The battle over water rights in New Hampshire has once again come to the Statehouse.
Several lawmakers have introduced legislation that would give local governments a greater say over large scale water withdrawals.
New Hampshire Public Radio's David Darman has more.
The bill is sponsored by lawmakers still upset with the state over a proposed water bottling plant in Nottingham.
The state Department of Environmental Services has approved a permit from USA Springs to pump more than 300,000 gallons a day.
Representative Harriet Cady of Deerfield is the prime sponsor of the bill.
She testified before the House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee.
She says the bill is needed because state law allows the company to take water without protecting the rights of homeowners who live nearby.
what happens when the abutters that are the landowners have wells that produce 3 gallons a minute and this drawdown leaves them with no water? who's going to fill their wells? your trust, the public trust needs to make sure they maintain the water they have. (it) doesn't mean that somebody else who can get more. i'm not against them getting water, i'm against them taking from others.
The bill would give municipalities the right to stop large withdrawals even if the state approves them.
Michael Giaimo of New Hampshire's Business and Industry Association, or BIA, is one of the bill's critics.
He told the committee it simply goes too far.
note that this is a slippery slope with significant precedent-cial value. if we allow municipalities to have ...groundwater veto rights, will air veto rights be next? will waste management rights be next? where will this end?
Lawmakers have debated the issue three times before.
But each time, the measures failed.
Sarah Pillsbury is with New Hampshire's Department of Environmental Services, the agency that grants permits for water withdrawals.
She testified those debates have each looked long and hard at granting local governments more authority over water.
and the decision was made that ...the role of the local community wasn't left to rulemaking. it was spelled out very clearly in the law, rsa 485c itself in terms of getting their input, making sure all their concerns are known, but that the ulitmate decision about a large groundwater withdrawal would be left to the state.
The bill's opponents agree.
Representative John Gibson of Merrimack says most local governments don't have the means to employ scientists who can examine aquifers.
He told committee members the state has those experts, so that's the right place to make water withdrawal decisions.
the department of environmental services employs soil scientists, water scientists and people who have the expertise and knowledge on water issues, soil issues and environmental issues. what this bill basically does is it allows local communities to basically veto ...the rulings and decisions of the department of environmental services.
But sponsors of the bill argue that the water under their land is their property.
In fact, that notion is part of the first sentence of the bill.
It then goes on to direct DES to protect that right.
But Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Patterson testified that she sees a problem with the directive.
She says common law has already established where authority lies.
i think its worth pointing out the department of environmental services doesn't have the authority to adjudicate water rights. so, since this is a common law concept, that jurisdiction rests with the superior court. so if this bill goes through with that language in its current form it could create some confusion or difficulty for the agency, since it doesn't have that authority.
Even if the bill were to become law, it would have no effect on USA Springs permit to withdraw water from the aquifer in Nottingham.
DES granted their permit for a ten year period.
Officials say the agency has already approved 10 other requests for water withdrawal permits.
And they say 9 more are pending.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo