Chart Transcription, First Meeting Resolve 140
Public Water Supply Protection Meeting – Maine Drinking Water Program
September 14, 2006
Note: these are rough transcriptions of a process, not a final product.
Individual’s Definitions of Water Supply Protection
- allowing public use for other resources
- protecting water quality through wise land use
- preventing contamination
- not doing too much of what humans do too close to water sources
- best and highest use of water is recognized
- provide drinking water at lowest cost – balance competing public interests
- everyone drinks water without needing to think about its quality
- Maine needs a DW EPA to protect water sources
- include ground and surface water – think about “Do I want to drink this?”
- prevent adverse public health effects
- mediate the influence of transportation
- conflicting objectives
- maintain water quality and quantity (this one was repeated 4 times)
- smart development
- think long-range too
- minimize water treatments
Implications, Recommendation #1
- for DOC, the boat launch development issue is the biggest – how to balance this with PWS protection
- list information sources each agency has that are available to other agencies – if you list it will get focused on
- awareness of where 2500 day areas are and how they effect operations
- how to translate PWS needs into day-to-day work
- how does DOT balance needs with PWS
- impact of transportation development
Implications, Recommendation #2
- LMF visible in the 4 th bullet
- land (watersheds) conserved for recreation purposes – balance with PWS protection
- low impact recreation
- conflict between ‘sprawl’ and water protection in downtown areas
- LMF – recognizing existing scoring system is problematic. Instead, define the problem up front (flagging the trade-off issues).
- support farmers with education – need for funding
- small land owners need technical assistance
Implications, Recommendation #3
- how municipalities might be forced to do this – do we have to use a hammer?
- any prioritization isn’t evident
- further specifying ‘activities’ – which development do you mean? Building the house at all or just fertilizing the lawn?
- does ‘no adverse impact’ really mean no development?
- alternative funding methods, e.g. septic system utility
- exception to zoning ordinance
- look at what other states are doing
Next Steps
- what other New England states are doing, including how they pay for it and the effects on private property values.
- taking everyone’s ‘temperature’
- dissect specifics of the model ordinance
- postpone next meeting (because Alex can’t be there)?
- what’s the problem – at risk for what, when?
- can we hear from towns that have done it?
