The EPA’s proposed requirements would affect thousands of large property owners in Massachusetts.

This was reported by the Environmental Protection Agency
new requirements for the project on Thursday, which could force about 4,000 commercial properties in Massachusetts to take measures to limit stormwater runoff that pollutes the Charles, Mystic and Neponset rivers.

The rules target large private facilities, such as shopping malls and universities, that are located within river watersheds and have more than a hectare of impervious surfaces, including roofs and parking spaces. EPA’s draft permit would require property owners to take steps to reduce stormwater runoff, such as creating rain gardens or underground systems.

Environmental groups already support the draft rules, but some say the proposed pace of implementation is too slow. At the same time, a group representing property owners says the requirements would create an undue financial burden.

The proposed requirements do not take effect immediately. They are currently open for comment, and a public hearing on this topic will be held in January.

“The ultimate goal is to meet water quality standards in all three rivers. And they are set by the EPA,” EPA’s Damien Houlihan said Thursday during a call with reporters. “And right now, all three rivers are what we call ‘impaired’ both for nutrients, particularly phosphorus, and for bacteria. So we want to ensure that the Clean Water Act’s goal of fishable and swimmable waterways is met. And that’s what this action is for.”

Houlihan said the proposal as written would affect nearly 2,300 commercial, industrial and institutional properties in the Charles River watershed. Nearly 1,000 properties in the Mystic River watershed and more than 800 in the Neponset River watershed will be included.

Julie Wood of the Charles River Watershed Association said the requirements will improve water quality.

“Currently, most of these pollutions are not cleaned by rainwater. It just goes right into our streams and rivers and does a lot of damage,” Wood said. “Stormwater pollution is the number one source of pollution in the Charles River.”

The requirements will apply not only to objects touching rivers. She explained that stormwater from facilities around the watershed is directed into the rivers through underground pipes.

“Until this new permit was issued, it meant that the city or town became responsible for the pollution,” Wood said. “So even though the pollution was being created on private property, those private owners were allowed to actually dump it into the city or town system, and it became a city or town problem. So now with this new permit, the properties that actually issue the permit will be responsible for cleaning it up.”

But Wood said the EPA proposal gives commercial property owners too much time to comply.

“It took more than a decade to get these changes on the ground,” she said. “So when you’re talking about real improvements to the river, that’s quite a long time, especially given the current impact on the river that storm runoff is causing.”

Houlihan said the EPA understands those concerns.

“This is a draft permit, so we expect to hear a lot from people about this schedule, and we’ll be able to adjust what we hear accordingly,” he said. “We believe that we have put forward a reasonable schedule. Given that this is a whole new set of permits that have never been regulated before, that the industry itself needs time to develop and prepare to make some of these improvements, and that it will be a phased approach over many years to address the largest properties first, and then smaller properties. So that’s our argument for setting a time frame.”

Tamara Small, CEO of the Massachusetts Commercial Real Estate Development Association NAIOP, said that as recently as 2010, the estimated cost to property owners in the Charles River watershed alone to pursue such a proposal was $1 billion. These new requirements will apply to two additional watersheds.

“So many, many other communities and of course more property owners,” she said. “Furthermore, this also applies to mixed-use facilities. So that means you’re potentially going to attract housing units.”

That could add a burden that would slow housing development in the midst of a statewide housing crisis, Small said. Office buildings are also subject to the permit at a time when vacancies are high, she added.

“The cost of these properties is much, much less than when they were purchased even a few years ago,” Small said. “So now you’re adding extremely high operating costs to these owners. They won’t be able to make it work. So if this is a priority for the federal government, then the federal government needs to step up with subsidies to make it work. Otherwise, I don’t see a way forward for many of these properties. They will not be able to complete the program.”

Small said her organization plans to submit detailed technical comments to the EPA during the comment period.

“I think what’s really important is that we need to find ways that protect the environment and that are fair and just and not too high,” she said.