Water suppliers urge committee to reject rules they say condition historic registrations under HB 1018

Wellesley and Springfield water officials told the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on Thursday that new Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection drought rules are creating operational headaches and confusing customers, and they asked lawmakers to advance House Bill 1018 to protect long‑standing water withdrawal registrations.

Dave Cohen, director of public works for the Town of Wellesley, told the committee his system serves "about 30,000 customers" from "10 local wells and 3 drinking water treatment plants" and that the town now receives about 65% of its supply from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Cohen said the 2023 MassDEP regulation linking registered withdrawals to mandatory restrictions has led to troubling customer questions: "why we would need to restrict watering to 1 day per week even though there's been significant rain in our area and while we have sufficient water supply." He added that the rule, as applied, "negatively affects the credibility of water suppliers."

Jamie Bartok, communications manager for the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission and president of the Massachusetts Water Works Association, told the committee the commission holds two Water Management Act registrations granted in 1986 that allow withdrawals up to 39 million gallons per day. "We have lived within this registered volume for 40 years, averaging now 30,000,000 gallons per day," Bartok said, and he warned that conditioning those historic registrations undermines investment in infrastructure: revenue from water sales funds leak detection, pipe replacement and new treatment plants.

Bartok and other witnesses said House Bill 1018 would clarify that regulations cannot be used to reduce or otherwise condition historic registered withdrawal volumes granted under the Water Management Act. They also urged the committee to consider conservation and drought‑resilience measures without undercutting the financing that utilities rely on in warmer months.

The hearing included questions from committee members but no formal action. Witnesses said their concerns were regulatory and statutory — not operational objections to conservation — and they asked the committee for a favorable report on HB 1018 so the Legislature can address how MassDEP implements drought triggers for registered systems.

Supporters said the bill would better align drought triggers with actual reservoir capacity and system vulnerability, while opponents at later panels raised separate concerns about statewide drought planning and equitable conservation obligations.

The committee did not take a vote at the hearing; testimony on HB 1018 will continue in writing and at subsequent hearings.