Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Paul A. Schmid III, House Chair
The Honorable Anne M. Gobi, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture
State House, Boston
Dear Representative Schmid, Senator Gobi and Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the cities and towns of Massachusetts, the MMA is writing to express our strong support for H. 656, An Act Relative to Municipal Assistance for Clean Water and Economic Development Infrastructure; H. 657, An Act Providing for the Establishment of Sustainable Water Resource Funds; S. 448, S. 418, and H. 668, An Act to Assist Municipal and District Ratepayers; and H. 654, An Act to Promote Regionalization with Watershed Based Permitting.
We appreciate the Legislature’s commitment to increasing funds for municipal water infrastructure needs and collaborating with local officials on innovative and cost-effective mechanisms to finance the construction of environmental projects. Aging infrastructure and costly regulations are posing extraordinary challenges for local governments and taxpayers. Cities and towns need strong and effective tools and resources to protect public health and the environment and to promote economic growth.
We would also like to thank the Legislature for passing legislation last year that raised the Water Pollution Abatement Trust (WPAT) spending cap from $88 million per year to $138 million and directing the WPAT to provide matching grants, principal forgiveness, and zero-interest loans for water infrastructure projects. Unfortunately, cities and towns continue to face major water and environmental infrastructure funding problems, as documented by the state Water Infrastructure Finance Commission. That commission determined that our state’s municipalities are facing a $10.2 billion gap in the resources needed to adequately maintain drinking water systems and a shortfall of $11.2 billion in resources needed to maintain wastewater systems. The legislation outlined in this letter would provide cities and towns with strong and effective tools and resources to protect public health and the environment and facilitate economic growth.
H. 656, An Act Relative to Municipal Assistance for Clean Water and Economic Development Infrastructure, would authorize additional funding through the creation of a $1 billion Water Infrastructure Bond for a capital outlay program for maintenance and improvements to municipal drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. This grant funding would be distributed to municipalities based on a formula similar to the very successful Chapter 90 transportation-funding program.
H. 657, An Act Providing for the Establishment of Sustainable Water Resource Funds, would give communities an important tool to raise revenues locally by creating an enabling statute to allow cities and towns to establish dedicated funds commonly referred to as water banks or water banking. Current statutes cover full-cost pricing for water and the establishment of stormwater fees, but they apply to existing customers and do not address increased demands resulting from expanded or new use. Water banks have been established by individual utilities to help offset costs associated with environmental mitigation imposed by regulatory entities when requesting new and expanded service. Such initiatives include, but are not limited to, restoring and protecting stream flow, reducing water and wastewater system demand through water conservation programs, and the elimination of excessive wastewater inflow and infiltration. A number of communities, including Weymouth and Danvers, have implemented water banks and have reported excellent results. These measures have also benefited the local economy.
In Denver St. LLC vs. Town of Saugus (and three companion cases, SJC 10927, June 29, 2012), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the sewer bank established by the Town of Saugus constituted a reasonable fee and freed up capacity in the sewer system to allow for new development. Without this important local tool to finance additional mitigation, developers would have been forced to wait, delaying economic investment in the region. Even as the use of water banking charges becomes increasingly accepted, the enabling legislation in H. 657 is necessary to free cities and towns from the expensive and burdensome litigation and delaying tactics that come from adversarial parties who wish to deny communities this important tool or block economic activity.
S. 448, S. 418, and H. 668, An Act to Assist Municipal and District Ratepayers would require the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to complete a regulatory impact statement on any rule, regulation, guidance document or policy they propose that applies to the operation of public drinking water systems, wastewater collection and treatment facilities, and stormwater management. Compliance with overly burdensome rules drives up the cost to ratepayers, with annual expenditures reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars for some communities. This legislation would merely require the agencies to go through a common-sense analysis to determine the overall impact of new rules, to ensure that adequate consideration is given to the overall cost, benefit and outcome of regulatory and guidance changes.
Finally, H. 654, An Act to Promote Regionalization with Watershed Based Permitting, would direct MassDEP to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a watershed-based permitting approach in the Commonwealth. Municipalities are facing challenges complying with the numerous regulations for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems. A watershed-based permitting approach would allow for more integrated water management planning, which would help communities prioritize water resources needs, investments and benefits so that limited financial resources can be used most effectively.
Our cities and towns are also facing mammoth investments to address stormwater infrastructure needs, conservatively estimated by the Water Infrastructure Finance Commission at approximately $18 billion over the next 20 years, bringing the overall environmental infrastructure finance gap close to $40 billion. This is why we appreciate all legislation that would provide valuable resources to our communities.
Drinking water, wastewater and stormwater utilities are extraordinarily capital-intensive. Cities and towns across the state have made enormous investments in their water, wastewater and drainage infrastructure, and local officials have done so because these systems are essential to our environment, our economy and our daily lives. In order to continue this vital work, we ask you to support H. 656, H. 657, S. 448, S. 418, H. 668, and H. 654.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director & CEO, MMA