Most Vermonters don’t think much about the water that flows from our
taps – groundwater, primarily – until there’s a problem. Like
contaminated water. Or no water at all.

The idea that the free flow of this seemingly inexhaustible
resource might be an issue in Vermont – that Vermonters’ wells could
run dry – has not crossed many people’s minds. Until recently, that is,
when the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) identified and began
to raise serious questions about a gap in the state’s water laws.

What we found was troubling. Vermont does fairly well in
protecting water quality. But, in an increasingly thirsty world, the
Green Mountain State does far too little to safeguard water quantity.

t’s an understatement to say that what flows into our sinks, our
bathtubs, our showers, is a precious resource. Indeed, it is a vital,
life-sustaining resource. Vermont’s current legal framework, which
places few limits on the amount of water one can pump out of the
ground, threatens to undermine the long-term availability of fresh
water for important public benefits like municipal drinking water and
farming.

For several years VNRC has advocated for action that would allow
diverse use of the resource but help protect against over-consumption
and depletion. In recent years, Vermont has taken steps to begin to
address this issue. In 2006, the Legislature passed an interim
permitting law for large-scale withdrawals and created a task force to
study the issue and make recommendations to address it. In 2007, the
state dedicated the first infusion of funds to begin the essential
first step toward a solution: Mapping the resource.
In January of this legislative session, Senate leaders, including Diane
Snelling (R-Chittenden) and Ginny Lyons (D-Chittenden), introduced a
bill that would create the comprehensive groundwater protection
program. The bill, S.304, has three primary components. It would:

1)    Require reporting on all withdrawals greater than 10,000 gallons per day.

2)    Create a regulatory program that allows
diverse use of the resource but helps safeguard against over
consumption and depletion.

3)    Declare groundwater a “public trust” resource.

More than two-thirds of Vermonters rely on groundwater for drinking
water. Farmers rely on groundwater for irrigation and for drinking
water for farm animals. Businesses rely on groundwater for their
operations. If enacted, legislation supporting a strong
groundwater-management program would significantly bolster the state’s
ability to safeguard supplies for important current and future uses.

In an increasingly water-scarce world, such measures are
essential. They could help avoid scenarios like those that played out
powerfully in the Southeast and Southwest recently, when there was too
little water to go around.

Last summer, New Mexico’s governor called on Midwestern states
to ship Great Lakes water to the arid Southeast. A historic drought in
Georgia, meanwhile, rapidly shrank the state’s water supplies and
triggered the governor to declare a state of emergency. For months,
Georgia leaders squabbled with Florida officials over water supplies
and millions of residents fretted about access to ample supplies of
clean, fresh water before rains finally replenished their supply.

What’s the connection between water shortages in arid, southern
states and the water-rich state of Vermont? As thirsty communities look
beyond their borders to meet their water needs, that connection becomes
clearer. Combine the impending reality of thirstier and thirstier
communities with the fact that demand has already outstripped supply in
some Vermont communities, and the situation begins to look much worse.
The list of water problems has been growing in Vermont in recent years.
In Williston, new housing developments drew so much water from an
aquifer that wells went dry. In Randolph, a water bottling operation
sucked so much water out of a nearby aquifer that neighbors’ wells
dried up and a nearby trout stream was degraded. In the rural Northeast
Kingdom town of Montgomery, a lack of rain triggered water shortages
significant enough to place the community on a boil water order and
force the town to truck in water for customers whose taps ran dry.

Recent new proposals to tap Vermont aquifers for water bottling
operations in Claremont, N.H., and East Montpelier have triggered
important community conversations about ownership of the resource. The
proposal to bottle and sell spring water from a source right outside
the capital city has ignited a lively civic debate over ownership of
water.
As East Montpelier and other Vermont communities wrestle with their
individual situations, the state is working to help towns get in front
of water problems by implementing stronger state-level protections for
the resource. It’s promising that many legislators and stakeholders
agree there is a problem, and that it needs resolution. How Vermont
resolves the situation, however, is yet to be determined. It is also
the most critical piece of the equation.

Ownership of a water “commons”

VNRC strongly believes that declaring groundwater a public-trust
resource provides a vital framework that could help answer one of the
most important questions swirling around this issue: Who owns our
water?

Unfortunately, the public trust issue, which would help assure
that public interest in the resource comes before private interest, is
the most controversial element of the bill.
The concept of the public trust is nothing new. The ancient legal
doctrine holds that government, on behalf of the citizens, has an
obligation to manage certain resources for the public good.

It has long been established
that Vermont’s surface waters —its lakes, ponds and rivers — are a
public trust resource. Essentially, the designation signifies that the
waters of the state belong to all Vermonters, as a common resource.
Despite the hydrological connection between groundwater and surface
water and the importance of safeguarding our primary drinking water
supply, however, the public trust doctrine does not apply to
groundwater.

This disconnect in public policy is troubling, not only because
it fails to equalize protections for an interconnected resource
(illogical if nothing else). It’s troubling as well because water is an
essential, life-sustaining resource that must be managed carefully to
ensure its availability into the future. Declaring groundwater public
is a good old Yankee common-sense strategy that would help accomplish
this goal. Many other states, including neighboring New Hampshire, have
already embraced public trust. New Hampshire’s groundwater has been
afforded this safeguard since 1998.

For many, the question is not whether lawmakers should declare
groundwater to be a public trust resource but, rather, why they would
not do so.

The Senate Natural Resources Committee has started deliberation
on the comprehensive groundwater bill, and the controversial public
trust component. A diverse array of concerned Vermonters have voiced
their support for the declaration, among them the faith community. In
2006 the Diocesan Convention of the Episcopal Church in Vermont, at
which 46 of 50 parishes were represented, passed a resolution that
supports strong legislative action to safeguard groundwater and declare
it a public trust resource. The Diocese’s explanation for this action
is as follows:

“Groundwater is an aspect of God’s Creation under threats of
contamination and depletion. Clean, healthy water is essential for
human health and for ecological health as well. Water should be
considered a part of the commons, accessible to all for the common
good, rather than a product sold for profit.”

The spiritual and moral reasons of the Diocese and others
complement the more practical reasons that move organizations like Two
Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission to support strong action.

In a memo sent to the Senate Natural
Resources Committee, Kevin Geiger, a senior planner at Two Rivers
Ottauquechee Regional Planning Commission (TRORC), stated that his
organization “strongly support(s) the concept put forward in S. 304
that groundwater is held in the public trust and is not a private
commodity to be used at will to the detriment of others. Vermont is
currently blessed with plentiful and clean groundwater, but that this
condition will continue is not necessarily certain.  Many
organizations have warned that access to clean water will be one of the
challenges of this century.  The climate is changing, and exactly
how that will affect us is not known.”    

As a
planning entity, TRORC’s comments are not surprising. Suggestions that
point Vermonters toward thinking about future needs and possible
scenarios, offer important context to inform the debate taking place
under the Golden Dome.    

To guard against
water shortages and competing interests in the resource, the state has
a responsibility to consider future uses. S.304 currently includes a
provision that prioritizes municipal water supplies and agriculture
over water bottling operations. This could help avoid problems down the
road when debates over ownership of the water
increase.   

In East Montpelier, that debate has
been intensifying, fueled by a proposal last year to tap a spring that
at one time served as downtown Montpelier’s primary water supply. Thin
details and deep concern about the proposal have triggered a strong
grassroots reaction. Despite a petition with more than 60 signatures of
residents requesting a public forum on the proposal, the East
Montpelier Selectboard declined to host a meeting. Concerned about the
impacts a withdrawal of up to 300,000 gallons a day could have on area
wells, natural resources, and the long-term availability of the
resource, area residents organized a public meeting to learn more about
the water bottling proposal.

‘Montpelier Springs’

For Carolyn Shapiro, one of the lead organizers, the growing trend toward privatization of public resources moved her to act.

“The issue of privatization first came to my attention when I
learned of a multi-national corporation taking over ownership of
Bolivia’s municipal water supplies and the dramatic price increases
that ensued. Since then, we’ve seen increasing world and national
problems around water. The drought in Georgia, for example. When a
proposal to privatize, bottle, and sell water popped up next to me, I
became quite concerned and wanted to explore it,” said Shapiro. It was
within this context that Shapiro set about helping to organize the
January 17 public forum.

“Proponents are saying it’s good for the town; taxes and jobs.
But it’s a broader issue for me. This issue brings out the notion of
the public good,” she noted. “For me, it’s really about understanding
what the common resources are and how that dovetails — or might not
dovetail — with any kind of privatization.”    

About
75 people packed the U-32 High School classroom, asking way more
questions than there were answers. Most attendees raised serious
concerns, but that feeling was not unanimous. Elliott Morse, a neighbor
to the project, spoke in favor of the proposal at the forum saying,
“They’re not stealing anybody’s water. That spring is as big as this
whole room: eight feet deep. Water rushes out of that
spring.”   

The meeting clearly demonstrated
that the public is cautious about the fate of an important community
resource. Beyond questions relating to the day-to-day waste, energy,
and natural-resource impacts that would come with the ‘Montpelier
Springs’ water bottling operation, the question of who owns the
resource topped the list of the community’s concerns.

Many residents walked away from the forum
with important questions left unanswered. One result of the evening was
the quick turn-around of a successful petition drive to place a
temporary moratorium on large-scale water withdrawals in the community
in front of voters on Town Meeting Day.    

On
March 4, with the ‘Montpelier Springs’ proposal in the background, East
Montpelier residents will be asked vote on a temporary prohibition that
would “allow the citizens of the Town adequate time to gather
information regarding the impact of such withdrawals on the citizens
and natural resources of the Town.” The moratorium was carefully
crafted to ensure that existing water uses, like agriculture, are
exempted from the temporary moratorium until the community considers
the issue in greater measure.

****

Like many complex community issues, there are no easy answers about how
best to manage groundwater supplies. But the reasons for pushing for a
thoughtful response are clear to communities that have faced problems
in the past, and people who are considering the needs of the future.

Municipal drinking supplies. Agriculture. Industry. Long-term
water security and availability. These purposes serve as powerful
reminders of why Vermonters must act quickly to get in front of
potential problems. Passing strong legislation that declares
groundwater a public trust resource and sets up a system to manage it
takes Vermont far down a path toward long-term protection.

Such action, however, is not enough.

Commercialization, privatization, and trade agreements further
complicate the situation. That’s why, when it comes to this essential,
common resource, concerned citizens must remain actively engaged in
ongoing community conversations about water.

A sustainable and secure future demands it.