Editor’s note: This commentary is by Page Guertin of Montpelier, who is part of the Vermont Clean Water Coalition.
[T]his is the second in a series of commentaries on the management of source waters which provide drinking water to 11 Vermont municipalities. The first, which was published in VTDigger on Oct. 20, provides an overview of the management of drinking water sources in New England, and some of the risks of allowing recreation in those sources. This commentary addresses more specifically how other New England states view the risk and manage the resources.
Some of the information presented here comes from Vermont Legislative Council’s research into drinking water laws, responding to a legislator’s request: “How are public drinking water sources regulated in New England, including what recreational uses are allowed?” The rest is our own research into state laws, and conversations with state and local authorities.
It’s important to note that the size of the water body (area, depth, volume) is a primary consideration that other states (and water experts in general) use in any determination about recreation on public water supply sources. In fact, an expert from the New England Water Works Association testified that, while his organization discourages recreation in all drinking water sources, human activity in water bodies under 500 acres is particularly problematic and presents a major management challenge.
Here’s a summary of management practices that may be utilized on lakes and ponds which serve as drinking water supplies. Explanations and examples follow the table.
Massachusetts: State law prohibits swimming, wading, bathing, boating, fishing, landing a plane, going on the ice, or allowing any animal to go, in or on any surface source of public water supply. Swimming is prohibited unconditionally. Other activities may be permitted if requested by local water commissioners. The law requires that “Public access/recreation should be prohibited if appropriate controls, and funds to sustain those controls, are not available.”
Quabbin Reservoir, a secondary source for Boston’s water, allows motorboats, but there’s a significant history there: five towns were drowned in building that reservoir, necessitating many compromises. About 10,000 acres, approximately 40 percent of the 24,000-acre reservoir, is a water intake protection zone (the intake is the device, generally some sort of grate, through which water is fed into the pipes that carry it to the treatment plant), with all access prohibited. Boats launched anywhere on the reservoir have to be decontaminated first, to protect against invasives and other pollutants. There are three staffed launch sites, managed porta-potties, only specifically configured boats are allowed, and recreation is limited to daylight hours only.
On Wachusett Reservoir, Boston’s primary water source, fishing from shore is allowed, but only from specific managed locations. Both Wachusett and Quabbin reservoirs are completely fenced and gated, their watersheds are continuously monitored and patrolled, and there are ongoing education programs at both locations.
In New Hampshire, local health officers or boards can regulate the use of water sources within their own town limits.
Connecticut and Rhode Island: State laws prohibit swimming in all public water supply sources. Local water districts can control other activities. Generally, those states look much like Massachusetts in what is allowed, or prohibited, on drinking water sources. For example, a conversation with the Providence Water Supply Co., which serves 60 percent of Rhode Island’s one million residents, revealed that their drinking water is sourced from six lakes in a 92 square mile watershed. No activity is allowed on the lakes or watershed, except on a case by case basis, on land only. In Connecticut, water sources owned by water districts require the use of district-owned boats on their waters, not personally owned vessels.
Maine: A 2010 Review of State-Level Risk Management for Lakes used as Public Drinking Water Sources determined that, “There are a variety of uses of lakes, notably fishing, boating and swimming, that are generally protected and encouraged in Great Ponds, since these are waters of the state. These surface uses are sources of increased risk to drinking water, and the restricted zones in place on many drinking water lakes are intended to manage that risk at an acceptable level.”
Of the 44 Maine lakes and ponds that are sources of public drinking water,
• 27 percent have regulations that prohibit access of any kind,
• 23 percent have regulations that prohibit body contact of any kind, and
• most of the rest have water intake protection zones which prohibit either body contact or all access.
Maine’s Sebago Lake, at 30,000 acres, is a major income generator for the region, and also the water supply source for the Portland metropolitan area. While most of the lake is available for unlimited recreation, there is a 3,000-foot-radius no-trespassing zone around the water intake, plus a two-mile-radius restricted area where all body contact is prohibited. The restricted area is patrolled and monitored, and activity is permitted only in the daytime. Elsewhere, areas where Eurasian milfoil is found are marked with buoys, to prevent its spread via boat propellers or paddles.
New Hampshire: Local health officers or boards can regulate the use of water sources within their own town limits. Use of drinking water sources is regulated by the Department of Environmental Services whenever local regulations are not sufficient or effective. The department has adopted regulations for approximately half of the surface water sources in New Hampshire. For regulated waters, each individual source has its own set of rules. Most seem to prohibit all general recreational use (swimming, boating, fishing). The regulations state that if local ordinances are more stringent, then they will apply. All New Hampshire public water supply ponds which are less than 160 acres are closed to human access.
The drinking water for Concord, New Hampshire, comes primarily from Penacook Lake, which is closed to all recreation. In a serious drought, Concord may also draw water from the Ware River, but that water is first chlorinated, then pumped into Penacook Lake far away from the water intake, in order to further dilute any contamination before it enters the treatment plant. Concord has a water treatment plant similar to those used by Barre, St. Johnsbury and other towns in Vermont.
Why does the rest of New England tend toward restricting recreational activity on its water supply sources? What are Vermont’s laws on public water supply ponds? Our next piece in this series will discuss human-carried contaminants and other threats to our drinking water, and the fourth will describe Vermont’s approach.
