water scarcity in massachusetts em erging legal issues
play

Water Scarcity in Massachusetts: Em erging Legal Issues Harvard Law - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Water Scarcity in Massachusetts: Em erging Legal Issues Harvard Law School Water Law Study Group December 3, 2015 H. David Gold david.gold@wilmerhale.com Agenda Hydrology Water Scarcity Legal Framework Recent Disputes


  1. Water Scarcity in Massachusetts: Em erging Legal Issues Harvard Law School Water Law Study Group December 3, 2015 H. David Gold david.gold@wilmerhale.com

  2. Agenda ■ Hydrology ■ Water Scarcity ■ Legal Framework ■ Recent Disputes ■ Emerging Issues WilmerHale WilmerHale

  3. WilmerHale The Hydrologic Cycle WilmerHale

  4. Water Scarcity in the U.S. WilmerHale WilmerHale

  5. Massachusetts Average rainfall: 45.12 inches per year WilmerHale WilmerHale

  6. Water Shortages in Boston ■ Wells contaminated by privies ■ Cisterns contaminated by soot WilmerHale WilmerHale

  7. WilmerHale Water Shortages Today WilmerHale

  8. WilmerHale Water Shortages Today WilmerHale

  9. WilmerHale Water Shortages – 20 11 WilmerHale

  10. Water Shortages Stressed Basins in Massachusetts (2001) High Stress Medium Stress Low Stress No Data Gauging Station Basin Boundary WilmerHale WilmerHale

  11. Water Shortages Desalination Plant … in Dighton, Massachusetts WilmerHale WilmerHale

  12. Massachusetts Water Dem and Total water withdrawals by use (MGD) Thermoelectric power (fresh) Industrial Thermoelectric power (saline): 2,340 Irrigation Public supply: 793 Irrigation: 145 Industrial: 112 Public Thermoelectric power (fresh): 107 supply Domestic: 40.5 Aquaculture: 44.4 Thermoelectric power (saline) Mining: 10.7 Livestock: 1.86 WilmerHale WilmerHale

  13. Massachusetts Water Dem and Metro area water demand projected to increase by 47 MGD by 2030 Source: ELM, State of the Environment (2006) WilmerHale WilmerHale

  14. Water Scarcity Factors Aging Infrastructure WilmerHale WilmerHale

  15. Water Scarcity Factors Development Impervious Surface Levels Source: Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, Stream Corridor Source: USGS, Preliminary Assessment of Factors Influencing Riverine Fish Communities in Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices (1998). Massachusetts (2010), http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/wrc/wrc ‐ update ‐ re ‐ sust ‐ water ‐ mgmt ‐ 18nov2010.pdf. WilmerHale WilmerHale

  16. Water Scarcity Factors Lack of Conservation Measures MA MA Actual Goal: Use: 65 82 gpcd gpcd WilmerHale WilmerHale

  17. Water Scarcity Factors Saline Intrusion Well Groundwater pumping Fresh water Fresh water Salt water Salt water Well Well Sea level rise Fresh water Fresh water Salt water Salt water WilmerHale WilmerHale

  18. WilmerHale Well at risk Plume Water Scarcity Factors Unusable well Pollution Pollution water source Ground Well WilmerHale

  19. Water Scarcity Factors Irrigation 20 0 5 ■ 6.90 acre-feet per acre ■ Highest application rate in USA! 20 10 ■ 3.87 acre-feet per acre ■ 5 th highest (after AZ, MT, WY, and ID) WilmerHale WilmerHale

  20. Water Scarcity Factors Drought WilmerHale WilmerHale

  21. Massachusetts Water Rights Surface Water – reasonable use ■ Stratton v. Mt. Herm on Boys’ School , 216 Mass. 83 (1913): [P]roprietor m ay m ake any rea sona ble use of the “ w ater of the stream in connection w ith his rip a ria n esta te and for law ful purposes w ithin the w a tershed , provided he leave the current dim inished by no m ore than is reasonable, having regard for the like right to enjoy the com m on property by other riparian ow ners.” WilmerHale WilmerHale

  22. Massachusetts Water Rights Groundwater – absolute ow nership* ■ Greenleaf v. Francis , 35 Mass. 117 (1836): “ [T]he ow ner of the soil m ay law fully occupy the space … below the surface, to a ny extent w hich he p lea ses , unless he has m ade som e grant or agreem ent or there has been som e statute or police regulation to the contrary.” ■ * Prince v. Stockdell , 397 Mass. 843 (1986): “ In another case, w e m ight be inclined to reexam ine the doctrine w hich gives the ow ner of the overlying land absolute control over subsurface w ater on such land.” WilmerHale WilmerHale

  23. Massachusetts Water Law Wetlands Protection Act (1972) Con Coms may regulate proposed activity:  Within “wetlands” and surrounding buffer zones  Drilling  Pumping  Access to water withdrawals  Within 200-ft riverfront areas  Groundwater use with potential impacts on stream flows WilmerHale WilmerHale

  24. Massachusetts Water Law Interbasin Transfer Act (1984) ■ WRC may prohibit transfers between watersheds ■ “Significant” transfers (1+ MGD) may be denied ■ Evaluation criteria  Potential impacts on in-stream flows  Other environmental impacts  Proposed conservation efforts ■ Conditions  Monitoring  Efficiency requirements WilmerHale WilmerHale

  25. Massachusetts Water Law Water Management Act (1985) ■ 100,000-gpd threshold ■ Groundwater / surface water ■ Registration for grandfathered uses  Based on use between 1981 and 1985  Must be filed on or before Jan. 1, 1988  Must be renewed every 10 years  Must meet metering, reporting, recordkeeping requirements ■ Perm it for new withdrawals  Must be denied if safe yield is exceeded WilmerHale WilmerHale

  26. Massachusetts Water Law Watershed Management Act (1992) ■ Goals  Protect and preserve the quality of pure water  Assure availability for future generations ■ Prohibitions  “Alterations within 200 feet of the bank of a tributary or surface water” within designated watersheds  Alterations that will hinder purpose of protecting the public water supply WilmerHale WilmerHale

  27. Massachusetts Water Law MEPA (1977) ■ State projects ■ Private projects requiring state permits/ funding ■ Thresholds  New withdrawals or expansions • 0.1 MGD (new water sources requiring construction) • 0.5 MGD (existing systems) • 1.5 MGD (groundwater) • 2.5 MGD (surface water) Mandatory  New interbasin transfers EIR • 1.0 MGD • “Significant” WilmerHale WilmerHale

  28. Massachusetts Water Law Energy Facilities Siting Board ■ Reliable energy supply ■ Lowest possible cost ■ Minimum impact on the environment ■ M.G.L. ch. 164, sec. 69J1/ 4 (Construction of generating facility)  Review project impacts, including water impact  Establish performance standards reflecting best available and most efficient technology to control and reduce water withdrawals WilmerHale WilmerHale

  29. Massachusetts Water Law Bills  House No. 8 34 (2009) – An Act Relative to Sustainable Water Resources  House Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture recommended ought NOT to pass, recommended further study (2010)  Senate No. 40 5 (2015) – An Act to Mitigate Water Resources Impacts / House No. 657 (2015) – An Act Providing for the Establishment of Sustainable Water Resource Funds  Hearings held in October 2015 WilmerHale WilmerHale

  30. Massachusetts Water Law Massachusetts Constitution, Art. XCVII (1972) The people shall have the right to clea n … w a ter … and the protection of the people in their right to the conserv a tion, d ev elop m ent a nd utiliza tion of the agricultural, m ineral, forest, w a ter , air and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a p ublic p urp ose . WilmerHale WilmerHale

  31. WilmerHale Fram ingham WilmerHale

  32. Fram ingham – Proposed Birch Road Water Quality Facility WilmerHale

  33. Fram ingham – Birch Road Wellfield ■ Proposal: 4.3 MGD ■ Registered volume under WMA: 3.17 MGD ■ Reduced proposal to 3.17 MGD WilmerHale WilmerHale

  34. Fram ingham – Birch Road Wellfield ■ Opposition  Other ratepayers  Anti-privatization  Environmental community ■ MEPA required Supplemental EIR to study:  Reduction of flows in Sudbury River  Reduced water levels in Lake Cochituate ■ Recovery Act deadline passed ($5M) ■ March 2011: Project scheduled for construction in 2015 ■ January 2015: New deal with MWRA WilmerHale WilmerHale

  35. Ham ilton 74 Mass. App. Ct. 1129 (2009) Ipswich River Watershed Ipswich River Photo from Charles River Watershed Association, Water Resource Conservation and Restoration in Massachusetts (2006) WilmerHale WilmerHale

  36. Ham ilton 74 Mass. App. Ct. 1129 (2009) ■ Registered volume under WMA: 0.92 MGD ■ Additional permitted volume: 0.11 MGD ■ 2003 MassDEP summertime water use cap: 0.70 MGD ■ Magistrate: Cap OK (still can average 0.92 MGD) ■ Superior Court: Cap OK  MassDEP must determine Safe Yield of Ipswich River ■ Appeals Court: Affirmed WilmerHale WilmerHale

  37. Post- Ha m ilton ■ October 20 0 9 – MassDEP defined “Safe Yield” as “the amount of water that would be present during a drought year”  Environmental groups protested  Withdrawals will increase in already-stressed basins  No protection for in-stream flows or other environmental considerations ■ Novem ber 20 0 9 – MassDEP suspended new definition ■ October 20 10 – Deadline for new definition ■ February 20 12 – Sustainable Water Management Initiative Draft Framework ■ April 20 12 – Written comment period ended  Water suppliers  Conservation Commissions  Individuals  Government agencies WilmerHale WilmerHale

  38. Sustainable Water Managem ent Initiative – Final Fram ework Safe Yield = 55% of Drought Basin Yield + Reservoir Storage WilmerHale WilmerHale

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend