12 



ate that that statement prevails given the currently available sci- 

 entific information. 



In Boston, we are already witnessing how a fragile estuary can 

 come back to life when we implement pollution prevention meas- 

 ures. The cessation of sludge discharges to the harbor in 1991 when 

 the new fertilizer plant opened has resulted in a significantly 

 cleaner water quality in the harbor. Improvements to MWRA and 

 local water systems and sewer systems and dramatic reductions in 

 toxics discharged by industry have yielded healthier flounder, lob- 

 sters and other marine life, as previously dead areas of the harbor 

 now provide habitat for the bottom of the food chain. In addition, 

 harbor beaches have been opened for swimming more frequently 

 this past summer than at anytime in the past 50 years. 



While we can all be proud of these recent achievements, by far 

 the most dramatic improvements are yet to come, with the comple- 

 tion of the new treatment facilities and the relocation of the efflu- 

 ent discharged out of the shallow waters of the harbor, where their 

 impacts are so negative, both to the harbor and to the bays. It is 

 for this last reason that clearing the hurdles of the Endangered 

 Species Act, that the biological assessment and the biological opin- 

 ion are so important. 



Now, on two key points contained in the NMFS opinion. On mon- 

 itoring. We MWRA ratepayers are now funding an extensive pro- 

 gram of monitoring in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. We 

 collect samples 214 days a year. About half of these days are spent 

 sampling in Massachusetts Bay. We collect 10,000 samples, which 

 yield 200,000 chemical results annually. Analyses are published 

 regularly and widely reviewed, and our water quality model is con- 

 tinuously fine-tuned with the testing results. Our annual outflow 

 monitoring budget is $2.5 million. These investments have lever- 

 aged about a million dollars in annual funding from USGS and 

 NOAA's Sea Grant Program, and the Massachusetts Bays Program 

 has contributed another million dollars. 



Our ratepayers will continue to do their part, but opportunities 

 must be created for others to participate. We are heartened that up 

 to $200,000 for monitoring and research will be available through 

 the newly designated Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 

 Thanks, Congressman Studds, to you for that. 



EPA has received a special $400,000 appropriation to study eu- 

 trophication. Additionally, the Commonwealth Open Space Bond 

 Bill includes $7 million for coastal monitoring. Other moneys are 

 available from the Federal Government, including potentially, de- 

 fense conversion money. 



To finish quickly and talk for a moment about contingency plan- 

 ning, which I am sure we will have an opportunity to talk about in 

 the question period. We are committed to contingency planning. I 

 think the comments of Mr. Kotelly about the appropriate scope of 

 contingency planning are well-taken. We intend to work with ev- 

 eryone involved to see that the contingency plans are soundly con- 

 ceived and drawn. 



We are very interested, as we have explained to the staff and dis- 

 cussed on other occasions, in the application of the principles of 

 trigger planning to contingency planning. We can talk a little bit 

 more about that if you would like. 



