Judge puts water process in jeopardy
Toolbox
By LOUIS PORTER VERMONT PRESS BUREAU - Published: July 9, 2009
MONTPELIER — In a repudiation of the state's handling of wastewater treatment plant permits, an environmental court judge has tossed out an approval granted to the Montpelier facility.
There are significant potential long-term implications as a result of the ruling for all wastewater treatment plants that discharge into the Lake Champlain watershed — which includes two-thirds of the state and the majority of Vermont cities from Rutland to Burlington.
Judge Thomas Durkin, appointed by Gov. James Douglas, ruled that the Agency of Natural Resources had not done enough analysis of the impact of the plant on Lake Champlain before granting a permit renewal to the city of Montpelier.
"Stricter permit limitations may be needed," to reach the goals for cleaning up Lake Champlain, which receives nearly twice as much phosphorous pollution as it would under those goals.
Phosphorous in Lake Champlain causes algae blooms, decreased oxygen and other problems.
The ruling in the case, brought by the Conservation Law Foundation against the state, will have little immediate effect on Montpelier. The city will likely be able to keep operating its plant as the ruling is appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court or, barring that, as the analysis and study required by Durkin is undertaken by the state.
However, if the amount of phosphorous allowed to go into Lake Champlain from each wastewater plant under the Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL rules must be completely reviewed every five years when those permits come up, it could require large and expensive upgrades of those plants.
Montpelier City Manager William Frasier said that although it is the city's permit renewal at issue in this case, the real disagreement is between the state and the Conservation Law Foundation.
"We are kind of caught in the middle," Frasier said.
"If the result was that we need to process to a much higher standard to reduce phosphorous, unless there is state or federal funding, it could be quite a costly endeavor," he said. And it would not just be in the capital.
"I don't think it is unique to Montpelier," he said. "If that becomes the requirement, it will be for all municipalities."
Rutland Mayor Christopher Louras agreed.
"It is going to take a few days for us to digest the entire decision and see how it could impact Rutland going forward," he said. "If we are put in the position of having to do it, there are other things we could not do. That would be millions of dollars, potentially tens of millions of dollars that would not be spent on our antiquated sewage collection infrastructure."
Anthony Iarrapino, a lawyer for CLF, the environmental group that challenged the permit approval by the Agency of Natural Resources, said Montpelier's wastewater plant was incidental to the real problem.
"This is not about one polluter. This is really about a deeply flawed permitting process at ANR that violates the Clean Water Act," he said.
Agency officials said they were under some constraints about what they could say, given that litigation may be still under way and because they are still reviewing the decision issued a week ago.
"We are still reviewing what it means," ANR Secretary Jonathan Wood said. But state officials are worried about what the decision could mean for municipalities and treatment facilities.
"That is a huge concern for us, what are the implications for that," Wood said.
"We think we are doing the right thing." he added.
He said the agency has not yet determined if it will appeal the decision.
louis.porter@rutlandherald.com
5