Friday, February 9, 2024

Hopefully Not!

Will this be the last Mass Bay Outfall Science Panel Meeting?

 


Thanks to Shane Dwyer of MASS DCR for this great video!

Please join us on Friday, February 9 for the annual public meeting of the Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel (OMSAP) related to scientific and technical matters of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA)’s Deer Island outfall and any potential impacts of the discharge on its receiving waters. The meeting will be held from 9:30 AM – 3:00 PM EST with a Public Interest Advisory Committee (PIAC) meeting to follow from 3:00 – 4:00 PM EST.

Join on your computer, mobile app or room device

Click here to join the meeting

Meeting ID: 247 469 702 839
Passcode: grrEB8



Bruce Berman

2003 Commonwealth Avenue #26

Brighton, Massachusetts 02135

1-617-293-6243
bruce@bostonharbor.com

 

 

Michele Barden

US Environmental Protection Agency - Region 1

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (06-4)

Boston, MA 02109-3912

Submitted via email: barden.michele@epa.gov

Claire Golden

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Surface Water Discharge Program 150 Presidential Way, Woburn, MA 01801

Submitted via email: MassDEP.npdes@mass.gov

Michele and Claire,

 

I am writing to you today as the Chair of the Public Interest Advisory Committee (PIAC) of the Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel (OMSAP) with my concerns and comments on the proposed revisions to the Deer Island NPDES permit MA0103284.

 

Though the 68 page permit and the accompanying 195 page fact sheet made great summer reading, they are complicated technical documents, which require subject matter expertise to evaluate.

 

To help me, PIAC, and the public to  better understand the proposed changes, I looked to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) and the Wastewater Advisory Committee (WAC). I share their concerns that the requirements in the draft concerning Ambient Monitoring, Harmful Algae Blooms, CSO sampling frequency, and storm event plans, which are unrealistic, overly proscriptive and inflexible, and place an undue burden on the 43 MWRA cities and towns.


I also urge you to carefully consider the comments from the Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel and ask you to include a Science Advisory Panel and a robust monitoring plan with specific questions in the permit.

 

It is particularly hard for me to imagine that you can pull together an effective monitoring plan in 30 days. It took more than one year, a well-attended scientific conference, and countless hours of peer reviewed research by OMSAP members and others to prepare the white papers on emerging contaminants and microplastics that inform the current monitoring efforts. The data set produced by the monitoring program shaped by OMSAP is invaluable to our understanding of the dramatic changes we have seen in the Southern Gulf of Maine in the past 30 years and likely will face in the coming years as well. Though the initial questions we framed together have been largely asked and answered, new questions have emerged which the monitoring needs to address.

I was pleased to see that in this draft you have revised the well intentioned, but unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and costly decision to require the MWRA’s cities and towns to pull together individual storm event plans based on speculations about what the situation will be 100 years from now in just 12 months. Under the initial language in the prior draft permit, Community A and B might produce individual plans using very different assumptions and methodologies, while adjacent Community C would not be required to produce a plan at all. Planning for climate change is critically important, but to be useful it has to be comprehensive and not piecemeal.

This permit clearly took a very long time to produce, as we have been waiting for the US EPA’s promised draft permit for more than a decade. From my perspective, it seems unrealistic to expect the USEPA to thoughtfully revise the permit every five years, which they have been unable to do in the past.

At the same time, given the rapid changes to the Gulf of Maine due to global warming and storming, which have resulted in dramatic changes in the species, extent and duration of algae blooms, and the range of black sea bass, lobsters and invasive species like green crabs and the Asian shore crab, five years is an awfully long time.

Under the circumstances, I’d urge you to build more flexibility into the permit, and to continue to provide opportunities for both independent scientists with subject matter expertise and the public to have near real time input into thresholds, exceedances and the monitoring regime.

For more than 20 years, OMSAP and PIAC have played a critical role in helping the regulators and the public understand and respond to the impacts of the Mass Bay Outfall on the changing marine environment. For reasons that I still do not fully understand - in part because those who made the decision within the US EPA are not permitted to freely discuss their thinking – the US EPA has chosen to remove both OMSAP and PIAC from the permit, which I believe is a big mistake.

 

The men and women who volunteer to serve on OMSAP bring subject matter expertise and institutional resources that have clarified our thinking and increased our understanding of the impacts of the 250 million gallons of effluent we currently discharge into Mass Bay.

 

Their work has made it possible for us to keep the commitment Judge A. David Mazzone and Save the Harbor/Save the Bay’s Founding Chair Beth Nicholson made when the Mass Bay Outfall went online in September of 2000: The Boston Harbor Cleanup would not come at the expense of Mass Bay or Cape Cod.

 

By my calculation, OMSAP members have contributed more (much more) than $4 million dollars in in-kind contributions to make certain that the Boston Harbor cleanup did not come at the expense of the health of Mass Bay. The idea that the expert advice and institutional resources this panel provides can be replaced by a handful of well-intentioned government regulators with very full plates seems silly.

 

PIAC also performs two functions that are critical to the continued success of the Boston Harbor Cleanup. We share the public’s questions and concerns about the impacts and potential impacts of the outfall on the public’s health and the health of the Boston Harbor, Broad Sound, Mass Bay and the Gulf of Maine with OMSAP, and share OMSAP’s answers and insights with the public and the press.

 

Over the past twenty years I have often reached out to the group and individual members of OMSAP with questions from the public and the press about algae blooms, fish kills, unexplained marine mammal mortality, dissolved oxygen concentration and saturation, and emerging contaminants. Sometimes they seemed silly. Sometimes not.

 

In every case, no matter what the question, I have received a prompt, forthright, and collegial response. They have attended numerous meetings on their own time and at their own expense to explain complicated facts to sometimes skeptical advocates, activists and the public.

 

Over the same period, I have often reached out to the men and women of EPA Region 1 with similar questions, many of whom I consider my friends and allies. Though they have often been frank and forthcoming, too many times I have been told that they cannot freely discuss the matter with me on the record because of legal, political or policy concerns.

 

In 2017, for example, Trump Administration officials e-mailed staff to inform them that they could no longer discuss agency research or departmental restrictions with anyone outside of the agency—including news media. That same administration subsequently attempted in 2020 to limit which scientific data and studies the EPA could even consider in its decision making.

 

Good decisions require good data, sound science, subject matter expertise and peer review. Good public policy requires transparency and the free exchange of ideas.

 

For more than 20 years, OMSAP and PIAC have provided decision makers and the public with good data, subject matter expertise, peer review, transparency and the free exchange of ideas and information critical to informed decision making.

The direct cost of both OMSAP and PIAC to the Commonwealth is minimal – postage, a part time staffer, and occasionally lunch at a meeting. I strongly urge you to find a way to keep both OMSAP and PIAC in the permit. If it helps, I’ll buy lunch for as long as I am Chair.

 

Thanks for your time and attention.

 

All the best,


 

 

 

 

E. Bruce Berman, Jr., Chair,
Public Interest Advisory Committee, Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel

Saturday, November 11, 2023

Island of the Damned

 

        



Island of the Damned  
The bombing of a wildlife sanctuary  
by E. Bruce Berman, Jr.
First published in The Boston Phoenix on August 14, 1987

On Wednesday I dropped by Gus Ben David's house at the Mass Audubon Society’s Felix Neck Sanctuary, on Martha’s Vineyard, having spent three of the previous five hours (starting at 8:30 am.) in an open 26-foot long boat in rough seas watching two Phantom jets bomb and strafe another wildlife sanctuary, Noman’s Island, six miles to the south of Gay Head. 

 


Listen on our podcast on Spotify

Surrounded by owls, eagles, hawks, and other birds of prey, Ben David, 44, is a former nuclear-weapons specialist who now serves as head honcho on the Vineyard for the Mass Audubon Society. As we spoke about just why he favors Navy bombing and strafing at the Noman’s Island sanctuary but opposes human visitation to the island (especially by picnickers), he tossed shredded bird wings (with the feathers still attached) to the fledgling kestrel hawk in the trees.
 
After an amiable hour or so, we concluded our talk, and he took me downstairs in his house to show me the biggest damn Burmese python I'd ever seen, which he doesn’t take out much now that it’s eating whole chickens and could easily kill a young human.   

Ben David lives in the only house at Felix Neck, with a spectacular view of the sanctuary and the family of osprey that are its best-known new residents. From his deck he can keep a watchful eye on the property for the Audubon Society and: care for (and work with) the eagles, owls, falcons, hawks, and other birds of prey that live in the sheds behind his house.   “I took my first red-tail hawk right out of a nest when I was nine years old. I took it illegally, but that just proves how much I love them,” Ben David told me. And he has been enraptured by raptors ever since.

Today’s Ben David's feathered charges are mostly orphans, injured birds brought to him by woodsmen and nature lovers; though most of them can never be released, they flourish under Ben David's care and provide a valuable resource for teaching the island’s children and visitors about birds of prey.   

Gus Ben David is not the only naturalist on the island, but he is the best known. When an animal (even a skunk or raccoon) is injured or abandoned, or a fledgling hurt in a fall from its nest, people bring it to Gus. And he nurses it back to health and, if possible, reintroduces it into the wild. Folks know he cares, and they listen to him and in general share his goals and cooperate with his efforts — with sometimes spectacular results.   

Take the osprey, or fish eagle. Once near extinction because of DDT and the destruction of the high trees that are its preferred nesting sites, Ben David secured the cooperation of island residents for a program to place osprey nesting poles at various sites around the  island. In 1971 there were just two breeding pairs on Martha’s Vineyard; this year, thanks to his efforts, there are 41 breeding pairs of ospreys on the Vineyard. Once again visitors and residents are treated to the sight of these majestic birds.   

Precisely because Gus Ben David is the unchallenged spokesman for and champion of the wildlife on the Vineyard, it is hard to understand why he defends so vehemently the Navy's daily bombing and strafing sorties against the wildlife sanctuary at Noman’s Island.

Since the Navy took possession of the  640-acre island from the Crane family, in  the ‘40s, Gus Ben David has probably  spent more time on Noman’s Island than  any other civilian. He has, to use his  military metaphor, “both the time and  grade” to speak with authority about the  status of the wildlife on Noman’s Island.  

As a Vietnam-era “special weapons”  expert in a nuclear-weapons group, Ben  David is proud of his service to the  country and committed to a vigorous  national defense. He also has the “time  and grade” to evaluate the impact of the  regular strafing, burning, and bombing  that have become a center of controversy  on the Vineyard since the island was  made a wildlife sanctuary by the federal  government, in the early ‘80s.

 Noman’s Island is the only bombing  range in the Northeast air corridor and as  such is very important to the military.  And because, as a Navy spokesman put  it, it would be “prohibitively expensive”  to purchase another island to replace it,  the Navy is committed to carrying on the  bombing and strafing despite local  opposition. So, it was not surprising that  the Navy turned to Gus Ben David for  help in conducting its evaluation of the  status of wildlife on Noman’s. They  speak the same language and share a  similar commitment to a “strong  America.”

During our first conversation,  Ben David volunteered the opinion that  “it was a mistake not to use nuclear  weapons in Vietnam.” He describes  himself as a “strong supporter of our  nation’s military”; he maintains,  however, that his approval of the  bombing at Noman’s is based not solely  upon its military importance but on the  “relatively positive’ impact the bombing  has on the island’s ecology and wildlife.   

‘“Noman’s Island has been used by the  armed forces as a bombing range since  World War IL, yet it is still pristine, a  virtual paradise on earth for wildlife,”  Ben David told me as he tossed yet  another piece of bloody bird wing to the  kestrel. “The terns and gulls are  flourishing. It provides a secure habitat  for four or five species of reptiles,  including snapping, painted, and spotted  turtles. The greatest threat to that  sanctuary is human use, human  visitation. Sure, I see the irony, but the  best way to keep people off it is to  continue the status quo, to continue to  use Noman’s for target practice, as a  bombing range.”   

Ben David maintains that the negative  effects of the bombing are minimal. He  concedes, for example, that the live  ammunition and the explosive force of  the bombings result in regular- brushfires,  but he asserts that “controlled burning is  a generally accepted wildlife-  management tool.’” When I pressed him,  he admitted that he doesn’t permit fires  at Felix Neck and has never used  controlled burning as a tool at the  Audubon Sanctuary there. And though  he pressed charges against some local  children for throwing rocks at gulls, he  maintains that the impact of the smoke bombs (euphemistically called “flour  sacks”) and heavy-caliber ammunition  that the Navy’s Phantoms, F4s,F5s, F15s,  and Fi6s throw at Noman’s between 8:30  and 10:00 most every morning is  minimal, certainly not as disruptive as   day-trippers would be. And he continues to maintain that the bombing of the  Noman’s wildlife sanctuary is the best  way to protect the wildlife.   

Sitting on his deck, watching the  peacock that roams free in his yard, Ben  David observed, “The real danger is  human visitation. Last year the folks in  the peace flotilla planted some Asian  variety of tree out there, to commemorate  Hiroshima Day. This year they may  introduce some other foreign species,  like deer ticks, which could disrupt the  island's ecosystem. Regular picnickers  and visitors would trash that island in a  minute, destroying everything from the  bird’s nests to the beach grass that they  claim to value so highly.”   

The trip from Menemsha around Gay  Head and over to Noman’s Island on  Thursday morning took just half an hour  on Captain Chick Lee’s 26-foot-long  boat, the Moby Squid. Unlike the  previous morning, when I'd spent three hours trolling a plug just outside the clearly demarcated restricted area around  Noman’s watching the bombing and  strafing in a strong northeast wind, the  seas on Thursday were calm, the air was  warm, and everyone, from the network  television crew to the Hiroshima Day  Peace Flotilla organizers, was happy to  see the fog lift and the sun break   through.   

We tied up to the old pier, still sturdy  after 40 years of target practice, and  scrambled over the wood and creosote to  the shore. I stepped gingerly at first,  trying to minimize the impact of my  Reeboks on the fragile beach grass. But  within a few seconds I stopped trying to  step softly because I noticed that, for as  far as I could see, the beach grass had  been burnt to blackened stalks by the ordnance that was strewn about the  place.   There were 30- and 50-caliber shells everywhere; they had been fired from  the Vulcan cannons and Gatling guns.  And there was lots of larger ordnance,  too, some spent, some not, strewn like  giant blue cigars everywhere you looked.  There were craters from the 500-pound    bombs no longer in use, and within those   craters there were craters from the   smaller ammo the Navy prefers today.  There were-bomb parts, ammo clips, fins,   missiles, and slugs everywhere. And   there were dead birds: common terns and  great-black-back gulls and herring gulls  everywhere, in every state of  decomposition.   

Gus Ben David is quick to point out  that the presence of dead birds is a  positive sign, indicating that the colony is  vital. “In any flourishing bird population,  you will find dead chicks and dead  adults. It’s part of the process, it’s  nature’s way.”

But my examination of the  carcasses led me to the conclusion that  something more than the natural cycle of  life and death was at work here on  Noman’s. And when I retraced my steps  around the island following the  unscheduled mock strafing and bombing  runs that occurred shortly after the  flotilla landed on the beach on Thursday  morning, I discovered half a dozen  bleeding and recently maimed birds,  freshly fallen from the sky, where the  planes had been flying just 400 feet over  the island, at about 400 knots.   

From a distance the island's flora looks  lush and green. But on closer inspection  it’s clear that the reports of raging fires on  Noman’s were not exaggerations. The  whole island is covered with ashes; the bayberries and blackberries, brambles  and thickets that cover the land are burnt  and stunted. The topsoil is black from the  burnings, and everywhere the land  resembles some bizarre prairie-dog  development, with an extensive network  of tunnels caused by the repeated  strafing and shelling.   

As the Hiroshima Day protesters  placed signs that read CAUTION, TERN  NESTING AREA around the island,  conducted their amateur wildlife survey,  and caught a few rays, I spent an hour or  so looking for the pristine paradise Gus  Ben David had described. I couldn't find  it. But I did find signs of the spotted  turtles and other reptiles that he had  assured me were flourishing on the  island. The first turtle I found was dead,  burnt black by brush fires, between the  beach and the ponds on the island. Later  — while the protesters ‘shared their  feelings” and observed Hiroshima Day in  a beautiful ceremony, complete with  giant puppets of white-and-black birds, I found plenty of healthy snappers,  painted, and spotted turtles in the  ponds, but I was forced to conclude that,  if this was a wildlife paradise, I don’t  want to know about wildlife hell.

 

 Frankly, it seemed more like a mortuary  than a sanctuary to me.

The Noman’s Island controversy is a  deeply divisive one. Even among those  folks who oppose the bombing, there are  strong differences of opinion on  appropriate use for the island. The issues  of overdevelopment and land usage, of  environmental protection versus  recreation, are deeply felt on Martha’s  Vineyard, where nature's fragility and  power can be witnessed firsthand every  day. These issues are complicated  enough; when complex war-and-peace  issues and clashing cultures and lifestyles  are introduced, it can get weird as hell.   

To understand just why the Noman’s  question cuts so deeply into the fabric of  Vineyard life, one has to understand the  pressures and strains that always lurk  just under the tranquil surface of this  island paradise. There are 20,000 full-  time residents; the population  mushrooms to 100,000 on an average  summer weekend. For some permanent  residents, the whole fuss is just the  whining of a bunch of spoiled summer  folks who don’t want their million-dollar  views spoiled by military exercises. One  permanent (and lifelong) resident told  me, only partly in jest, that anything that  annoyed the summer folks was okay  with him. And in the winter, he  observed, “the strafing and bombing is  better than any light show, more exciting  than prime-time television.”   

This feeling is shared by many full-  time residents, who blame developers  and summer people for some of the  Vineyard’s woes. And to the extent that  the Noman’s issue is perceived as a  development issue, it touches many a  raw nerve. “There is a sense that there  has been too much senseless  development already,” says contractor  Gary Reynolds, 35, a permanent resident  of Edgartown. “Some people say that if  the choice is between bombing and  development, then bomb it. But that  shouldn’t be the choice.”   

 

For some, the bombing is an  unnecessary irritant in a beautiful place.  Polly Bassett, of Edgartown, says, “You  ‘can’t even read your Sunday paper  without being disturbed by the noise.  And I live 20 miles away from Gay  Head.”   For others, like David Danielson, of  Newton, a lifelong summer resident of  the Vineyard, the bombing of Noman’s  Island represents a wasted resource. ‘‘It  should be opened up for recreation, not  Jeeps or motorbikes, but picnickers and  berry pickers. And I'd like to see the  waters opened up to fishing and  lobstering. Frankly, any usage would be  preferable to the bombs.”   

In Gay Head, which faces the island,  the concerns are more immediate  Captain Chick Lee is concerned about  the safety of local fishermen, himself,  and his family. “They are practicing  there, but they are using real guns, with  real ammunition. Sometimes they fire in  direct line with my house. I can only  hope they never, ever miss.”   As in most of Reagan's America, there  are deep divisions between the peace  advocates (perceived as mostly summer  folks, though more than half of the  protesters with the flotilla were year-  round residents) and those who see a  need for a “strong national defense” and  the training that goes along with it.   One merchant marine on three  months’ shore leave after a tour of duty  that took him to the Red Sea and the  Indian Ocean, said, “My life is on the line  out there every day. My safety, my life,  depends on those pilots and those planes  every day. And there is nowhere else for  them to practice in the Northeast. When I  see them practicing, I feel more secure.”   

That attitude wasn’t shared by two  Harvard Divinity School students, who  were angered and frightened by the  unscheduled fly-by during the protest.  Said one: “Now I know what it’s like to  be attacked by my own government.”   

There has often been conflict between  the ends the naturalists seek and the  means they employ. Old John James  Audubon himself may have been the  best example. As Gus Ben David points  out, “Audubon killed more rare birds  than arty 10 hunters. First, he shot them,  and then he stuffed them. That was how  he preserved them for the future  generations.”

 

I can’t help observing that we  can do better. On this beautiful  island, it is a shame that there is  so much division over the one  thing that usually unifies summer folk and full-time residents,  the preservation of the environment. It is especially dissonant to  hear an Audubon Society bird-  sanctuary director argue that  bombing a wildlife sanctuary is  good for the wildlife — so dissonant, in fact, that some people  find it impossible to keep from  maligning his motives or from  dismissing the people who support the bombing as crackpots or ideologues.   

 

On the Vineyard, after a few  beers, the reasoned arguments  quickly degenerate into vituperative personal attacks. “Only a  guy with nuclear-weapons experience would be comfortable  with the idea of bombing the  sanctuary to save the birds,” one  activist railed. ‘That's the kind of  thinking that ends with a nuclear  winter, after the holocaust finally makes the world safe for democracy.”   

This fall the flotilla organizers  hope to hold another action, this  time during the annual parade of  birds of prey, as falcons, hawks,  and eagles migrate south. Gus  Ben David told me that Noman’s  was a spectacular place to view  these majestic raptors fly by and  that it was an important stopover  for them on their annual migration. From what I saw, it’s likely   ‘that some of those all-too-rare  birds will die, victims of. the Phantom jets with whom they  must compete for space.   

Gus Ben David, who might be  the only person who could lead  the fight to stop the bombing and  preserve Noman’s Island for future generations, is certainly a  strange bird himself. He keeps  raptors and raises pigeons for  them as food. He is com passionate and concerned about  wildlife but readily defends the  use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam. He is a bird lover and an  accomplished marksman, a hunter who raises wood ducks.   
It’s not Gus Ben David's fault  that the bombing continues, but  it doesn’t bother him much. And  it is partly his fault that the  options are perceived to be either  continued bombing and strafing  or “a thousand picnickers a day.”  

Though he is quick to point out  that it's not his responsibility to  develop a plan to protect  Noman’s from development or  human recreation, there could  and should be just such a plan.  The Navy could find another  place to bomb. Noman’s could be  made a well-managed wildlife  preserve and sanctuary, run by  one of the nonprofit conservation  groups, or by the government, for  the benefit of both the birds and  the public.   

Meanwhile, Gus Ben David  will continue to support the  bombing. As everyone on the  island agrees, Gus Ben David is  for the birds.    

(Editor's note: On Wednesday  Jerry Bertrand, PhD, president of  the Massachusetts Audubon  Society, directed an Audubon  Society biologist to accompany  biologists from the Department  of Fisheries and Wildlife on an  investigative trip to Noman’s  Island Thursday to determine the  effects of the bombing and strafing on the wildlife.   “It may be that the bombing  and strafing is incompatible with  the island’s protection as a  wildlife refuge,” said Bertrand in  a statement to the Phoenix. “If so,  we'll go to the US Fisheries and  Wildlife Service to ask for an  immediate hearing to thoroughly  investigate and evaluate this issue. The Navy has to do it right or  get out, and it’s not clear that  they're doing it right.”’

-30-  

Monday, July 31, 2023

How Clean is Clean Enough, and Who Should Pay?

 

Judge A. David Mazzone raises a glass of effluent at Deer Island
in celebration of the opening of the Mass Bay Outfall
 

In his very first order in the Boston Harbor Cleanup Case, the late, great U.S. District Court Judge A. David Mazzone ruled that “The Law secures to the People the Right to a Clean Harbor.” 

 

That simple sentence has focused my advocacy and policy work for the more than 30 years I served as Director of Strategy & Communications at Save the Harbor/Save the Bay and continues to guide my work as Lead Consultant to the Legislature’s Metropolitan Beaches Commission.

 

Mazzone’s first order immediately gave rise to two important questions: “How clean is clean enough?” and “Who should pay?”

 

For the Judge, the answer to the first question was clear: Boston Harbor should be clean enough for boating and fishing and the region’s public beaches safe for swimming “damn near every day”.  The answer to the second question was somewhat more complicated.

 

The Clean Water Act gave the Judge the legal tools he needed to craft a plan to replace the failing sewage treatment plant at Deer Island that served Boston and 43 cities and towns, which discharged more than 250 million gallons of largely untreated sewage from a broken pipe at the mouth of Boston Harbor every day. It also gave him the authority to replace the old primary treatment plant at Nut Island, ending 100 years of sewage discharge into the shallow waters of Quincy Bay.

 

Those two investments by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority have dramatically improved the health of Boston Harbor, Quincy Bay and Mass Bay as well.

 

Unfortunately, the Clean Water Act did not give Judge Mazzone the same authority to address the discharge of filthy, bacteria laden stormwater which continue to make some area beaches, including Wollaston Beach, unsafe for swimming after even a small summer storm.

 

Though the Judge was able to share the costs of the plant, the pipe and addressing Boston’s CSO discharges among the ratepayers of the 43 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority cities and towns, communities like Quincy have been forced to shoulder the financial burden of managing stormwater with very little help from State or Federal Government.

 

When we cut the ribbon on the North Dorchester Bay Combined Sewage Overflow Storage Tunnel in 2011 that has made the beaches of South Boston the cleanest urban beaches in the nation, my phone rang off the hook.

 

The first call I received was from then Senator Michael Morrissey of Quincy, who truly loves the sea and the beach. He wanted to know why the costs of the South Boston project were shared among all the ratepayers of the 43 MWRA Cities and towns, while Quincy was forced to “go it alone”.

 

I explained to him that the South Boston project was primarily designed to address combined sewer overflows (CSOs) into Boston Harbor during all but the largest summer storms as required by Judge Mazzone’s orders in the Boston Harbor Case, and fortunately had the capacity to handle storm water during all but the largest storms with few additional costs.

Unfortunately,  the persistent problems at Wollaston Beach were not caused by CSOs, but by filthy, bacteria laden stormwater discharges, which left the City of Quincy responsible for improving water quality on Wollaston Beach, and Quincy residents on the hook for the costs.

 

As a result, Quincy Water, Sewer & Drain faces the seemingly endless task of examining virtually every sewer connection and storm drain in the City looking for broken pipes and illicit connections and repairing them one at a time.

The truth is that Quincy simply does not have the resources on its own – roughly $250 million - to construct a miles long tunnel to store and transport stormwater though Nut Island to Deer island for treatment, which would end storm water discharges on Wollaston Beach in all but the largest storms.

 

Quincy is not alone here. Coastal communities across the nation are struggling to find resources to address these problems, even as they wrestle with the existential threats posed by sea level rise, coastal flooding and inundation.

 

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority has done a remarkable job restoring the health of Boston Harbor, Quincy Bay and Mass Bay. They deserve our heartfelt thanks and continued support. Mayor Koch and the City of Quincy are doing their job as well, and should be commended for their persistence and tenacity, which has resulted in steady improvements on Wollaston Beach.

However, we all still have more work to do to make our beaches safe for swimming “damn near every day” as Judge Mazzone had hoped . To truly finish the job, both the State and Federal government have to step up to the plate and find new ways to help our coastal communities secure the resources they need to do get the job done.

 

Clean water is a core family value here in the Bay State. The Metropolitan Region’s public beaches are spectacular urban natural resources that belong to all of us. The costs of making them safe for swimming - and of protecting our coastal communities from sea level rise and global storming - should be shared by all of us as well.

 

Bruce Berman served as Director of Strategy & Communications for Save the Harbor/Save the Bay from for more than 30 years . He currently serves as Lead Consultant to the Commonwealth’s Metropolitan Beaches Commission and Chair of the Public Interest Advisory Committee of the Mass Bay Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel.

 

Berman is publisher of the blog The View From Sea Level at https://theviewfromsealevel.blogspot.com/ and curates the web portal and streaming video site www.bostonharbor.com

You can follow him on www.facebook.com/bostonharbor  on www.instagram.com/bostonharbor1

at www.twitter.com/bostoharborone and now at www.tiktok.com/@bruceberman5

 

 

                     

 

 

Sunday, March 12, 2023

Why I Support Dorchester Bay City

I am writing today in strong support of Accordia Partners LLC’s proposed development of Dorchester Bay City, which I believe is well-aligned with the City of Boston’s goals of increasing equity, inclusion, diversity, affordability and climate resiliency on Boston’s spectacular harbor and waterfront.

 

The updated proposal will transform 2,500 parking spaces into a resilient, transit-focused development with more than 15 acres of green and open space with 1000 new trees, creating new jobs and economic opportunities for all Bostonians, including Dorchester residents and Minority and Women owed businesses. You can find out more at https://www.baysideupdate.com/work/#about-the-site-new

 

 

The project will also create nearly 400 units of affordable housing on site, contribute more than $50 million to the City’s Neighborhood Housing Trust for affordable housing, and $10 million to the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance’s home ownership down payment assistance program to build generational wealth.

 

As part of their updated proposal, the proponents will invest more than $35 million in off-site transportation infrastructure improvements to JFK/UMass Station and K Circle, improving vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access. It will also provide up to $235 million to support UMass Boston and its education mission

 

I have spent the past 35 years working to restore, protect and share Boston Harbor, our waterfront and the region’s public beaches with all Bostonians and the region’s residents, who have invested more than $5 billion dollars in the Boston Harbor cleanup.

 

I believe that Dorchester Bay City will truly connect the City to the Sea, creating a more than 3 acre park along the Harbor that will strengthen the physical and programmatic connections to DCR’s Carson Beach Reservation and the City of Boston’s Joe Moakley Park. This is particularly important to Save the Harbor/Save the Bay and their community partners in South Boston and Dorchester,  and to the thousands of young people from across the city who take part in their free youth and beach programs each year.

 

As you may know, I served as Director of Strategy & Communications at Save the Harbor/Save the Bay for more than 30 years, and currently serve as Lead to Consultant to the Massachusetts Legislature’s Metropolitan Beaches Commission. In those capacities, I have led or participated in hundreds of planning sessions, public meetings, and public hearings focused on strengthening Boston’s waterfront neighborhoods and the region’s public beaches.

 

Though no plan satisfies everyone, the  planning process for this project has been one of the best I have participated in. I would like to commend the BPDA for conducting an open, inclusive and extensive public process.  I would also like to thank the project’s proponents for listening to advocates, activists, and the community – and for reflecting so many of our concerns in their plans.

Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Reflections on the 50th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act

On Friday morning October 7, Boston Harbor advocates and activists joined Senator Edward Markey, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, Boston's Mayor Michelle Wu, USEPA Assistant Administrator for Water Radhika Fox and Regional Administrator David Cash, and MADEP Commissioner Martin Suberg at Piers Park in East Boston to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act (CWA) on Boston Harbor. There was lots to celebrate.

Just 30 years ago, Boston Harbor was a national disgrace. Today, it is home to the cleanest urban beaches in the nation. Though the Clean Water Act is a critical tool in the fight for clean water, the existence of the CWA is not enough to guarantee environmental victories. If it were, every harbor in the nation would be as clean as Boston Harbor is today. Sadly, many are not. 

As we work together to protect the gains we have made, regulators and decision makers need to recognize that though effective legislation and litigation are necessary they are not sufficient to guarantee the public’s right to clean water. 

So how do we explain the "Boston Harbor Success Story"?

On December 23, 1985, in his first order in the Boston Harbor Case, the late U.S. District Court Judge A. David Mazzone wrote “The Law secures to the people the right to a clean harbor.” The law that he referred to is The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, as amended in 1972, now known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). This ambitious Nixon-era law created a framework for regulating the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gave the USEPA broad authority to set standards for wastewater. It also funded the construction of sewage treatment plants, before that was phased out by President Ronald Regan, a fact that his Vice President George H. W. Bush conveniently ignored when he cynically made Boston Harbor an issue in his 1988 Presidential campaign against Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis.

Save the Harbor/Save the Bay's Founding Chair Beth Nicholson often says that "Environmental victories are seldom won outright, they are just postponed to another day." That observation seems particularly poignant today, with the Clean Water Act - and the environmental victories we have won in the past 50 year under assault by an increasingly partisan Congress and increasingly conservative courts.

The best protection we have against assaults on clean water is an unassailable and enduring consensus of thousands of people from every community and all walks of life who believe in the power of clean water to transform communities and improve people’s lives. That’s precisely what we have done here in the Bay State, where access to clean water is a core family value.

Over the years, we have learned that best way to strengthen that consensus so that it cannot be undone by a change of administration, the stroke of a pen or a reactionary court, is to share the benefits of our
$5 billion investment in clean water with all Bostonians and the region’s residents alike.

Save the Harbor’s Executive Director Chris Mancini puts it well when he says that “The best way to “Save the Harbor” is to “Share the Harbor” with everyone, regardless of their race, their ability, or the language they speak."

The best way to "Save the Harbor" is to "Share the Harbor"

 "That's why Save the Harbor/Save the Bay brought more than 5,000 kids and families on free trips to the Boston Harbor Islands this year." he continued. And that's why we run free youth and beach programs that have connected more than 250,000 people to the harbor we have worked so hard to restore and protect since our free programs began.”

It is a powerful and proven strategy, which has been embraced by Governor Baker and former Governor Patrick, the Department of Conservation & Recreation as well as Legislative leaders including Sen. Brendan Crighton of Lynn and Rep. Adrian Madaro of East Boston, who Co-Chair the Metropolitan Beaches Commission. In the spring, the Commission will release a report on improving beach access for people of color, people with disabilities, and those who do not speak English as their first language, which they hope the next administration and the Department of Conservation & Recreation will embrace as well.

As we celebrate the Boston Harbor success story today all of us owe a debt of gratitude to Judge Mazzone, the USEPA, the Department of Justice and the other lawyers who took part in the Boston Harbor Case. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the women and men of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority for their extraordinary work, and to the region’s ratepayers, who continue to pay the bills that make it all possible.

But most of all we owe a debt of gratitude to the tens of thousands of people who make up what the Save the Harbor Co-Founder Ian Menzies called a “barely restrained but well-disciplined mob” to demand a harbor that is safe for boating, fishing and swimming “damn near every day” as Judge Mazzone had hoped.

Advocate, author, educator and avid angler Bruce Berman is Lead Consultant to the Metropolitan Beaches Commission and has served as Director of Strategy & Communications for Save the Harbor/Save the Bay since 1990.

Berman is the editor of The View From Sea Level, curates the web portal www.bostonharbor.com, and live streams from the Verandah at Constitution Marina on Boston Harbor at https://www.youtube.com/bostonharbor and https://www.facebook.com/bostonharbor