1:30pm 
Business Sector
Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce & Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation

60 Main Street, #100
Burlington, VT
(802) 863-3489

► (meet at LCRCOC offices)
4.       Wednesday October 5, 5:30-7:30pm
Nonprofit/Mid-lake Watershed Group Sector
ECHO/Leahy Center

1 College St.
Burlington, VT

(802) 864-1848
► (meet in Alcove upstairs)

5.       Thursday October 6, 10am-12pm
Northern Lake Committee Sector
Lake Champlain Basin Program
54 West Shore Rd.

Grand Isle, VT

(802) 372-3213
► (meet at LCBP offices)

6.       Thursday October 6, 2-4pm
Stormwater/Urban Sector
Shelburne Town Offices

5420 Shelburne Road

Shelburne, VT

(802) 985-5110
► (meet at Shelburne Town Offices)

Camp Brook

The very severe damage in Vermont caused by Tropical Storm Irene led to an impressive and encouraging recovery effort both by state government and residents, many of whom volunteered to help their neighbors salvage and rebuild.

Unfortunately, however, the storm – the second flood of historic proportions in the state this year – also seems to have washed away much of what we have learned about the dangers of digging gravel from streams and rivers.

In recent weeks there have been dozens of excavators and bulldozers in rivers across the state digging gravel, channelizing streams and armoring banks with stone, not only at great ecological cost, but – particularly in the many cases in which a true emergency did not exist – greatly increasing the risk of future flood damage.

Meanwhile, the state, by not setting and enforcing clear limits on that work in the rivers, has done little – at least so far – to prevent the damage.

Knowledge gained by the scientific study of these river systems, also known as fluvial geomorphology, leaves little doubt that increasing the speed of water by turning streams that meander over rocky beds into straight chutes with little structure not only destroys vital habitat for fish and other creatures, it also increases the potential destructive power of floods. It was advances in this physics-based science which led to significant limitations on gravel removal from Vermont rivers during the last two decades.

Rock River

However, the recent flooding (and statements by Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin) has given new life to an outdated and inaccurate idea that removing gravel from the rivers is what prevented flooding in the past. This notion ignores the fact that restricting rivers into a man-made channel, cutting off the access to flood plains and jarring mature streams back into instability the risk of flood damage is significantly increased, particularly for neighbors downstream.

More on this subject can be found in a Burlington Free Press column here and in a Vermont Public Radio news story here.

Why buy when you can save? Power saved through energy efficiency is widely available, clean, and costs approximately one half to one third the cost of buying electricity from a power plant. During a nine-month workshop process with regulators, utilities and businesses, CLF recommended Vermont invest in far greater efficiency to aggressively tackle high-energy bills, curb pollution and climate change, and provide a more secure energy future. While Vermont regulators acknowledged that greater efficiency pays for itself and avoids more expensive power purchases and transmission upgrades, they ultimately approved only a small increase for efficiency efforts.

The Board’s order is disappointing. A limited number of businesses opposed increasing efficiency. This opposition is short-sighted. The most successful businesses are also the most efficient. They represent opportunities for growing our economy and keeping jobs in Vermont and pollution out of Vermont. With more energy efficiency, we can support and grow our economy instead of throwing our energy dollars out the window. Efficiency investments provide savings through financial incentives for equipment, lighting, renovation, and construction that allows buildings and homes to use less energy.

Even with this limited increase, Vermont will remain a strong leader on electrical energy efficiency. Unfortunately, there are still too many savings left on the table. As a result, Vermonters will be paying too much and polluting too much to meet our power needs. We could easily make twice the investment we are making now, and that’s what we should be doing. The Board’s decision is a baby step in the right direction, but we still have a marathon to run.

The Vermont Public Service Board recently approved a contract for Vermont utilities to buy power from Hydro-Québec for 20 years.  The new contract will supply about 20% of Vermont’s power needs, bringing 225 MW of power into Vermont to replace an expiring contract for 310 MW.  The starting price for the power is about $58.07 per MWh and will be adjusted annually based on regional electricity prices.  Vermont regulators found the agreement provides Vermont financial benefits by locking in a stable price that is lower than many other sources of electricity.  Contracts such as this represent only the tip of the iceberg for power imports from Québec, as Hydro-Québec partners to build transmission lines through New York and New Hampshire.

Hydro-Québec is a government-owned utility with some nuclear and fossil fuel plants, 60 hydroelectric generating stations, including seven new dams built since 2000, and significant new expansions on the horizon, including 3,000 MW of new hydropower projects in Québec’s far north as part of the province’s $80 billion “Plan Nord.”  Because Hydro-Québec supplies more than enough power for its own region, the expansion represents Hydro-Québec’s commitment to selling more power to other areas, including New England.

Regulators quickly approved the contract, citing its purported value as a relatively low-carbon and low-cost power source.   However, importing vast amounts of power from Québec is no “green” silver bullet.  Last October, CLF highlighted troubling aspects of the power deal between Hydro-Québec and Vermont utilities. CLF showed that the power deal falls short by failing to honestly represent its environmental impacts.  A few of the problems with the deal:

• Without adequate verification, the environmental claims aren’t necessarily accurate.  A portion of the claimed “clean power” could really be coming from coal or other fossil fuels.  Under the contract, the energy sold must be 90% hydropower, but without any independent verification, it is impossible to ensure that Vermont gets what it bargained for.
• The contract fails to address impacts of new dams that would flood vast areas of northern Québec. Nothing in the contract limits Hydro-Québec’s ability to build new dams as demand for energy grows; this means the contract with Vermont tacitly supports new dams and the resulting damage.
• The contract allows Vermont utilities to sell the renewable claims elsewhere when Vermont itself has no firm obligation to keep its energy supply low-carbon.  Unlike other New England states, Vermont has no requirement now to purchase renewable power. This means that Vermont utilities benefit financially from a system it is not truly a part of, and would allow other states to continue to rely on dirty power sources such as coal.

As a region, we must ensure any new commitments to import power from Canada clearly advance our clean power goals.  Any new imports of hydropower should replace the power we are currently getting from coal and other dirty, inefficient power plants.  Only then can we actually lower our carbon emissions from electricity.   The challenge for New England is to make sure any level of imports meets our needs, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and avoids exporting environmental problems to the north.  Indeed, that challenge is why CLF is calling for a comprehensive, regional analysis of imports from Canada within the Northern Pass permitting process.  CLF continues to push for greater reliance on cleaner energy resources and to demand honest evaluations and representations of environmental benefits and impacts.

Vermont moves a step closer to shuttering the aging Vermont Yankee nuclear power facility as planned in 2012.

In a strong rebuke to Entergy, the facility’s owner, the United States District Court denied a request to keep the plant open while Entergy’s legal challenge proceeds.  Entergy sued Vermont in April.  Entergy seeks to prevent Vermont law – which requires state approval - from taking effect.

The Court denied Entergy’s request for a preliminary injunction, stating:  ”This Court declines to order short-term drastic and extraordinary injunctive relief that will not offer certainty either in the short or long term, and will have no operative effect on state actions before trial.”

The Court rejected each of Entergy’s claims of harm.  The Court noted that a decision about refueling is “a business decision made very difficult by the uncertainties of litigation.”  The Court stated:  “In the unique circumstances presented here, the decision to refuel is either not harmful if Entergy prevails on the merits, or is not a cognizable injury if Vermont’s statutes are upheld.”    Refueling would cost between $60 and $65 million.  Revenues of $90 million would be earned from operating the plant until its planned closure in March 2012.

A full trial will take place this fall.  The Court’s decision on the injunction is a solid victory for Vermont at this stage.

CLF applauds the balance regulators struck in approving the Kingdom Community Wind Project in Lowell, VT. The order allows the controversial project to move forward while protecting wildlife habitat and ensuring restoration of disturbed areas.  The decision addresses all the concerns that were raised and provides some innovative means to manage the impacts.

All power supplies – including wind – have environmental impacts.   While the environmental harms associated with wind are less than most sources of generation, they need to be minimized and mitigated, not ignored. The Vermont order includes specific requirements from an agreement with Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources that permanently protects significant habitat and requires re-vegetation and restoration of disturbed areas both after construction and when the project is no longer used.  These measures go a long way to reduce the environmental footprint of the project.  The decision also calls for minimizing lighting while still conforming to FAA requirements.  Overall, the decision can be a model for how projects can move forward while responsibly addressing impacts. 

The project’s benefits are significant and weighed in favor of approval.  Powering 20,000 homes from this project will help Vermont meet it renewable energy goals, create jobs and tax revenue, avoid greenhouse gas emissions, and provide long-term, stably priced power. In an interview with VPR, GMP’s President Mary Powell described the project as, “incredibly cost effective for premium renewable electricity.”

The project, consisting of 20-21 400-foot turbines along 3 miles of Lowell Mountain ridgeline, is expected to break ground in August of this year. The turbines will power an estimated 20,000 households, making it the largest wind site in the state. The project is moving forward with the approval of the Lowell community, who voted in favor of the turbines during Town Meeting Day in 2010.  CLF is excited to support wind projects that bring the community to the table, are responsibly cited, and mitigate the impacts on the environment in exchange for clean, locally produced energy.