How Low Can You Go?

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released four new drinking water health advisories for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) on June 15, 2022. 

NEW EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory Levels
Chemical Lifetime Health Advisory Level (ppt) Minimum Reporting Level (ppt)
PFOA 0.004 (Interim) 4
PFOS 0.02 (Interim) 4
GenX Chemicals 10 (Final) 5
PFBS 2,000 (Final) 3

In 2016, EPA issued a health advisory setting lifetime levels for PFOA and PFOS of 70 ppt. These 2022 new levels are significantly stricter and, as EPA warns, “are below the levels at which analytical methods can measure PFOA and PFOS.” These levels are also significantly below the maximum contaminant level (“MCL”) of 20 ppt for six PFAS chemicals (the “PFAS6”) set by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”) in 2020. MassDEP’s PFAS6 include PFOA and PFOS but not GenX chemicals or PFBS. Although EPA’s health advisories are “nonenforceable and non-regulatory,” they can have the potential to influence additional regulatory responses from state authorities.

The new PFOA and PFOS health advisory levels are based on human studies in populations exposed to these chemicals, while the GenX chemicals and PFBS levels are based on animal studies following oral exposure to these chemicals. The PFOA and PFOS levels are interim while the EPA Science Advisory Board reviews EPA’s analyses, but “EPA does not anticipate changes that will result in health advisory levels that are greater than the minimum reporting levels.” EPA’s lifetime health advisories for GenX chemicals and Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (“PFBS”) are final and are based on final EPA toxicity assessments completed in 2021.

If water sampling results exceed the health advisory levels, EPA recommends that drinking water suppliers undertake additional sampling to assess the level, scope, and localized source of contamination, work with state authorities to ensure compliance with state regulations, inform customers about PFAS levels in their drinking water, and take steps to limit exposure. EPA has published a separate fact sheet for public water systems.

“Show Me the Money”

In addition to the regulatory “stick,” EPA will provide a funding “carrot.”  EPA has invited states and territories to apply for the first $1 billion of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grant funding to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants in drinking water.  The new funding comes from the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program and can be used to reduce PFAS in drinking water in communities facing disproportionate impacts. EPA will issue guidance later this year detailing eligible uses for the funds and providing more information on how water systems can apply for funding.

The new regulatory escalations have major implications for public water suppliers, private well users, MCP sites, and regulatory agencies.  MassDEP will review the advisory data, may participate in the Science Advisory Council review, and could consider revisions to the MassDEP ORSG advisory and drinking water and site cleanup regulations.  The water supply community and LSPs will face more uncertainties and challenges about how to cope with “Forever Chemicals”:  finding testing laboratories with certified analytical methods to measure parts per quadrillion, searching for cleanup technologies to remove quantum concentrations, and engaging in challenging public communications with customers, the general public, and the media about lifetime risks from very small exposures.

MEPA Office Issues Environmental Justice Regulations and Guidance

While some of us were enjoying the Feast of the Seven Fishes, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office left a few gifts under the tree: the first amendments to 301 CMR 11.00, the MEPA Regulations, in eight years came into effect on December 24, 2021.

The new regulations implement the environmental justice (EJ) requirements of Chapter 8 of the Acts of 2021, the Commonwealth’s landmark Climate Roadmap Act. These include a formal definition of an Environmental Justice Population, enhanced public involvement procedures, and a framework for analyzing environmental justice impacts during the MEPA review process. The Act requires an environmental impact report (EIR) for any Project that is likely to cause Damage to the Environment and is located within 1 mile of an EJ Population (or 5 miles if the Project impacts air quality), and mandates EJ-focused EIR components. The EIR must assess any “existing unfair or inequitable environmental burden and related public health consequences impacting the [EJ] population from any prior or current private, industrial, commercial, state, or municipal operation or project that has damaged the environment.”

If the EJ population is subject to an existing unfair or inequitable environmental burden or related health consequence, the EIR must identify any “(i) environmental and public health impact from the proposed project that would likely result in a disproportionate adverse effect on such population; and (ii) potential impact or consequence from the proposed project that would increase or reduce the effects of climate change on the environmental justice population.”

The Climate Roadmap Act required the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to promulgate certain regulations within 180 days. These amendments implement Sections 55-60 of the Act. Here are some highlights:

New EJ Definitions

The amendments incorporate the Climate Roadmap Act’s definitions of “Environmental Justice Population,” “Environmental Justice Principles,” “Environmental Benefits,” “Environmental Burdens,” and “Neighborhood,” and add a new term for the “Designated Geographic Area,” which encompasses the 1 mile/5 mile EJ proximity concept in relation to both a Project and an Environmental Justice Population:

Designated Geographic Area.

(a) With respect to a Project, the area within one mile of the Project; or, for a Project that meets or exceeds MEPA review thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(8)(a)-(b) [air] or that generates 150 or more New adt [average daily trips] of diesel vehicle traffic over a duration of 1 year or more, excluding public transit trips, the area within five miles of the Project.

(b) With respect to an Environmental Justice Population, the area within one mile of the Environmental Justice Population; or, for a Project that meets or exceeds MEPA review thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(8)(a)-(b) or that generates 150 or more New adt of diesel vehicle traffic over a duration of 1 year or more, excluding public transit trips, the area within five miles of the Environmental Justice Population.

Meaningful Public Involvement

A new section 11.05(4)(a) incorporates key components of the MEPA Public Involvement Protocol for Environmental Justice Populations (“Public Involvement Protocol”), one of two separate guidance documents which supplement these amendments and take effect on January 1, 2022. For any Project that requires an EIR because an EJ Population is located in a Designated Geographic Area around the Project area, the new regulations require the filing of advanced notice of the Project to the EJ Population and the undertaking of enhanced public involvement procedures if a single EIR or rollover EIR is being sought. The Public Involvement Protocol will govern the specific procedures to be followed.

EIR EJ Requirements

Section 11.06(7)(b) provides that “[t]he Secretary shall require an EIR for any Project that is located within a Designated Geographic Area around an Environmental Justice Population.” In the Response to Comments on the draft amendments, at 3-4, the MEPA Office “acknowledge[d] that an increase in EIR filings is likely due to the mandatory phrasing in the Climate Roadmap Act that an EIR ‘shall be required’ for certain projects near EJ populations.”

The plain language of § 11.06(7)(b) reads as an additional mandatory EIR review threshold.[1] Also, the 1-mile prong of the Designated Geographic Area definition is not expressly tied to the exceedance of a separate MEPA review threshold like the 5-mile prong is: a Project is within the 5-mile DGA if it meets or exceeds the MEPA review thresholds for air or the new threshold for diesel vehicle trips, but it is in the 1-mile DGA regardless of any review threshold. This would seemingly require an EIR for any Project located within 1 mile of an EJ Population.

However, as the MEPA Office explains it, the EIR trigger only applies to Projects that already meet or exceed another review threshold and thus are “likely to cause Damage to the Environment”:

Section 58 of the Act applies to projects that are “likely to cause Damage to the Environment,” which is a phrase used in MEPA regulations to describe the MEPA review thresholds that determine the level of MEPA review required. … In practice, this means that projects that are subject to MEPA jurisdiction and meet or exceed one or more “ENF review thresholds,” for which an ENF filing is required and any EIR was formerly required at the discretion of the EEA Secretary, will on a going forward basis be required to submit an EIR if located in the designated geographic areas around EJ populations

Response to Comments, at 4 (emphasis added).

Projects for which an EIR is required under section 11.06(7)(b) must include the EJ impacts analysis set forth in section 11.07(6)(n) in their EIR. This analysis is intended to align with the second supplemental guidance that will take effect on January 1, 2022, the MEPA Protocol for Analyzing Impacts on EJ Populations (“Protocol for Analysis of EJ Impacts”). The amendments require that an EIR contain the following five elements in addition to the usual EIR requirements:

1. Statements about the results of an assessment of any existing unfair or inequitable Environmental Burdens impacting the Environmental Justice Population;

2. If the above assessment indicates that an Environmental Justice Population is subject to an existing unfair or inequitable Environmental Burden: (i) a description of any Project impacts that would likely result in a disproportionate adverse effect on the population; and (ii) any potential Project impacts that would increase or reduce the effects of climate change on the population, taking into consideration how the Project impacts would exasperate the Environmental Burden, the comparative impact of the Project on a non-Environmental Justice Population, and any Project benefits that would reduce potential unfair or inequitable effects on the Environmental Justice Population;

3. A description of alternatives or measures to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on the Environmental Justice Population;

4. Proposed Section 61 Findings that include any actions to address any disproportionate adverse effects, or any increase in the effects of climate change, on the impacted Environmental Justice Population; and

5. Responses to public comments related to the assessment of disproportionate adverse effects or increase in the effects of climate change on the impacted Environmental Justice Population.

Rollover EIRs

“The MEPA Office estimates that more than 80% of new project filings in 2020-21 triggered ENF-only review thresholds, meaning that many future projects will be required to submit an EIR after the effective date of the regulations because they are located in the designated geographic areas around EJ populations.” Response to Comments, at 4.[2]

To address the projected influx in EIRs, the amendments introduce a new “rollover EIR” procedure intended to streamline the EJ review process where a Proponent demonstrates that a Project will not materially impact an EJ Population. This new procedure is covered in new sections 11.05(9) and 11.06(13).

For any Project for which an EIR is required under section 11.06(7)(b) (because it is located in the DGA near an EJ Population), a Proponent may file a dual Expanded ENF and a Proposed EIR, and the Secretary may allow the Proposed EIR to be reviewed as a final EIR, or require the Proponent to file responses to comments on the Proposed EIR together with Proposed Section 61 Findings and review these as a final EIR. The Secretary must find that the dual Expanded ENF and Proposed EIR:

a. completely describes the Project and its alternatives and assesses its potential environmental and public health impacts sufficiently for a Participating Agency to make its Section 61 Findings;

b. demonstrates that the Project will not materially exacerbate any existing unfair or inequitable Environmental Burden and related public health consequences impacting an Environmental Justice Population, and will not result in a disproportionate adverse effect or increased climate change effects on an Environmental Justice Population;

c. describes measures taken to provide meaningful opportunities for public involvement by Environmental Justice Populations prior to filing the dual ENF and Proposed EIR, including any changes made to the Project to address concerns raised by or on behalf of Environmental Justice Populations;

d. shows that comments received on the dual ENF and Proposed EIR do not raise substantial issues not previously considered by the Proponent; and

e. shows that no substantive issues remain to be resolved.

Supplemental Guidance

As noted, the MEPA Office issued the Public Involvement Protocol and the Protocol for Analysis of EJ Impacts to supplement and to take effect together with the amended MEPA Regulations. The Public Involvement Protocol “will instruct Proponents on how to describe ‘negative effects’ and to promote public involvement for EJ populations. Response to Comments, at 7. The Protocol For Analysis of EJ Impacts “will help to ensure that Proponents will apply a consistent methodology across projects when conducting assessments of existing ‘Environmental Burdens’ and the added impacts of the project.” Id. at 8. New project submissions will be expected to comply with the Protocols starting January 1, 2022.

The MEPA Office also announced that it is planning a second-phase rulemaking effort in 2022 to comprehensively review all sections of the MEPA regulations. It will consider whether to add additional definitions of “disproportionate adverse effect” and “unfair or inequitable burden” into MEPA regulations, which it declined to do with these amendments because of ongoing efforts in conjunction with MassDEP to define a similar EJ impacts analysis for air permitting. See Response to Comments, at 6.


Although not an official Red Ryder carbine action, 200-shot, range model air rifle, at least these new MEPA regulations won’t shoot your eye out.

For any questions about how these legislative changes may affect your project, contact the attorneys at Mackie Shea Durning, P.C.



[1] The MEPA Regulations “establish[ ] review thresholds that identify categories of Projects or aspects thereof, of a nature, size or location that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment. Except when the Secretary requires fail-safe review, the review thresholds determine whether MEPA review is required.” 301 CMR 11.01(2)(b)1. “MEPA review is required when one or more review thresholds are met or exceeded and the subject matter of at least one review threshold is within MEPA jurisdiction. A review threshold that is met or exceeded specifies whether MEPA review shall consist of an ENF and a mandatory EIR or of an ENF and other MEPA review if the Secretary so requires.” 301 CMR 11.01(2)(b)2.

[2] EEA maintains an interactive mapping tool for locating EJ Populations as well as a general EJ information and resources webpage.


On July 1, 2020, Governor Charles D. Baker issued a new Executive Order addressing certain state permitting deadlines in light of improved conditions in the Commonwealth during the COVID-19 state of emergency.

The new order, COVID-19 Order No. 42, rescinds the prior state permitting order, Order No. 17, which affected a broad group of state permitting approvals. Read our prior Client Advisory for a description of the affected approvals.

Order No. 42 sets new deadlines for constructive approvals, hearings, decisions, and appeal rights that would have been effective between March 10 and July 1 but were suspended under Order No. 17, and sets a date certain for these deadlines that become effective after July 1 and going forward:

  • Constructive approvals that would have issued during the affected period will now issue on August 17, 2020, and constructive approvals that will issue after July 1 will now issue according to their usual statutory or regulatory deadline or on August 17, whichever is later.
  • Hearings that the permitting agency would have required to commence during the affected period will now commence before August 10, and hearings that would commence after July 1 will now commence according to their usual statutory or regulatory deadline or by August 10, whichever is later.
  • Decisions that the permitting agency would have been required to issue during the affected period will now be issued on or before August 10, and decisions that must issue after July 1 will now be issued according to their usual statutory or regulatory deadline or August 10, whichever is later.
  • Appeal rights that would have expired during the affected period will now expire on August 10, and any appeal rights that would expire after July 1 will now expire according to their usual statutory or regulatory deadline or by August 10, whichever is later.

Order No. 42 also pauses or “tolls” permit approvals which were valid as of March 10 and provides that these approvals will not lapse until after the state of emergency is terminated, when the number of days remaining as of March 10 until the original deadline will be tacked on to end and will establish the new deadline.

The Order, given at 5:30 p.m. on July 1, was made effective immediately and will remain in effect until it is rescinded or the COVID-19 state of emergency is terminated.

If you have a question about whether this Order covers your permit or approval, contact the attorneys at Mackie Shea Durning, PC.


In April 2020, two days before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (ACOE), published the Navigable Waters Protection Rule redefining the scope of waters subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act (Act or CWA).

The Act, which prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into “navigable waters” without a permit from the EPA under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the discharge of dredge or fill material into “navigable waters” without a permit from the ACOE under the Act’s Section 404 permit program, defines “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” Although the Supreme Court has consistently held that the CWA’s jurisdiction extends beyond waters that are actually navigable, a clear definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) has eluded lower courts and federal regulators since the Supreme Court decided Rapanos v. United States in 2006. In Rapanos, a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia interpreted WOTUS to cover relatively permanent or continuously flowing bodies of water connected to traditional navigable waters, as well as adjacent wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to these waters. Although concurring in the ultimate decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate opinion with a different interpretation of WOTUS, covering any wetlands that have a “significant nexus” with traditionally navigable waters. The 4-1-4 decision did not establish a clear precedent for the WOTUS definition.

In June 2015, the Obama Administration published the Clean Water Rule to clarify the WOTUS definition after questions arose over the government’s authority when confusion around the WOTUS definition stalled CWA enforcement actions. The Clean Water Rule looked to the Act’s objective “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” and adopted Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” standard to implement this objective. The rule thus covered any waters that, either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affected the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters. It established six categories of waters that were jurisdictional by rule; specified waters that were excluded from CWA jurisdiction; and identified two categories of waters (similarly-situated regional waters and floodplain waters) that could be subjected to a case-specific significant nexus jurisdiction analysis.

The new Navigable Waters Protection Rule replaces the Clean Water Rule and, in doing so, shifts the emphasis of the WOTUS definition more in line with Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion in Rapanos. Under the new rule, jurisdictional waters “encompass relatively permanent flowing and standing waterbodies that are traditional navigable waters in their own right or that have a specific surface water connection to traditional navigable waters, as well as wetlands that abut or are otherwise inseparably bound up with such relatively permanent waters.” The new rule establishes four categories of jurisdictional waters: (1) the territorial seas and traditional navigable waters; (2) perennial and intermittent tributaries that contribute surface water flow to such waters; (3) certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and (4) wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional waters. All other waters or features are excluded from CWA jurisdiction.

This new rule will have the effect of further muddying the waters of CWA jurisdiction as the regulatory pendulum swings back once again, risking further confusion in an area where consistency and predictability are key. As the new rule reduces the Act’s reach over the nation’s waters, it is expected that it will also reduce the number of permits required under the NPDES and Section 404 permit programs. There are five lawsuits currently in federal court which are challenging the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, including a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court.

We will continue to monitor judicial and administrative developments under the CWA as courts, the EPA, and the ACOE apply this new rule. For any questions regarding this evolving area of the law, please reach out to the attorneys at Mackie Shea Durning, PC.

By Peter M. Vetere


In April, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision that could drastically expand the scope of activities requiring a permit under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA or Act). The case, County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, involved a wastewater reclamation facility in Hawaii that pumped treated waste water into groundwater injection wells, from which the effluent would enter groundwater and flow to the Pacific Ocean.

The Court held that, even though the effluent traveled through groundwater (a non-point source) before entering the ocean, this activity required a CWA permit, because it was “the functional equivalent of a direct discharge from the point source into navigable waters.” In doing so, the Court introduced a new test for determining whether indirect discharges, i.e., when point-source discharges of water pollution enters a non-point source (such as groundwater) before traveling to a water body covered by the CWA, required CWA permits.

The holding is particularly relevant to wastewater treatment facilities who pump treated effluent into groundwater wells, since that is the particular fact pattern at issue; however, it is also relevant to any point source discharger from whom pollutants could travel through groundwater or another non-point source into waters of the United States.


CWA Permitting and Application

The CWA prohibits the “discharge of any pollutant by any person” into the waters of the United States without that person obtaining a permit from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Act defines “pollutant” broadly to include, among other things, any solid waste, sewage, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. A “discharge of a pollutant” is any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source. A “point source” is any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, conduit, or well, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.

Less clear is whether, and to what extent, a NPDES permit is required for discharges of pollutants to non-point sources, such as groundwater. Regulation of groundwater has traditionally been left to the states and not the federal government under the Act. Practically speaking, non-point source pollution is rarely traceable to any single discrete source and is, therefore, difficult to regulate through individual permits.

Not too long before the Court’s decision, in November 2019, the federal court in Massachusetts acknowledged the ambiguity inherent in the CWA’s application to discharges of pollutants into groundwater. In Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Longwood Venues & Destinations, Inc., the District of Massachusetts deferred to EPA’s April 2019 interpretative statement on the issue and held that “discharges into groundwater are categorically excluded from the CWA’s regulatory regime, irrespective of any hydrological connection to navigable waters.” Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision in County of Maui nullified what was the (not at all longstanding) prevailing law on this issue in Massachusetts.

The Court’s Decision and the New “Functionally Equivalent” Test

In County of Maui, a majority of the Supreme Court (in a 6-3 opinion written by Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer) resolved the ambiguity by applying the CWA to certain discharges of pollutants to groundwater. Under the new test, the addition of a pollutant from any point source requires a NPDES permit when (i) a point source directly discharges pollutants into navigable waters, or (ii) the addition of the pollutants is “the functional equivalent of a direct discharge from the point source into navigable waters.”

Unfortunately, by resolving one ambiguity, the Court may have created more confusion instead of clarifying the law. The majority essentially staked a middle position between two arguments. The petitioner, the County of Maui’s wastewater treatment facility, argued for a bright-line “means-of-delivery” test where only direct discharges from a point source to a covered water required a permit, focusing on the manner in which the pollutant is conveyed to the covered water. The respondents, several environmental groups who filed a CWA citizen suit against the water treatment facility, argued for application of the Ninth Circuit’s “fairly traceable” test, which would have required a permit whenever pollutants are fairly traceable from the point source to a navigable water. The U.S. Solicitor General submitted an amicus brief in support of the petitioner and arguing for the application of the EPA’s April 2019 interpretative statement. The Court declined to grant deference to the EPA’s interpretation, because no party had requested it and because a total exclusion of all discharges through groundwater “would open a loophole allowing easy evasion of the [Act’s] basic purposes.”

In the end, the Court settled on the “functional equivalent” test and identified several factors which may be relevant to determining whether a particular discharge is the functional equivalent of one directly into navigable waters:

  • transit time;
  • distance traveled;
  • the nature of the material through which the pollutant travels;
  • the extent to which the pollutant is diluted or chemically changed as it travels;
  • the amount of pollutant entering the navigable waters relative to the amount of the pollutant that leaves the point source;
  • the manner by or area in which the pollutant enters the navigable waters; and
  • the degree to which the pollution has maintained its specific identity at the point it enters the navigable water.

The first two factors, time and distance, will be the most important factors in most cases.

The problem with this new test is that it introduces a number of new ambiguities to replace the original ambiguity over whether discharges to groundwater required a CWA permit. The Court acknowledged these shortcomings: the list of factors is not exhaustive (“courts can provide guidance through decisions in individual cases”); the two factors which the Court said are most important will “not necessarily [be important in] every case;” and even when time and distance are important, there is only a sliding scale of the acceptable range (a permit is required somewhere between “[w]here a pipe ends a few feet from navigable waters” and “[i]f the pipe ends 50 miles from navigable waters and the pipe emits pollutants that travel with groundwater, mix with much other material, and end up in navigable waters only many years later”).

During a status conference in federal district court following the decision, the Maui wastewater facility declared its intent to proceed to discovery and prepare its case for trial in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Both parties will have an opportunity to submit additional briefs on discovery issues, which the district court will hear in a further status conference at the end of June.

In combination with the EPA’s newly-promulgated Navigable Waters Protection Rule revising the definition of “waters of the United States,” which takes effect on June 22, 2020, the Supreme Court’s decision marks a major shift in CWA permitting.

We will continue to monitor judicial and administrative developments under the CWA as courts and the EPA apply this new “functional equivalent” test. For any questions regarding this evolving area of the law, please reach out to the attorneys at Mackie Shea Durning, PC.


By Peter M. Vetere

Environmental Law Update – Spring 2019

Emerging Contaminants: MassDEP has proposed reportable concentrations and clean-up standards for perfluoroalkyl compounds in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 CMR 40.0000 et seq. (MCP).  Written comments must be filed by July 19, 2019.  The final regulations are scheduled for the Fall, 2019.

Climate Change: Following up on an April, 2018 policy announcement, the EPA proposes to adopt regulations that would treat carbon dioxide emissions from power plants using managed forest biomass as carbon neutral.  

Renewable Energy: The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has proposed regulations to revise the Class I and Class II Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) regulations, including revisions to the efficiency standard for certain woody biomass to qualify for Class 1 Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).

Solid Waste:  During 2019, the MassDEP will continue to hold Solid Waste Advisory Committee meetings to arrive at a draft 2020 Solid Waste Master Plan.  Subcommittees that will also be meeting include the source reduction, organics and C&D Subcommittees. In this connection, in February MSW Consultants provided the MassDEP with its final Massachusetts Materials Management Capacity Study which is intended to inform the development of the 2020 Master Plan.

NPDES: In April, the EPA issued an Interpretative Statement on Application of Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to Releases of Pollutants from a Point Source to Groundwater, in which the Agency concludes “that the CWA is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from NPDES program coverage. regardless of a hydrologic connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.” It will remain to be seen whether or not this interpretation will quell the conflict among the federal Circuits over the issue, highlighted last September when the Massachusetts District Court dismissed a citizen’s suit alleging violations of the NPDES program by Casella Waste Systems’ discharge of contamination to the groundwater at the Southbridge landfill in Toxics Action Center, et. al. v. Casella Waste Systems, Inc., et. al.  Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will answer the question of NPDES jurisdiction when it takes up County of Maui, HI v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund on appeal from a Ninth Circuit decision extending jurisdiction to discharges to groundwater. 

Drought Management Plan

Waiting to pick up our coffee orders, a neighbor and a veteran of 30 seasons as a little league coach groused that his perennial champs had no practices in April due to the heavy rains, making the fields soggy and unsafe.  Knowing my expertise as an environmental lawyer, he asked me if it was due to climate change, or is that “fake” science as POTUS claims, or is it real and the denial is one of his many lies.  I assured him that climate change is real and was recently supported in the March 4, 2019 United Nations 6th Global Environmental Outlook Report.  I told him to expect more rain in May and extreme weather conditions like the severe drought we experienced in 2016, and suggested the baseball season be scheduled for warmer months.

If I had more time, I would have educated him on the 2019 revised Drought Management Plan (“DMP”) prepared by the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission.  Massachusetts is relatively water-rich with annual precipitation averaging 48 inches a year, ranging from 31 to 61 inches.  There were 6.9 inches of rainfall on the baseball fields in April 2019 (the norm is 3.9).  Annual precipitation in Massachusetts is expected to rise as a result of climate change and extreme precipitation events are on the rise.  However, large storms do not mean significant groundwater recharge or steady stream flows.  They mostly result in localized flooding and rapid stormwater flows.

Massachusetts has suffered major droughts over the years, including 2016-2017, which was characterized by a rapid decline in conditions from month to month, known as a “flash drought.”  The nine year drought from 1961-1969 is the most severe on record, and communities responded with water-use restrictions and emergency supplies.  I remember when Great Pond in South Weymouth turned into a mud flat, killing my favorite fishing spot.

Great Pond in Jan. 2017. Photo by Ed Baker

The 2001 DMP was developed in response to a period of low precipitation from April 1999 to March 2000.  It was revised and updated over time in consultation with the Drought Management Task Force (“DMTF”) and issued as a formal plan in 2013.  During the 2016-17 drought, the 2013 DMP was used and lessons learned.  EEA and MEMA are responsible for coordinating response efforts and communications with the public.  The DMTF has 18 members from environmental agencies and organizations, public health officials and public safety officials.  The DMTF provides a comprehensive assessment of drought situations based on six drought indices (precipitation, stream flow, groundwater, lakes and impoundments, fire danger and evapotranspiration), establishes four index severity levels, forecasts of rain and temperature, and updates the DMP as needed.

MassDEP has significant responsibilities through its Water Management Act (“WMA”), Drinking Water, and Wetlands programs to oversee water supplies, allocations and resource protection.  MassDEP imposes water conservation measures and water use restrictions in withdrawal permits under the WMA.  Each permit holder must develop a water conservation program to comply with Water Conservation Standards, and a Water Loss Control Program.  In a declared water emergency, MassDEP may require a public water supplier to submit a plan with provisions for shutting off water, upgrades to WMA conservation measures, loss control plans, audits, system rehabilitation, building permit moratoria, and bans or restrictions on certain water uses (e.g., don’t water the ballfields).

The Massachusetts Water Works Association comments on the 2019 draft revisions to the DMP argue for local, systems-specific Water Resiliency or Drought Response Plans instead of mandates from the state DMP.  There is no one-size-fits-all Drought Plan.  Water suppliers assert that drought declarations must be based on scientific facts and not subjective judgment from non-water supply professionals.  Water suppliers want the DMP to encourage the development of new sources to provide redundancy opportunities and to increase the resiliency of the water supply systems.  The DMP should discuss the development of new or supplemental sources, rather than focus exclusively on conservation and restrictions.

The DMP is considered to be a living document to be updated and revised based on experiences.  The DMP is a critical component in tackling climate change impacts on water supplies: more extreme weather events from storms and droughts.

The Right Whale

The nearly extinct and endangered North Atlantic Right Whale is not holding its collective breath hoping the late Leonard Nimoy (“Spock”) will again time travel to our century to capture and transport two Right Whales (instead of the humpbacks George and Gracie) to the 23rd century to repopulate the species and save the Earth from an alien probe causing destructive climate change on Earth because there are no whale songs.  Star Trek IV:  The Voyage Home (1986).  Absent the Enterprise crew on a desperate mission to save mankind, we are using law and science to stave off extinction of the Right Whale in the 21st century.

The Right Whale can reach 60 feet in length and weigh 100 tons.  There are fewer than 411 individuals, including 100 breeding females, living in the remaining habitat close to the continental shelf on the East Coast.  The waters off Massachusetts are home to this rarest of all large whales.  They were named by whalers who identified them as the “right” whale to kill on a hunt because they are slow, swim close to shore, float to the surface after death, and produce a lot of oil.  Today, the leading causes of death are blunt force from ship strikes during migration through the busiest shipping lanes, entanglement in fishing gear, and bioacoustic impacts to calling and reproductive behaviors.  The species has low annual reproductive rates from deaths, and diminishing food sources due to climate and ocean process changes (in 2017, about 17 females were killed, and in 2018, no new calves were born).  Since the 1980s, females are now raising a baby once per decade. 

Hunting of the Right Whale was banned world-wide in 1937 and has steadily diminished.  Right Whales are listed as “species with extinction … affected by trade” (“CERES”), and as “endangered” by the IURN Red List based on extinction risk.  They are listed as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and as “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”).  In 2009, the National Ocean and Aeronautics Administration) “NOAA”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) (“NOAA Fisheries”) limited vessel speed to 10 knots in shipping lanes during the annual migration and where Right Whales gather during calving season.  NOAA Fisheries designated critical habitat in 1994 and revised the designation in 2016.  NOAA Fisheries and the Coast Guard have implemented a mandatory vessel reporting system:  When large vessels enter two key habitats, they must report to a shore-based system which advises about locations of recent Right Whale sightings, and precautionary measures to avoid strikes.  NOAA Fisheries has a “500-yard rule” prohibiting approaches of Right Whales by all fishing boats and recreational boaters, kayakers, surfers and paddle boarders.

NOAA Fisheries supports management measures to reduce whale entanglements in fishing gear, which is a primary cause of death, serious injury and reduced fertility.  As they feed, whales get entangled in vertical lines from buoys attached to lobster and crab pots on the ocean bottom, get trapped and drown, or suffer injuries from deep cuts to the body.  New gear has buoy lines that automatically release when pressure is applied by whales.  Ropeless technology with GPS and grappling hook or an inflation buoy is being evaluated and is promoted by Charles “Stormy” Mayo, Director of the Right Whale Ecology Program at the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, who has been a “save the whale” activist since the 1980s.  Since 2014, NOAA Fisheries has banned lobstermen from setting traps in Cape Cod Bay between February 1 and April 30, and closed fishing in the Great South Channel southeast of Chatham between April 1 and June 30. 

Science is keeping track of the whales through ship and plane photography, electronic tags, and a network of 13 detection buoys listening for Right Whales in Massachusetts Bay.  The Center for Coastal Studies conducts early morning aerial surveillance from fall to spring.  The Center reported that about 221 Right Whales, or 54 percent of the population, were spotted in Cape Cod Bay.

Underwater noise interrupts normal behavior and may cause strandings.  Anthropogenic sound from Navy sonar and oil and gas seismic air gun blasts for proposed offshore oil and gas drilling may increase stress and health effects in Right Whales.  In March 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska declared illegal President Trump’s order revoking an Obama ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean (Case No. 3-17-CV-00101-SLG).  The ruling tossed out the President’s unlawful order and restores inter alia permanent protections to 31 biologically rich canyons in the Atlantic Ocean which are critical habitat for the Right Whale and other species. 

In February 2018, Conservation Law Foundation and Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the federal agencies failed to prevent jeopardy and unlawful takes of Right Whales from entanglement by the American lobster fishery in violation of the ESA, MMPA and the Administrative Procedure Act.  (Case 1:18-CV-00283; U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.).

On January 23, 2019, Vineyard Wind and CLF, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the National Wildlife Federation entered into an agreement to protect Right Whales during the installation and operation of its proposed 84-turbine project in the lease of 160,000 acres a/k/a OSC-A-501, south of Martha’s Vineyard.  The agreement seeks “to minimize disruption of normal feeding, breeding and migratory behaviors and prevent injury to Right Whales.”  Turbine construction will not occur during the winter and early spring when whales may be in the area.  There will be seasonal restrictions on pile driving.  There will be monitoring to ensure construction does not occur when whales are near the site.  Real-time acoustic monitoring with a range of 10,000 meters will detect Right Whales within the clearance zone and result in construction shutdown.  Geophysical surveys will be seasonally restricted.  Construction noise levels will be reduced and attenuated so as to minimize impacts on the whale’s ability to communicate, locate food and migrate.  There will be a strict vessel speed limit of 10 knots.  The developer will also invest $3 million to develop and use innovative technology and fund scientific research.

In June 2018, Congress introduced legislation to protect the Right Whale.  Senate bill S 3038 and the companion House of Representatives bill H.R. 6060 were purely Democratic initiatives.  The SAVE Right Whales Act of 2018 would require a transition to buoyless fishing gear and provide $5 million per year for ten years for conservation programs aimed at rebuilding a healthy population of Right Whales; specifically, for funding projects to develop, test and use innovative technology to reduce entanglements in fishing gear and vessel collisions.  Given the divisiveness in Congress and penchant for military funding, it may be easier to fund faster than light space research than Right Whale protection!  

Environmental Law Update – Fall 2018

On September 30, the Massachusetts federal District Court dismissed Toxics Action Center, Inc. v. Casella Waste Systems, Inc.,  a citizens suit under the Clean Water Act and RCRA alleging that discharges of leachate from Casella’s Southbridge landfill through groundwater had damaged surface water and contaminated private wells. The Court dismissed the RCRA counts, because additional Court action would be duplicative of  MassDEP’s enforcement actions and, therefore, not “necessary.” The Court acknowledged that “[t]he First Circuit has not addressed whether a discharge of a pollutant that moves through ground water before reaching navigable waters may constitute a discharge of a pollutant, within the meaning of the CWA.”  But the Court sidestepped the groundwater discharge issue as follows: “a landfill is not a point source within the meaning of the CWA, this Court will not reach the issue of whether the CWA extends liability to surface water that is polluted via hydrologically connected groundwater.”

On September 26, the Department of Public Utilities issued an Order providing for utilities to pay direct incentives to owners of new solar generating sources under the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) program.

On September 17, Massachusetts rolled out its first-in-the-nation 2018 State Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan which integrates climate change impacts and adaptation strategies with hazard mitigation planning.  The Plan qualifies the state for Stafford Act funds (per FEMA hazard mitigation grant criteria at 44 CFR § 201.4) and also complies with Executive Order 569.  The state will update the plan every five years, with continuous reviews, updates and revisions via the new Climate Change Clearinghouse.  To date, over 150 communities have performed vulnerability assessments and developed action-oriented resiliency plans under the Commonwealth’s Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Program (MVP).  Certified MVP communities are eligible for MVP Action grant funding and other opportunities.

On September 4, the Supreme Judicial Court handed down New England Power Generators Association, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection rejecting the Power Generator’s challenge to MassDEP regulations requiring decreases in annual GHG emissions under the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). Deferring to MassDEP’s interpretation of the Act, the Court ruled that the Department had the authority to impose annual declining emissions on the electric sector under Section 3 d of the Act, despite the existence of provisions in Section 3 c of the Act, which are specifically applicable to electric generating facilities.

On August 21, Governor Baker signed the $2.4B Environmental Bond Bill including provisions that put into law his 2016 Executive Order 569, establishing an integrated strategy for climate change adaptation discussed above.

On July 12, the EPA and Army Corps issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on their proposal to roll back the Obama-Era Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule defining the agencies’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The comment period ended on August 23, 2018.  Whatever the agencies ultimately decide, ongoing litigation is sure to continue to delay the clarity sought by so many in the regulated community over the breadth of the agencies’ jurisdiction.

In addition to EPA’s April 2018 proposed Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule, which would limit the scientific studies that the EPA could rely upon in evaluating new regulations, on June 13 the Agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  to change the methodology used to calculate the cost and benefit of new environmental regulations.  Battle lines are being drawn over whether the EPA should continue to count so-called “co-benefits,” which take into account the indirect health benefits in addition to the direct benefits of a proposed new regulation. For example, in the case of the mercury air toxic rule, the EPA included $4-6M of direct health benefits from reduced mercury exposures and $80B in co-benefits attributable to the reduction of other pollutants, primarily particulate matter (PM).

In March, MassDEP promulgated a package of amendments to its air pollution control regulations at 310 CMR 7.00 across a wide array of topics, including a revamp of the rules governing appeals of air plan approvals, which had long been the source of legal uncertainty and litigation.