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