A Superior Court Judge has ruled that there can be no enforcement of new stricter water rules in New Hampshire after Dec 31st while the State Supreme Court reviews the case.
Related: Lawsuit Challenges New Hampshire’s Ridiculous PFAS Water Rule as an Unfunded Mandate
“[T]he legal issues raised by Plaintiffs’ challenge are complex, the importance of public health is paramount and the expense imposed by the proposed rule is significant,” McNamara writes in staying the injunction.
The legal issue is the matter of a legislative committee rubber-stamping unrealistically low standards from a state agency. (One that would reap a windfall in fines if municipalities failed to meet the standard).
The act is effectively a tax on water (before the fines). The cost of compliance could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. And while there is no scientific evidence to support such a low tolerance; even if there were the State of NH cannot legally cram that cost down on towns without paying for it [Art 28-a].
[Art.] 28-a. [Mandated Programs.] The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.
We’ve plenty of background on the science and the political pressure to ignore that science here and here, so I won’t revisit all that.
What I will note is that the suit is spearheaded by Plymouth New Hampshire which is challenging the process and the science. The dose equals the poison. There is no evidence to justify the limitations proposed by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) or approved the committee. And Concord is (supposed to be) prohibited from cramming costs down on town and cities without funding.
3M, which makes the chemicals is also part of the suit.
The Superior Court ruling is meant to give the State Supreme Court time to address the challenge of cost-cramming (at the very least). Water districts will still be required to test but do not have to address treatment even if the tests produce levels outside the new (ridiculously low) standard.
If the Supreme court rules in favor of Plymouth, no enforcement is possible until (presumably) the legislature takes the measure through the public hearing process, a bill is passed, and the governor signs it into law.
The EPA standard which is around 70 parts per trillion (ppt), is probably still too strict, but New Hampshire’s challenged standard is in the low teens. An open hearing process would provide significantly more information to legislators and the public who should find the EPA standard more than adequate though that may also come with costs the state would be required to fund.
Regardless of all that, the Superior Court ruling would halt mandatory testing or treatment on Dec 31st, 2019, until all issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the parties involved.
It’s a big win for taxpayers and residents. The NHDES requested limits were ridiculous, given what we know. The marketing sinister with terms like forever chemicals and contamination thrown around to sew fear. The costs estimated in the many millions for compliance.
We should thank New Hampshire’s Constitution for preventing this sort of arbitrary cost cramming on local government. Regardless of the outcome – assuming the New Hampshire Supreme Court can read the state constitution, we’ll have a much more open and transparent process before any new decision.
| NHPR
