Sustainable Water Resources Project

Introduction | CRWA in the Ipswich | WMA Policy | Charles WMA Permits and Registrations | Legislation

Traditionally "water-rich," Massachusetts receives about 45 inches of rain every year. Yet eastern Massachusetts is literally running out of water. The result: low streamflows that cannot support fish and habitat, increased water pollution, the spread of aquatic nuisance plants, dwindling water supplies, and a steady decline in the ecological integrity of our water resources.

Over the past decade CRWA has identified the root causes of the water shortages occurring in the Charles River watershed and other urban-suburban basins. Uncontrolled, high impact development and traditional approaches to water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, stormwater management, and zoning have dramatically altered the natural water cycle and streamflow regimes.

Recognizing that many towns in the watershed are pursuing water resource practices that are unsustainable and that are drying up tributaries and dewatering aquifers, For close to a decade, CRWA has been working to reverse these outcomes. We designed or promoted solutions such as treating wastewater to drinking water standards and infiltrating it into the ground near where the water was originally drawn, and using cisterns and drywells to water lawns and to reconnect rainwater to the ground to replenish aquifers. CRWA also developed planning tools to help communities identify and protect critical areas for water resource protection, design sustainable water supply and wastewater management solutions, and make sound infrastructure plans. We also developed a computer tool for determining the "water budgets" of sub-basins across the state. The goal of our Sustainable Water Resources project is to recreate, or mimic, the natural hydrologic cycle in the urban environment and to restore natural streamflow.

CRWA developed its Blue Cities initiative to incorporate environmentally-sensitive urban design that sustains and restores water resources in redevelopment projects. It is also promoting low impact development techniques for stormwater management such as green roofs, rain gardens, biofiltration swales and "green streets." To learn more this work, visit our Environmentally Sensitive Urban Development project page.

Because good science and sound design were not alone capable of changing outcomes at the necessary pace, we also turned to the law. In late 2002, CRWA launched a multi-year effort to reform state water law, policy and practice to protect aquatic habitat and streamflows. We identified both gaps in existing laws and regulations and failures by state agencies to implement them fully.

An obvious failure involved the Water Management Act (WMA), G.L. c. 21G, administered by the MA Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), which governs large water withdrawals over 100,000 gallons per day. While communities in the Metro Boston area receive their water from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's Quabbin system (except Cambridge which has its own reservoir), those outside Route 128 and in the upper watershed are dependent on ground water wells and reservoirs for their water supply. Click here for a list of watershed communities and their drinking water sources (coming soon!). While these withdrawals are regulated under the WMA, MassDEP has failed for over a decade to implement the Act's key proscription against permitting withdrawals that exceed the "safe yield," or the amount of water that can be withdrawn from a basin while maintaining reasonable flows for ecological integrity. The result: dry streambeds, declining fish species, aquatic habitat destruction and higher pollutant loadings to rivers and streams.

CRWA goes to the Ipswich

In 2003, CRWA's counsel, representing Ipswich River Watershed Association, Essex County Greenbelt Assoc. and citizens, filed suit against MassDEP for its violations of the WMA in the Ipswich basin. The upper Ipswich River regularly goes dry in the summer and a major culprit is the volume of water withdrawals authorized by MassDEP.

Low flows in the Ipswich River

DEP responded with revised WMA permits that for the first time required reduced outdoor lawn watering when streamflows are low, a total cap on summer water withdrawals, performance standards for residential use and "unaccounted for water," and a water bank (a program to offset new water demand) if water use exceeds a community's total allocation.

All 11 public water suppliers in the Ipswich basin -- municipalities and water boards -- challenged their permits administratively. Because outcomes in the Ipswich would set the bar for water management in the Charles and across the state, on behalf of environmentalists, CRWA intervened in all of the appeals. We tried six appeals involving Ipswich groundwater withdrawals before an Administrative Magistrate, another two settled, and Conservation Law Foundation stepped in to handle the three surface water withdrawal appeals. The environmentalists asserted that given the dire condition of the Ipswich River and its over-allocation for water withdrawals, the permits needed to be stronger. Click on the town name to the right to read the Post-Hearing Memoranda filed by the Intervenors containing the facts and legal arguments.

All of the cases decided to date have upheld MassDEP's new conservation-oriented conditions. Click here to read the Legal Rulings and Administrative Magistrate's Recommended Final Decisions in appeals by Wenham, Topsfield, Hamilton and Lynnfield. The Magistrate also ruled that MassDEP's system for determining how much water can be removed from a basin without environmental damage, or its "safe yield," is "utterly broken," however he declined to order the agency to do anything about it.

MassDEP Commissioner Robert Golledge adopted the Magistrate's decisions and two towns, Hamilton and Topsfield appealed to Superior Court. The Commissioner's Final Decisions can be read by clicking here. The environmentalists also appealed the Hamilton decision on the grounds that the safe yield of the basin was still being exceeded.

In June, 2007 the Massachusetts Superior Court issued a decision in the Topsfield case upholding the permit's water conservation requirements and the creation of a water bank if its water demand increases that at a minimum, will save two gallons of water for every gallon of new demand.

The Hamilton decision issued in July is a landmark ruling on river protection. The decision upheld the conservation-based permit requirements but also ordered MassDEP to determine the "safe yield" of the Ipswich River "as soon as possible." The Court agreed with CRWA and Ipswich River Watershed Association's (IRWA) claim that the WMA required DEP to make such a determination when it issued a revised water withdrawal permit to Hamilton.

These decisions are a great victory for the Ipswich River, conservationists, and others concerned about preserving river flow throughout the Commonwealth. Hamilton appealed to the Appeals Court and CRWA cross-appealed on behalf of IRWA on the grounds that the judge should have ordered Hamilton to implement an immediate water banking program while MassDEP redetermines the Ipswich basin's safe yield. The appeal is currently being briefed and will be heard this Spring.

Post-Hearing Memoranda filed by the Intervenor-environmentalists:

• Hamilton
• Lynnfield Center
• North Reading
• Wenham
• Wilmington

Administrative Decisions and information on Wenham, Topsfield, Hamilton and Lynnfield cases:

• Administrative Magistrate's recommended final decisions
• DEP Commissioner's final decisions
• Superior Court Decisions in Topsfield and Hamilton

Read CRWA and IRWA's press release on the Hamilton decision

WMA Policy

CRWA pushed for MassDEP to adopt the Ipswich WMA permit conservation requirements in the Charles' permits. MassDEP subsequently adopted many of the Ipswich conditions as state WMA policy and guidance. The policy applies to high and medium stressed basins. The Charles is formally classified as medium stressed; however, the headwaters in reality are highly stressed. A furor by water suppliers and municipalities ensued and DEP issued guidance that eliminated some permit provisions and relaxed others. Suppliers continued to challenge the legality of the policy and the science behind it, and expressed concern about the loss of revenue from the conservation measures. CRWA issued a paper, Water Resource Conservation and Restoration in Massachusetts, explaining the importance of water conservation and the engineered impacts to the natural water cycle

                                                                
Click on the image on the left to see a graphic of the natural water cycle; click on the image on the right to see a graphic of the engineered/urban water cycle.
(Images courtesy Auckland City Council, New Zealand)

Public water suppliers took their grievances to the legislature, which in June, 2005, created a "blue ribbon" panel to study the effectiveness of the WMA policy. The panel heard presentations on the lawfulness of the policy, the supporting science, and pro and con economic arguments, and then issued an "interim" report. The WMA Blue Ribbon Panel report is mainly a recitation of the suppliers' concerns and has no recommendations. A cover letter to the report by then Office of Commonwealth Development Director Andrew Gottlieb, however, provides a perceptive and succinct summary of the real issues. Gottlieb concluded that the WMA policy basically "got it right" and identifies the loss of revenue from conservation as the real issue. Click here to read Gottlieb's letter. CRWA's letter to the panel on behalf of many environmental groups discussing the legal requirement of safe yield can be read by clicking here. In January, 2006, MassDEP capitulated and issued new WMA guidance that weakened requirements to reduce summertime outside watering when streamflows are low.

The Charles River WMA Permits and Registrations

MassDEP is required to review the 20-year WMA permits every five years under its regulations. That review should have taken place in 2004 for the Charles River watershed permits but has been delayed due to the protests by public water suppliers. Under the WMA 2006 Guidance, towns will have several years to bring residential water use down to 65 residential gallons per capita day (rgpcd) and to reduce water losses (unaccounted for water) to 10% or less. CRWA is urging MassDEP to impose these conditions across the board in the Charles and to require reduced outdoor watering when flows are low, similar to modified permits already issued to Franklin and Medway. The Charles WMA permits will expire in February 2009.

CRWA commented extensively on draft permits for Franklin, Medway and Medfield. Click the links to the right to read CRWA's comments on these revised permits.

At the end of 2007, MassDEP renewed the registered, or grandfathered, withdrawals in existence when the WMA was enacted. For the first time these withdrawals, which are good for the next ten years, are subject to the 65 rgpcd and 10% or less unaccounted for water standards. Many water suppliers appealed claiming MassDEP had no authority to condition registrations. In the Charles, Cambridge, Wellesley, Millis, Medfield, Needham and Franklin appealed their revised registrations. Medfield also filed suit against MassDEP. CRWA is prepared to bring its technical and legal expertise to these appeals to ensure that they are upheld

CRWA Comments on draft Charles River watershed WMA permits:

• Franklin

• Medfield

• Medway

Legislation

In the summer of 2007, with the Lawyers Committee of the Environmental League of MA, Trout Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy, CRWA drafted legislation (House 833) requiring the state to develop streamflow standards that are protective of natural aquatic life. We are also supporting a bill that will give municipalities and water suppliers tools to help manage water supplies.

• Fact sheet on streamflow

• Fact sheet and legislation on water banking

Back to top