Councilman, Environmentalist Backs Revised Water Regs

By John Voket

Despite additional concessions he said responded to the “substantial concerns from those opposed,” a local environmental steward and council representative believes the latest state stream flow regulations are “a step forward” for the state’s lead environmental agency.

Newtown Councilman James Belden, an environmental advocate who also serves as president of the Candlewood Valley Trout Unlimited chapter, offered this reaction after the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted new regulations to the legislature December 7.

This action came more than a month after a key legislative committee rejected earlier proposals intended to make sure enough water is captured behind dams and for fish downstream.

The revised draft regulations would set standards for classifying waterways according to depth, volume, and velocity of stream flow needed to support and maintain habitats and aquatic life. The classifications would be used to determine the level of development allowed in watersheds and the extent of human activity.

New rules would also require dam operators to release water to maintain river or stream water levels according to the regulations.

As a professional in urban planning and earth science and founder and president of Pootatuck Watershed Association, Mr Belden believes that while the revised regulations are much less comprehensive than he was hoping for earlier in the year, the current version does adequately address many important aspects of stream management, particularly regarding dams on public supply systems.

“The release requirements have been altered to benefit reservoir management during less critical stream habitat periods in order to maintain higher release demands during the critically stressful habitat periods,” Mr Belden explained.

A possible hurdle for passage of any new rules is the question of whether the state can regulate groundwater. State environmental officials said Tuesday it was the intent of state legislation in 2005 to regulate groundwater diversions.

However, the DEP is seeking “guidance and clarification” from the General Assembly on this point. Some businesses, such as farms, believe the law does not permit regulation of groundwater and see attempts to regulate as overreaching.

Initial legislation sought regulations of stream flows following low levels at some rivers.

Steven K. Reviczky, executive director of the Connecticut Farm Bureau, said farmers worry that the department may order farms to stop drawing water during summers when rivers and streams are low.

“That’s when farmers are concerned about keeping animals and plants alive,” he said, adding that farmers generally want an exemption for agriculture in water flow regulations.

Mr Belden observed that there have already been many concessions through the negotiating process taking into consideration the many concerns of industry, legislators, and the Legislative Commissioners’ Office report.

Although groundwater, in particular the management of “other structures” such as wells, has been removed completely, Mr Belden said that he and others following the DEP’s process closely believe legislation to address groundwater specifically will be introduced in the coming year.

“This single factor is a huge component of watershed management in Connecticut, particularly in our nonurban communities,” Mr Belden said. “But at this point it is better to completely eliminate all ‘other structures’ rather than singling out wells for nonregulation. All in all it must be remembered that under current regulations and statutes there are certain methods for addressing groundwater impacts that we can still utilize.”

David Sutherland, a lobbyist for the environmental group Nature Conservancy concurred.

“The language in the statute seems pretty clear,” he said. “State law authorizes the department to regulate the effects of withdrawing water from wells near rivers and streams.”

Republican Representative T.R. Rowe, co-chairman of the Regulations Review Committee, said lawmakers were concerned that the recently proposed rules tried to regulate groundwater and aquifers. Legislation did not “clearly contemplate” regulation of groundwater, he said. Legislators also were concerned about ambiguity in the regulations, he said.

Mr Belden said it may be better to refocus on specific, well-formed regulations at a future date, rather than risking weakened forms in this regulation that could have actually hampered protections regarding groundwater withdrawals.

“It has been a long, hard endeavor among the environmental, advocacy, and regulatory community to get this far and we will continue to work for the best resolution leading up to this vote and future measures to be sought,” the local councilman said. “All in all I think that we are proud of the accomplishments and in favor of passing this regulation as being a step forward.”