CRWA in the News

State water plan revised 

Complaints prompt phasing-in of limits 

By Tim Wacker, Boston Globe | September 22, 2005

After bitter complaints by several towns that tap into the Ipswich River, the state has proposed phasing in conservation policies that restrict Massachusetts residents to using only 65 gallons of water a day.

An initial 72-gallon limit is among several proposed changes to a year-old policy designed to reduce water use by nearly 30 percent in areas with troubled water supplies. The change of heart comes after an outcry and legal challenges from communities claiming the conservation measures are too strict.

''We have not backed off our policies," said Duane LeVangie, the chief of the Water Management Act section of the state Department of Environmental Protection. ''We've just provided some flexibility to suppliers. We have given them some choices. We're not changing the policy; we're just articulating it."

Under the proposal, which must still be adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection, communities would have two years to meet a 72-gallon-per-day limit and another three to meet the 65-gallon-per-day limit. Before the conservation policy was implemented last year, there was no state limit on individual consumption.

The revised policy, LeVangie said, is a way of phasing in compliance with the original policy over five years.

But some environmental groups argue that the state is retreating from conservation policies mandated in many state water pumping permits issued in the past year. Those policies have yet to be enforced, however, due to objections from water suppliers and conservationists alike.

While communities have claimed that the 65-gallon limit is too strict, the Charles River and Ipswich River watershed associations and the Massachusetts Conservation Law Foundation have filed legal challenges, saying the policy as originally written doesn't go far enough to protect water supplies. The proposed revisions, they say, will just make matters worse.

''The [state] is backing off their policy and that's as a result of pressure from water suppliers," said Kerry Mackin, executive director of the Ipswich River Watershed Association. ''The environmental community was completely left out. We were not party to this."

The proposed revisions were unveiled last Thursday at a joint meeting of the state's Water Standard Advisory Committee and a task force created this summer to help communities cope with state conservation efforts. The final say lies with LeVangie, who said he will make his decision near the end of the month.

As originally written, the state's water conservation policy also required water suppliers to reduce the amount of water lost through system leaks by 33 percent. Under the revisions, communities would be given additional time to meet that goal.

Changes were also made to ease a complicated formula of environmental conditions, laid out in the original policy, which triggered when communities had to impose restrictions on outdoor water use, such as watering lawns, washing cars, and filling swimming pools.

Communities would have two years to comply with the revised policy. If they did not, the state would order them to enact conservation measures necessary to do so, LeVangie said. During the following three years, communities would have to prove they were moving closer to the original 65-gallon standard.

''If you don't make the changes, you will have to submit an explanation why and we'll give you a list of changes to make," LeVangie said. ''If you do make the changes, then you will avoid enforcement actions."

Enforcement eventually could include fines, LeVangie said. However, he said, the state is more interested in conserving water than collecting money.

No fines have ever been issued for past violations of water pumping permits, but the state wants to crack down on water waste. Communities statewide are drawing down ground-water supplies faster than they can be replenished and streams and rivers are going dry as a result.

Nowhere more so than the Ipswich River, which reached record low flows the second week in September, Mackin said. Representatives of the Ipswich River and Charles River watershed associations argue that the state needs to strengthen conservation measures, not ease the ones it has in place already.

''These were not Draconian measures the DEP was proposing. They were long overdue," said Margaret Van Deusen, an attorney for the Charles River Watershed Association. ''These very low stream flows are the canaries in the coal mines. People can't see what's going on in the underground aquifers now but there are growing water deficits, possibly severe deficits, that we will see in the next decade."

Just as adamant in its opposition to state's water conservation efforts is the Massachusetts Water Works Association. It has lobbied the state on behalf of communities affected by the conservation efforts, saying the state hasn't proved that the proposals will work.

''Our concern is the development of water policies without the scientific data that shows they will accomplish what they say they will," said Carol Harris the organization's executive director. ''We need them to document that."

Harris declined to comment specifically on the proposed revisions because she had not seen them. They are still in draft form and the Department of Environmental Protection is awaiting comment from its advisory committee and the focus group before formally adopting them at the end of this month, LeVangie said.

Topsfield is one of 10 communities challenging the original state policies, which have been appealed to Department of Environmental Protection administrative law judges. Topsfield public works director William Wood also has not seen the proposed policy revisions but welcomed them just the same.

''I'm glad that people are doing something about it," he said.

CRWA home | Site map