MMA discusses DEP primacy for stormwater permitting

At a meeting of the MMA’s Policy Committee on Energy and the Environment on Sept. 9, several officials from across Massachusetts discussed the possibility of the state obtaining delegated authority (primacy) over the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

Primacy would allow the Department of Environmental Protection to be the stormwater permit-issuing authority rather than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Marlborough Mayor Arthur Vigeant told the committee that the state assuming primacy would bring several advantages: better understanding of local issues, a more efficient permitting process, and better coordination in managing all pollution.

“The benefits of having NPDES permits issued by the DEP outweigh the costs,” he said. “Forty-six other states have chosen delegation, and I see no reason why Massachusetts should not join them.”

The federal Clean Water Act requires that the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit be re-evaluated every five years to ensure that it continues to protect the environment. The previous permit was issued in 2003.

Municipal storm sewer systems collect rain and snowmelt from streets and direct the flow to water bodies. The new MS4 permits would require communities to institute more advanced programs to reduce pollutants that are discharged into rivers, lakes and bays.

A state commission on infrastructure finance has estimated that implementing the EPA’s MS4 regulations would cost cities and towns as much as $18 billion over the next 20 years.

Newburyport Mayor Donna Holaday told the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, that the new rules will cost her city more than $10 million, including $600,000 for new engineers and other workers. The requirements will force the city to purchase two new vacuum trucks – costing more than $400,000 each – to clean more than 2,000 stormwater basins.

North Andover officials estimate that implementing 250 new administrative rules will cost more than $300,000 a year.

Haverhill Mayor James Fiorentini, whose city has been scrutinized for stormwater discharges into the Merrimack River, said the rules would cost nearly $6 million.

In a letter to the EPA, MMA Executive Director Geoff Beckwith wrote: “We urge the EPA to amend its approach, and incorporate goals that are more realistically attainable and within the financial constraints of the current economic climate, or wait until adequate federal funding is available to ensure that these requirements do not translate into a harmful unfunded mandate on cities, towns and taxpayers.”

At the MMA policy committee meeting, Paul Hogan of Woodard & Curran, a member of the 2013 NPDES Delegation Advisory Committee, discussed the potential disadvantages of the DEP assuming primacy. He estimated the costs to the state would amount to at least $10 million a year, which would have to be funded by the state, permitees or ratepayers – or a combination of the three. The funding mechanism would most likely come through a wastewater assessment fee based on flow, similar to the current drinking water fee.

Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Martin Suuberg answered questions from the committee on the possibility of the state assuming primacy. He said his agency would need to increase staff to deal with the additional workload, but the cost could be less than $10 million.

Suuberg acknowledged that state primacy could reduce the cost of compliance for communities through improved science, new technology, and creating a more efficient permit process. The process could be made more efficient by integrating all aspects of watershed management, including drinking water withdrawal, stormwater recharge, and wastewater treatment. By keeping the permitting at the state level, communities would have more flexibility in meeting permit requirements.

Tom Champion, policy research analyst at the Office of State Auditor Suzanne Bump, discussed the possibility of Bump’s office drafting a survey on the costs of water management in Massachusetts and the potential impact of federal permit requirements on municipal budgets.

The Policy Committee supported the idea of asking the Baker administration to further investigate the primacy proposal, as well as asking Bump’s office to conduct a local financial impact review of the draft federal stormwater and wastewater requirements, to see if the state assuming primacy could significantly reduce costs for communities.