# Bye bye clean river



## georgepds (Nov 26, 2017)

This is an article on a rule governing cleaning storm water run off  ( sounds like a good idea, huh)... until Pruitt came along 

(edit thanks to clarification by iamlucky)
*

http://www.merrimack.org/web/


EPA Tosses Wrench into a Carefully Crafted Stormwater Rule  *

About 18 months ago, after many years of hard work and negotiation, U.S. EPA, local communities, and watershed advocates appeared to have arrived at a regulatory compromise that would further reduce polluted stormwater across large parts of Massachusetts, including much of the Merrimack basin. Then, on June 29, two days before the new rules were set to go into effect, the federal agency -- without warning -- halted the whole program.


Our lawsuit,_ Mass Rivers v. Pruitt_, charges that the agency failed to legally justify its sudden about-face and put the stormwater program -- known as MS4, for "municipal separate storm sewer systems" -- on ice.  The lead plaintiff is the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, .....


----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 26, 2017)

I, personally, like seeing turds in the rivers.  It's a job creator for sure.


----------



## jatoxico (Nov 26, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> I, personally, like seeing turds in the rivers.  It's a job creator for sure.



What do you do!?


----------



## fossil (Nov 26, 2017)

Pruitt's a wrecking ball. He's dismantling the EPA...ripping out the P. I can't imagine a worse person to put in that position.


----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 27, 2017)

fossil said:


> Pruitt's a wrecking ball. He's dismantling the EPA...ripping out the P. I can't imagine a worse person to put in that position.



He's got that vacant look in his eyes that is not moved by facts, research or arguments.  Some of these decisions are just reflexive; because he just wants to roll back regulations.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 27, 2017)

Word of the day:

A *kakistocracy* (English pronunciation: /kækɪsˈtɑkɹəsi/) is a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.[1][2] The word was coined as early as the 17th century.[3] It was also used by English author Thomas Love Peacock in 1829, but gained significant usage in the 21st century.


 Lewitt, Michael (13 October 2016). "Investing In A Kakistocracy". _Forbes_. Retrieved 21 November2016.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ Fiske, Robert Hartwell (2011). _The Best Words_. Marion Street Press. ISBN 9781933338828. Retrieved 21 November 2016.
^ Jump up to:_*a*_ _*b*_ _*c*_ "Trending: When Government Is Just The Worst". _Merriam Webster_. 29 June 2017. Retrieved 22 August 2017.


----------



## blades (Nov 27, 2017)

separation of storm water run off and sanitary systems is being done all over the place, about a 50/50 success / failure ratio.  The main problem is that Mother Nature just doesn't like to co-operate. Here in Milwaukee, WI  a  massive deep tunnel storage system was devised and implemented - costs were huge, we are still paying for it and always will be - it sorta works until it hits capacity and then there are overflows.  3 years back this lovely idea cost me big time as I was told that my lateral to the sanitary system was collecting ground water and introducing it to the sanitary system- big no-no.  Now to shed a bit of light this was a standard installed, approved, lateral from 1960 it was designed to collect ground water to help flush effluents down the line.  $10000.00 later it is in compliance as far as I know. I sold the place last summer and got out of the city. Our DNR has basically made this separation mandatory for all municipal systems state wide.


----------



## georgepds (Nov 27, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Word of the day:
> 
> A *kakistocracy* (English pronunciation: /kækɪsˈtɑkɹəsi/) is a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.[1][2] The word was coined as early as the 17th century.[3] It was also used by English author Thomas Love Peacock in 1829, but gained significant usage in the 21st century.
> 
> ...





Iirc... kaki is greek for excrement


----------



## georgepds (Nov 28, 2017)

Turns out to be a more serious problem than I thought...


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormwater

In some areas, especially along the U.S. coast, polluted runoff from roads and highways may be the largest source of water pollution. For example, about 75 percent of the toxic chemicals getting to Seattle, Washington's Puget Soundare carried by stormwater that runs off paved roads and driveways, rooftops, yards, and other developed land.[4]


----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 28, 2017)

blades said:


> separation of storm water run off and sanitary systems is being done all over the place, about a 50/50 success / failure ratio.  The main problem is that Mother Nature just doesn't like to co-operate. Here in Milwaukee, WI  a  massive deep tunnel storage system was devised and implemented - costs were huge, we are still paying for it and always will be - it sorta works until it hits capacity and then there are overflows.  3 years back this lovely idea cost me big time as I was told that my lateral to the sanitary system was collecting ground water and introducing it to the sanitary system- big no-no.  Now to shed a bit of light this was a standard installed, approved, lateral from 1960 it was designed to collect ground water to help flush effluents down the line.  $10000.00 later it is in compliance as far as I know. I sold the place last summer and got out of the city. Our DNR has basically made this separation mandatory for all municipal systems state wide.



Yeah, it's a tough issue that affects everyone in different ways.  I think that as neighborhoods grow in population size, what used to work 50 years ago, is not working anymore because now the population is beyond what the original design was meant to handle.  My town is going through this now, trying to get nitrogen from the septic systems out of the rivers so they can revive the shell fish industry in the coast.

The problem as I see it is infrastructure spending is way down from what is was in the 80s and 90s while the population continues to grow.  We are wasting billions on defense systems that are probably never going to be used or be obsolete when the next conflict hits.  Now we are going to pass a big tax cut for corporations when they are the most profitable they have ever been - record profits and equity prices.  Where are we going to get the money to fix all these problems?


----------



## jatoxico (Nov 28, 2017)

Our Township with Northern borders on the eastern end of Long Island Sound and ocean side bays to the South has been installing vortex style storm water treatment systems to catch, collect and modestly treat runoff before it makes its way into LI Sound and presumably the south bays. These were installed with money from grants which are likely to dry up (NPI) under the current admin.

The western end of the Sound regularly goes hypoxic mainly due to sewage treatment effluent that does not meet EPA acceptance criteria, especially nitrogenous species. These systems were not designed to handle the volume of waste they recieve and are likely aging out regardless of volume.

These infrastructure problems and who will pay have gone round and round for a long time with some modest improvement but I fear the pressure and money to push in the direction of cleaner water and air is going away.


----------



## blades (Nov 28, 2017)

the ideas are fine. its the implementation that falls woefully short most of the time.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Nov 28, 2017)

The link is not to an article, but to the home page of a Merrimack River group.



vinny11950 said:


> I, personally, like seeing turds in the rivers.  It's a job creator for sure.



Which you saw how frequently, prior to the June 29th "dismantling" of a rule that wasn't even in effect yet?

Let's be clear what the topic here actually is, because it hasn't been clearly presented, resulting in comments like this that are way off base:

Georgepds first indicated this is about combined (stormwater and sanitary) sewers, but then referred to MS4, which from a quick search is "Municipal separate storm sewer systems." Combined sewer overflows (CSO) and treatment plants are already under federal water quality mandates and have been since at least 1972, with significant new requirements implementing long term changes required by the Clean Water Act being finalized 15-20 years ago, if I'm remembering the time frame right.

I knew something was way off target with the "turds in the rivers" snark, because this was a contentious topic in Portland over a decade ago, around the time I started paying my own sewer bill, when rates were skyrocketing due to a massive local CSO reduction project that was just getting under way. The challenge of fixing old, poorly designed sanitary sewer systems and reality that it was taking place is something I was very financially aware of, and Portland was just one of the many cities tackling it.

Digging up the court filing confirms the federal action in question actually is about stormwater, not sewage, and specifically about stormwater from small cities. Medium and large cities are already subject to separate permits.

They didn't "halt the whole program," as claimed but delayed the implementation date by 1 year because a couple of the cities affected by it asked for time to review some legal challenges to certain provisions that were still in court at the time. Otherwise it could have forced the cities that requested the delay to spend money on provisions that might have been removed by those cases. This sort of stay is common in such cases. However, the Rivers Alliance argues the EPA did not properly demonstrate four criteria for issuing a stay were fulfilled, so it may have been an inappropriate stay. Amusingly (to me at least), that last sentence is a pretty comprehensive summary of the entire 32 page filing, which is mostly helpful background info and standard legal details.

The rule is not even new. Rather, it is an update and replacement of the previous stormwater permit from 2003, which itself was the outcome of 30 years of progress on water quality standards following the Clean Water Act. Per the Massachusetts River Alliance's own court filing, the reason this is even being handled by the current administration's EPA is because the prior administration's EPA was 8 years late finalizing the terms of the new permit, meaning the old permit has remained in effect long after its original 5-year expiration.

Looking the new permit up, it's quite extensive - almost 300 pages of conditions, standards, and enforcement requirements ranging from treatments standards for rainwater running off of new parking lots to clarifying that firefighters don't need special permission to use water to fight fires (I wish I were joking, but apparently they really considered that).

Nothing that I'm seeing indicates the 200+ small cities who did not join in the request for a delay are in any way prevented from implementing the permit conditions per the original schedule, only that they are not required to. So in the overwhelming majority of cases, the proximate reason for delayed implementation is because those cities choose to take advantage of the EPA allowing them to wait.

The Rivers Alliance filing also says the state of Massachusetts itself could have done the same and likewise chose not to. Keep in mind, we're not talking about Trump country here - less than 1/3 of voters in Massachusetts voted for him. There's quite a few more people involved in this delay besides Pruitt. I'd hazard a guess that very few of those at the state level have a similar environmental ideology to Pruitt, yet they hardly seem concerned about a 1 year delay, either.

Since I took the time to look these up to figure out the above...

EPA Postponement Order:
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/final-ms4-postponement-notice.pdf

Mass. Rivers Alliance Motion for Relief:
http://law.lclark.edu/live/files/24685-filed-complaintpdf

The Massachusetts small cities permit itself:
https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/massachusetts-small-ms4-general-permit


----------



## georgepds (Nov 28, 2017)

_
The entire quote from the newsletter._*..

EPA Tosses Wrench into a Carefully Crafted Stormwater Rule  *

About 18 months ago, after many years of hard work and negotiation, U.S. EPA, local




communities, and watershed advocates appeared to have arrived at a regulatory compromise that would further reduce polluted stormwater across large parts of Massachusetts, including much of the Merrimack basin. Then, on June 29, two days before the new rules were set to go into effect, the federal agency -- without warning -- halted the whole program. On September 22, MRWC -- along with nine other river and watershed organizations -- took EPA to federal court in Boston. Our lawsuit,_ Mass Rivers v. Pruitt_, charges that the agency failed to legally justify its sudden about-face and put the stormwater program -- known as MS4, for "municipal separate storm sewer systems" -- on ice.  The lead plaintiff is the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, of which we are a member.  Mass Rivers has arranged for pro bono legal representation from the Earthrise Law Center of Lewis and Clark Law School.  Other plaintiffs include the Connecticut River Conservancy, Ipswich River Watershed Association, OARS (representing the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Rivers), and the Mystic River Watershed Association.  There are some indications that EPA's claimed 12-month stay is a mere ruse to permanently undermine the new MS4 rules -- which is unfortunate, given that EPA itself has characterized polluted stormwater runoff as the most serious heath threat facing New England's rivers, particularly the Merrimack (recently named, because of this, one of the nation's most endangered rivers). We'll keep you updated as the case progresses.


----------



## georgepds (Nov 29, 2017)

iamlucky13 said:


> ....
> Georgepds first indicated this is about combined (stormwater and sanitary) sewers, but then referred to MS4, which from a quick search is "Municipal separate storm sewer systems."....



You are right, when I first read the newsletter, I thought it referred to CSO (_Combined sewer overflows_ ), it does not, as you point out, it refers to MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems)



iamlucky13 said:


> ....
> Nothing that I'm seeing indicates the 200+ small cities who did not join in the request for a delay are in any way prevented from implementing the permit conditions per the original schedule, only that they are not required to. ….



Yes, and until the clean water act first came out nothing prevented the polluters from implementing adequate sewer treatment, it’s just that they were not required to (and most did not).

I’m inclined to agree with the newsletter  “… _EPA's claimed 12-month stay is a mere ruse to permanently undermine the new MS4 rules -- which is unfortunate, given that EPA itself has characterized polluted stormwater runoff as the most serious health threat facing New England's rivers, particularly the Merrimack._.”

“Delay of execution of a regulation” might sound like bureaucratic gobbledygook, in the meantime, all the pollutants  from the MS4 outflow are still being dumped into the Merrimack. That’s not bureaucratic gobbledygook, that’s crap


----------



## vinny11950 (Dec 3, 2017)

iamlucky13 said:


> The link is not to an article, but to the home page of a Merrimack River group.
> 
> Which you saw how frequently, prior to the June 29th "dismantling" of a rule that wasn't even in effect yet?
> 
> ...



My comment was too sarcastic for a serious conversation, but it also reflects my belief the current EPA administration puts profits before peoples' health.  Ideologically, Pruitt believes that corporate interests and profits are more important than a healthy environment, and he will endeavor to fundamentally change the EPA to that end.

Just look at his record as Attorney General in Oklahoma (there was literally a chickenshit case against Tyson dumping too much of it into a river and once elected, Pruitt downgraded the case into a voluntary investigation).  This is a classic case of a private company transferring a cost to the community to make a bigger profit.

Or more importantly the earthquakes in Oklahoma which are caused by fracking waste fluid.  As Attorney General for the state his responsibility was to protect its citizens yet he neglected to do anything about it.  He even refused to slow the flow of waste fluid being imported into Oklahoma for disposal from other states.  Again an example of cost transfer; why should private individuals incur the cost (damage to their homes from the earthquakes caused by fracking, higher insurance premiums) of a fracking company that doesn't share any of that profit with them?

The guy is going to do the same as he did in Oklahoma, except on a national scale.  He will neglect his duty as head of the EPA just like he neglected his duty as Attorney General of Oklahoma.  If you hear him talk about his commitment to protect the environment and help companies grow simultaneously, understand that he is not arguing in good faith; he is flat out lying.  If history gives us any clue as to what he is going to do, it is that he will help companies transfer their pollution costs to the public (you and me).

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...itt-and-oklahomas-manmade-earthquakes/513437/


----------



## blades (Dec 3, 2017)

Follow the money trail - SOP for politics/industry


----------



## iamlucky13 (Dec 5, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> My comment was too sarcastic for a serious conversation, but it also reflects my belief the current EPA administration puts profits before peoples' health.  Ideologically, Pruitt believes that corporate interests and profits are more important than a healthy environment, and he will endeavor to fundamentally change the EPA to that end.



I accept that sometimes a person just wants to make a flippant comment. I'll keep it as the starting point for my post anyways, since I think there was confusion about whether we were talking about turds or brake dust.

I don't want my post to be taken in any way as a defense of Secretary Pruitt. I'm trying to avoid making this about the politicians and focus on the actual policy.

That policy is a one year delay in implementation of an updated stormwater permits for the smaller cities in a single state.



georgepds said:


> “Delay of execution of a regulation” might sound like bureaucratic gobbledygook, in the meantime, all the pollutants from the MS4 outflow are still being dumped into the Merrimack. That’s not bureaucratic gobbledygook, that’s crap



I haven't had time to research which pollutants, and how much they will be reduced by under the new permit. That's rather important information for being able to determine how concerned to be about the delay.

I acknowledge the concern about the delay possibly being extended indefinitely. That would require additional postponements by the EPA, and each one should be subject to challenge.

Although I wasn't actually sure where the parties to the suit were coming from initially, after skimming their complaint and the delay order, I think they may have decent odds of prevailing, entirely on fact of the lack of compelling justification in the EPA's postponement order rather than clear harm to Massachusetts rivers.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Dec 5, 2017)

blades said:


> Follow the money trail - SOP for politics/industry



Again, it was municipal governments that requested the delay, not industry, at least not directly.


----------



## georgepds (Dec 8, 2017)

Re
"I haven't had time to research which pollutants, and how much they will be reduced by under the new permit. That's rather important information for being able to determine how concerned to be about the delay."

The newsletter notes
"The EPA itself has characterized polluted stormwater runoff as the most serious heath threat facing New England's rivers, particularly the Merrimack "

Here is a non technical discussion of the pollutants

http://www2.erie.gov/environment/index.php?q=how-can-you-prevent-stormwater-pollution

Stormwater is water from rain or melting snow that does not soak into the ground. It flows from rooftops, over paved areas, bare soil, and sloped lawns. As it flows, stormwater runoff collects and transports animal waste, litter, salt, pesticides, fertilizers, oil & grease, soil and other potential pollutants.

What's the problem?

Rain and snowmelt wash pollutants from streets, construction sites, and land into storm sewers and ditches. Eventually, these empty the polluted stormwater directly into streams and rivers with no treatment. This is known as stormwater pollution.

Polluted stormwater degrades our lakes, rivers, wetlands and other waterways. Nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen can cause the overgrowth of algae resulting in oxygen depletion in waterways. Toxic substances from motor vehicles and careless application of pesticides and fertilizers threaten water quality and can kill fish and other aquatic life. Bacteria from animal wastes and improper connections to storm sewer systems can make lakes and waterways unsafe for wading, swimming and fish consumption. Eroded soil is a pollutant as well. It clouds the waterway and interferes with the habitat of fish and plant life


----------



## vinny11950 (Dec 15, 2017)

I think Ryan Zinke and Scott Pruitt are the antithesis of the departments they run.  The links are too many to post, but anyone is welcome to look them up.  Their travel and personal expenses are outrageous (I thought these guys were tea partiers who hated government waste?), but their giveaways to industry are starting to add up.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 16, 2017)

The current stormwater rules are bankrupting this small town.  The govt plan is to separate every home and street by digging up the whole town and is about 1/3 to completion. Its already cost a hundred million and will top 200+ million if its ever completed. Our new sewer plant can be easily seen from space im sure. The main problem is this very small community  cannot afford it. Sewer bills already cost twice the water bill and would be 4 or 5 times the water bill in some cases if completed. No jobs  and an aging population that is being taxed out of their homes. Have to shake my head when politicians brag about building schools, sewer plants and power plants in IRAQ at US taxpayer expense but wont help our own towns with anything but more unfunded liabilities. The solution for our Sewer Board is now ,just pay the fines ,its a lot cheaper than the mandate.


----------



## LocustPocust (Dec 17, 2017)

Yup, I hear ya. Our town tiny little town (3500) was forced to build a brand new water plant AND a brand new sewer plant by NY state, and pay for enormous upgrades to the existing system including replacing a 360,000 gallon water tank and a 300,000 water tank.They made the village spend $500,000 on a half mile long new sewer line to connect the Highway Garage to the existing sewer system. It's had septic since 1974 but all of the sudden that's no good. Then they made us install fire hydrants on a road that goes through woods and dead ends. Years ago the powers would have told the state to shove it since there's no way we could afford it, but it seems like the younger generation is scared to death of everything. Yes we did need a new water plant, but not one that was so sophisticated that engineers and planners from around the country came to see it. People come to these small towns and act like they're in some big city and then wonder why taxes are so high and why people are leaving the Northeast in droves.


----------



## georgepds (Dec 17, 2017)

LocustPocust said:


> ...... and then wonder why taxes are so high and why people are leaving the Northeast in droves.




OK I'll bite.. if what you say about taxes  is true, then why are they leaving Kansas?



ref: 

https://nypost.com/2017/07/26/why-americans-are-getting-the-hell-out-of-the-northeast/

"Last year, three states in the Northeast — New Jersey, New York and Connecticut — landed in the top five places people were moving out of fastest, according to 2017 data from United Van Lines. (The other two states on the list were Illinois and Kansas.) "


----------



## LocustPocust (Dec 18, 2017)

Young people searching for a better quality of life perhaps? Or maybe retirees seeking warmer climates? Where I live has been losing population for a generation but it's really accelerated over the last 10 years or so. Baby boomers are leaving to warmer climates and for places where their retirement dollars will go much further. Kids graduate High School and leave for college and never come back. The cities of the Northeast are doing well but the rural areas are dying. Small town life doesn't appeal to most people. People want convenience. They don't want to drive 45 minutes to a decent grocery store, or to go to a nice cinema. They don't want to drive an hour to get to the Interstate when they want to leave town for the weekend. My town has a big grocery store.. and I bet it was really nice when it was built in 1976.. 

Even here in overtaxed New York, the areas around Albany are booming, the areas around Interstate 87 north of Albany especially. They can't build housing fast enough. 20 miles away where I am though houses are falling in and being torn down.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 18, 2017)

Perhaps when they get older they will want to get away from the crowds.  Citys draw for earning income but to retire many folks want some peace and quiet ,less traffic congestion,more affordable taxes and housing ,so its 6 of one half dozen of the other. I personally want to get farther out. To see trees out my windows instead of other houses.


----------



## georgepds (Dec 18, 2017)

I agree it's more quality of life than taxes. 

Me, I long for warm weather, I can't wait till may when I can throw the Kayak back into the Merrimack. I think it's high time I became a snowbird


Off topic, one good part about winter is the Juncos come to shelter in the shrubs outside the kitchen window. My wife calls it cat TV, but since the last cat died, it's more like gezzer TV


----------

