At the request of constituents, Sen. Jacalyn Cilley (D-Barrington) will hold a meeting with area citizens in Barrington Thursday night to discuss the issue of large groundwater withdrawals and recent legislation passed on groundwater protection.

In the wake of the long-time controversy about permitting for the USA Springs bottled water project in Nottingham, Cilley told Front Door Politics the meeting was necessary to explain recently passed laws (Senate Bill 411 and Senate Bill 369). She said they will provide a higher level of protection for local ordinances and regulations and a greater opportunity for municipalities to have a voice in the groundwater withdrawal permitting process.

“I’ve heard concerns that there are too many loopholes,” Cilley said. But she said these laws have additional measures to insure “good science, good decision making and a good partnership” in the permitting process between state regulators at the Department of Environmental Services and local communities.

Cilley also will discuss the findings of the Large Groundwater Withdrawal Commission, which will cease meeting after Nov. 1 of this year. Cilley will be joined by Bill McCann, a public member of the House Bill 1353 Committee that was tasked with holding nine public meetings throughout the state to discuss the role of municipalities in the groundwater withdrawal permitting process. Cilley said that McCann will talk about the committee’s final report, which recommends a more formal and substantive role for municipalities in the permitting process.

The Nottingham project is on hold due to the current bankruptcy status and potential sale of USA Springs. Several years ago, the company was granted a 10-year permit (to expire in 2014) to withdraw as much as an estimated 400,000 gallons a day from a local aquifer. Cilley said frustration and skepticism over that permit being granted has not faded away.

“They (local residents) live with this daily,” Cilley said.

>> The public meeting on groundwater protection will be held at IBEW 104 Hall (formerly known as the Sugar Shack), 312 Route 4 in Barrington on Thursday, Oct. 7 at 7 p.m.

This Daily Update was written by Michael McCord.

Supporters hope the bill will end any confusion about state vs. local authority over the permitting and siting of large groundwater withdrawals. Senate Bill 411 maintains current law—that DES is the sole permitting entity—while also stressing that applicants still must comply with local zoning and site plan regulations.

In other words, says Rep. Judith Spang (D-Durham), chair of a special groundwater study commission, “The fact that they may have a permit does not guarantee them the ability to do the withdrawal if it doesn’t meet local ordinances.”

This tug-of-war has mired the permit process for several years, since the USA Springs bottled water controversy erupted in Nottingham. That project is on hold while the Pelham-based company’s 2008 bankruptcy filing is sorted out. USA Springs sought to pump close to 310,000 gallons of water per day from three wells, tapping a groundwater reserve beneath the towns of Nottingham and Barrington. The water would be bottled on-site and sold in Italy.

“Clearly, the issue is ripe here in the Southeast (of New Hampshire) because of the USA Springs debacle,” says Bill McCann of Dover. He was appointed by Gov. John Lynch to the groundwater commission, and he also sits on the board of Save Our Groundwater, a group that’s been fighting USA Springs for nearly a decade.

Many USA Springs opponents thought the DES “rode roughshod over locals,” McCann says. But he wondered, “Is it like this all over the state?” The commission held several public hearings to find out and repeatedly concluded the laws were not clear whether the state or municipalities had final say over large groundwater withdrawals.

state-town cooperation

Bills similar to SB 411 have passed the House before but failed in the Senate, McCann says. This time, they introduced the measure in the Senate and rallied support. He says all who testified at the Senate hearing were in favor.

“The bill has been criticized by some locals who thought we should take power away from DES,” McCann says. But he believes the state and towns must work together to protect the public interest. Besides, he reasons, the DES has better access to science.

And more science is next on McCann’s to-do list. Most towns can’t afford to contract their own scientific studies, he says, “and a lot of people aren’t happy with the way DES handles wetlands.”

One solution he’d like is to give municipalities more tools to conduct their own studies. McCann proposes towns be allowed to charge applicants for the cost of studying the impact of their proposed projects. It would empower towns to focus on concerns of particular interest to the site plan review, for example—an area not necessarily considered by DES. A bill to that effect was tabled last year.

Sarah Pillsbury, an administrator with DES, respectfully disagrees with the assessment that her agency doesn’t consider enough factors when deciding on permits. She maintains that localities have ample opportunity to express any concerns during the decision-making process, and still more chances to appeal any permits that are issued.

more on tap

The Commission to Study Issues Relative to Groundwater Withdrawals was formed in 2003 and, after two extensions, expires this November. Spang has found the commission productive and sees a lot more work that could happen, but she is reluctant to ask more time of its members or demand more resources from DES.

Nonetheless she is downright giddy about some forthcoming ideas—especially a model that would encourage towns to make land use decisions based on scientific assessments of current and future water supplies. Spang says it’s not clear whether or not towns currently have the right to set up such standards.

One development that could come from the model is a municipal permitting process for small groundwater withdrawals. It would not likely be applied to single residential wells, for example, but it could affect individual wells that serve several households.

other news

Much to Gov. Lynch’s dismay, the Senate approved a bill on March 24 to expand legal gambling in six locations around the state. With a vote of 14-10, Senate Bill 489 has moved on to the House, where it will receive a public hearing March 30. The House has killed Senate-approved gaming bills in the past, but many wonder if the current recession and ongoing budget shortfalls may nudge some representatives into support for gambling.

It may not matter. Gov. Lynch has indicated he would probably veto such legislation.

Lynch is still waiting for his Gaming Study Commission to finish the work it started last September. That group will hold two public hearings in Conway and Manchester on April 6 from 6 to 8 p.m. More information is available online at www.nh.gov/gsc or by phone at 603-271-3556 ext. 314.

New Hampshire is relatively water rich—somewhat of a luxury in today’s climate of heightened demand for the essential elixir. But the plentiful resource also means there’s more to protect. Two water conservation programs in the state are brimming with growth, yet some controversy still swirls over who should be in charge of the water system that flows beneath the ground.

future water supplies

HB 45, Rep. Susan Kepner (D-Hampton)
House Vote Thursday, Feb. 12: Ought to Pass
House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee (17-0)

The idea behind the Water Supply Land Conservation Grant Program is to prevent contamination of drinking water by controlling the land where the water is found. New Hampshire started the program in 2000, and nearly 850 acres (mostly in the southern part of the state) have been preserved in the last three years by the towns or nonprofit organizations that received grant funding. Conserved land is closed to development, only allowing recreation, agriculture and forestry in its boundaries.

House Bill 45 would expand eligibility for the land grants, allowing not only current water sites but also possible future water supplies to be protected. The bill does not increase state funding for the program, which fluctuates from $1.5 million to as low as $100,000, depending on the year.

protecting rivers

HB 58, protecting portions of the Cocheco River, Mike Kappler (R-Raymond)
HB 102, rivers management program, Mike Kappler (R-Raymond)
House Votes Thursday, Feb. 12: Ought to Pass With Amendment
House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee (18-0)
HB 452, protecting portions of the Ammonusuc River, Scott Merrick (D-Lancaster)
not yet scheduled, House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee

The Rivers Management and Protection Program, established in 1988, protects 15 rivers (or segments of them) around the state “for their outstanding natural and cultural resources.” This year, that number might go up, and so might the number of reasons to protect them.

House Bill 58 would add portions of the Cocheco River in Dover, Rochester and Farmington to the program. And while parts of the Ammonoosuc River—from the White Mountain National Forest to Haverhill, N.H., where it merges with the Connecticut River—are already in the program, House Bill 452 would add two more sections.

Among many the many points of clarification offered by House Bill 102, an essential change would add ecology to the economic and social aspects of the program’s mission. The bill would also add protect hydropower potential; declare that the state’s water quality standards should the utmost priority; and add tributary drainage area to the criteria for nominating a new river for protection.

An additional change comes in a recommended amendment to the bill, adding “public safety” and “public water supply” to the nominating criteria.

Also, the program’s advisory committee is currently required to have three members from the North Country, but new language would loosen this a bit, simply requiring diverse geographical representation from around the state.

If approved, these acts would all take effect within 60 days after their passage.

groundwater control

HB 60, local control over groundwater withdrawals, James Garrity (R+D-Atkinson)
House Floor Thursday, Feb. 12: Inexpedient to Legislate (Majority), Ought to Pass (Minority)
House Municipal and County Government Committee

The high profile USA Springs water bottling project in Nottingham has been on hold since June 2008, when the company filed for bankruptcy. But, many other groundwater projects are in full operation in the state, and the debate over how the resource is managed—and by whom—charges on.

House Bill 60 would change the existing Groundwater Protection Act to place control over groundwater in the towns where the resource is found. Since groundwater flows without regard to town boundaries, the act currently gives control to the state.

The majority of the House Municipal and County Government Committee isn’t quite ready for this shift, although they’re not necessarily opposed to it, either. Writing in opposition, Rep. Raymond Gagnon (D-Claremont) points out that the state’s groundwater study commission, established in 2003, is due to file a report this November. The report will include recommendations on the criteria for large groundwater withdrawls , and on towns’ role in groundwater management. To pass HB 60 now would be to jump the gun, he argues, since the commission has not yet completed its study.

But the committee’s minority isn’t quite ready to give up, and they claim that the bill should pass for some of the very same reasons the majority thinks it shouldn’t. “… (T)he nature, extent and capacities of aquifers within the state are unknown,” writes Rep. James Sullivan on behalf of the bill’s supporters. And while the majority takes this to mean that the study commission should be given time to do its work, Sullivan claims that it’s all the more reason “for local control of a finite resource which is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of every township in this state.”

Is groundwater a state or local resource?  
Share your thoughts below.

And remember, our online learning center and a complete list of proposed laws for 2009 is available here at Front Door Politics: from the State House to your house.

© 2009 Niles Media “Front Door Politics” all rights reserved