You would be forgiven for imagining smoke-belching “polluters” heartlessly discharging dirty water into the Charles River after reading the Conservation Law Foundation’s announcement of its latest legal crusade.
But the reality is very different. The environmental group, far from targeting a few bad apples, is instead casting a web so wide it’s hard to imagine who won’t get caught in this ill-timed dragnet.
Everyone from office park developers to owners of modest, suburban shopping plazas and apartment buildings would face a potential $1 billion-plus hit should CLF succeed in forcing a series of draconian measures designed to prevent stormwater runoff from reaching the Charles, contends a group representing commercial and residential developers and property owners across Massachusetts.
It would be a major hit, especially for owners of smaller buildings or retail strip malls who may not have the cash on hand – or the borrowing capacity – to meet these new demands.
Moreover, it comes at a time when office, apartment and retail rents are soaring, with building owners likely to try to pass along some of their costs.
Scott Van Voorhis
CLF’s suit targets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that the feds have been falling down on the job by failing to enforce stormwater runoff regs as thoroughly as the letter of the law might allow. In order to ensure it has a voice in any deal or court case, NAIOP Massachusetts has countered by requesting permission to intervene on behalf of the EPA.
“Pretty much almost any property would be required to get a permit,” said David Begelfer, chief executive of NAIOP Massachusetts, which represents the state’s development community. “This is going to have impacts that are going to be extremely substantial.”
If a test run of the new regs by the EPA is any indication, the costs may very well be as staggering as NAIOP suggests.
Cost Of Compliance
The EPA’s pilot program, rolled out five years ago in Milford, Franklin and Bellingham, required building and property owners of at least 2 acres to apply for stormwater discharge permits.
The EPA estimated the cost of compliance, based on the amount of work that would have to be done by property owners to install retrofitted stormwater treatment systems, at a hefty $180 million.
Using that figure as a base, NAIOP Massachusetts predicts the total cost of compliance in all 33 communities in the Charles River Watershed would be well over $1 billion.
Moreover, while the EPA only targeted buildings and lots with at least 2 acres, CLF’s proposal would lower that threshold to a piddling acre.
The cost per acre comes out to be roughly $150,000 to $170,000, quite a lot of money for a mom-and-pop landlord to cough up, Begelfer argues.
Nor are we just talking about a few building owners in a smattering of suburbs.
The core of the Boston area, 310 square miles, falls within the Charles River watershed, which ranges from downtown Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and Arlington out to Medfield and Wrentham.
We’re talking Boston towers, Cambridge lab complexes and good portion of the booming Route 128 office and biotech market.
That’s a far cry from CLF’s press release touting its lawsuit, which rails against the EPA for its supposed failure in “holding polluters accountable for stormwater discharges that are making our waters unsafe.”
Economic Impact
A basic cost benefit analysis is in order here.
The well over a billion dollars that NAIOP Massachusetts estimates building owners and developers will have to shell out to satisfy CLF’s demands won’t be easy to absorb. It could put smaller building owners in financial peril, while prompting the bigger players to hike rents.
That money, in turn, will have to come out of somebody’s pocket, whether it is a company renting office space and forced to delay a new hire or an apartment renter already strapped trying to make ends meet in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country.
On top of that, there hasn’t been time to evaluate how other recent initiatives, including one targeted at stopping stormwater runoff by cities and towns, may help further boost the overall health and cleanliness of the Charles – which has come a very long way since the 1970s, when it was the turgid, garbage-filled “dirty water” of yore.
Contrast that with the benefits, which, according to CLF, seem to boil down to a greater number of days during the summer months when the Charles can be opened up for swimming and fishing.
Among other things, “several public swim events scheduled in the Lower Basin have had to be cancelled due to the pollution,” according to CLF.
Sorry, but I guess I won’t be losing sleep over the fact that the Charles isn’t some pristine wilderness rapid, especially if it means taking a billion dollars out of the pockets of local companies and business people.
