April 7, 2026 • 39 mins
Hop in a canoe and join Liz and Adrienne Lennon as they talk about what is and is not ... water, actually.
We always talk about New Hampshire's issues, but as a special treat, this episode features how one of New Hampshire's issues paved the way for federal law: the Clean Water Act. What is the Clean Water Act? What was supposed to happen with pollutants by the mid 1980s? Did we do it?
Is anyone coming to save us? Turns out, not even Batman...
Previous episode referenced: Towns, Property Taxes, and a Street Sweeper (maybe) with Niko Papakonstantis
Become a monthly supporter of the show
Have an idea for an upcoming episode? Email Liz: newhampshirehasissues@gmail.com
Links:
- Summary of the Clean Water Act (EPA)
- Water Quality Standards Regulations: New Hampshire (EPA)
- Environmental Challenges for the Merrimack River (EPA)
- NHDES PFAS Response Website
- NHPR Presents: Safe to Drink
- Legislation to protect parts of Nashua River (Nashua Telegraph)
NEW: Subscribe to NH Has Issues Substack
NEW: Get your NH Has Issues merch!
New Hampshire Has Issues is generously sponsored by Seacoast Soils, an organic compost and topsoil provider for New Hampshire, Maine, and Northeast Massachusetts. Visit their website at www.seacoastsoil.com!
Podcast theme music by Transistor.fm. Learn how to start a podcast here.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Adrienne Lennon (00:00):
Pop quiz for you.
This is second grade science.
Liz Canada (00:02):
Oh god.
Adrienne Lennon (00:03):
Are you ready?
Liz Canada (00:05):
Yes.
Adrienne Lennon (00:06):
What percentage of all water on earth is
freshwater?
Liz Canada (00:10):
Oh no.
I'm already failing.
Adrienne Lennon (00:12):
Guess.
Liz Canada (00:13):
Uh I will say 30%.
Adrienne Lennon (00:16):
Lower.
Liz Canada (00:17):
Lower?
Adrienne Lennon (00:18):
A lot lower.
Liz Canada (00:19):
10%.
Adrienne Lennon (00:20):
Lower.
Lower?
Two and a half to threepercent.
Is fresh water?
Of all water on earth isfreshwater.
And of that, two and a half tothree percent, 70 to 80% of it
is locked up in ice andglaciers.
The remainder.
Liz Canada (00:37):
Oh my god, there's so much math you're giving me,
Adrienne,
Adrienne Lennon (00:40):
i s locked up in groundwater and soil
moisture.
And only 1.2 to 1.3% of allwater on earth is surface water,
which is the water that youfind in lakes, rivers, streams,
wetlands.
It's all we got.
Liz Canada (00:57):
You're having that second grade science.
Yes.
This is like that.
It's like that show, Are YouSmarter Than a Fifth Grader?
Yeah.
Not smarter than a secondgrader.
Adrienne Lennon (01:06):
Did not surface that from deep memory, but you
did learn it once, along withthe water cycle.
Maybe.
Liz Canada (01:11):
That was Mrs.
Davis's class.
I I was kind of payingattention back then.
That was also the year that sheshowed the Batman movie, the
Jack Nicholson Batman movie inour second grade class.
Because I think she didn't knowwhat was happening in that
film.
Adrienne Lennon (01:28):
So funny.
Liz Canada (01:28):
And my mom was so mad.
I sat in the classroom andturned my chair around because I
knew I wasn't allowed to watchthat kind of movie.
So I looked at the wall thewhole time.
That's good.
Went home and said, Do you knowwhat we did in school today?
We watched the Batman movie.
Snitched on Miss Davis rightaway.
That's it.
Adrienne Lennon (01:42):
You just narked her right out.
Liz Canada (01:44):
I was like, I'm not taking the fall for this.
So maybe on that same day whenI was facing the wrong
direction, I learned about freshwater.
You're listening to NewHampshire Has Issues, and I am
(02:07):
your host from the future, LizCanada.
I'm gonna do something a littlebit different at the top of the
show, because I need to do aflashback for a moment.
And I have always wanted to dosomething like this.
Uh, you may remember, longtimelisteners, you may remember an
episode with Nico Papa konstantis, the chair of the Exeter
Select Board.
We talked about property taxes,we talked about deliberative
(02:30):
sessions, and we talked about myfavorite topic, to be honest,
the street sweeper.
So let me do my best voicehere.
Previously, on New Hampshirehas issues.
Niko Papakonstantis (02:40):
Last year's election, the street sweeper
was the only warrant articlethat did not pass.
Liz Canada (02:45):
The only warrant article that didn't pass.
Niko Papakonstantis (02:48):
So I have against street sweepers.
Liz Canada (02:51):
What did a street sweeper ever do to you?
Niko Papakonstantis (02:54):
Exactly.
But we're putting it back onbecause it's not really just to
clean the streets.
Liz Canada (03:01):
So I've said this on the show before.
I serve on our town's budgetrecommendations committee, and I
learned in the meeting in thesummer, you know, the street
sweeper had been voted down, weknew that, but then learned
about how important it is forwhat goes through the stormwater
and water treatment plant,right?
Like it affects the nitrogenlevels.
(03:23):
And I was like, how do we evenbegin to explain this to the
voters?
Of like, it's not just, well, II don't really care that our
streets are not clean.
It's like actually there areall of these long-term impacts
on all of our other facilities.
Niko Papakonstantis (03:37):
Right.
Liz Canada (03:37):
I'm glad we could put in a quick plug.
Thank you for that.
Quick plug for the streetsweeper.
I'm not gonna bury the leadhere, dear listener.
I'm gonna tell you, 2025, thestreet sweeper warrant failed by
about 15 votes.
2026, it was back on theballot.
You just heard Nico and Italking about it in a previous
episode.
It failed by five votes thisyear.
(03:58):
I just can't emphasize enough,first of all, that voting
matters.
Please vote.
Please make sure you'reregistered to vote.
I laugh because otherwise Iwould cry.
And I have been devastatedabout the street sweeper
situation.
So I'm really delighted to havethis episode that is all about
clean water.
Or clean-ish water.
(04:20):
Clean enough water.
Uh, water in air quotes, asyou'll hear, because maybe not
all of it's actually water.
Adrienne is my guest today, andshe is an outstanding expert on
all things related to water.
I had wanted to talk to herabout the Merrimack River, maybe
you've heard of it.
And we talk about that a tinybit, but really she's giving
some foundational informationhere about like what the heck is
(04:42):
the Clean Water Act?
And uh, how did New Hampshirecontribute to it being enacted
in the first place?
If you would like to supportthe show, become a monthly
subscriber.
Patreon.com slash NH hasissues.
If you have an idea for anepisode, send me an email.
Newhampshire has Issues atgmail.com.
More to come on water, I canassure you.
(05:03):
And for now, grab your can ofseltzer and join Adrian and me
in this episode.
Thank you for listening.
So welcome to New Hampshire HasIssues, the podcast that dares
to ask, should I have had anywater today?
Because all I've had is seltzerand coffee.
Adrienne Lennon (05:23):
Coffee is just goth water.
So yes.
Liz Canada (05:27):
So I did it.
Do you have a tagline for ourepisode?
Adrienne Lennon (05:31):
Yeah.
Well, we were saying what's themain message?
And I think that main messageis it's your responsibility.
No one's coming to save us onthis one.
We all have to do it.
Liz Canada (05:43):
The podcast that dares to ask, is anyone coming
to save us?
The answer is no.
No.
No one's coming.
No way.
Okay, well, great.
I'm glad we're just jumpingright in.
Perfect.
So my guest today is themanaging environmental scientist
and planner at Par Corporation,Adrian Lennon.
Adrian, welcome to the show.
Thank you.
It's a delight to be here.
(06:03):
I'm so glad that you're here.
So you know all about water.
I do not know as much as asecond grader, let alone what I
should know.
Right?
So I'm so thankful for youbeing on this episode with me.
Shall we start with a simplequestion?
Yeah.
Let's go.
When I turn on my faucet, watercomes out.
That's good, right?
It means everything's fine withwater in New Hampshire?
(06:25):
Most of the time.
Yes.
Most of the time.
Adrienne Lennon (06:29):
Most of the time.
Liz Canada (06:30):
When is it not okay in New Hampshire?
Adrienne Lennon (06:33):
Yeah, that's a great question.
So we were talking about cleanwater and the construct of clean
water, right?
What does that mean?
And that's a little bitdifferent from safe water and
the construct of safe water.
Safe water is the water we'retalking about coming out of your
tap.
And safe water is regulated bythe Safe Water Drinking Act, and
(06:56):
it ensures that water is safechemically and bacterially to
drink.
So it's really safe enough.
Liz Canada (07:04):
Oh God.
Oh boy.
Okay.
So I turn on my faucet.
It's safe water.
But you're telling me that itmight it's it's safe enough
water.
You know what?
Good thing I don't drink anywater.
Listen.
Well, we can talk about thatseltzer water after.
Perfect.
The seltzer I'm drinking liveon the air.
So then what is clean water?
Adrienne Lennon (07:27):
Yeah.
Well, so safe water is definedby World Health Organization as
water that is free from fecalcontamination and priority
chemical contamination.
So safe enough to drink.
And clean water is somethingthat you know we've constructed
nationally, which is focusedmore on surface water.
So that's the water in therivers and lakes and streams,
(07:49):
which ensures it's clean enoughto support aquatic life and
recreation and has a restorationfocus to maintain that
chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of water,
specifically the nation'swaters.
And we'll talk more about thata little bit later.
Liz Canada (08:07):
Clean water is about uh some of the things that I
heard you say is about theorganisms and creatures in there
being able to live and thrive,as well as some other
components, and then the safewater is it's safe enough to be
able to drink that it's notgoing to actively harm me with
(08:28):
contaminants.
That's correct.
Okay.
So I assume there is some issueto water in New Hampshire
because I've heard somemurmurings of some river stuff
issues that might be in thatway.
So for someone like me whoknows very little, where should
we begin, Adrian?
Adrienne Lennon (08:49):
Well, let's start in the middle of the last
century.
We're hopping in the timemachine to the mid-1900s.
Up until mid-century 1960sAmerica, which would have been
about 200 years worth ofindustrial revolution and
development in our part of theworld, wetlands and waterways
(09:09):
were essentially treated asdumping grounds for all types of
waste.
So industrial waste, sewerage,any kind of chemicals or
hazardous, any byproduct frommaterials or factory work and
development of any kind wouldjust be discharged and released
into the waters.
(09:30):
So we like to say thatdisposed-of tires are an
obligate wetland species.
We know we're in a wetland ifwe have found some good trash.
And that's true everywhere andis a long-standing problem, but
especially true in movingwaterways and waterways that
provide drinking water topeople.
(09:51):
So mid-1900s, we were toppingit out.
Liz Canada (09:55):
We're lighting oil on fire and rivers.
They were parting it up in the60s.
Yes.
Adrienne Lennon (10:00):
Yeah, doing whatever they wanted to.
Yep.
There were no rules.
So very famously, the NashuaRiver, which is a tributary of
the Merrimack River, with manydams and mills all the way up
from the Merrimack River, allthe way up to its headwaters,
like in Lunenburg or Fitchburg,Massachusetts, or something like
that.
There were paper mills.
And the Nashua River would flowa different color every day.
(10:25):
That can be good.
That seems bad.
Not a good thing.
And so the pollution became sobad in the Nashua River that
actually no biodiversity couldsurvive.
Only, you know, pond scums,some sludge, certain forms of
bacterial and algal organismswere able to tolerate.
(10:47):
It was a completely septicenvironment in that waterway.
And that actually was one ofthe precipitating factors of our
foundational United States law,the Clean Water Act.
So it's that close to home.
Liz Canada (11:00):
The river is a different color every day.
We're totally destroying thewhole ecosystem.
The whole ecosystem we aredestroyed.
Poisoning it, yep.
Okay.
The Clean Water Act, federallaw, sounds like.
Yes, yes.
What is it?
What does it do?
Have we fixed everything withthis law?
Oh, great questions.
(11:21):
Did we do it?
Adrienne Lennon (11:23):
Is it all done?
Great questions.
Okay.
So Clean Water Act is an act, aUnited States law that expanded
on the protections of anearlier law called the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act,which was enacted in 1948.
So from 1948 to 1972, there wassome limited protection for
(11:44):
pollution control.
And then the Clean Water Actreally changed the lens and the
view of it.
Liz Canada (11:50):
We knew enough in the 40s to be like water can be
polluted.
Yes.
And then still put things inwater from factories and all
sorts of chemicals.
Adrienne Lennon (12:01):
Get ready.
Liz Canada (12:03):
Okay.
Oh no.
I thought it would be like inthe 1960s, nobody knew.
We just, oh, how does it cleanitself?
It's just cleansing.
Better living throughchemistry, right?
Adrienne Lennon (12:13):
Yeah.
No.
Oh no.
Okay.
So we knew water could bepolluted.
So before 1972, rivers wouldroutinely carry untreated
sewerage, industrial waste, allother types of contaminants.
And there was a federal law,this pollution control act,
although no enforcement.
And also funding forrestoration after these impacts
(12:36):
was very limited.
So the goal really of the CleanWater Act was to fund
restoration and attempt toenforce certain types of
pollution.
So the big move really wasshifting from, you know, we're
going to acknowledge that thisexists and we'll clean it up
later, to you need a permit topollute.
Liz Canada (12:57):
You can't do it unless you get permission in
advance.
That's correct.
Okay.
That's the best we did.
Okay.
So I am here's a permissionslip to pollute the waters.
Adrienne Lennon (13:08):
Yeah, yeah.
This is this is environmentalprotection 101.
Liz Canada (13:12):
Ooh.
Don't love any of that.
Adrienne Lennon (13:14):
I know.
I happen to really love oldpolicy.
I love reading old policybecause it's so very well
written.
It's so intentional.
It's really different from whatyou see today.
So I want to read to you thebeginning of it.
Liz Canada (13:28):
I'm not going to make a joke about how law is
created today.
I'm just going to let that oneslide.
Let it rise.
Fill in the gaps as you wish,listener.
I'm ready.
Adrienne Lennon (13:37):
Okay.
So an act to provide for waterpollution control activities in
the public health service of theFederal Security Agency and in
the Federal Works Agency and forother purposes, be it enacted
by the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives or the United
States of America in Congressassembled, et cetera, et cetera.
The objective of this act is torestore and maintain the
(13:59):
chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the
nation's waters.
Remember that phrase.
The nation's waters.
Waters.
And in order to achieve thisobjective, it is hereby declared
that consistent with theprovisions of this act, it is
the national goal that thedischarge of pollutants into the
navigable waters be eliminatedby 1985.
Liz Canada (14:24):
Oh my God.
It's like a SMART goal.
Specific, measurable.
They're like, you have to doit.
Okay.
That seems pretty clear.
All the waters got to eliminatepollutants.
By 1985.
Yep.
By 1985.
Adrienne Lennon (14:37):
And the next one is it is a national goal
that we're ever attainable andinterim goal of water quality,
which provides for theprotection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlifeand provides for recreation in
and on the water be achieved byJuly 1st, 1983.
Liz Canada (14:55):
Wow, they really set some like clear markers.
Yeah.
We're going to do that.
Really, this thing.
This is old policy.
This time.
Wow.
Okay.
Great stuff.
Okay.
All right.
Well, that was a long time ago,because I was born in 82.
So I'm excited for you to tellme that they met all those goals
and things have gotten bettersince then.
I'm ready for that big revealat the end of all this.
(15:15):
Okay.
Hold your breath.
Okay.
Host down.
Host is dead.
Hold the breath.
Adrienne Lennon (15:22):
So this goes on to say the national policy is
that discharge of toxicpollutants in toxic amounts be
prohibited.
Okay.
The national policy thatfederal financial assistance be
provided to construct publiclyowned waste treatment works,
that area-wide treatment,management, planning processes
be developed and implemented toassure adequate control of
(15:42):
sources of pollutants in eachstate, et cetera, et cetera.
There's a couple more.
So, you know, essentially whatthe Clean Water Act did was it
said, you know, we definitelycannot stop the uh capitalist
industrial machine, but we canat least try to regulate a
little bit the worst of thispollution.
And we can do it by trying toidentify the worst pollutants,
(16:06):
trying to limit that discharge,trying to reduce any new and
additional discharge by fundingrestoration efforts.
And there are a few tools.
And I don't know if any of thiswill ring a bell to you, but
sometimes this stuff comes up inthe in the public zeitgeist,
this kind of language.
But the act is broken up intosections.
(16:28):
And in the 400 sections arereally where the tools of the
act are implemented.
So there is a section whichallows for state leverage.
And it says if a project needsa federal permit or license and
could discharge into the watersof the nation, then states can
certify conditions to protecttheir water quality standards.
(16:48):
So it allows states to identifytheir own water quality
standards under this federalpermitting process.
The section establishes thispermit that's called the
National Pollutant DischargeElimination System, also known
as a Niptees permit.
Niptees.
You may have heard of.
I don't know that I have.
(17:08):
Okay.
You will hear it now.
Okay.
That regulates point sourcedischarges.
And that's pipes coming fromwastewater treatment plants, uh,
industrial facilities, andcertain stormwater systems,
right?
So those are the pipes that yousee that are just flowing out.
Niptees.
Yeah.
Should I have heard of thisbefore?
(17:29):
Is that what you're telling me?
Yeah.
I mean, if you're talkingabout, yeah, I mean, in the
whole street sweeperconversation, that should have
come up.
Liz Canada (17:38):
Okay.
Not maybe not on not on the noton the recording.
Adrian, you have to understandthat I only just barely learned
that the street sweeper helpsour water system and our water
treatment.
Everything.
I, like many people, justthought it was making the roads
look nice.
No.
So I missed that otherimportant variable.
(17:59):
I barely know that it impactsnitrogen.
And I barely know that that issomething I should have learned
in chemistry.
I don't know.
It's all coming in.
It's coming together.
The order of subjects I wasgood at in school, math was
first, shockingly.
Then it was English.
And then it's a long drop tosocial studies and science.
(18:19):
A long drop.
And look what you're doing now.
Yeah, I have a podcast.
And I make jokes.
That's all I've got.
Okay.
Never heard of it.
I'm learning.
I'm taking so many notes.
Adrienne Lennon (18:30):
Good, good.
Okay, so Niptees.
Liz Canada (18:33):
Niptees.
Adrienne Lennon (18:34):
It's it's an acronym and it stands for the
National Pollutant DischargeElimination System Permit.
And this is the uh permittingmechanism.
This is the tool of the CleanWater Act, and it regulates
point source discharges.
And those specifically are thehigh polluting discharges.
Those are coming out ofwastewater treatment systems,
(18:55):
they're coming out of industrialfacilities, and they're coming
out of stormwater systems.
So this is how the teenagemutant ninja turtles get around.
This is all the open exposuresof flowing water into waterways
now permitted by this Nipdiespermit.
It also includes this specialconsideration, which is for
(19:21):
municipal separate storm sewersystems.
And that's called MS4.
And I promise I won't be anymore jargony than that on this
subject.
Liz Canada (19:32):
If we say that too many times, someone's gonna
think it's a gang and it's gonnabe a total thing.
But yes, totally true.
Municipal and a few S's.
Adrienne Lennon (19:40):
Yeah, municipal separate storm sewer systems.
And that is specificallytalking to very old
infrastructure systems wheresewer and storm water are piped
together.
And there is a mandate toseparate them anytime you
encounter this.
(20:01):
However, in pre-industrial andindustrial cities, we have a lot
of them.
And that tells a little bit ofthe story of how we've landed
where we are in drinking watersupply in some of our bigger
waterways.
So state leverage to certifyspecific conditions and define
water quality standards, thepermit, and then another set of
(20:24):
permits specifically for dredgeand fill permitting.
What does that mean, like inregular person language?
Okay.
So let's say you are building aroad in New Hampshire.
Liz Canada (20:36):
Hopefully to affordable housing.
Adrienne Lennon (20:37):
Am I right?
Sorry.
Police, right?
So you're building a road andthere's a a well and there's a
swamp on the right hand side.
And also on the left hand side,there's some freestanding
water.
Not a ton of it, but there issome.
And it's too much to be able tosupport a actual roadway.
(20:58):
You could have a dirt road andcross over it here and there.
But if you need to actuallypave a two-lane roadway, you are
going to have to bring in fillto create that roadway.
And that is where that dredgefill permitting comes into play.
I see.
You're kind of reducing thesize of the resource for
(21:20):
whatever your developmentpurpose is.
Pretty common with roadways.
That's very helpful.
And then, of course, you know,in other sections, there's
actually very specific languageabout how much money is to be
allocated.
This is 1972, 1973 dollars.
And that is what we werethinking at the time, before
both of us were born, basically,um, in terms of improving
(21:44):
surface water quality.
And um I can report that Did wedo it?
No, we did not.
Did not.
Something that's important toknow is that the Clean Water Act
has been somewhat under a scopeattack over the last 10.
Years or so.
So the language of the actitself hasn't changed.
(22:04):
But there's been this fightaround what is the definition of
the waters of the nation.
You told me to write that down.
So the law itself hasn'tchanged, but how it's
interpreted definitely has.
And most of that is aroundwhich waters are actually
protected.
Things like wetlands and smallstreams or seasonal waters like
(22:26):
vernal pools or what we like tocall intermittent or small
streams have gone in and out ofthis federal jurisdiction of
waters of the United States,depending on the administration
and also the Supreme Court.
Liz Canada (22:41):
How?
Aren't they here?
Aren't they in the UnitedStates?
Pardon the nation?
Isn't it water in the nation?
But are they considered waters,right?
Is it sludge?
Is it muddy?
Like why?
Right.
What is surface water?
What is water?
What is water?
Right.
When you really get down to it,what is water?
Should have paid more attentionin high school science.
Adrienne Lennon (23:03):
So initially there was this kind of expansion
of federal jurisdiction, andthat was in 2015.
Follow me on the years here.
Oh god.
Liz Canada (23:12):
Remembering them well.
Adrienne Lennon (23:13):
We were also young then.
We were.
It was a different time.
Different time.
In 2015, the clean water rulewas implemented and promulgated,
and it actually expanded andclarified this federal
jurisdiction around this conceptof what's called the
significant nexus in waterways.
(23:35):
And the significant nexusdetermines if non-navigable
waters are in fact waters of theUnited States.
Liz Canada (23:44):
Non-navigable waters.
Adrienne Lennon (23:46):
Right.
So the assumption is allnavigable waters are waters of
the United States, period.
Liz Canada (23:51):
What's a navigable and a non-navigable water?
Adrienne Lennon (23:54):
Great question.
Liz Canada (23:55):
So if you can float a canoe, you're in navigable
waters.
The train is coming from Topekaat 200 miles per hour, and a
canoe is coming from theMerrimack River.
Is that canoe in navigablewater?
Adrienne Lennon (24:08):
Absolutely.
So that's not the question.
The question is smaller waterbodies, okay?
Liz Canada (24:14):
Oh my god.
Adrienne Lennon (24:15):
Smaller than you can float a canoe in.
For example, small streams andbrooks, small wetlands, vernal
pools, surface waters that areonly, you know, a couple inches
to a foot deep, things likethat.
You know, the thing aboutwetlands, small surface waters
like this, is that they don'tjust exist in a vacuum, right?
They're part of some largerhydrology.
(24:37):
So there's this assessment thatsays if there's a significant
nexus, if there is a hydrologicconnection, a presence of
surface or shallow subsurfacewater connection.
And we know, you know, waterdoesn't necessarily only travel
over the surface.
It's also traveling through theearth, all around your basement
(24:57):
foundation.
Liz Canada (24:58):
And into our basements every spring.
Yeah.
Adrienne Lennon (25:01):
When the snow melts and it rains, that is the
hydrologic connection of waterand subsurface.
I'll remember that.
Liz Canada (25:08):
When the sump pump is working hard.
Adrienne Lennon (25:10):
Yeah.
There is hydrology there.
Liz Canada (25:12):
There's that connection.
Adrienne Lennon (25:13):
Yes.
Um, you may be in the middle ofwaters of the United States.
You don't even know.
The Nexus itself.
Right.
So, and then, you know, what isthe function of that small
surface water area?
Is it storing flood waters?
So if it's adjacent to anavigable waterway, does it
provide flood storage capacity?
Is it filtering pollutants andis it transporting nutrients?
(25:35):
And then the third is thedistance, like what is the
actual distance from thissurface water and the
traditional navigable waterway?
And there's this sort ofassessment criteria that's been
established, was established in2015 that said, you know, if you
could prove these three points,then you had waters of the
(25:56):
United States.
And that significantly expandedthe protections of wetlands and
waterways by capturing all ofthese small streams and small
bogs, marshes, and vernal poolsand small wetlands that
otherwise would not have beencaptured because they're not
navigable.
So this was, of course, youknow, appealed and taken across
(26:20):
the coals in followingadministration.
In 2020, there was an attemptto narrow that federal reach,
which was later vacated.
And then in 2023, this watersof the United States rule was
overturned.
And it was overturned in thisfamous CPA case called SACIT
versus CPA.
And that again significantlynarrowed what wetlands qualify
(26:46):
as waters of the United Statesand emphasized that wetlands had
to have continuous surfaceconnection to covered waters.
So really, really rolled backprotections all the way to where
it was before.
Liz Canada (27:00):
2015, there is an expansion of what is considered
the nation's waters.
That's right.
It's giving the criteria oflike if you meet these three
things.
You're in.
You're in.
You're protected.
You're United States Sort ofprotected.
Yeah.
Sort of sort of protected.
Protected enough, right?
If you will.
Right.
Adrienne Lennon (27:20):
And then the new administration, 2016, they
seek to Um, yeah, I mean, therewas the challenge to try to roll
it back, essentially.
Liz Canada (27:28):
So that happens through that administration,
federal administration.
And then by 2023, now it's aSupreme Court case.
That's right.
Sounds like.
That's right.
The Supreme Court makes thecall of rolling it back
significantly from before the2015 protections-ish.
Adrienne Lennon (27:47):
Yeah.
In some cases, even fartherback because it required this
continuous surface connection,which essentially says navigable
waters.
And sometimes you can be innavigable waters that are
seasonally navigable and theywould still be considered
navigable waters.
But now we're calling for allseason surface connection.
Liz Canada (28:07):
So that was a 2023 Supreme Court decision.
So what does that mean for usnow?
Right.
For the nation's waters or forthe nation's not quite water.
Right.
Or not quite nation water?
I don't even know how how youwould call that, but sure.
Water that happens to benearby.
It's nearby water.
Right.
What nation does it belong to,if not the United States?
(28:28):
But it's just It's not water.
Okay.
It's not even there.
It's not American.
Not American enough.
Boy, oh boy.
Bring your birth certificate tobe a nation's water.
That's right.
That's right.
You better show your connectionto your better show your
passport if you want to becalled the nation's waters.
Adrienne Lennon (28:50):
Wow.
So this part really mattersbecause wetlands and headwater
streams are where a lot of ourwater quality protection
actually starts.
Okay.
And it's also where a lot ofour surface water drinking water
supply comes from.
So when the protections shift,it falls back onto states and
(29:12):
communities to try to figure outhow to fill in the gaps.
And that's where things likeget a little bit messy.
So ongoing Clean Water Act.
In the beginning, you know, thebest we could do was say, we
just want to clean up thewaterways.
This is how we're going to doit.
We're going to permit it.
We're going to try to fundrestoration.
Never even got close.
Now we're starting to unpack ita little bit in these ways that
(29:36):
are not obvious enough to bringa lot of attention to the
matter, but they are definitelyimpactful.
Liz Canada (29:41):
What has New Hampshire done when it comes to
having clean water?
So we have safe enough water.
Right.
What is the role of NewHampshire?
And what is the role of townsand cities as well?
Because they must have somesort of role, or else we
wouldn't be talking about waterand sewer in our town.
(30:02):
Right, right.
Adrienne Lennon (30:03):
Regulator.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
I mean, you have this federalfloor of the Clean Water Act,
and then it's the stateimplementation.
New Hampshire has establishedsurface water quality standards,
which is not true for everystate in the nation, but those
rules do include designated usesand protecting existing water
quality, not just meetingminimums.
So there's this term calledanti-degradation that's used in
(30:27):
New Hampshire surface waterquality standards essentially
says, you know, you can't leaveit worse than you found it.
So that's one thing.
There's a floor.
That seems like a floor.
It is worse than we thought.
But it does get better, okay?
Additional protections in NewHampshire that are actually
quite nice include the ShorelandWater Quality Protection Act,
(30:51):
which sets minimum standardswithin a protected shoreland
zone.
So that's a buffer zone or avegetated area that is on either
bank of a waterway and setslimits of disturbance for what
you actually can do there in aneffort to protect water quality,
which is a good thing.
It can always be better.
(31:11):
One of the challenges of theClean Water Act and the NIFTIS
permitting process around pointsource discharge is that because
they can't be improved, they'reoften, you know, subject to
significant neglect as opposedto having the system be altered
or modernized in some way.
So it's it's cost prohibitiveto go in and improve that
(31:37):
infrastructure that would causefor the discharge or to come up
with other infrastructuresolutions that would eliminate
the discharge.
And because of that, there'svery limited motivation to take
those that exist out of thesubsurface ground and come up
with a new solution.
The cost.
Right.
(32:49):
But in capital infrastructureplanning, there is always this
effort to say, okay, if we'regoing to be rebuilding a road,
then we're going to do thiswhile we're in there.
And so, yeah, I mean,Manchester has made a big
effort.
They've gotten some federaldollars to do it, I believe.
And that's really the driver isfederal dollars through things
like the Clean Water Act to tryto get this done.
(33:12):
Because again, it's notsomething that the state of New
Hampshire or that the city ofManchester can just impose upon
taxpayers to try to fund.
It's just the numbers are toobig.
So importantly, you know,operators of wastewater
treatment plants and and placeswhere we have these discharges,
they're, first of all, reallyhard to find.
(33:32):
Exceptional professionals,really talented engineers.
You know, they're not thepeople that created this
problem.
The problem existed long beforemost of us were born, but they
are very good at navigating itand trying to avoid, reduce, and
minimize.
But sometimes environmentalconditions are so extreme that
they're not really able toovercome that.
(33:54):
Like in 2023, we had a very,very wet year and we had
significant flash flooding andum, you know, aerial storm
events that caused a very highnumber of storm discharges into
our major waterways and wetlandsbecause um everything
(34:15):
overflowed and we're vulnerableto that, right?
We don't have capacity.
Interestingly, other citieslike in New Hampshire, Nashua,
up until like the 1980s, Nashuawas farmland.
People don't realize that now.
They don't think of that now.
But before Route 3 was cutthrough New Hampshire, there was
only Route 3A.
(34:36):
And Route 3A doesn't look anydifferent now than it did then.
And there were farms, big dairyfarms and, you know, other
types of agrarian practices.
There were not really millfacilities so much, except for
really in the center of the cityof Nashua.
So when Nashua was building awastewater facility, they
(34:58):
actually had so much space thatthey were able to build an
entire secondary facility forthings like these major storm
events, which, you know, othercities upstream just don't have
that option.
They never had the space in thefirst place.
They were already developed.
They were not farmland, youknow.
So everybody has kind ofdifferent challenges.
(35:19):
And the smaller themunicipality gets, the less
redundancy you have.
So you have fewer waterresources, fewer staff, tighter
budgets, and and significantlymore reliance on groundwater and
private wells.
So those land use decisions andthose budgetary decisions,
(35:40):
especially near recharge areas,areas where you have surface
waters, they can matter a lot interms of what your drinking
water is like.
Liz Canada (35:48):
How are regular people supposed to keep track of
all of this?
Adrienne Lennon (35:52):
You know, I don't know if it's necessarily
tracking, right?
It's my job to know this stuff,the policy.
I think for regular people, youknow, when you're thinking
about the local and communitylevel, you know, what first of
all, what does that mean?
When I think of the locallevel, I'm really thinking about
your property, your homeownerland.
Exactly.
(36:13):
What are you putting on yourlawn?
Are you putting fertilizers andpesticides on your lawn?
Are you putting it on rightbefore it rains?
Do you live near surface watersupply?
Where do your downspoutsdischarge to?
Are you just downspouting fromyour roof immediately off, you
(36:33):
know, surface of your lawn orsomething into a water resource
because the runoff on the roofis not clean?
Are you cutting your nativevegetation right down to water
resources, you know, because youwant a view or something like
that?
Are you preventing any kind offiltering or cooling or
stabilizing of banks so thatyour property isn't just eroding
(36:55):
into the water resource?
So that's and then if you havea septic, are you inspecting
that on a regular schedule?
Are you upgrading failedsystems?
You know, failed septic systemsare a major local water quality
and public health issue.
So, you know, as a homeowner,those are kind of the central
things is how are you caring foryour own land?
And how are your neighborscaring for the the land around
(37:18):
you too?
Right.
It has to happen at everylevel.
So, okay, so that's your localme, my home, my property, my
neighborhood level.
At the community level, guesswhat?
You have to invest instormwater upgrades and
maintenance.
You have to hire the streetsweeper.
You have to bring that streetsweeper.
We gotta do it.
It is not, it is not glamorous,but it is a huge lever for
(37:41):
surface water protection.
You have to encourageenforcement and adoption of
buffers and wetlands protectionand wellhead and recharge area
protection.
And that is especially truewhere groundwater is the main
source of drinking water.
So, you know, there are thingsyou can do at the local level in
terms of local policy toprotect.
And also, as a communitymember, you should be joining
(38:04):
your local land trust and, youknow, finding out where they're
looking at and identifying landto protect for water quality
because they're absolutely doingthat.
Um, if you have a watershedassociation related to the
watershed you're in or thewaterways in your community,
then look them up, see whatthey're up to.
(38:24):
They probably have a plan forrestoration or conservation or
other management of thewaterway.
So, you know, theseorganizations exist.
They do have influence at theregional and state level.
I just don't necessarily getenough visibility because nobody
really thinks too much aboutthe cleanliness or safety of
(38:47):
their water coming out of theirtap until it doesn't come out
anymore.
That's a very disturbingsentence you just said.
Liz Canada (38:54):
It's true.
Very true.
Pop quiz for you.
This is second grade science.
Liz Canada (00:02):
Oh god.
Adrienne Lennon (00:03):
Are you ready?
Liz Canada (00:05):
Yes.
Adrienne Lennon (00:06):
What percentage of all water on earth is
freshwater?
Liz Canada (00:10):
Oh no.
I'm already failing.
Adrienne Lennon (00:12):
Guess.
Liz Canada (00:13):
Uh I will say 30%.
Adrienne Lennon (00:16):
Lower.
Liz Canada (00:17):
Lower?
Adrienne Lennon (00:18):
A lot lower.
Liz Canada (00:19):
10%.
Adrienne Lennon (00:20):
Lower.
Lower?
Two and a half to threepercent.
Is fresh water?
Of all water on earth isfreshwater.
And of that, two and a half tothree percent, 70 to 80% of it
is locked up in ice andglaciers.
The remainder.
Liz Canada (00:37):
Oh my god, there's so much math you're giving me,
Adrienne,
Adrienne Lennon (00:40):
i s locked up in groundwater and soil
moisture.
And only 1.2 to 1.3% of allwater on earth is surface water,
which is the water that youfind in lakes, rivers, streams,
wetlands.
It's all we got.
Liz Canada (00:57):
You're having that second grade science.
Yes.
This is like that.
It's like that show, Are YouSmarter Than a Fifth Grader?
Yeah.
Not smarter than a secondgrader.
Adrienne Lennon (01:06):
Did not surface that from deep memory, but you
did learn it once, along withthe water cycle.
Maybe.
Liz Canada (01:11):
That was Mrs.
Davis's class.
I I was kind of payingattention back then.
That was also the year that sheshowed the Batman movie, the
Jack Nicholson Batman movie inour second grade class.
Because I think she didn't knowwhat was happening in that
film.
Adrienne Lennon (01:28):
So funny.
Liz Canada (01:28):
And my mom was so mad.
I sat in the classroom andturned my chair around because I
knew I wasn't allowed to watchthat kind of movie.
So I looked at the wall thewhole time.
That's good.
Went home and said, Do you knowwhat we did in school today?
We watched the Batman movie.
Snitched on Miss Davis rightaway.
That's it.
Adrienne Lennon (01:42):
You just narked her right out.
Liz Canada (01:44):
I was like, I'm not taking the fall for this.
So maybe on that same day whenI was facing the wrong
direction, I learned about freshwater.
You're listening to NewHampshire Has Issues, and I am
(02:07):
your host from the future, LizCanada.
I'm gonna do something a littlebit different at the top of the
show, because I need to do aflashback for a moment.
And I have always wanted to dosomething like this.
Uh, you may remember, longtimelisteners, you may remember an
episode with Nico Papa konstantis, the chair of the Exeter
Select Board.
We talked about property taxes,we talked about deliberative
(02:30):
sessions, and we talked about myfavorite topic, to be honest,
the street sweeper.
So let me do my best voicehere.
Previously, on New Hampshirehas issues.
Niko Papakonstantis (02:40):
Last year's election, the street sweeper
was the only warrant articlethat did not pass.
Liz Canada (02:45):
The only warrant article that didn't pass.
Niko Papakonstantis (02:48):
So I have against street sweepers.
Liz Canada (02:51):
What did a street sweeper ever do to you?
Niko Papakonstantis (02:54):
Exactly.
But we're putting it back onbecause it's not really just to
clean the streets.
Liz Canada (03:01):
So I've said this on the show before.
I serve on our town's budgetrecommendations committee, and I
learned in the meeting in thesummer, you know, the street
sweeper had been voted down, weknew that, but then learned
about how important it is forwhat goes through the stormwater
and water treatment plant,right?
Like it affects the nitrogenlevels.
(03:23):
And I was like, how do we evenbegin to explain this to the
voters?
Of like, it's not just, well, II don't really care that our
streets are not clean.
It's like actually there areall of these long-term impacts
on all of our other facilities.
Niko Papakonstantis (03:37):
Right.
Liz Canada (03:37):
I'm glad we could put in a quick plug.
Thank you for that.
Quick plug for the streetsweeper.
I'm not gonna bury the leadhere, dear listener.
I'm gonna tell you, 2025, thestreet sweeper warrant failed by
about 15 votes.
2026, it was back on theballot.
You just heard Nico and Italking about it in a previous
episode.
It failed by five votes thisyear.
(03:58):
I just can't emphasize enough,first of all, that voting
matters.
Please vote.
Please make sure you'reregistered to vote.
I laugh because otherwise Iwould cry.
And I have been devastatedabout the street sweeper
situation.
So I'm really delighted to havethis episode that is all about
clean water.
Or clean-ish water.
(04:20):
Clean enough water.
Uh, water in air quotes, asyou'll hear, because maybe not
all of it's actually water.
Adrienne is my guest today, andshe is an outstanding expert on
all things related to water.
I had wanted to talk to herabout the Merrimack River, maybe
you've heard of it.
And we talk about that a tinybit, but really she's giving
some foundational informationhere about like what the heck is
(04:42):
the Clean Water Act?
And uh, how did New Hampshirecontribute to it being enacted
in the first place?
If you would like to supportthe show, become a monthly
subscriber.
Patreon.com slash NH hasissues.
If you have an idea for anepisode, send me an email.
Newhampshire has Issues atgmail.com.
More to come on water, I canassure you.
(05:03):
And for now, grab your can ofseltzer and join Adrian and me
in this episode.
Thank you for listening.
So welcome to New Hampshire HasIssues, the podcast that dares
to ask, should I have had anywater today?
Because all I've had is seltzerand coffee.
Adrienne Lennon (05:23):
Coffee is just goth water.
So yes.
Liz Canada (05:27):
So I did it.
Do you have a tagline for ourepisode?
Adrienne Lennon (05:31):
Yeah.
Well, we were saying what's themain message?
And I think that main messageis it's your responsibility.
No one's coming to save us onthis one.
We all have to do it.
Liz Canada (05:43):
The podcast that dares to ask, is anyone coming
to save us?
The answer is no.
No.
No one's coming.
No way.
Okay, well, great.
I'm glad we're just jumpingright in.
Perfect.
So my guest today is themanaging environmental scientist
and planner at Par Corporation,Adrian Lennon.
Adrian, welcome to the show.
Thank you.
It's a delight to be here.
(06:03):
I'm so glad that you're here.
So you know all about water.
I do not know as much as asecond grader, let alone what I
should know.
Right?
So I'm so thankful for youbeing on this episode with me.
Shall we start with a simplequestion?
Yeah.
Let's go.
When I turn on my faucet, watercomes out.
That's good, right?
It means everything's fine withwater in New Hampshire?
(06:25):
Most of the time.
Yes.
Most of the time.
Adrienne Lennon (06:29):
Most of the time.
Liz Canada (06:30):
When is it not okay in New Hampshire?
Adrienne Lennon (06:33):
Yeah, that's a great question.
So we were talking about cleanwater and the construct of clean
water, right?
What does that mean?
And that's a little bitdifferent from safe water and
the construct of safe water.
Safe water is the water we'retalking about coming out of your
tap.
And safe water is regulated bythe Safe Water Drinking Act, and
(06:56):
it ensures that water is safechemically and bacterially to
drink.
So it's really safe enough.
Liz Canada (07:04):
Oh God.
Oh boy.
Okay.
So I turn on my faucet.
It's safe water.
But you're telling me that itmight it's it's safe enough
water.
You know what?
Good thing I don't drink anywater.
Listen.
Well, we can talk about thatseltzer water after.
Perfect.
The seltzer I'm drinking liveon the air.
So then what is clean water?
Adrienne Lennon (07:27):
Yeah.
Well, so safe water is definedby World Health Organization as
water that is free from fecalcontamination and priority
chemical contamination.
So safe enough to drink.
And clean water is somethingthat you know we've constructed
nationally, which is focusedmore on surface water.
So that's the water in therivers and lakes and streams,
(07:49):
which ensures it's clean enoughto support aquatic life and
recreation and has a restorationfocus to maintain that
chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of water,
specifically the nation'swaters.
And we'll talk more about thata little bit later.
Liz Canada (08:07):
Clean water is about uh some of the things that I
heard you say is about theorganisms and creatures in there
being able to live and thrive,as well as some other
components, and then the safewater is it's safe enough to be
able to drink that it's notgoing to actively harm me with
(08:28):
contaminants.
That's correct.
Okay.
So I assume there is some issueto water in New Hampshire
because I've heard somemurmurings of some river stuff
issues that might be in thatway.
So for someone like me whoknows very little, where should
we begin, Adrian?
Adrienne Lennon (08:49):
Well, let's start in the middle of the last
century.
We're hopping in the timemachine to the mid-1900s.
Up until mid-century 1960sAmerica, which would have been
about 200 years worth ofindustrial revolution and
development in our part of theworld, wetlands and waterways
(09:09):
were essentially treated asdumping grounds for all types of
waste.
So industrial waste, sewerage,any kind of chemicals or
hazardous, any byproduct frommaterials or factory work and
development of any kind wouldjust be discharged and released
into the waters.
(09:30):
So we like to say thatdisposed-of tires are an
obligate wetland species.
We know we're in a wetland ifwe have found some good trash.
And that's true everywhere andis a long-standing problem, but
especially true in movingwaterways and waterways that
provide drinking water topeople.
(09:51):
So mid-1900s, we were toppingit out.
Liz Canada (09:55):
We're lighting oil on fire and rivers.
They were parting it up in the60s.
Yes.
Adrienne Lennon (10:00):
Yeah, doing whatever they wanted to.
Yep.
There were no rules.
So very famously, the NashuaRiver, which is a tributary of
the Merrimack River, with manydams and mills all the way up
from the Merrimack River, allthe way up to its headwaters,
like in Lunenburg or Fitchburg,Massachusetts, or something like
that.
There were paper mills.
And the Nashua River would flowa different color every day.
(10:25):
That can be good.
That seems bad.
Not a good thing.
And so the pollution became sobad in the Nashua River that
actually no biodiversity couldsurvive.
Only, you know, pond scums,some sludge, certain forms of
bacterial and algal organismswere able to tolerate.
(10:47):
It was a completely septicenvironment in that waterway.
And that actually was one ofthe precipitating factors of our
foundational United States law,the Clean Water Act.
So it's that close to home.
Liz Canada (11:00):
The river is a different color every day.
We're totally destroying thewhole ecosystem.
The whole ecosystem we aredestroyed.
Poisoning it, yep.
Okay.
The Clean Water Act, federallaw, sounds like.
Yes, yes.
What is it?
What does it do?
Have we fixed everything withthis law?
Oh, great questions.
(11:21):
Did we do it?
Adrienne Lennon (11:23):
Is it all done?
Great questions.
Okay.
So Clean Water Act is an act, aUnited States law that expanded
on the protections of anearlier law called the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act,which was enacted in 1948.
So from 1948 to 1972, there wassome limited protection for
(11:44):
pollution control.
And then the Clean Water Actreally changed the lens and the
view of it.
Liz Canada (11:50):
We knew enough in the 40s to be like water can be
polluted.
Yes.
And then still put things inwater from factories and all
sorts of chemicals.
Adrienne Lennon (12:01):
Get ready.
Liz Canada (12:03):
Okay.
Oh no.
I thought it would be like inthe 1960s, nobody knew.
We just, oh, how does it cleanitself?
It's just cleansing.
Better living throughchemistry, right?
Adrienne Lennon (12:13):
Yeah.
No.
Oh no.
Okay.
So we knew water could bepolluted.
So before 1972, rivers wouldroutinely carry untreated
sewerage, industrial waste, allother types of contaminants.
And there was a federal law,this pollution control act,
although no enforcement.
And also funding forrestoration after these impacts
(12:36):
was very limited.
So the goal really of the CleanWater Act was to fund
restoration and attempt toenforce certain types of
pollution.
So the big move really wasshifting from, you know, we're
going to acknowledge that thisexists and we'll clean it up
later, to you need a permit topollute.
Liz Canada (12:57):
You can't do it unless you get permission in
advance.
That's correct.
Okay.
That's the best we did.
Okay.
So I am here's a permissionslip to pollute the waters.
Adrienne Lennon (13:08):
Yeah, yeah.
This is this is environmentalprotection 101.
Liz Canada (13:12):
Ooh.
Don't love any of that.
Adrienne Lennon (13:14):
I know.
I happen to really love oldpolicy.
I love reading old policybecause it's so very well
written.
It's so intentional.
It's really different from whatyou see today.
So I want to read to you thebeginning of it.
Liz Canada (13:28):
I'm not going to make a joke about how law is
created today.
I'm just going to let that oneslide.
Let it rise.
Fill in the gaps as you wish,listener.
I'm ready.
Adrienne Lennon (13:37):
Okay.
So an act to provide for waterpollution control activities in
the public health service of theFederal Security Agency and in
the Federal Works Agency and forother purposes, be it enacted
by the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives or the United
States of America in Congressassembled, et cetera, et cetera.
The objective of this act is torestore and maintain the
(13:59):
chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the
nation's waters.
Remember that phrase.
The nation's waters.
Waters.
And in order to achieve thisobjective, it is hereby declared
that consistent with theprovisions of this act, it is
the national goal that thedischarge of pollutants into the
navigable waters be eliminatedby 1985.
Liz Canada (14:24):
Oh my God.
It's like a SMART goal.
Specific, measurable.
They're like, you have to doit.
Okay.
That seems pretty clear.
All the waters got to eliminatepollutants.
By 1985.
Yep.
By 1985.
Adrienne Lennon (14:37):
And the next one is it is a national goal
that we're ever attainable andinterim goal of water quality,
which provides for theprotection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlifeand provides for recreation in
and on the water be achieved byJuly 1st, 1983.
Liz Canada (14:55):
Wow, they really set some like clear markers.
Yeah.
We're going to do that.
Really, this thing.
This is old policy.
This time.
Wow.
Okay.
Great stuff.
Okay.
All right.
Well, that was a long time ago,because I was born in 82.
So I'm excited for you to tellme that they met all those goals
and things have gotten bettersince then.
I'm ready for that big revealat the end of all this.
(15:15):
Okay.
Hold your breath.
Okay.
Host down.
Host is dead.
Hold the breath.
Adrienne Lennon (15:22):
So this goes on to say the national policy is
that discharge of toxicpollutants in toxic amounts be
prohibited.
Okay.
The national policy thatfederal financial assistance be
provided to construct publiclyowned waste treatment works,
that area-wide treatment,management, planning processes
be developed and implemented toassure adequate control of
(15:42):
sources of pollutants in eachstate, et cetera, et cetera.
There's a couple more.
So, you know, essentially whatthe Clean Water Act did was it
said, you know, we definitelycannot stop the uh capitalist
industrial machine, but we canat least try to regulate a
little bit the worst of thispollution.
And we can do it by trying toidentify the worst pollutants,
(16:06):
trying to limit that discharge,trying to reduce any new and
additional discharge by fundingrestoration efforts.
And there are a few tools.
And I don't know if any of thiswill ring a bell to you, but
sometimes this stuff comes up inthe in the public zeitgeist,
this kind of language.
But the act is broken up intosections.
(16:28):
And in the 400 sections arereally where the tools of the
act are implemented.
So there is a section whichallows for state leverage.
And it says if a project needsa federal permit or license and
could discharge into the watersof the nation, then states can
certify conditions to protecttheir water quality standards.
(16:48):
So it allows states to identifytheir own water quality
standards under this federalpermitting process.
The section establishes thispermit that's called the
National Pollutant DischargeElimination System, also known
as a Niptees permit.
Niptees.
You may have heard of.
I don't know that I have.
(17:08):
Okay.
You will hear it now.
Okay.
That regulates point sourcedischarges.
And that's pipes coming fromwastewater treatment plants, uh,
industrial facilities, andcertain stormwater systems,
right?
So those are the pipes that yousee that are just flowing out.
Niptees.
Yeah.
Should I have heard of thisbefore?
(17:29):
Is that what you're telling me?
Yeah.
I mean, if you're talkingabout, yeah, I mean, in the
whole street sweeperconversation, that should have
come up.
Liz Canada (17:38):
Okay.
Not maybe not on not on the noton the recording.
Adrian, you have to understandthat I only just barely learned
that the street sweeper helpsour water system and our water
treatment.
Everything.
I, like many people, justthought it was making the roads
look nice.
No.
So I missed that otherimportant variable.
(17:59):
I barely know that it impactsnitrogen.
And I barely know that that issomething I should have learned
in chemistry.
I don't know.
It's all coming in.
It's coming together.
The order of subjects I wasgood at in school, math was
first, shockingly.
Then it was English.
And then it's a long drop tosocial studies and science.
(18:19):
A long drop.
And look what you're doing now.
Yeah, I have a podcast.
And I make jokes.
That's all I've got.
Okay.
Never heard of it.
I'm learning.
I'm taking so many notes.
Adrienne Lennon (18:30):
Good, good.
Okay, so Niptees.
Liz Canada (18:33):
Niptees.
Adrienne Lennon (18:34):
It's it's an acronym and it stands for the
National Pollutant DischargeElimination System Permit.
And this is the uh permittingmechanism.
This is the tool of the CleanWater Act, and it regulates
point source discharges.
And those specifically are thehigh polluting discharges.
Those are coming out ofwastewater treatment systems,
(18:55):
they're coming out of industrialfacilities, and they're coming
out of stormwater systems.
So this is how the teenagemutant ninja turtles get around.
This is all the open exposuresof flowing water into waterways
now permitted by this Nipdiespermit.
It also includes this specialconsideration, which is for
(19:21):
municipal separate storm sewersystems.
And that's called MS4.
And I promise I won't be anymore jargony than that on this
subject.
Liz Canada (19:32):
If we say that too many times, someone's gonna
think it's a gang and it's gonnabe a total thing.
But yes, totally true.
Municipal and a few S's.
Adrienne Lennon (19:40):
Yeah, municipal separate storm sewer systems.
And that is specificallytalking to very old
infrastructure systems wheresewer and storm water are piped
together.
And there is a mandate toseparate them anytime you
encounter this.
(20:01):
However, in pre-industrial andindustrial cities, we have a lot
of them.
And that tells a little bit ofthe story of how we've landed
where we are in drinking watersupply in some of our bigger
waterways.
So state leverage to certifyspecific conditions and define
water quality standards, thepermit, and then another set of
(20:24):
permits specifically for dredgeand fill permitting.
What does that mean, like inregular person language?
Okay.
So let's say you are building aroad in New Hampshire.
Liz Canada (20:36):
Hopefully to affordable housing.
Adrienne Lennon (20:37):
Am I right?
Sorry.
Police, right?
So you're building a road andthere's a a well and there's a
swamp on the right hand side.
And also on the left hand side,there's some freestanding
water.
Not a ton of it, but there issome.
And it's too much to be able tosupport a actual roadway.
(20:58):
You could have a dirt road andcross over it here and there.
But if you need to actuallypave a two-lane roadway, you are
going to have to bring in fillto create that roadway.
And that is where that dredgefill permitting comes into play.
I see.
You're kind of reducing thesize of the resource for
(21:20):
whatever your developmentpurpose is.
Pretty common with roadways.
That's very helpful.
And then, of course, you know,in other sections, there's
actually very specific languageabout how much money is to be
allocated.
This is 1972, 1973 dollars.
And that is what we werethinking at the time, before
both of us were born, basically,um, in terms of improving
(21:44):
surface water quality.
And um I can report that Did wedo it?
No, we did not.
Did not.
Something that's important toknow is that the Clean Water Act
has been somewhat under a scopeattack over the last 10.
Years or so.
So the language of the actitself hasn't changed.
(22:04):
But there's been this fightaround what is the definition of
the waters of the nation.
You told me to write that down.
So the law itself hasn'tchanged, but how it's
interpreted definitely has.
And most of that is aroundwhich waters are actually
protected.
Things like wetlands and smallstreams or seasonal waters like
(22:26):
vernal pools or what we like tocall intermittent or small
streams have gone in and out ofthis federal jurisdiction of
waters of the United States,depending on the administration
and also the Supreme Court.
Liz Canada (22:41):
How?
Aren't they here?
Aren't they in the UnitedStates?
Pardon the nation?
Isn't it water in the nation?
But are they considered waters,right?
Is it sludge?
Is it muddy?
Like why?
Right.
What is surface water?
What is water?
What is water?
Right.
When you really get down to it,what is water?
Should have paid more attentionin high school science.
Adrienne Lennon (23:03):
So initially there was this kind of expansion
of federal jurisdiction, andthat was in 2015.
Follow me on the years here.
Oh god.
Liz Canada (23:12):
Remembering them well.
Adrienne Lennon (23:13):
We were also young then.
We were.
It was a different time.
Different time.
In 2015, the clean water rulewas implemented and promulgated,
and it actually expanded andclarified this federal
jurisdiction around this conceptof what's called the
significant nexus in waterways.
(23:35):
And the significant nexusdetermines if non-navigable
waters are in fact waters of theUnited States.
Liz Canada (23:44):
Non-navigable waters.
Adrienne Lennon (23:46):
Right.
So the assumption is allnavigable waters are waters of
the United States, period.
Liz Canada (23:51):
What's a navigable and a non-navigable water?
Adrienne Lennon (23:54):
Great question.
Liz Canada (23:55):
So if you can float a canoe, you're in navigable
waters.
The train is coming from Topekaat 200 miles per hour, and a
canoe is coming from theMerrimack River.
Is that canoe in navigablewater?
Adrienne Lennon (24:08):
Absolutely.
So that's not the question.
The question is smaller waterbodies, okay?
Liz Canada (24:14):
Oh my god.
Adrienne Lennon (24:15):
Smaller than you can float a canoe in.
For example, small streams andbrooks, small wetlands, vernal
pools, surface waters that areonly, you know, a couple inches
to a foot deep, things likethat.
You know, the thing aboutwetlands, small surface waters
like this, is that they don'tjust exist in a vacuum, right?
They're part of some largerhydrology.
(24:37):
So there's this assessment thatsays if there's a significant
nexus, if there is a hydrologicconnection, a presence of
surface or shallow subsurfacewater connection.
And we know, you know, waterdoesn't necessarily only travel
over the surface.
It's also traveling through theearth, all around your basement
(24:57):
foundation.
Liz Canada (24:58):
And into our basements every spring.
Yeah.
Adrienne Lennon (25:01):
When the snow melts and it rains, that is the
hydrologic connection of waterand subsurface.
I'll remember that.
Liz Canada (25:08):
When the sump pump is working hard.
Adrienne Lennon (25:10):
Yeah.
There is hydrology there.
Liz Canada (25:12):
There's that connection.
Adrienne Lennon (25:13):
Yes.
Um, you may be in the middle ofwaters of the United States.
You don't even know.
The Nexus itself.
Right.
So, and then, you know, what isthe function of that small
surface water area?
Is it storing flood waters?
So if it's adjacent to anavigable waterway, does it
provide flood storage capacity?
Is it filtering pollutants andis it transporting nutrients?
(25:35):
And then the third is thedistance, like what is the
actual distance from thissurface water and the
traditional navigable waterway?
And there's this sort ofassessment criteria that's been
established, was established in2015 that said, you know, if you
could prove these three points,then you had waters of the
(25:56):
United States.
And that significantly expandedthe protections of wetlands and
waterways by capturing all ofthese small streams and small
bogs, marshes, and vernal poolsand small wetlands that
otherwise would not have beencaptured because they're not
navigable.
So this was, of course, youknow, appealed and taken across
(26:20):
the coals in followingadministration.
In 2020, there was an attemptto narrow that federal reach,
which was later vacated.
And then in 2023, this watersof the United States rule was
overturned.
And it was overturned in thisfamous CPA case called SACIT
versus CPA.
And that again significantlynarrowed what wetlands qualify
(26:46):
as waters of the United Statesand emphasized that wetlands had
to have continuous surfaceconnection to covered waters.
So really, really rolled backprotections all the way to where
it was before.
Liz Canada (27:00):
2015, there is an expansion of what is considered
the nation's waters.
That's right.
It's giving the criteria oflike if you meet these three
things.
You're in.
You're in.
You're protected.
You're United States Sort ofprotected.
Yeah.
Sort of sort of protected.
Protected enough, right?
If you will.
Right.
Adrienne Lennon (27:20):
And then the new administration, 2016, they
seek to Um, yeah, I mean, therewas the challenge to try to roll
it back, essentially.
Liz Canada (27:28):
So that happens through that administration,
federal administration.
And then by 2023, now it's aSupreme Court case.
That's right.
Sounds like.
That's right.
The Supreme Court makes thecall of rolling it back
significantly from before the2015 protections-ish.
Adrienne Lennon (27:47):
Yeah.
In some cases, even fartherback because it required this
continuous surface connection,which essentially says navigable
waters.
And sometimes you can be innavigable waters that are
seasonally navigable and theywould still be considered
navigable waters.
But now we're calling for allseason surface connection.
Liz Canada (28:07):
So that was a 2023 Supreme Court decision.
So what does that mean for usnow?
Right.
For the nation's waters or forthe nation's not quite water.
Right.
Or not quite nation water?
I don't even know how how youwould call that, but sure.
Water that happens to benearby.
It's nearby water.
Right.
What nation does it belong to,if not the United States?
(28:28):
But it's just It's not water.
Okay.
It's not even there.
It's not American.
Not American enough.
Boy, oh boy.
Bring your birth certificate tobe a nation's water.
That's right.
That's right.
You better show your connectionto your better show your
passport if you want to becalled the nation's waters.
Adrienne Lennon (28:50):
Wow.
So this part really mattersbecause wetlands and headwater
streams are where a lot of ourwater quality protection
actually starts.
Okay.
And it's also where a lot ofour surface water drinking water
supply comes from.
So when the protections shift,it falls back onto states and
(29:12):
communities to try to figure outhow to fill in the gaps.
And that's where things likeget a little bit messy.
So ongoing Clean Water Act.
In the beginning, you know, thebest we could do was say, we
just want to clean up thewaterways.
This is how we're going to doit.
We're going to permit it.
We're going to try to fundrestoration.
Never even got close.
Now we're starting to unpack ita little bit in these ways that
(29:36):
are not obvious enough to bringa lot of attention to the
matter, but they are definitelyimpactful.
Liz Canada (29:41):
What has New Hampshire done when it comes to
having clean water?
So we have safe enough water.
Right.
What is the role of NewHampshire?
And what is the role of townsand cities as well?
Because they must have somesort of role, or else we
wouldn't be talking about waterand sewer in our town.
(30:02):
Right, right.
Adrienne Lennon (30:03):
Regulator.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
I mean, you have this federalfloor of the Clean Water Act,
and then it's the stateimplementation.
New Hampshire has establishedsurface water quality standards,
which is not true for everystate in the nation, but those
rules do include designated usesand protecting existing water
quality, not just meetingminimums.
So there's this term calledanti-degradation that's used in
(30:27):
New Hampshire surface waterquality standards essentially
says, you know, you can't leaveit worse than you found it.
So that's one thing.
There's a floor.
That seems like a floor.
It is worse than we thought.
But it does get better, okay?
Additional protections in NewHampshire that are actually
quite nice include the ShorelandWater Quality Protection Act,
(30:51):
which sets minimum standardswithin a protected shoreland
zone.
So that's a buffer zone or avegetated area that is on either
bank of a waterway and setslimits of disturbance for what
you actually can do there in aneffort to protect water quality,
which is a good thing.
It can always be better.
(31:11):
One of the challenges of theClean Water Act and the NIFTIS
permitting process around pointsource discharge is that because
they can't be improved, they'reoften, you know, subject to
significant neglect as opposedto having the system be altered
or modernized in some way.
So it's it's cost prohibitiveto go in and improve that
(31:37):
infrastructure that would causefor the discharge or to come up
with other infrastructuresolutions that would eliminate
the discharge.
And because of that, there'svery limited motivation to take
those that exist out of thesubsurface ground and come up
with a new solution.
The cost.
Right.
(32:49):
But in capital infrastructureplanning, there is always this
effort to say, okay, if we'regoing to be rebuilding a road,
then we're going to do thiswhile we're in there.
And so, yeah, I mean,Manchester has made a big
effort.
They've gotten some federaldollars to do it, I believe.
And that's really the driver isfederal dollars through things
like the Clean Water Act to tryto get this done.
(33:12):
Because again, it's notsomething that the state of New
Hampshire or that the city ofManchester can just impose upon
taxpayers to try to fund.
It's just the numbers are toobig.
So importantly, you know,operators of wastewater
treatment plants and and placeswhere we have these discharges,
they're, first of all, reallyhard to find.
(33:32):
Exceptional professionals,really talented engineers.
You know, they're not thepeople that created this
problem.
The problem existed long beforemost of us were born, but they
are very good at navigating itand trying to avoid, reduce, and
minimize.
But sometimes environmentalconditions are so extreme that
they're not really able toovercome that.
(33:54):
Like in 2023, we had a very,very wet year and we had
significant flash flooding andum, you know, aerial storm
events that caused a very highnumber of storm discharges into
our major waterways and wetlandsbecause um everything
(34:15):
overflowed and we're vulnerableto that, right?
We don't have capacity.
Interestingly, other citieslike in New Hampshire, Nashua,
up until like the 1980s, Nashuawas farmland.
People don't realize that now.
They don't think of that now.
But before Route 3 was cutthrough New Hampshire, there was
only Route 3A.
(34:36):
And Route 3A doesn't look anydifferent now than it did then.
And there were farms, big dairyfarms and, you know, other
types of agrarian practices.
There were not really millfacilities so much, except for
really in the center of the cityof Nashua.
So when Nashua was building awastewater facility, they
(34:58):
actually had so much space thatthey were able to build an
entire secondary facility forthings like these major storm
events, which, you know, othercities upstream just don't have
that option.
They never had the space in thefirst place.
They were already developed.
They were not farmland, youknow.
So everybody has kind ofdifferent challenges.
(35:19):
And the smaller themunicipality gets, the less
redundancy you have.
So you have fewer waterresources, fewer staff, tighter
budgets, and and significantlymore reliance on groundwater and
private wells.
So those land use decisions andthose budgetary decisions,
(35:40):
especially near recharge areas,areas where you have surface
waters, they can matter a lot interms of what your drinking
water is like.
Liz Canada (35:48):
How are regular people supposed to keep track of
all of this?
Adrienne Lennon (35:52):
You know, I don't know if it's necessarily
tracking, right?
It's my job to know this stuff,the policy.
I think for regular people, youknow, when you're thinking
about the local and communitylevel, you know, what first of
all, what does that mean?
When I think of the locallevel, I'm really thinking about
your property, your homeownerland.
Exactly.
(36:13):
What are you putting on yourlawn?
Are you putting fertilizers andpesticides on your lawn?
Are you putting it on rightbefore it rains?
Do you live near surface watersupply?
Where do your downspoutsdischarge to?
Are you just downspouting fromyour roof immediately off, you
(36:33):
know, surface of your lawn orsomething into a water resource
because the runoff on the roofis not clean?
Are you cutting your nativevegetation right down to water
resources, you know, because youwant a view or something like
that?
Are you preventing any kind offiltering or cooling or
stabilizing of banks so thatyour property isn't just eroding
(36:55):
into the water resource?
So that's and then if you havea septic, are you inspecting
that on a regular schedule?
Are you upgrading failedsystems?
You know, failed septic systemsare a major local water quality
and public health issue.
So, you know, as a homeowner,those are kind of the central
things is how are you caring foryour own land?
And how are your neighborscaring for the the land around
(37:18):
you too?
Right.
It has to happen at everylevel.
So, okay, so that's your localme, my home, my property, my
neighborhood level.
At the community level, guesswhat?
You have to invest instormwater upgrades and
maintenance.
You have to hire the streetsweeper.
You have to bring that streetsweeper.
We gotta do it.
It is not, it is not glamorous,but it is a huge lever for
(37:41):
surface water protection.
You have to encourageenforcement and adoption of
buffers and wetlands protectionand wellhead and recharge area
protection.
And that is especially truewhere groundwater is the main
source of drinking water.
So, you know, there are thingsyou can do at the local level in
terms of local policy toprotect.
And also, as a communitymember, you should be joining
(38:04):
your local land trust and, youknow, finding out where they're
looking at and identifying landto protect for water quality
because they're absolutely doingthat.
Um, if you have a watershedassociation related to the
watershed you're in or thewaterways in your community,
then look them up, see whatthey're up to.
(38:24):
They probably have a plan forrestoration or conservation or
other management of thewaterway.
So, you know, theseorganizations exist.
They do have influence at theregional and state level.
I just don't necessarily getenough visibility because nobody
really thinks too much aboutthe cleanliness or safety of
(38:47):
their water coming out of theirtap until it doesn't come out
anymore.
That's a very disturbingsentence you just said.
Liz Canada (38:54):
It's true.
Very true.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Bleep! with Ana Navarro
Fear thrives in silence and confusion. Ana Navarro rejects both. Her voice is an antidote to today’s chaos. Her new podcast, Bleep! with Ana Navarro, takes on today’s most pressing issues with the voices most connected to it: decision-makers, political leaders, cultural shapers, and people on the frontlines of the story. The conversations acknowledge the emotions we all feel—despair, sadness, fear— but emerge with knowledge, perspective, and hope. The belief is simple: fearless dialogue can transform fear into courage, and courage into change. When fear dominates the headlines, this show digs deeper. Because information, debate, and conversation don’t just ease fear, they give us power to shape the future.
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.