Governor initiates review of state regulations

On March 31, Gov. Charlie Baker signed an executive order initiating a comprehensive review of all regulations enforced by the Executive Department and leaving in place the regulatory pause announced by the administration earlier this year.
 
The governor’s office said that Executive Branch agencies will be charged with ensuring each regulation is clear and concise and that any newly proposed regulations are measured for their potential impact on municipalities and other organizations. Agencies are required to submit regulatory proposals and impact statements to their secretariat before review by the secretary of Administration and Finance, who will establish a process for encouraging public input, standards and schedules. The secretary of Administration and Finance may also provide for waivers or exceptions to regulations essential to public health, public safety, public welfare or the environment.
 
Only regulations that are mandated by law or are essential to public health, public safety, public welfare or the environment shall be retained or modified, according to the administration.
 
The state agency conducting the review must demonstrate that:
• There is a clearly identified need for governmental intervention that is best addressed by the agency and not another agency or governmental body
• The costs of the regulation do not exceed the benefits
• The regulation does not exceed federal requirements or duplicate local requirements
• There are not any less-intrusive or restrictive alternatives
• The regulation does not unduly and adversely affect Massachusetts citizens and customers or the competitive environment in Massachusetts
• There is a formal process in place for measuring the effectiveness of the regulation
• The regulation is time-limited or provides for regular review
 
The MMA has expressed concerns in the past about costs associated with regulatory changes.
 
For example, changes made by the Patrick administration to permitting under the Water Management Act included a new methodology for calculating a river basin’s “safe yield” and new biological categorizations and base water withdrawal thresholds on new stream flow criteria. The MMA argued that the costs of implementing the changes would be borne almost exclusively by ratepayers and taxpayers, while the changes would impose additional costs by forcing water suppliers to mitigate withdrawals. Mitigation measures include dam removal, removing impervious surfaces such as sidewalks and pavement, and reengineering storm drains.
 
The MMA is hopeful the administration will quickly review the recently promulgated Water Management Act regulations.