Changes in Cheshire Aquifer Protection Regulations
~ by Martin E Cobern - June 05, 2008 ~
by Martin Cobern
Several years ago, after nearly two years’ effort and many hours of meetings and hearings, Cheshire adopted one of the best aquifer protection regulations in the State, if not the best. Since that time, the Northern Industrial Zone, which largely overlies the aquifer, has seen continued development which was consistent with protection of our vital water supply. (In particular, the Whole Foods warehouse came to Cheshire, in part, because of these regulations.)
Now, the Legislature has finally gotten its act together and passed a statewide regulation which is almost as good as hours. In its wisdom it has set several requirements in order to qualify for continued State aid in critical areas. Among these are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, on Monday, June 9, after the regular PZC hearing, we will have our first APA meeting, which will be a public hearing on the new regulations. (It is unclear what the hearing will achieve, since the regulations have been ordained by the State.) Once the hearing is closed, we can have two consecutive meetings: one to have the APA adopt the new regulations, and the other to have the PZC remove the existing regulations.
If anyone understands the logic in this exercise, please explain it to me.
5 Comments »
RSS Feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI
#1 | Comment #2604 by LP on June 9, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Well, I certainly fail to see the logic. If you’re already bound by them, what is there to adopt or reject. And, if ours were more protective, I am not pleased to hear that they will be scrubbed.
Is it really possible to prevent a town from going above and beyond the new state regs when there’s overlap between protecting the aquifer and other areas of the environment?
#2 | Comment #2605 by Martin E Cobern on June 9, 2008 @ 11:02 am
The Town staff submitted various “compromise” proposals, all of which were turned down by the State. At some level, I can see their logic in having a uniform law, as it would prevent towns from “competing” for development by shading the regs. Of course, our aim was to encourage RESPONSIBLE development while providing maximum protection for our drinking water.
As one of the chief authors of the current regulations, I think we did a pretty damn good job. A lot of the credit goes to our legal counsel on this work, Priscilla Mulvaney.
#3 | Comment #2606 by Martin E Cobern on June 9, 2008 @ 11:05 am
I think I missed a nuance of your question. The State cannot regulate our local land use, as that is delegated to the towns. What they said is that towns “shall adopt” approriate legislation, and are using the power of the purse to ensure this. We are not required to play along, but if we don’t we can lose some or all of our funding for certain projects in this area.
#4 | Comment #2687 by none on June 24, 2008 @ 8:57 am
So, what happens to the aquifer near the BP by the Notch store? With less protection, I can’t wait to hear what is next.
#5 | Comment #2689 by Martin E Cobern on June 24, 2008 @ 9:46 am
The BP station is not in the aquifer zone and none would be allowed over an aquifer. The aquifers in Cheshire (North and South) are those which provide water for the public supply. The BP station is several miles from the edge of the North Aquifer and there is virtually no chance of its contaminating it.
Individual homeowners draw water from smaller, local water tables, and these may be at risk. It appears that the station owner, state and local officials are responding appropriately to this leak. I, too, am waiting to see how it managed to occur, given the new regulations about buried tanks.