Agenda - 08-26-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

54 of r Comments During the initial water supply hearing process a number of comments were received which led to the adoption of the water supply protection rules in their present format. The EMC feels that these public hearings offer an excellent opportunity to gather further comment on some of the issues that resulted in changes to the originally proposed rules. The information outlined below summarizes the changes that were made from the original proposed rules to those adopted in December 1990. it is important to note that of the major changes made in the adopted rules, only one change (critical area around reservoirs) is considered to have made the rules more stringent. o Critical Area. The critical area size was changed to 1 mile for all water supply areas to allow for uniform protection in all watersheds. This change increases the critical area size only for those water supply areas where intakes are located within impoundments. Previously a l --z mile critical area was proposed around water supply _. impoundments and a 1 mile critical area for surface water intakes located directly in a stream or river. + Protected Area. The protected area size for larger river segments was modified to be a uniform size - 5 miles and draining to water supply impoundments or 10 miles and draining to intakes located directly in a stream or river. The original proposed wording for protected area sizing was that these areas would be established on a case -by --case basis. The wording of HS 156 indicates that protection measures should be implemented within all surface water supply "watersheds ". With this as a mandate, the case -by -case determination of protected area size would necessarily begin by considering the entire drainage area for the water supply source. In many cases this would include thousands of square miles and the majority of most major river basins in the state. While DEM staff did not feel that it would be practical or necessary to include the entire area of the larger water supply watersheds, they did envision that a significant portion should include protection measures. The 5 and 10 mile boundaries were accepted as alternatives by the hearing officers and the EMC as "minimum" protection criteria which are consistent with the protection measures afforded to smaller water supply sources. + Nonconforming Uses. In the adopted rules, modifications were added to specifically address the allowance of nonconforming uses. These modifications clarified that existing uses and development would be "grandfathered" in as existing development. It should be noted that any measures that may be utilized to minimize the impacts of nonconforming activities are strongly encouraged. it should also be noted that it is proposed that nonconforming uses be allowed on a case -by -case basis by the EMC at the request of