MEDIA RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 14, 2009
For more information, contact:
Kerry Mackin, Ipswich River Watershed Assoc., 978-412-8200.
Margaret Van Deusen, Charles River Watershed Assoc., 781-788-0007 ext. 234
Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation 617-850-1754
Becky Smith, Clean Water Action 617.338.8131 ext. 210
Environmental Groups Resign After Patrick Administration
Evaporates Legal Protections for Rivers
The four environmental members of the Department of Environmental Protection’s (MassDEP) Water Resources Management Advisory Committee – Conservation Law Foundation, Charles River Watershed Association, Ipswich River Watershed Association and Clean Water Action – have resigned in a letter sent to the Governor today. Their resignations come in response to the Patrick Administration’s reversal last week of its policy that protecting the environment was fundamental in determining how much water could be withdrawn from a river basin under the Water Management Act.
The Advisory Committee is intended to help MassDEP, but the agency didn’t even convene the Advisory Committee for the last five months and announced this decision as a done deal without any opportunity for outside input.
This startling decision by the Patrick Administration reverses state policy under five prior governors, which previously held that protecting a river’s “safe yield” included leaving at least some water in a river to sustain fish and other river life. This determination goes to the heart of the state water management law.
Now, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) and MassDEP have reversed course, taking the “safe” out of “safe yield” and saying that all the water in Massachusetts rivers should be available for water withdrawals. Under this new interpretation of a river basin’s safe yield, no water would need to be left in the rivers during dry years.
“This decision guts the protection of the Water Management Act for rivers, fisheries and recreation,” concluded Kerry Mackin, Executive Director of the Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA). IRWA successfully sued MassDEP for issuing water withdrawal permits that allowed too much water to be pumped from the Ipswich River watershed.
In a 2007 ruling the Superior Court concluded that MassDEP’s safe yield for the Ipswich River was too high, given that the river frequently dries up in the summer, resulting in fish kills and other damage to the environment. Now MassDEP has responded by reading environmental protection completely out of the definition of safe yield, determining that it is possible to withdraw another 22 million gallons from the Ipswich. “The Ipswich River has been pumped dry repeatedly for decades because the state allowed too much water to be withdrawn, but under the new policy, the state could increase water withdrawals from the river by 60%,” Mackin added. Does anyone really believe the Ipswich River can provide this much more water when it was pumped dry before? This decision makes no sense.”
“Safe yield is the cornerstone of the Water Management Act,” according to Margaret Van Deusen, attorney for the Charles River Watershed Association, who represented IRWA in the case. “Rather than developing a scientifically sound method for determining safe yield as the court ordered, MassDEP has apparently spent the last two years trying to figure out how to get around the ruling.”
“In place of a legal requirement that protected some stream flow for fish and other life in our rivers and streams, MassDEP has adopted a new threshold that offers no environmental protection. In its place, EOEEA proposes a ‘task force’ to come up with a strategy for balancing all the other public interests in our waters. This move makes a mockery of sustainable water management,” said Peter Shelley of the Conservation Law Foundation. Notably, any recommendations from this new task force will occur after Mass DEP has already allocated all the water across the state for the next 20 years through a series of water withdrawal permit renewals.
Thank you to the individuals and organizations that had the courage to take this stand. Water is quickly becoming the new oil and safeguards must be enforced.
<
p>Maybe this is reflective of the Administration’s regard for the environment and why the Governor, Secretaries and Commissioners have been silent on the matter of environmental impacts of proposed casinos. Water consumption of casino facilities is enormous; 1.0 MGD to max 1.75 MGD of water per day. Exhaust from estimated 12,000 vehicles per day, year round are significant environmental footprints.
<
p>Where are the democratic, environmental leaders in the Legislature on these matters?
Water Initiative
<
p>The Globe reported today on the resignation of four members from the state waterway advisory panel.
<
p> * Deval Patrick is widely recognized as the most environmentally friendly Massachusetts Governor in a generation. (OK – compared to Mitt (R), Jane (R) and Paul (R)).
<
p> * The Governor’s commitment to the protecting the Commonwealth’s costal resources is second to none. His support of clean energy technologies is nationally recognized as a national model of environmental stewardship. (That’s a good start, measured how?)
<
p> * Governor Patrick and Lt. Gov. Murray are committed to making important changes that are best for all Massachusetts citizens. At times, that drive for change will be difficult. (like casino water/air/gas guzzlers?)
<
p> * Consistent with that pledge, we are, for the first time, creating a comprehensive, sustainable water allocation process that takes into account not only the amount of water available but also impact on stream-flow and aquatic habitats. (Habitat 101)
<
p> * Our Integrated Water Initiative will move beyond more than two decades of inadequate protection and uncertainty. We plan to engage leading environmental groups in this process, as well as municipalities, water suppliers, and other stakeholders. (Integrated but not collaborated?)
* It is unacceptable that the Commonwealth still has areas where streams dry up in the summer, aquatic habitat is degraded, and municipalities are forced to restrict growth. (Unacceptable or reality of the natural world?)
<
p> * The important voices of the environmental community are welcome at the table to help us craft a policy that takes a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to the water resource challenges we are facing. (Someone forgot to send the invitation, maybe it got lost in Friday’s mail)
but his track record in this area and in the Fells Reservation disaster tells a dramatically different story. This state, our parklands and waterways seem to be for sale now more than ever. Cellucci, Swift and even Romney would not allow the Fells development to go forward but Deval has made it so easy. What a guy.
My comments on the Governor’s rebuttal are in parenthesis and italics. I responded to their rebut with a good amount of snark…if you think I was too kind, I stand corrected.
should have read you better. now that I have read it I am really red faced as you couldn’t have been clearer. My apologies.
I don’t like casinos. I do like the environment. Still, you’re stretching.
<
p>Water consumption of casino facilities shouldn’t be out of line with hotels, plus or minus. 1 MGD is about the same demand as 4000 homes. I have no idea if that number includes a golf course (about 50,000 g/d). Ultimately, 1 MGD isn’t very much water for a system as big as the MWRA — the real question is whether or not the local system has the capacity to deliver an additional 1 MGD to that particular site.
<
p>As for autos, 12,000 cars/day? Come on. My old apartment used to have a lovely view of the MassPike near Comm Ave in Boston. 8 lanes of traffic. I probably got 12k cars passing my window every rush hour (twice a day).
<
p>
<
p>The environmental impact of individual developments is the local issues related, not global issues related. Things like watershed, migratory routes, sanctuaries or other protected lands, local pollution risks and hazards, noise problems, that sort of thing. The MWRA serves up about 215 MGD (and processes 350 MGD of sewage) — they can handle quite a bit more, as they were distributing about 340 MGD as recently as 1987; water conservation has steadily eroded demand. I’m skeptical that the casino really would call for 1 MGD, and I’m certain that the regional environmental impact on that water demand is negligible from a systems perspective. The autos are an even lesser concern from a systems perspective.
<
p>
<
p>Casinos are terrible, but not for reasons of regional environmental problems — at least no more so than arenas, large shopping malls, hotels, amusement parks, or any other number of large-scale entertainment venues.
I respect your knowledge and your post was excellent. I do not agree that casino development and impacts on the environment are a non-issue. MEPA would be activated would it not as you point out for any large development? Did the Administration give it any consideration? Will the lege?
<
p>Siting of a large development should not be based on lobbyists and special interests. I am pointing out the silence of the Administration on the environmental impacts.
and in fact I made an incomplete list of possible concerns. My point is that the environmental concerns aren’t regional or global kinds — they’re local concerns.
<
p>Focus on the real concerns caused by a particular development — the local environmental impacts.
are always where I am coming from. I am a bottom-up political creature and pointed out the silence of the Administration on its proposal for casino development that does have local/regional environmental impact (however, not global as you point out). When the Governor and Legislators fail to consider or craft legislation that fully accounts for environmental impact, we are screwed on the local level.
I’ve been living witness to more than a few. In 1991 half of miles Standish State Forest burned to the ground and by the grace of god only a few homes were lost. Wtare rationing was in extremis—-Brockton’s water supply reached critical mass and residents drinking the water could taste algae. Water is becoming a resource not to be trifled with. Unless there is a newly discovered aquifier—no large scale building should be allowed east of rte 495!
in 1987 MWRA was pumping out 340 MGD. Today demand is only 215 MGD. You don’t think they could handle a little more demand?
<
p>Stick to denying climate change. You’re no better at it, but there’s something to be said for consistency.
Educate me.
<
p>Where is this water going? Potable uses? Plumbing? Industrial? Agricultural?
<
p>How much room for improvement is there w.r.t. fixing leaks in the system, requiring indoor water use reductions of 20% beyond baseline? Prohibiting residential/commercial watering during daylight hours (or even between 9-3)?
<
p>
<
p>I’m obviously not at all happy with the decision based on what I’ve learned from this post. I can’t help but wonder though — could the Commonwealth and municipalities use the power of building codes, zoning codes, and other policies to actually reduce the water desired?
but I would not place my hope within this administration. Its environmental decisions have been curious to say the least.
and, frankly, they’ve been less then impressive on here and now increases in environmental standards. Even the stretch code (which doesn’t yet exist) isn’t universal.
Losing the environmentalists is no way to run a re-election campaign.
<
p>Wake Up Deval before all of us have to suffer through a Baker administration!
Do you really think that the present administration on Beacon Hill will survive. Wanna bet that Sal DiMasi’s trial is October 2010!!! That ought to give the voiters something to think about—along with the likely indictments of more than a few fellow DEMOCRAT legislators!
55 year resident in Ipswich river watershed. I can recall when the town water was excellent. Today I have to hold my nose. The swimming pool has less crap in it.
40B with it’s development over enviornment is the prime mover of this. High density unaffordable housing within spitting distance of the swamp. Classic.
Contrary to the sky-is-falling rhetoric of the press release referenced here, what has recently taken place in water regulation is less than meets the eye. Under court order (in a case where three of the four organizations whose representatives have quit the Advisory Committee are plaintiffs), the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) took a close look at the state’s Water Management Act, and determined that “safe yield” – one of 10 factors the department is required to take into account in issuing permits from groundwater withdrawals – is not the all-encompassing standard for water resource protection some have long taken it to be. Rather, the statute defines safe yield plainly as “the maximum dependable withdrawals that can be made continuously from a water source” even under drought conditions. But no one, least of all MassDEP, is saying that the permits should – or will – be issued based on that maximum amount.
<
p>That’s why the state has launched an interagency effort to assure that the Commonwealth’s abundant water resources are managed sustainably. For the first time, the Commonwealth will have a comprehensive, sustainable water allocation process that takes into account not only the amount of water available but also impact on streamflow and aquatic habitats – a high priority for the very groups now upset about safe yield. We intend to engage leading environmental groups in this process, as well as municipalities, water suppliers, and other stakeholders. With that vital process under way, permits that are environmentally protective- again, on the basis of all 10 factors – will be granted, with review after five years, at which time streamflow and other new protections may be applied.
<
p>It is unacceptable that the Commonwealth still has areas where streams dry up in the summer, aquatic habitat is degraded, and municipalities are forced to restrict growth. Our Integrated Water Initiative will build upon the important steps taken in recent years to promote sustainable management practices, and reverse two decades of uncertain and inadequate protection of our valuable water resources. On behalf of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles and MassDEP Commissioner Laurie Burt, I hope these members of the Water Management Act Advisory Committee will reconsider their initial reaction and take part in a process that developes the sustainable water management process the Commonwealth deserves.
I wonder: has the EOEEA et al been able to influence the legislature to keep ramping up building codes for water use statewide? MA CHPS and LEED both require/reward water use at 20% below baseline (not inc. irrigation), as well as reduction of irrigation water use as well.
<
p>As I wrote above, the MWRA reduced usage in their region by over 35% over a 20 year period, thanks to efficiency at end use and fixing leaks in their system. I would hope that other water systems can say the same.
<
p>In the mean time, are we actively raising the minimum standards for water infrastructure in the building code, thereby continuing to ease pressure on our waterways?
You point to the fact that three of the four organizations who have quit are plaintiffs, as though that disqualifies them from assessing whether you’re holding up the court order. I would argue that’s what makes them the best parties to assess your compliance.
<
p>You also fail to address the issue of transparency.
<
p>
What do you say to this?
<
p>You say that you
but the leading environmental groups feel that you came up with this interagency effort without input from them. You can have the best policy in the world, but if you develop it in a vacuum, without input from those who have worked for years on this issue, you’re not acting the way the Governor said the state would act when he was elected.
<
p>
Given that the environmental community was one of candidate Patrick’s core constituencies, it came as an unpleasant shock that his environmental officials would take such an extremist and anti-environmental position on such an important legal requirement as safe yield. But we probably should have not been so surprised, because this was not the first time that DEP under Commissioner Burt reversed the progress that had been made by prior administrations regarding water management. She has bent over backwards to appease water suppliers’ demands (how many of them voted for Patrick, I wonder?), and in so doing is dismantling key requirements that the Romney Administration put in place only after years of painstaking efforts to achieve incremental progress. (I never thought I would say that, and I know that it may surprise those people who felt sure that having a Democrat in the Corner Office would result in improved environmental protection — but unfortunately it is true. How naive we were.)
<
p>The fact that DEP announced this extremist re-interpretation of what safe yield means — contradicting their own previous statements and policies and the current science — is bad enough. But the way they did it added insult to injury, by failing to give any meaningful notice or to solicit the advice of the advisory committee. So much for “Together We Can” — an empty slogan promising but not delivering citizen participation in government. And then DEP had the audacity to try to blame the advocates for daring to try to get them to implement the law properly. What a novel concept that would be!
<
p>Don’t get me wrong. The “sustainable water management initiative” is a good idea, and the enviros would support it — but it is years away from being real (if ever). It should go hand in hand with the development of the safe yield method. Put this all together as a regulatory package that makes sense; don’t lead by stripping the environmental protection component of safe yield with the vague promise of doing something better some day in the future. Those of us who have lived through enough of EOEEA’s “initiatives du jour” are perhaps skeptical of such promises of things to come, having learned that they often fall short of their goals or are dismantled by the next administration. Case in point: DEP and water management reform.