The New Hampshire House of Representatives has voted to study a measure designed to change how the state regulates groundwater. Senate Bill 410 proposes giving municipalities more voice in the permitting process. It also grants the Department of Environmental Services the authority to consider future use of the resource. NHPR?s Dan Gorenstein has more.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives has voted to study a measure designed to change how the state regulates groundwater. Senate Bill 410 proposes giving municipalities more voice in the permitting process. It also grants the Department of Environmental Services the authority to consider future use of the resource. NHPR?s Dan Gorenstein has more.
Republican Representative John Gallus from Berlin echoed many who supported studying SB 410, rather than passing the bill.
:22 we need not rush into a course of action that is not required. There is no flaw in the current permitting practice. The sky is not falling.
But Durham Democrat Judith Spang says the sky is falling. And she offered this hypothetical situation.
2:51 A profit making company comes into town, they put in a permit application to take water out of your aquifer. If you are a town like Durham, you?ve done a master plan that includes a long-range water resource plan, and decided you were going to be proactive, so you buy the land over your aquifer. It turns out that this application for the bottling company is going to locate right next to your aquifer. DES at this time is unable to prevent that applicant from taking all the water from that aquifer.
Spang warned legislators without immediate action, their constituents could face the same dilemma of Nottingham and Barrington residents. There the company, USA Springs, wants to build a water bottling plant, to pump some 400 thousand gallons of water a day. That proposal has spurred Senate Bill 410.
But bill opponents claim the USA Springs controversy is more emotional than rational. First they argue, USA Springs would not be affected by the measure. Whatsmore, they argue the bill is not grounded in science, and regulates only a narrow portion of groundwater users. Republican Representative David Lawton, says it doesn?t makes sense to target only large commercial withdrawals.
:31 currently 72% of withdrawals are for public water systems, 8% for agriculture, and only 16 commercial withdrawals that qualify of being a large withdrawal. Focusing on a small element?roughly 20% of the withdrawals.
Responding to Lawton?s argument, Susan Arnold, Governor Shaheen?s Director of Policy, says other regulations address different users.
4:45 the way NH statutes are set up, you have different statutes governing groundwater, and different statues governing surface waters. His argument is a quibble with the way things are set up.
Attempting to further look at groundwater regulation, 410 also calls for a study committee to establish a hierarchy of water users, or who gets access first.
Pat Donoho, with the Internation Bottled Water Association, is all for figuring out how to best mange groundwater in New Hampshire. But he doesn?t see 410 doing that.
3:42 one way you can manage this, is you?ve got to identify the aquifers that we have. Identify how big they are?and put that data on a map. And you can share that with communities, so when they are planning growth, and development, they can look to that plan to say wether or not they are going to have adequate resources to support that development. That?s the purpose of all this. So you insure their resource is adequate to support future development of the state.
5:32 very hard to argue with that?
Again, Susan Arnold.
?I would only question where the millions and millions are going to come from that are required to do a complete mapping?one of the opportunities we have is with each withdrawal is proposed, we have the opportunity to look into those kinds of issues.
Proponents see the study commission proponents as the best place for New Hampshire to begin sorting out groundwater regulations. But Arnold, at the Governor?s office, finds the proposed commission lacking in scope and broad-based representation.
2:52 if you look at the duties of the commission they are broad and vague, but the composition of the commission is really cripples its abilities to meet its duties. Looking at regional impacts, looking at local impacts, no regional planners, no local representatives, no environmental or conservation interests.
Senate Bill 410 now heads back to the senate. There, senators can either pass the study commission, or send it to conference committee.
