Appeal of a water withdrawal permit. Matter is remanded to the DEP to calculate the safe yield of either the Parker River basin or the Egypt/Rowley sub-basin and determine whether the combined volume of existing, permitted and proposed water withdrawals exceeds the safe yield of that water source, in compliance with G.L. c. 21G, ss 7, 11 and 310 CMR 36.31.
Appeal from a water withdrawal permit modification under the Water Management Act , M.G.L. c. 21G, and its implementing regulations, 310 CMR 6.00.Following a hearing, the permit is sustained with (1) a minor modification of the limit on the volume of water the Town of North Reading may withdraw from its wells during the months ofMay through September, (2) a modification to a required notice to be provided to water supply customers of watering restrictions, (3) the addition of a condition requiring that, when growth is anticipated that will likely cause demand for water to exceed one percent of existing demand, thetown report how it intends to meet the new demand and still comply with the conditions of the modified permit, and (4) a minor modification to a condition concerning water conservation bythe town’s ten largest industrial and commercial water users.
Appeal by petitioners Eel River Watershed Association, Ltd. and Mettie Whipple challenging the Department of Environmental Protection’s issuance, on May 26, 2000, of a permit pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21, §§26-53 allowing the discharge of treated effluent to groundwater by the Town of Plymouth’s municipal wastewater treatment facility at 131 Camelot Drive.Motion by the Department of Environmental Protection and the Town of Plymouth to dismiss appeal for mootness, in view of the issuance on June 24, 2008 of a new groundwater discharge permit.Motion granted, and appeal dismissed as moot without a merits determination and without prej
Appeals from water withdrawal permit and permit modification dismissed as moot due to pending appeal of more recent permit modification. All issues that the permit holder raised or could have raised in the earlier appeals may be raised in the remaining appeal.
Recommends that modified water withdrawal permit, which (1) maintained, at 0.45 million gallons per day (mgd), the annual average daily volume of groundwater that the Petitioner Town of Wilmington may withdraw from sources in the Ipswich River Basin above its registered withdrawal volume of 2.91 mgd, and (2) mandated that the town implement a "water bank" (requiring that two gallons of water be kept within the Basin for every new gallon of demand from the town's public watersystem), be sustained and that a revised modified permit including agreed-upon revised special conditions be issued to the town, subject to such further modifications as DEP may require following its redetermination of the Ipswich River Basin's safe yield pursuant to Hamilton v. DEP, C.A. No. 06-745, Memorandum of Decision and Order on Cross Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (Essex Super. Ct., Jul. 13, 2007).