How Senator Brian Frosh is trying to reform the way Maryland use ground water.

This year, for the fifth year, Senator Brian Frosh (D-District 16), has introduced a bill that requires developers and other interests that seek to withdrawal water from an aquifer to prove how that aquifer will be sufficiently recharged before being granted a permit to take the underground water. The bill is based on the concept of "sustainable yield." Senator Frosh's dogged determination in continuing to seek this legislation represents a political stand of courageous proportions.

For Senate Bill 188 introduces the concept of limits into Maryland's permitting process; the idea that we can't continue to grow and develop on the premise that we will always have enough water. The Chair of the Maryland Chapter, Chris Bedford, testified in support of this legislation on Tuesday, February 9th in Annapolis. His testimony lays out the situation we are facing.

Testimony of Chris Bedford Chair, Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club Senate Economic and Environmental Affairs Committee February 9, 1999   I welcome the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 188, the Water Appropriation Bill. The Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club is seriously concerned about the quality, safety and adequacy of Maryland's water supply. We believe the housing and other economic developments are too frequently permitted without an adequate and public consideration of the effects of such developments on the state's supply of water for drinking, for swimming and for preservation of wetlands and aquatic species. Further, the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Department of Natural Resources appear to be committed to a piece meal approach to regulation of water supplies, allowing a permit here, a permit there without calculating the total impact of all such permitted uses of water. The Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club has had to sue the US Environmental Protection Agency for NOT requiring that MDE promulgate TMDLs, for Total Maximum Daily Loads on critically impacted Maryland state waters as required by the 1978 Amendments to the Clean Water Act of 1972. Right now, Maryland routinely gives permits to discharge into...read pollute...Maryland state waters without know how the sum of all such discharges into a waterway will affect the safety and adequacy of that water way. Likewise, permits to destroy wetlands that may be critical to the recharging of aquifers also are routinely granted in exchange for promises of mitigation elsewhere--without knowing if the new wetlands will even survive or actually substitute for the lost recharge function. And, getting to the issue addressed by this legislation, Maryland routinely grants water withdrawal permits without knowing the effect of such permits on the current users of the aquifer NOR on the longterm sustainability of such uses. When residents and businesses that depend on well water find the levels in their wells dropping, they rightly call on the state government to ask, "What is happening?" And when they have to drill deeper wells, they seek financial help, especially if they have limited financial resources. The dropping of water levels causes an uproar, in large part, because we all in Maryland let our government treat our water as an unlimited, inexhaustible resource. It is kind of unstated premise...that Maryland will always have enough water. But unfortunately, this is a false premise. Dropping well levels are just the canary in the coal mine, warning us that we are making resource decisions with consequences for generations of Maryland residents to come. The legislation before you begins...but only begins to address this fundamental resource problem. By requiring that applicants consider the issue of "sustained yield" and recharge, this legislation initiates an oversight process that is badly needed. That said, we have specific comments on how this legislation might be improved. Section 5-507 (a)(1) uses the term "total withdrawals do not exceed long-term recharge." The reference to "long-term" is far too vague. Do we mean one generation, ten generations by this? For much of the water now being pumped from aquifers is considered "fossil" water--water that won't be recharged for thousands of years. The Sierra Club believes the there should be no disturbance of existing well levels by the introduction of new demands. The time frame should not be "long-term"...it should "total new withdrawals should not affect existing levels in the aquifer." In shallow aquifers, where recharge can happen more quickly, agricultural and other nutrients have so contaminated much of Maryland's water as to make it unfit for drinking. So we believe that the legislation should address the QUALITY of the water in the aquifer and the degree of contamination of the recharge as well. Likewise, in Sections 5-507(a)(3)(III) the term "sustained yield" needs a precise definition This concept of "sustainability" implies another, more basic thought as well. The Sierra Club believes that Maryland needs a water budget just like its financial budget. Decision-makers need to know how much water we have, where and how is it recharged into aquifers, how polluted it is and what is the cost of its cleanup altogether in one decision document so that we all can discuss this issue of allocation and protection in a systematic way. We support this bill as a good first step. But , if we are to avoid a significant economic and public health crisis, we urge the General Assembly to work with the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to go further, to truly preserve and protect Maryland's waters for all life that lives here. Thank you.