My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/19/2010 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes
>
10/19/2010 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/2/2020 3:14:45 PM
Creation date
10/2/2020 2:03:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
SEWER COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/19/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mr. Gottlieb noted that a number of towns have expressed concern regarding the state of the science, <br /> adding that discussions have occurred over the last I '/Y to 2 years about the reliability of SMaST's <br /> technical reports. Many towns have refused to commit to wastewater planning without an independent <br /> review of the science. The County, the State and the Federal EPA agree that the methodology utilized <br /> by SMaST has been adequately reviewed in public forums and peer review opportunities, stating that it is <br /> more than adequate as a basis for management by the towns and more than adequate for regulatory action <br /> by the agencies_ The National Academy of Sciences has been invited to review the methodology, at the <br /> request of nine Cape towns, and some legislators have supported such a review_ The County <br /> Commissioners were also invited to support the approach, but felt that it would be counterproductive, and <br /> due to continued calls for the review, eventually decided to develop its own review of the methodology <br /> with independent experts from throughout the country. The County is putting together the framework for <br /> the review and the way in which it will be conducted. Independent candidates are currently being <br /> considered to participate in the review_ The main question to be addressed with the review will be"is the <br /> work being done by SMaST an adequate basis on which towns can base their wastewater plans?" Mr. <br /> Gottlieb reported that the County's review is expected to begin in the late fall or early winter. The review <br /> will be fair minded and level. <br /> Mr. Gottlieb noted that, due to the Conservation Law Foundation threatened lawsuit, towns may have a <br /> legal obligation to no longer take their time addressing wastewater issues. Regarding the litigation, Mr. <br /> Gottlieb stated that the County is a potential litigant in the lawsuit due to the County's alleged failure to <br /> annually update and certify water quality plans completed under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act <br /> originally established in 1978. The County had been designated as a state agent to complete the water <br /> quality plans, which are required to be updated and certified annually, but the lawsuit alleges that the <br /> County has not fulfilled its responsibilities. The EPA, as the federal enforcement agency, is also subject <br /> to the lawsuit because it has not enforced the Clean Water Act. Unspecified damages are being sought in <br /> the lawsuit. A companion lawsuit against the EPA has also been filed and seeks to overturn the 13 <br /> TMDLs for being arbitrary and capricious and inappropriately classifying septic waste and groundwater <br /> discharge permit waste from permitted Cape facilities as non-point sources when in fact they are point <br /> sources, invalidating the TMDLs. The County is not a named party in the companion lawsuit. Mr. <br /> Gottlieb reported that the County intends to defend its interests in the potential suit as well as monitoring <br /> the suit that has been filed against the EPA because the final decision will significantly impact wastewater <br /> efforts on the Cape. Anderson Krieger in Cambridge, with experience in Clean Water Act litigation and <br /> federal litigation, has been identified as the law firm to defend the county in what is expected to be a long <br /> process. The lawsuit will impact the time schedule and shape of identifying wastewater solutions. <br /> Mr. Gottlieb emphasized that the best form of litigation defense for towns is to develop a good plan. A <br /> town plan that provides a credible fix and that can achieve the goals, but may not yet be implemented, <br /> allows towns, forced into the courtroom, to execute their own plan using a court ordered schedule. Towns <br /> that do not have a plan in place may be subject to a court enforced plan with no consideration of a town's <br /> particular needs and so it may be more expensive to bring the community into compliance with the Clean <br /> Water Act. <br /> Regarding the Pilot Program, Mr. Gottlieb stated that resources have been.provided to designate a <br /> facilitator to develop an agreement with Barnstable, Sandwich, Falmouth and Mashpee to address <br /> responsibility for the watersheds. Mr. Gottlieb intends to jump start the process in the coming weeks and <br /> will meet with representatives from each of the towns to identify the best ways to pull an agreement <br /> together. Mr. Gottlieb also referenced the hiring of technical consultants who offer a 3`d party review of <br /> engineering plans as well as financial management strategies to local towns, at no cost to the towns. The <br /> consultants recently reviewed Orleans' plans during a 6 week period. The consultants will assist with <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.