Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Anne Gobi, Senate Chair
The Honorable Paul A. Schmid III, House Chair
Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture
State House, Boston
Dear Representative Schmid and Senator Gobi,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on S. 403/H. 757, An Act Relative to Streamflow Standards.
Cities and towns understand the need to protect water resources – our members are committed environmentalists who take their role as stewards of this important natural resource very seriously.
Over the past 20 years, our communities have focused on water conservation, increasing the efficiency of commercial water use, and detecting and preventing leaks. As a result, water use in Massachusetts has declined dramatically. Cities and towns have long promoted the need to look holistically at how water resources are managed in the Commonwealth to provide for public health and safety and economic growth for our communities.
S. 403/H. 757 would direct the Department of Fish and Game to develop streamflow criteria and would amend the Water Management Act (M.G.L. Ch. 21G) to require the Department of Environmental Protection to promulgate regulations within the statute, establishing standards for restoring and maintaining streamflows, water levels and hydrologic regimes that are protective of natural aquatic life for all rivers and streams in the Commonwealth. Last year the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection promulgated regulations that did exactly this (310 CMR 36). Those Water Management Act regulatory changes eliminated the balance between competing uses, and placed streamflow and aquatic habitat benefit over all else. These new regulatory changes are creating uncertainty regarding how much water communities will have available for public health, sanitation, and safety needs, as well as for economic growth, job creation, and agriculture.
The full impact of those regulatory changes is only beginning to be felt. Placing streamflow standards into a statute that only controls water withdrawals would be unwise and would limit flexibility that could occur if new science is available to inform water resource management.
This legislation does little or nothing to address issues with wastewater, stormwater, development and natural circumstances, all of which impact rivers and streams. There may be measures that can be taken to effectively address streamflow issues in some circumstances, but these are holistic measures, not just further water withdrawal limitations.
We believe it would be imprudent to move ahead with legislation regarding water withdrawals until the recently enacted Water Management Act regulation changes have been reviewed and the Department of Environmental Protection reports back to the Legislature on the municipal, commercial and economic impacts, and findings have been professionally vetted and made public.
While we have grave concerns and reservations about S. 403/H. 757, we strongly support S. 405, which would allow, but not require, communities to implement water banks. A water bank is a tool that would provide resources for communities to better manage water supply, wastewater and stormwater.
Communities such as Weymouth and Danvers report excellent results with the water banks that they have implemented, and these measures have also benefited the local economy. This tool would also help shift the onus for “balancing the water budget” from the water suppliers, so that all the factors that influence water use and supply in a community can be considered in achieving more sustainable water management.
Water banking may not be feasible or necessary in every community, which is why the authority would be set as a local option in S. 405. Local control and decision-making needs to be guaranteed so that decisions can be made by those with the best understanding of the issues and concerns of individual communities and water systems.
Without municipal water-banking options codified in state law, many communities have expressed concern about the potential of costly litigation if they move forward to implement water banks. S. 405 would remove that threat.
In closing, we have serious concerns that S. 403/H. 757 (as well as the new Water Management Act regulations) would impact the operations of public water supplies and the ability of communities to provide the essential services necessary for protection of public health and safety. In addition, the costs of operational, structural and staffing changes necessary to monitor and meet the requirements of this legislation and the regulations would have an adverse financial impact on communities throughout the Commonwealth. For these reasons, we ask you to defer action on this legislation until these issues have been adequately addressed. Until that time, the MMA must record its opposition to the legislation.
If you have any questions or desire further comment, please do not hesitate to contact me or Senior Legislative Analyst Tom Philbin of the MMA staff at any time.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director & CEO, MMA