Legislative Update
Nockamixon’s Groundwater Ordinance Explained
by Dr. Robert Stanfield, BNT JGMC
Dr. Stephen Donovan,
Nockamixon EAC and BNT JGMC

This ordinance is being introduced to better protect our groundwater. As our understanding of the need for protection of our groundwater improves, we must insure that an adequate supply of safe, clean water continues to be available to our residents through a rational approach. The realization that water is a limited valuable resource, and not a waste product to be disposed of, must now be reflected in our legislation for managing it.

We currently have two ordinances that touch directly on this issue: the Act 537 Sewage Facilities ordinance, and the Act 167 Stormwater Management ordinance. The Act 537 ordinance was the boilerplate version, offered for adoption in the early 1980s. That act also contained the mandate that townships have a modern sewage facility ordinance. Yet, our ordinance remains unchanged, in spite of a better understanding of our natural resources problems, and of a greatly increased demand for them.

As this Act is more than 25 years old, it would be hard to argue that it is still modern; thus it should be modernized as a requirement of Act 537. The process of modernizing the Sewage Facilities ordinance has been initiated. It is not a trivial task to be undertaken lightly, and there are fears about opening it up for modernization. The major fear is that it will mean institution of a municipal sewerage system that is incompatible with the expressed desire of residents to maintain Nockamixon’s rural character.

Both the town engineer and our environmental consultant have pointed out that yes, we do need to mention in a modern Act the possibility of sewage treatment plants, but we can also prioritize the various options and use language to justify and defend those choices. Avoiding mention of treatment plants in our current Act 537 in no way protects us from having them imposed on us. Should that occur, we may lose the ability to exercise much choice in the matter.

The time to act is now. This proposed groundwater ordinance can stand on its own or, in the future, be rolled into any modernizations of the 167 and 537 plans, if and when they occur. This groundwater ordinance, in conjunction with the 167 and the 537 plans, will give us layers of protection for an immediate response to an imminent need.

The basic philosophy of this ordinance is that groundwater in our aquifer is a valuable resource that is limited in our township, due to the nature of our geology. Everyone in this township depends on obtaining water from wells. It is our obligation to protect both the purity and the supply of groundwater, now and into the future.

It is also the philosophy of this ordinance that the result of any development should not cause the availability and purity of groundwater to be diminished from what was present pre-development. It is more than possible that post-development, the rate of infiltration of clean water to the aquifer could be maintained or even improved, but it requires very careful planning.

There are a number of tools available for us to reach this goal. Among them are the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual (newly revised, draft version available at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/advcoun/stormwater/stormwatercomm.htm) and that of
New Jersey. They demonstrate that there are many options to be considered other than retention basins to improve aquifer recharge.

These BMP manuals place no legal obligation on the townships. Rather, they are a source of good information and techniques to be incorporated into the township’s ordinances as each township chooses, based on the unique needs and wants of that particular township.

Some of the verbiage for this proposed ordinance has been borrowed directly from Tinicum’s groundwater ordinance, which stood the test of legal challenge in court (see Rushton vs. Tinicum circa 2000) and was upheld on appeal. The case was won based on the right of the township to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents, using resource-based arguments.

Minimum lot size is one of the hotly contested issues in debates about this ordinance. Determination of what will be legally considered minimum lot size really reflects the amount of risk one is comfortable taking on wells going dry during droughts. Currently, the benchmark sets the level of risk at when we might expect to experience wells going dry during the worst drought in fifty years.

Our hydrogeologist consultant, Matthew Mulhall, told us that planning for a 50-year drought is conservative. When planning for flood, we often plan for the 100-year flood, so planning for a 50-year drought is more than reasonable. Relaxing the period to less than 50 years will result in extensive problems when a drought actually occurs.

The drought of the 1960s was five years long. Lately, we have been facing serious problems with wells even during short-term droughts like that of the summer of 1999 and the 2001-02 one-year drought. We disregard these warnings at our own peril. If we, as a community, really believe that 50 years is too conservative and overly restrictive, we can base the minimum lot size on some other number we agree would represent when we might expect wells go dry, say, on average every 25 years, 10 years or whatever. The fact remains that the smaller the lot size, the more dwellings will be allowed per acre to put pressure on the aquifer, so the more likely we are to see wells go dry.

We are not comfortable arbitrarily setting this number at the 50-year drought. The discomfort stems not from this being an innately inappropriate number, but from the fact that there are real implications of danger in certain types of development being allowed in certain areas hobbled by a limited water supply.

Therefore, we advocate that this number should be determined by a consensus in the township, based on the mandate to carry out sustainable development using resource-based management techniques. We must insure that an adequate supply of clean water continues to be available to our residents through a rational approach.

In addition, there will be a standardized set of well testing parameters that could form the basis of a regional database of wells for our area. This well testing spreadsheet could also be utilized by neighboring townships for consistency and information sharing.

In the end, we are not Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or Liberals. We are simply citizens of
Nockamixon Township. As such, we are the temporary stewards of the land, and we stand at a turning point in our history. This is our watch, and if we act correctly now, we can preserve what we cherish in Nockamixon for our children and grandchildren, and for all the future.

With knowledge comes responsibility, and we have come to realize we cannot continue as we have without irreversible, disastrous consequences. We feel it is our responsibility to bring this information to the attention of the township. It is now the townships’ responsibility to use this information to plan as best we can to foster sustainable development.
--
The Gallows Run Watershed Association (GRWA) is an independent non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the quality of the natural resources of the Gallows Run Watershed. Learn more at http://www.grwabucks.org.