CRWA in the News

River formula creates ripples

By David Rattigan, Globe Correspondent

Boston Globe, Thursday, October 22, 2009

Joan LeBlanc first heard the news on the radio. Then the phone calls started.

“I’ve had questions from everyone,’’ said LeBlanc, executive director for the Saugus River Watershed Council. “I’ve had residents calling me saying, ‘What’s going on? I thought it was being protected.’ ’’

E-mails were flying this week, as watershed advocates across the region tried to persuade Governor Deval Patrick to rescind a change in the way the state determines how much water can be drawn from rivers. Although state officials say this is one step in a new plan to better protect waterways, conservationists fear the new method may seriously increase the amount of water drawn from already stressed rivers by removing incentives to conserve.

In rivers north of Boston, including the Ipswich and the Parker, water levels are so low that they often run dry in the summer. Advocates fear that rules allowing more draw down would mean mass fish kills and a change in the habitat that would affect birds, mammals and other wildlife.

Announced at a meeting last week,the new method prompted representatives of four major conservation groups to resign last week from the Department of Environmental Protection’s Water Resources Management Advisory Committee.

“Why would I bother spending hours going to Boston, going to these meetings, when they’re not interested in my advice?’’ said Kerry Mackin, executive director of the Ipswich River Watershed Association. Mackin resigned from the committee along with representatives of the Conservation Law Foundation, Charles River Watershed Association, and Clean Water Action.

“I would be happy to talk to the DEP if they were really interested in listening, but the reality is that for the last two years, DEP has ignored everything that the environmental community has said, and the time we’ve spent on the advisory committee has been a waste of time,’’ Mackin said. “They’ve treated us like their token environmentalists who are there to make them look good - as if they have a balanced committee - but they’re totally disregarding everything we say.’’

Environmental Protection Commissioner Laurie Burt said she was surprised by the reaction, and has tried to reconnect with the conservation groups since the resignations.

“I don’t know we’re on different sides, as much as it’s important that we come to a common understanding,’’ Burt said.

She said that the change comes as a first step in a water management overhaul that will include new methods to protect and manage water resources, and incentives to encourage water conservation practices. The initiative will include not just the Department of Environmental Projection but the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Burt said she hoped those who resigned from the board would reconsider.

“We still have a lot of work to do, and hope that we will have everybody at the table to do the good things we plan to do,’’ she said.

At issue is the announcement of a “safe yield’’ formula, used to figure the amount of water that can be withdrawn from an aquifer or well without producing unacceptable effects. It is one of the factors considered when state environmental officials issue water-allocation permits to water users. As more homes and businesses are developed, the withdrawals from water basins increase. It’s a significant reason why several watersheds north of Boston are already stressed.

The difference between the new safe-yield figures and current amounts are, in some cases, dramatic. In the Ipswich River, for example, the current allocation for withdrawal is 34.7 million gallons per day, while the new safe yield figure is 55.48 million gallons. In the nearby Parker River, which like the Ipswich oftenruns dry in the summer, the allocation is 2.5 million gallons per day, and the new safe yield is 28.48 million.

“Safe yield is now considered to be so high that it won’t be an issue and they won’t have to deal with it,’’ Mackin said. “From that standpoint, I can see where they’re coming from. It makes this thorny issue of trying to ensure that the allocations don’t exceed the river’s capacity . . . it a non-issue.’’

But Burt maintained that the 1986 Water Management Act gives a narrow definition of safe yield, which is one of 10 factors it uses in water protection. Just because the safe-yield numbers have increased, she said, it doesn’t mean that the state environmental officials will allow more water to be withdrawn.

“When we took a look at how safe yield was viewed or interpreted, it seemed that it was given more than the statute gave it, so we issued a redetermination of what safe yield was, which is really how much water you have in the ground, not how much you would issue in a permit,’’ she said. “That would require us to look at all of the factors,’’ including fisheries, ecological factors, growth projections, and more.

“The whole idea here is to have a program that will promote sustainable water management practices.’’

One thing both sides appear to agree on is that something needs to be done to protect the state’s rivers.

A continuously flowing river keeps the water cleaner and habitat more diverse.

“A lot of aquatic habitat and fish rely on the river,’’ said George Comiskey, vice president of the Parker River Clean Water Association.

Julia Blatt, executive director of the Mass. Rivers Alliance, noted that there was a positive response to the other initiatives announced last week.

“We are cautiously optimistic that will lead to something really useful,’’ she said.