Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
Danielle Gaito
U.S. EPA Region 1, Water Division
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912
RE: Draft General Permits for Stormwater Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) in Massachusetts, Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OW-2024-0493
Delivered electronically
Dear Ms. Gaito and EPA Region 1 Water Division team,
On behalf of all 351 cities and towns across the Commonwealth, we write today to provide input on the proposed changes to the Draft General Permits for Stormwater Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) in Massachusetts. We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this important topic, and we very much appreciate the work of the Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 team, with whom we have had a longstanding partnership. Thank you for all you do to protect the environment and public health, and to help ensure that municipal governments are set up for success to achieve our shared vision for clean waterways and beyond.
As you know, cities and towns are frontline public safety and environmental stewards. Their actions ensure essential services are provided to residents and visitors each and every day. Municipalities across Massachusetts work in strong partnership with state and federal government toward this goal, and rely on agencies like yours to draft regulations that encourage progress while balancing costs with benefits, and, importantly, are achievable.
The proposed MS4 permit under consideration is poised to expand stringent requirements for stormwater standards and practices to the majority of municipalities across the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the costs that come along with these updated requirements are extremely unaffordable to nearly all cities and towns. Further, the added administrative burden also makes this unattainable for many. We strongly urge you to revise the draft permit to address these unreachable requirements, to ensure a successful program that guarantees environmental benefits through sustainable and responsible resource investments.
Projected compliance costs for the proposed MS4 permit are incredibly high, and vary across the Commonwealth. One municipality estimated $4.5 million in year one alone, adding up to a total of $45 million. Another city in Massachusetts is anticipating costs as high as $500 million for the total cost of compliance. A 2018 study of water resource needs across the Commonwealth estimated that at least $18 billion was needed for stormwater management. Adjusting for inflation, we estimate that at least $23 billion is needed, based solely on 2018 stormwater permit requirements. These costs are extraordinary and well beyond the limitations of cities and towns to independently generate.
Across the Commonwealth, municipal revenue is primarily sourced through local property taxes, which are rigidly capped each year by the state. In communities all across Massachusetts, the funding needs for foundational, baseline municipal services far exceed this revenue limit. In addition, municipalities are already responsible for considerable critical infrastructure. This includes the tens of thousands of miles of roads and bridges under municipal care, and nearly all water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure. The challenge to maintain existing operations and assets within limited municipal budgets is already daunting. Without federal appropriations to support municipalities to help meet the MS4 requirements, the 260 Massachusetts cities and towns subject to the permit will not have the resources needed to implement the permit’s requirements.
Many communities have instituted or are in the process of establishing stormwater utility fees. Established utility fees provide helpful offsets to MS4 compliance costs, but rarely cover all the costs associated with permit compliance. And many cities and towns report great difficulties instituting such fees. The inability for municipalities to generate or be provided the financial support needed to comply with these stringent environmental regulations is very worrisome.
We are concerned that several of the provisions included in the draft permit will create significant challenges for municipal compliance while offering little benefit to the environment. We urge the Agency to reevaluate the proposed permit based on how achievable proposed actions are, given limitations on local economic conditions and how beneficial each action will be to the environment and public well-being when compared to estimated costs.
Further, we strongly encourage your team to revise the proposed regulations to ensure that municipalities are not held liable for the environmental impacts and pollution from private entities. We also urge you to expand flexibility in meeting desired goals to the maximum extent possible. Municipalities require this in order to feasibly make progress toward our common goals to protect the environment while responsibly allocating limited taxpayer resources to the effort.
Further, in order to support a successful implementation of these regulations, we strongly recommend aligning with the forthcoming update to the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Although the handbook is noted in the draft permit, requirements related to various references remain unclear. Advancing the MS4 permit prior to this release and without clear alignment with state guidelines will cause confusion and increase difficulty for communities to comply.
Apart from this, we anticipate that municipal officials will need significant technical support to implement the many required actions and increased administrative responsibilities included in the permit. This support is especially critical to our smallest and most economically constrained communities. We offer our partnership in this effort to engage with our local officials in the Commonwealth on how technical assistance can be most impactful.
In addition to our general recommendation to revise the draft permit for feasibility and a higher benefit-to-cost ratio, we strongly recommend revisions to the following proposed requirements:
• Eliminate Unfeasible Catch Basin Upgrade and Replacement Requirements to reduce costs for actions that are untenable and offer limited benefit to reduce pollutants. Clarify standards for which replacements would be required to be made. Offer credits for replacements and upgrades. Offer exemptions for existing infrastructure that is providing pollutant removal benefits. Importantly, focus investments in pollution prevention or behavioral actions that provide quantitative benefit to pollution reduction.
• Extend Timeline for Local Street Design Standards to be established. Provide local policy guidance or templates and education to affected local governing bodies.
• Allow Flexible Public Engagement and Messaging to accommodate unique community practices and reduce administrative burden. Allow municipalities more flexibility in developing and implementing public education and outreach strategies based on local needs and resources.
• Allow Flexible Asset Management to accommodate unique local administrative processes and limitations. Communities know best how to manage local assets and should be allowed to develop an approach to asset management that dictates criticality and risk based on an approach that is best for the community. As well, the EPA should provide free software, technical assistance, and extended timelines for asset management compliance.
• Expand and Amplify Credits for Existing Efforts that provide environmental benefits and pollution prevention including catch basin cleaning, street sweeping, education campaigns, leaf litter clean up, and more. Ensure that program credits reflect the latest science and provide optimal benefit to municipalities to help incentivise expansion of pollution prevention programs that work. Many established stormwater management practices provide significant pollutant reductions and should be credited as such.
• Ensure that Private Impacts are not Municipal Responsibility. Clarify the responsibilities of private entities and ensure municipalities are not held responsible for private sector contamination clean up.
• Expand Alternate Schedule Request to all communities to request additional compliance time if hardship in meeting permit deadlines is demonstrable.
• Delay Implementation Timeline Until Sufficient Federal Funding is Provided. The draft permit proposes requirements that are financially and operationally unachievable for most municipalities. To alleviate the financial impact on municipalities and ensure the long-term sustainability and success of the permit’s goals, funding opportunities must be provided to communities to support the structural, operational, and behavioral actions required in the permit. A thorough economic impact analysis on municipalities in Massachusetts and across Region 1 should be conducted and shared widely prior to finalization.
My team and I are available to answer any questions you may have and to further discuss the details and implications of the proposed MS4 permit. Please do not hesitate to contact me or MMA Legislative Analysts Josie Ahlberg and Adrienne Núñez, at jahlberg@mma.org and anunez@mma.org, at any time.
Thank you for your dedication to this critical regulatory initiative and for your partnership with municipalities to safeguard the health of our communities. We appreciate your willingness to develop practical, actionable strategies and methods to enhance water quality over time, ensuring sustainable progress for all.
Sincerely,
Adam Chapdelaine
MMA Executive Director and CEO