Programs
and Projects
Policy and Advocacy
IRWA’s
policy and advocacy efforts focus on ensuring that state water
policies, water withdrawal permits, and regulatory decisions
are protective of ecosystem health and include prudent water
conservation measures. IRWA also comments on proposed projects
that have a significant potential to impact the Ipswich River.
The Advocacy Campaign, while very challenging and expensive for IRWA, has been necessary to achieve improved river protection. At the same time, IRWA recognizes the need and welcomes the opportunity to work collaboratively with the watershed communities to restore and protect the river through its river restoration programs.
For more information about the Advocacy Campaign, please contact Kerry Mackin.
Advocacy Campaign
IRWA Advocacy Campaign Update -
July 2007
Background: In September 1995, IRWA received a call from the Lynn Water and Sewer Commission, expressing concern that the Ipswich River had dropped precipitously at their withdrawal point in North Reading, “like the plug had been pulled out of the bathtub.” The river was in the midst of a severe low-flow “episode,” during which miles of the riverbed dried up from Wilmington to Middleton, and thousands of fish and other aquatic organisms were killed. Such episodes occurred repeatedly over a period of decades, and by 1995 were becoming more frequent and severe.
IRWA organized a meeting of water suppliers throughout the region, presenting a slide show of the river’s condition, along with a chart showing all the withdrawals that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had authorized from the Ipswich River watershed. These authorized withdrawals totaled more than 30 million gallons a day, of which almost 80% was pumped out of the watershed. A Danvers water supplier expressed the sense of the meeting, saying, “It’s evident that the river can’t even sustain the current withdrawals, let alone increases in the future.” The water suppliers urged IRWA to form a regional task force to address the low-flow issue, and a regional water conservation program.
The Ipswich River Task Force, including state agencies, water suppliers, environmentalists, businesses and others, first met in February 2006. Over the next six years, the Task Force spearheaded a series of scientific studies investigating the causes and environmental impacts of the Ipswich River’s extreme low-flow problems. These studies concluded that:
The Task Force took part in developing a Watershed Management Plan and Regional Water Conservation Plan that, among other things, emphasized the need to improve water conservation and curtail lawn watering, especially during low-flow periods.
This work was substantially complete by early 2002, when a winter drought left the river at extremely low levels. IRWA requested that DEP and the communities take action early to restrict water use in the summer peak demand period. Despite the knowledge about low-flows and actions needed to address this problem, both DEP and the communities declined to take any action to minimize water withdrawals that summer; one town even lifted restrictions at the same time the river fell below safe levels. As a result of this collective inaction, the upper river dried up completely, killing thousands of fish, and the entire river experienced dire conditions. Dirt bikes and ATVs used the riverbed as a track. The Ipswich River Watershed Association decided to take legal action so that the river would receive the protection it needs.
IRWA, along with Essex County Greenbelt Association and twelve citizens, filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in April 2003, alleging that DEP failed to provide the Ipswich River with protections required under the Massachusetts Water Management Act and the Clean Water Act. The suit alleged that this failure by DEP has caused serious damage to the environment and to the interests of the organizations and individuals filing the action. This lawsuit led DEP to issue modified water withdrawal permits later that spring. The modified permits contain conditions that are more protective than prior permits; however, the permits continue to authorize more water withdrawals than the Ipswich River can sustain, and will not prevent environmental damage. Some of the permit conditions include:
- Performance standards of 65 gallons per person per day and 10% “unaccounted-for water”
- Streamflow triggers to initiate voluntary and mandatory restrictions on “non-essential” water use, including private wells; and a seasonal cap on water withdrawals from May to September;
- A water bank/ offset provision that takes effect only if communities exceed their permitted withdrawal volume (which most communities will not do, rendering the condition ineffective)
Every community that received a water withdrawal permit filed an administrative appeal with DEP, and IRWA intervened in every appeal case to ensure that the decisions result in the strongest permits possible. Due to procedural requirements, the Intervenors withdrew the lawsuit pending the outcome of the appeals cases. This suit could be reinstated in the future, if the results of the appeals cases are not sufficient to address the issues IRWA raised.
The appeals cases are heard by Administrative Magistrates. The process for each case is quite time-consuming, involving several pre-hearing meetings, filing numerous legal briefs as well as the preparation and submittal of written testimony and rebuttals. The hearings focus on examination of the witnesses under oath and presentation of exhibits. One of the hearings was completed in one day (following two days of negotiations), but another hearing took nine days; most take 2-4 days. We have completed seven hearings, and filed testimony in two others, with the remainder scheduled for late 2007 and beyond.
Margaret Van Deusen of the Charles River Watershed Association has represented us in most of the cases, and CRWA has generously donated 50% of the legal expenses. The Conservation Law Foundation is providing pro bono legal services regarding three large surface water withdrawers – Salem-Beverly Water Supply Board and the cities of Lynn and Peabody. The issues in these cases are somewhat different than the other cases. CLF also represented IRWA in an appeal regarding an interbasin transfer for the Town of Reading. Another appeal, regarding the water withdrawal for the Turner Hill golf course, is being handled by Alexandra Deal of Stern Shapiro Weissberg and Levin; and for one case (Town of Ipswich), IRWA and its co-Petitioners have no attorney.
Thus far, the key outcomes of the cases include the following:
- Superior Court agreed with IRWA that DEP’s failure to redetermine the safe yield of the Ipswich River Basin is a violation of the Water Management Act and ordered them to do so “as soon as possible. The question they must answer is how much water is available for water supply, while retaining enough in the river to support fisheries and other functions.
- The Town of Reading stopped using its Ipswich River wells, and is now purchasing all its water from the MWRA. This action will put an end to decades of damage to the Ipswich River in Reading. IRWA’s advocacy played a key role in achieving this outcome.
- The Towns of Danvers and Middleton voluntarily settled their appeals cases. The settlements included agreements to stop using their wells adjacent to the Ipswich River during low-flow periods; impose watering restrictions based on river and reservoir levels; restrict watering by private wells; and implement an innovative “Water Demand Mitigation Program” to offset the demand due to new development.
- Final decisions were issued in the appeals by Hamilton, Wenham, Topsfield and Lynnfield, rejecting the towns’ claims that DEP acted unreasonably or illegally in imposing the requirements in the modified permits. There were modest improvements in the several requirements, including a water bank to offset new demand in Topsfield if there is a 2% increase in water connections in Topsfield in any year, and a more effective notification process for watering restrictions. Other legal rulings in these cases support IRWA’s position that DEP has broad authority and the responsibility to impose strict permit conditions to prevent damage to the river.
- Hamilton and Topsfield appealed these decisions to Superior Court, which rejected their claims and found that DEP has the authority to impose the conditions it did, including conditions regulating private wells.
- Decisions are still pending in the Wilmington, North Reading and Ipswich cases. Hearings have are not even scheduled yet in the Peabody, Salem-Beverly and Turner Hill cases. The Salem-Beverly and Peabody permits expire in 2009. Lynn abandoned their permit, and is operating with only a “registration” (grandfathered withdrawal).
- DEP issued a Water Management Act Policy and Guidance Document in April 2004, setting strict performance standards and conditions applying to “stressed basins” throughout Massachusetts, and less stringent standards for all other rivers and streams. In January 2006, DEP weakened the Policy and Guidance and delayed its full implementation until 2010, in response to a backlash from water supply interests.
- DEP has publicly stated that it considers the Ipswich River to be so seriously degraded that it will apply stricter requirements here than in other parts of the state. DEP also publicly announced that they are considering regulating withdrawals of 10,000 gallons per day and up, instead of the current 100,000 gallon per day threshold.
We have already proven the legitimacy of our claims and that these decisions will lead to measurable progress in the restoration of the Ipswich River. We have made great progress, but we still have a lot of work to do. We need to raise $15,000 to cover our current and upcoming obligations. If we cannot devote sufficient resources to complete the cases effectively, we run the risk of losing ground and failing to achieve sufficient protection of the river.
IRWA is also taking a leadership role in river protection at a statewide level. This includes providing testimony and comments on state water policies and implementation of state law, and participating in a number of advisory committees and task forces which have been created to address the need to improve river protection, especially in regard to water quantity and streamflow. The Massachusetts Water Policy, issued in 2004, emphasizes measures to “balance the water budget” that IRWA has strongly advocated. IRWA continues to work locally as well, doing presentations to municipal boards about the Ipswich River and how it is affected by local actions and decisions.
IRWA’s Advocacy Campaign is widely respected and recognized as an important element in efforts to improve protection of Massachusetts rivers. We are tremendously grateful to our Advocacy Campaign supporters!
Back
to Top of Page
State
Water Policies
IRWA’s
Executive Director, Kerry Mackin, serves on a number of statewide
committees and task forces, and has provided input in the
development of a number of state policies and initiatives.
These include:
IRWA
also represents the public interest and the Commonwealth’s
rivers on the Massachusetts Streamflow Task Force and the
Water Resource Management Advisory Committee. Check out the factsheet Letting Nature Run Its Course: A Case for Natural Streamflow for information about supporting legislation beneficial to the Commonwealth's rivers and streams.
Additional
links to Massachusetts water resource laws and policies can
be found at http://www.mass.gov/envir/water/waterLawsPolicies.htm.
Back
to Top of Page
Recent
Comment Letters
IRWA
often comments on state policies and regulations. Here are
links to some recent comment letters.
Views of Massachusetts Rivers under the WMA: Dry, Dying, Depleted and Degraded (2005) (PowerPoint)
CAUTION: This is a very large file - approximately 48MB - and may take some time to download depending on the speed of your internet connection.
Comments on the Proposed changes to Water Management Act (WMA) Guidance Document (2007) (pdf)
Comments on Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report,
Town of Reading Admission to MWRA Water Supply System (2007) (pdf)
Comments on Notice of Project Change, Town of Reading Admission to MWRA Water Supply (2006) (pdf)
Comments on Town of Wilmington Supplemental Final Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (CRWMP)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Application for an Interbasin Transfer (2006) (pdf)
Comments on Proposed Expansion of MWRA Water Supply System (2006) (pdf)
Comments on Massachusetts Water Quality Standards “Triennial Review” (2006) (pdf)
Comments
on Draft Pathogen TMDL for the Ipswich River Watershed (2005)
(pdf)
Back
to Top of Page
Press Releases and Recent News Features
|
