Legal Victory For Massachusetts Rivers
JANUARY 9TH, 2024: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BOSTON–In a ruling issued on December 22nd, the Suffolk Superior Court upheld the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (“MassDEP”) inclusion of non-essential outdoor watering restrictions during times of declared drought for registered users under the Water Management Act. The plaintiffs in the case, who were mostly municipal water suppliers, were previously free to set their own restrictions during declared droughts–or to do nothing at all.
Earlier this year, MassDEP re-issued Water Management Act registration statements–which authorize the withdrawal of water from our rivers and watersheds–for Massachusetts municipal water suppliers throughout the state, including sixteen in the Charles River watershed. These authorizations contained conditions requiring water suppliers to limit water use for non-essential outdoor purposes–a term that primarily refers to non-business-related lawn watering–during times of drought. While MassDEP has always been able to require these types of conservation measures from permitted water suppliers, due to the structure of the Water Management Act, up to this point registered water suppliers had always asserted that their withdrawals were exempt. The municipal water suppliers challenged the imposition of these conditions, arguing that these restrictions infringed upon their rights under the 1985 Water Management Act.
Today the court rejected those claims, agreeing with CRWA and MassDEP that these conditions were necessary to ensure the equitable and sustainable management of water resources in Massachusetts. The court’s ruling upholds both the imposition of these registration conditions and the fundamental premise of the Water Management Act: to protect our Commonwealth’s water resources for all residents, both present and future. The court noted the inherent inequity that would result if some water users were allowed to continue using as much water as they wanted for non-essential purposes during droughts while others were forced to conserve.
“This decision is a huge victory for our rivers,” said Zeus Smith, Associate Attorney at CRWA. “Especially as climate change brings more frequent drought to not only the Charles River watershed but all of our watersheds, today’s ruling confirms that state regulators have the authority and tools necessary to mandate water conservation in order to protect essential water supplies.”
“Water is life – literally,” said Emily Norton, Executive Director of CRWA. “In recent years, droughts have caused areas of our rivers across the state to run bone dry, devastating fish, amphibians, reptiles and macro-invertebrate populations. We are pleased that the court recognized the absolute necessity of common sense water conservation measures to protect human and nonhuman life alike.”
CRWA is grateful to the law firm of Lurie Friedman LLP for providing pro bono legal representation to the organization in this matter.
Charles River Watershed Association’s mission is to protect, restore and enhance the Charles River and its watershed through science, advocacy, and the law. CRWA develops science-based strategies to increase resilience, protect public health, and promote environmental equity as we confront a changing climate.
CONTACT:
Zeus Smith, Esq.
Associate Attorney
Charles River Watershed Association
(971) 280-7685
