City says billions;
feds say no

By Scott Zoback

It's not every day that three federal agency representatives walk into the Worcester Magazine offices armed with maps, charts and reports, determined to sell us on their point of view ahead of similar meetings with the Telegram and city officials.

But, when it comes to city officials and city councilors only half-joking about civil disobedience, tea parties, purposely ignoring federal mandates and death by firing squad, everything changes.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency and city officials are doing battle over what it means to have clean water; at stake is how much we pay for our water bills.

In one corner, EPA — the supposed Goliath, driving a fuel-efficient compact car with U.S. government plates. In the other corner, a David, in the personas of City Manager Michael O'Brien, Commissioner of Public Works Robert Moylan, and their teams.

The slingshot war is based on a disagreement over what is required and how much it will cost to make improvements to the city's storm water treatment system. The improvements are being required by the EPA for an upcoming permit-approval process to treat polluted storm water. In the background is a recent history of EPA-directed mandates and a feeling from some city officials that enough is enough.

The policy disagreement itself is exceptionally dry: Essentially, the city commissioned a study from research group CDM to determine how much it would cost to perform upgrades to meet the requirements in the expected EPA permit. CDM came back with an estimate of $1.2 billion; the city cried "no mas" and went after the EPA for what some pols and officials said was a crush of "unfunded mandates." The EPA went on a bit of a whirlwind tour countering CDM's estimates, saying that it would be more in the ballpark of $18 million to comply with the requirements.

When they visited Worcester, the EPA folks were talking some seriously wonkish environmental policy smack: Stephen Perkins, director of the Office of EcoSystem Protection for EPA New England, Region 1, told us that the $1.2 billion is a ridiculous number to cite.

"They're so fundamentally off the mark ... it's not a real number," he says.

"[It's] completely ... not accurate," says Dave Deegan, from the EPA's Office of Public Affairs.

Claiming that the CDM concerns about treating water at every storm water exit drain were unrealistic, and more relevant (if at all) to a hypothetical in the NEXT permit, Perkins says, "Even that's unrealistic ... it assumes the city makes no progress. It's a crazy assumption [to think] that in five years we'll be at the same place [environmentally]." Zing.

Perkins also delivered a shot across the bow to city officials, saying that the "Rhetoric of cost is dominating the conversation." Zing, zing.

For their part, city officials have returned fire with vigor. On WCRN this week, O'Brien maintained that the city's estimates were correct. If the EPA was absolutely sure their number was more accurate, he has said, let them guarantee it in writing.

(The city's argument is that if they don't hold to the letter of the permit, they could be liable if anyone chooses to sue them over water quality issues. To hold to the letter, they say, would require treating at every storm water drain, unless the EPA specifically says it's not required, and then they won't be held liable.)

It's not just the officials. On Tuesday, City Councilor Paul Clancy asked for a report on the possibility of setting "a limit to the costs associated with mandates, and further pursue language that would have EPA stand by their own estimates of costs." Mayor Konstantina Lukes and Councilor Phil Palmieri asked for a report on the EPA's $18.2 million estimate.

The war is hardly over, although it looks like the combatants are at least talking at this point (One EPA official told us there had been virtually no contact between June 2007 and this recent round of rhetoric). And even if the EPA hasn't guaranteed it yet, they say that expecting a city to do end-of-pipe treatment is ridiculous. Still, Perkins allowed that the city had a point: the $1.2 billion cost, he told us, would be the only way to eliminate the city's liability completely. o