Massachusetts Coalition for
Water Resources Stewardship
Presentation to New Hampshire
Water Pollution Control
Association
by Robert L. Moylan Jr. P.E.
Commissioner of Public Works and Parks
Worcester MA
6/13/2013
Overview

What is the Massachusetts Coalition for Water
Resources Stewardship (MCWRS)?

What is its purpose?

Why was it formed?

What has it done?

What has been its impact?
Who is the Massachusetts Coalition for
Water Resources Stewardship?

It is a group of cities and towns and sewer
authorities across Massachusetts who banded
together in June 2007 and who share a
common concern with how EPA writes and
enforces NPDES permits

Recently established as a 501(c)(4) non-profit
and elected Board of Directors
What is its purpose?





To speak for the regulated community with one voice
To object to unreasonable and costly unfunded
mandates
To seek real environmental improvements by making
cost/benefit a fundamental consideration of any permit
requirement
To engage the rate paying public about the costs and
other impacts of NPDES permits (CSOs, POTWs,
Stormwater)
To restore the partnership that once existed between
federal/state regulators and the regulated community
Why was it formed?
FRUSTRATION!!!
•
•
•
•
•
•
We have all been there. Dealing with EPA is a difficult and
frustrating experience because they come from a different planet
They don’t have to face ratepayers; thus cost is not a
consideration
Their permits often lack valid science
They have compartmentalized permitting so that the “big picture”
is often lost
They fail to consider sustainability when establishing permit
requirements
They do not communicate well
What has MCWRS done?





In November 2007, issued a “White Paper” with 10
recommendations for change
In April 2008, met in Washington DC with the full
Massachusetts federal delegation and Region 1 EPA to discuss
the recommendations of the “White Paper”
Met monthly from May-December 2008 with DEP and EPA to
explore White Paper recommendations. Results of these
meetings were compiled in a report to the Mass. Congressional
delegation.
Received NACWA’s Special Recognition Award in 2009
We have since held 4 Symposiums to discuss NPDES permits
in general, develop strategies for reform, and offer reasonable
alternatives to EPA’s heavy handed approach
White Paper recommendations

Base permits on peer reviewed science and holistic watershed
planning

Costs and cost/benefit must be considered

Focus on biggest problems first

Develop longer permit terms

Open dialogue with regulators and stakeholders

Coordinate permits by watershed

Numerical limits must be based on valid science and pragmatic
watershed needs

Commonwealth to assume primacy
Outcome of EPA/DEP/Coalition
Meetings

Agreements
–
–
–
–
–
–
Better communication needed
Watershed based planning and permitting needs to be reconsidered and must involve all stakeholders
Innovative permitting, especially pollutant trading should be
considered
Compliance costs are a significant factor
Good science should form the basis for regulatory decision
making
DEP and EPA should explore authorization of NPDES
permitting program in Massachusetts
Outcome of EPA/DEP/Coalition
Meetings (cont.)

No Agreement/Continue Debate
– Cost and affordability: EPA maintains the CWA does not
give them discretion to consider costs and that they address
the issue through compliance schedules and Use
Attainability Analysis.
– Coalition wants longer permit terms as 5-year term is
unreasonable given costs and project funding; EPA says
CWA dictates term
– EPA maintains that it uses the best available science;
Coalition claims that EPA often ignores better science if it
refutes their own studies
– Coalition believes permits should consider sustainability in
terms of energy use and overall environmental impact; EPA
says CWA does not allow for such consideration
Outcome of EPA/DEP/Coalition
Meetings (cont.)


Recommendations
Congress, EPA, DEP, and Coalition all have role to
play
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Amend the CWA
Promote and incentivize pollutant trading
Reconsider watershed planning and permitting
Explore full realm of UAA
Reassess 2% HMI test for affordability
Fund river studies
Review and amend TMDLs
Revise water quality standards to consider urban areas
The CWA in 1972



Created at a time when federal funding was the
norm and no consideration that this funding stream
would disappear
Hugely successful at addressing gross
contamination of waters
– Built sewage treatment plants where there were
none
– Modernized existing sewage treatment plants
Brought everyone together: shared costs, shared
goals, noticeable benefits
The CWA Now






State and federal government no longer have a
financial interest in financing CWA requirements;
costs do not concern them; they have taken a walk
Science supporting CWA requirements is often
lacking; it is the public’s money, shouldn’t we have
the best science?
Appeal of EPA’s mandates is costly and severely
biased in favor of EPA; process is rigged
Costs are borne entirely by local by ratepayers
The game has changed-the target is now fine tuning
waterways that have been vastly restored. The
goals, expectations and strategies for success are
more nebulous….how clean is clean?
The current process is totally adversarial; it’s a loser!
Examples of the Regulatory Excess

UBWPAD (POTW)
–
$180M upgrade to meet 0.75P and other
improvements in 2001 permit
–
EPA’s latest permit (2008) requires:

$200M to meet 0.1P and 5 N which will increase debt
service another $10M/yr and O&M by $5M/yr

Cost to average customer in Worcester will increase by
about $2.25/CCF

Based on same science as their 2001 permit
Regulatory Excess UBWPAD (cont.)

Our model of river shows:
–
–
New limits will have little effect on river beyond
that of current upgrade
New limits will increase the “carbon footprint”






20% increase in electrical power (600 homes)
21 million ft³ of natural gas (500 homes)
1.8 million gals. of ferric chloride
8.2 million gals. of sodium hydroxide
150,000 gals. of methanol
50% more sludge ash
Regulatory Excess (cont.)

Worcester Stormwater NPDES permit
–
–
–
–
–
–
Phase 1 community…..1st in EPA Region 1
Cost to comply with current draft permit as estimated by
CDM is $1.2 BILLION!
The goals of our permit will be required by all other
communities
Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) is no longer the
standard….meeting numeric limits is expected
Stormwater effluent to TMDL impaired waters cannot
“cause or contribute to an exceedence”
TMDL of dubious quality drive permit requirements
What’s next?



EPA has estimated that over the next 20 years it will
cost $1 trillion dollars to meet the requirements of
the CWA…..this cost will be borne completely by
local ratepayers
Nitrogen and Phosphorous will continue to be the
pollutants of concern. Dischargers will be required to
implement LOT processes to meet new standards
because dischargers are the easy targets
Individual stormwater permits for private properties
with >2 acres impervious area (i.e., Bellingham,
Milford, & Franklin MA)
What’s next (cont.)





Stormwater Permits with have numerical limits; MEP
will be superseded
Eliminate CSOs and SSOs
More guidance, regulations, and exceedance of
statutory authority with increasing intrusion into local
control
Stricter NPDES limits and more control is equal to
higher rates
Can you say “Live Free or Die”
What are we up against?

Environmental extremists (both inside and outside of
EPA) manipulate CWA to drive their agenda. Money
is no object and saving the environment has no limit.

Environmental advocates are well organized, well
funded, entrenched within the agencies, and are
masters at manipulating public thinking through
emotional and oversimplified views.

The most powerful environmental groups use the
media and the courts to convey their message and
intimidate the agencies.
What can you do???






Work together and speak with one voice and a
consistent message.
Get involved in reviewing/commenting on other
permits – not just your own.
Educate and inform the public on the status of your
dealings with EPA. Explain the costs and benefits of
the permit.
Learn from the environmental groups approach: this
is not a technical fight; it is a political fight.
Contact your congressman
JOIN A COALITION!
What is My Message?

You as City and Town Officials are:
–
–
–
–
–
Stewards of your community’s natural resources
Pragmatists and practitioners of common sense
Managers of complex infrastructure systems
Responsible for the prudent expenditure of the
your town’s money
Know the challenges and priorities of your
community better than anyone else
Message (cont.)




EPA is not all knowing….nor do they walk with the
angels as some might have you believe
They have a job to do and are narrowly focused on
that job but they are not concerned with you or your
problems…they are looking out for themselves!
They are driven by environmental purists
The CWA was not intended to bankrupt cities/towns
Message (cont.)


You have an obligation to call attention to the
issues
You must advocate that permits
–
–
–
–
–
Be based on good science
Consider cost/benefit
Consider community’s affordability
Be sustainable – Meet the Triple Bottom Line
Stormwater Permits should be based on MEP
Message (con’t)


Recognize that stormwater issues are largely
linked to population density….it is a problem
that has developed over 220 years during
which time the country has grown to over
300 million people…it won’t be solved in one
5 year permit term
Perfection will take time to achieve….in the
meantime accept continuous improvement
Message
“The enemy of the good is the perfect”
-Voltaire