CRWA
in the News
Water cap proposal irks
town
By Russ Olivo, Staff Writer
The
Woonsocket Call, October 5, 2006
BELLINGHAM -- Rankled by a state Department of Environmental
Protection proposal to cap the amount of water the town may draw from
its wells, town officials are threatening legal action against the
agency. At issue is a proposal that would force the fast-growing town to
live with a maximum draw of 1.47 million gallons of water per day, far
less than the 3.1 million allowed under current permits.
Bellingham is the latest in a string of cities and towns grappling with
forced conservation measures under the Water Management Act of 2004,
designed to conserve supplies in the Ipswich and Charles River basins,
as well as other areas described as stressed water sources. But Public
Works Director Donald F. DiMartino says the initiative would leave no
room for the town to grow.
"It infringes on development," said DiMartino. "How are we supposed to
deal with proposed projects that come into Bellingham? Will we have to
go to the state to beg water that we were approved to use last year?"
The proposed cap is based on the town’s average daily demand in 2005,
said DiMartino.
Bellingham is the latest in a string of cities and towns grappling with
forced conservation measures under the Water Management Act of 2004,
designed to conserve supplies in the Ipswich and Charles River basins,
as well as other areas described as stressed water sources. But Public
Works Director Donald F. DiMartino says the initiative would leave no
room for the town to grow.
Facing unprecedented residential and commercial growth, the town
invested some $3 million in the last several years to build a new well
and filtration plant in order to boost production capacity. The proposed
cap would almost certainly put the brakes on development and rob the
town of the benefits of the anticipated growth in the tax base the
investment was designed to accommodate, according to DiMartino.
The proposed cap surfaced in a preliminary request for information DEP
is seeking from the town in the opening of negotiations on a new 5-year
water permit with the agency, said DiMartino.
DEP wants Bellingham to live within the cap or a 65-gallon per person
daily limit by 2008, said DiMartino. The 65-gallon per person limit is
slightly more restrictive than actual water consumption levels in 2005,
he said.
While some restrictions in the proposed permit appear on track to take
hold by 2008, DiMartino said DEP also seeks a two-day per week ban on
outdoor water use from May 30-Sept. 30, 2007.
In addition to putting a stranglehold on development, DiMartino says the
restrictions could deplete revenues to the Water Department by some
$200,000 annually, particularly in low-rainfall years. If the town
cannot lift the cap to let residents water lawns and gardens, said
DiMartino, the Water Department will take in less revenue from water
sales.
After DiMartino notified the Board of Selectmen of the permit proposal
this week, members responded by voting to take legal action, if
necessary, to break free of the cap. Town Administrator Denis C. Fraine
said the town is considering joining forces with a growing list of
communities concerned about similar "forced conservation" orders from
DEP.
"We’ve spent thousands of dollars to put ourselves in an enviable
position as far as water production is concerned," said Fraine. "Now
we’re being told we can’t utilize that capacity."
Charles Aspinwall, town administrator in Millis, Mass., sits on an ad
hoc legislative commission known as the Water Management Act Blue Ribbon
Panel, assigned to study the impact of the new regulations. So far, said
Aspinwall, a number of cities and towns, from North Reading and Hamilton
to Danvers and Franklin, are in same stage of appealing state
conservation orders. Some of the disputes date back to 2004 and they are
already in court, he said.
Among other things, said Aspinwall, the commission questions both the
legal and scientific basis for the Water Management Act. DEP, he said,
unilaterally adopted the change in water policy without input from
outside experts or sound evidence that it will protect the threatened
river basins.
"There’s a lot of questions on the science of the issue and whether the
policy is going to do what DEP purports it will do," said Aspinwall.
"The policy was developed internally by DEP without influence by
watershed organizations. Certainly they did not ask for input from
municipalities or water suppliers."
In Millis, restrictions similar to those facing Bellingham threaten the
town’s plans to breathe new economic vitality into the Main Street
commercial district, a sorely needed source of revenue for the town’s
starved coffers, said Aspinwall. In marked contrast to the state’s water
conservation policy, the state urged the town to embark on the
redevelopment with a generous planning grant.
"One side is saying move along these lines, while another is saying
we’re not going to give you the water to do that," Aspinwall said.
The panel is to report back to the legislature’s Natural Resources
Commission by February, said Aspinwall.
DEP spokesman Joseph Ferson, meanwhile, portrayed the permit proposal in
Bellingham as the opening of a flexible negotiation with the town.
"As far as them demonstrating the need for additional water, that’s part
of the process we would go through with them," Ferson said. "We would
work with them to accommodate growth."
Before taking any further action, DEP will wait to see how the town
responds to the initial request for information it received with the
agency’s proposed permit caps, said Ferson.
DiMartino said DEP wanted a reply by Oct. 13, but he is asking the
agency to wait until December.
CRWA home | Site
map
|