Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Michael J. Finn
The Honorable Julian Cyr
The Honorable Christine P. Barber
The Honorable Rebecca L. Rausch
The Honorable Kenneth P. Sweezey
The Honorable Peter J. Durant
Environmental Bond Bill Conference Committee
State House, Boston
Dear Chair Finn, Chair Cyr, and Distinguished Members of the Environmental Bond Bill Conference Committee:
On behalf of all cities and towns across the Commonwealth, I write today to express our appreciation for the environmental bond bill investments that will provide invaluable support to all 351 municipalities. Both the House and Senate proposals (H. 5518 and S. 3064, respectively) reflect a commitment to prepare Massachusetts for the impacts of climate change and protect residents and our environment for decades to come.
Paired with many policy provisions that acknowledge and address the needs and concerns of municipalities, we are excited to see this bill move forward in the conference committee process.
Thank you for your work to reconcile these two proposals and commit a final product to meeting the many demands of our Commonwealth. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this letter of comments and offer a municipal perspective on H. 5518 and S. 3064. As you might anticipate, we urge the Committee to maximize the various investments that support municipal governments’ readiness and preparedness for climate and environmental action.
Bond Authorizations
Since this program continues to be a top priority, it should be no surprise that the funding authorization for the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Program is of primary focus for cities and towns. With participation from 349 of 351 municipalities, a strong financial commitment to this flagship climate resilience program would be both well received and well utilized. We are deeply grateful for the House and Senate’s support for this grant program. We respectfully urge the conference committee to support the Senate’s proposed funding level of $500 million in the final version of the bill (2000-7088 in S. 3064).
Both H. 5518 and S. 3064 include a $50 million authorization for climate mitigation, adaptation, resiliency and recovery line item (1100-2524). We appreciate this additional investment and support that will only diversify the opportunities cities and towns have to address climate impacts. Paired with outside sections in the both bond bill proposals that establish a resilience revolving fund for critical infrastructure projects, municipalities will be better prepared to sustainably finance necessary investments that protect their local environment as well as our residents. During a period of decreased federal investment in clean energy, climate planning, and public infrastructure projects at large, we appreciate the Administration’s efforts to stand up a new revolving fund that can help address urgent local needs with low-interest loans, and the Legislature’s willingness to see this proposal move forward. We urge the conference committee to retain this funding in the conference committee report.
Additionally, a strong reauthorization for the Clean Water Trust is not only urgently needed, but has the opportunity to bolster the Trust’s capacity to support cities and towns as the Trust has officially sunsetted a very popular 0% interest program for PFAS remediation projects. The vast majority of cities and towns have costly water infrastructure projects they cannot finance without state assistance. Funding this authorization (0640-1008) would be meaningful for public water systems statewide and combat recent trends of decreased federal funding for this program. We’re grateful that both the House and Senate included this important program, we urge the conferees to fund this line item at the $450 million included in S. 3064.
Apart from these key programs, the Massachusetts Municipal Association is also pleased to support other authorizations for water pollution and control measures. We truly appreciate the Legislature’s recognition of the widescale problems posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, pollution. These “forever chemicals” pose serious public health and environmental consequences, and must be addressed. Unfortunately, remediation often requires cities and towns to spend millions to remedy ongoing industrial pollution and proliferation of these chemicals. We are grateful to see agreement between the House and Senate’s environmental bond bills to fund PFAS remediation projects. With both bills containing a line item (2200-7029) to provide roughly $120 million for PFAS remediation projects to speed up the pace of cleaning up contamination and providing safe water to customers, we strongly support maximizing funding opportunities this bond bill can provide to our communities in order to mitigate PFAS pollution.
Both bills additionally include significant resources for line items for coastal (2000-7083) and inland flood control projects and dams (2000-7086). We support the $93.5 million authorized for inland flood and dam control projects in both proposals, and recommend maintaining the $250 million authorization for coastal infrastructure included in H. 5518.
Outside Sections – Support
As mentioned above, we are pleased to see the agreement between the House and Senate on the inclusion of a resilience revolving fund for critical infrastructure projects in both proposals, found in Section 13 of H. 5518 and Section 23 of S. 3064. This fund will allow municipalities and public water and wastewater districts to access low-interest loans for public infrastructure and resilience projects. This would establish a sustainably financed program to target dam removal and repair, undersized bridges and culverts, coastal and riverine floodplain projects, forest conservation, tree planting and care projects, transportation infrastructure projects, public infrastructure projects, and heat preparedness and relief efforts. A revolving loan program will allow reinvestment in the fund as loans are repaid, creating recurring revenue through a predictable, stable source. We thank you for carrying forward this proposal, and ask you to please retain this provision in the final version of the bill.
The MMA strongly supports the extended producer responsibility (EPR) provisions included in the environmental bond bills. As discussed throughout the work of the Extended Producer Responsibility Commission, municipal governments would benefit greatly from a more circular approach to managing materials like paint, mattresses, batteries, electronics, and packaging. We are grateful to the Senate for including a statewide paint recycling program in Sections 17, 23, and 119 of S. 3064, and to the House for incorporating a statewide mattress recycling program in Section 11A and Section 85C of H. 5518. A solution to a patchwork of recycling services across the Commonwealth is most appropriately solved through partnership between producers, manufacturers, retailers, and waste and recycling managers. Our membership approved a Resolution Supporting a Local-State-Federal Partnership to Address the Challenges to the Recycling Marketplace in 2019, which acknowledges EPR as a successful, well-established, trustworthy mechanism to connect recyclers, retailers and producers to a shared goal of a more sustainable recycling framework. We urge you to move forward with both EPR policies, as they will not only help promote recycling statewide, but give cities and towns the opportunity to participate as collection sites and benefit from the financing mechanisms these sections put forward. EPR for mattresses and paint will save residents and taxpayers money, while increasing recycling rates for these bulky and difficult to manage products.
We are also pleased to support the Senate’s inclusion of non-flushable wipes labeling requirements, found within Section 59 of S. 3064. This provision would assist all cities and towns that provide wastewater collection and transportation services, and help avoid backups and clogs in wastewater systems statewide. Disposable, premoistened wipes, while useful, often are marketed as flushable, which is often a misleading statement, or is plainly false. The packaging of these products is in desperate need of regulation to keep these wipes out of treatment plants and septic tanks. Moving this language forward will prevent impacts to your communities and wastewater treatment systems by requiring consistent “Do Not Flush” labeling on wipe products sold in Massachusetts. Additionally, Section 92 of S. 3064 calls for a statewide public education campaign on non-flushable wipes to be conducted. This campaign would spread awareness and ensure greater success in diverting these materials from wastewater systems. Please retain these policies in the final version of the bill.
The MMA also supports Section 26 and Sections 35 through 40 of S. 3064, which make common-sense updates to modernize the public shade tree law. These sections make simple changes to better reflect contemporary life and the needs of municipalities in their stewardship of public trees. This includes cleaning up antiquated language, clarifying fines for violations to the provisions within the statute, and allowing municipalities to more easily attend to routine maintenance of public trees and shrubs. Please retain this language in the final version of the bill.
Outside Sections – Concerns
While there is much to like in both S. 3064 and H. 5518, we also wish to express our concerns regarding policies which would impact local governments across Massachusetts. Though incredibly well intended, they would place additional burdens and requirements on cities and towns, without providing dedicated, long-term resources to implement them.
First, Sections 8A, 8B, and 8C of H. 5518 would impose planning, testing, and reporting requirements for water bodies and waterways beyond existing standards for combined sewers. These sections add to existing, legally required mitigation plans and permits for combined sewers issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as well as MassDEP. While we understand the laudable intent, we are concerned that these sections do not recognize important logistical and financial implications on municipalities and public water systems. We urge the conference committee to reconsider Sections 8A, 8B, and 8C in the conference committee’s report or revise them to ensure new requirements would not cause an administrative or fiscal burden on municipalities and their residents.
Second, the MMA has additional concerns with Section 11F of H. 5518, which institutes a requirement that state and municipal governments purchase lighting fixtures that conform with certain guidelines and certifications to reduce light pollution. While we understand the good intentions behind these policies, and support municipalities who are able to comply with these standards on their own volition, these requirements would have disparate financial impacts on cities and towns across the Commonwealth.
Experienced municipal practitioners involved in this work, upon reviewing the language this session, were not convinced that complying with these standards would be just as cost-effective as current practices. By imposing a strict ban on municipal spending for lighting fixtures that do not comply with these expressed requirements, cities and towns could be forced to absorb additional costs, burdening taxpayers and residents with an unfunded mandate. While we understand the strong interest in “dark sky” policies, we urge the committee to omit these provisions altogether or revise these provisions to provide essential municipal discretion when dealing with more cost-effective options. We continue to be interested in opportunities to support cities and towns in adopting these standards, rather than imposing them on all 351 cities and towns.
Finally, we wish to express our continued opposition to the following three provisions included in the Senate’s environmental bond bill proposal.
Section 108 of S. 3064 would significantly impact prioritization of projects funded by the environmental bond bill. The language would require the Executive Office for Administration and Finance to help institute a grant “preference modifier” for municipalities that have zoning, land use, or environmental policies that encourage the production of housing (such as as-of-right zoning for multifamily housing, elimination of parking minimums for residential use, elimination of lot size requirements, and wastewater and wetlands standards that do not exceed state health or environmental standards). This would apply to all discretionary or competitive grant programs authorized under the environmental bond bill. A section of such consequence must not be included in the final version of the legislation. This section would deprioritize much of the important work that cities and towns have done upon recommendation and requirement by the state government. This work spans several decades of municipal efforts and reflects the well-meaning stewardship of local communities by their elected and appointed officials. Though considered a “carrot” – this directly creates a “stick” that municipalities are harmed by without adhering to centrally derived “pro-housing policies” derived by advocates. We strongly oppose moving Section 108 of S. 3064 forward in future iterations of the bill.
Additionally, we have serious concerns with Section 60 of S. 3064, which provides an exemption for priority housing projects from local wetlands protection and wastewater regulations that go above and beyond state standards. This section clearly undermines legal uses of local control to establish site-specific wetlands and wastewater standards to advance housing priorities. Moving Section 60 of S. 3064 forward would disregard the reasonable standards that are established to ensure development respects local environmental factors, including water supplies, reservoirs, and the reality of providing drinking and clean water services to thousands of residents and businesses. Please omit Section 60 of S. 3064 from the conference committee report.
Finally, we wish to express our opposition to Section 13 of S. 3064. Contained in this section are drought management provisions that unnecessarily preempt local authority over water conservation restrictions. This language clearly and explicitly expands exemptions to the Local Mandate Law. These provisions enable the imposition of water restrictions on a region- or basin-wide basis at the discretion of the EEA Secretary. It expands enforcement responsibility of cities and towns. The sections impose numerous administrative burdens upon water districts, boards of health, and municipal staff who would be forced to communicate water conservation measures that may be unnecessary or irrelevant to their community. While advocates claim this policy will only apply to nonessential outdoor water use, the enabling legislation does not state that only nonessential outdoor water use restrictions may be ordered. This leaves a significant opening for additional water conservation measures to be imposed on cities and towns. These provisions are not desired by all 351 cities and towns of the Commonwealth, who would be subject to a top-down mandate that disregards and overrides local decisionmaking and expertise. We strongly urge the conferees to ensure Section 13 of S. 3064 does not move forward in the final bill.
In summary, we thank you for your attention to the way cities and towns would be impacted by this overwhelmingly positive legislative effort. We offer our assistance and partnership as discussions on these policies continue in the weeks and months ahead. If you have any questions or desire further information, please do not hesitate to have your office contact me or MMA Senior Legislative Analyst Josie Ahlberg at any time.
Sincerely,
Adam Chapdelaine
MMA Executive Director and CEO