Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
On May 9, the MMA’s Policy Committee on Energy and the Environment joined the Massachusetts Waterworks Association for a “Day on the Hill” meeting at the State House.
A number of legislators met with more than 60 water suppliers and several mayors, city councillors, selectmen and town managers.
Rep. Anne Gobi, House chair of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, gave an overview of the legislative process and advised local officials not to get disheartened when it takes a long time to get legislation through the process. She encouraged members to meet with their legislators individually to discuss water supply issues.
Sen. James Eldridge and Rep. Carolyn Dykema spoke to the group about the Water Infrastructure Finance Commission and thanked individuals for the active involvement of water suppliers and municipal officials. As co-chair of the commission, Rep. Dykema urged communities to remain engaged as the recommendations get crafted into legislation that will be filed next January.
Rep. George Peterson thanked the local officials and water suppliers for the work they do.
Sudbury Selectman John Drobinski, chair of the MMA policy committee, discussed a resolution endorsed at the MMA’s Annual Meeting in January, stressing its objection to unfunded mandates.
Jennifer Pederson, executive director of the Massachusetts Waterworks Association, gave an update on the Sustainable Water Management Initiative framework. The initiative was established in December 2009 as a means of bringing together water suppliers and river advocates to develop a holistic water allocation plan.
A proposed framework for how water will be allocated to communities based on new environmental standards was recently released by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
At the State House meeting, local officials and the MMA discussed concerns about the cost of implementing the framework, which would constitute an unfunded mandate borne almost exclusively by ratepayers and taxpayers.
The draft framework would also reduce revenue by limiting water withdrawals, while imposing costs by requiring water suppliers to mitigate any additional water withdrawals.
There are also concerns that the draft framework would make changes to Water Management Act permitting, such as a new definition of “safe yield,” new biological categorizations, and making water withdrawals based on new stream-flow criteria.
Local officials expressed concerns that the agency’s proposed framework applies solely to permitting under the Water Management Act and does not address the full range of environmental challenges facing the state.