We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
E&E News reported yesterday that the U.S.
Conference of Mayors has requested a "moratorium" on
Clean Water Act enforcement of stormwater limitations on
municipalities. The report makes clear that the Mayors avoided
an attack on either the CWA or the current EPA
administration. Moreover, they acknowledged that there is
still "much to be done to protect our water
resources."
Why the moratorium request, then? Two words –
they're broke. One of the mayors who spoke was Michael
Bissonnette of Chicopee, in the great Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. According to Mayor Bissonnette, the cost of
stormwater compliance in Chicopee will be $200 million –
this for a City of 55,298, with an annual budget of around $150
million. As Mayor Bissonnette noted:
"No wonder there are populist uprisings. It's simply
unsustainable."
The response from environmental groups? According to
E&E News, Jeffrey Odefey, from American Rivers, said that:
"Providing the quality and security of water services that
our communities expect will require meaningful reforms to the way
many cities and towns finance, pay for and build water
infrastructure for tomorrow, not political relief from the Clean
Water Act."
I cannot really argue with that. He pretty much got it
right, and that's why this is such an important issue. We
can argue around the edges, but I'm fairly sure that a
cost-benefit analysis would show that we should be doing more to
address stormwater discharge impacts. At the same time, the
mayors are correct; municipalities just cannot pay for these
expenditures at this point. And if anyone thinks that the
federal government will bail out the municipalities with a massive
new public works program, I want some of whatever they are
taking.
I note this issue, both because it is important in its own
right, and also because it is exemplary of broader problems with
public infrastructure. The private market is not going to
fully finance public goods – that's in the nature of
public goods. We have plenty of analyses showing that all
sorts of infrastructure spending can be justified on a cost-benefit
basis. We don't have the political will to finance those
expenditures.
In the meantime, the CWA remains on the books. Even if EPA
were to implement a moratorium, who is going to tell the Sierra
club and other environmental NGOs to stop filing citizen suits?
To view Foley Hoag's Law and the Environment Blog
please click
here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
