Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newark council narrowly approves ban on new private wells after debate over property rights
Summary
Ordinance 25‑36, which prohibits most new private water wells within Newark city limits, passed 9–1 following a lengthy public hearing and council debate over property rights, municipal water supply protection and enforcement procedures.
The Newark City Council voted 9–1 on Dec. 1 to adopt Ordinance 25‑36, which adds a prohibition on new private water wells inside the city’s corporate limits while preserving exceptions for properties without reasonable access to city water.
Council discussion and public testimony centered on balancing private property rights against the city’s interest in protecting its municipal water supply and preventing contamination. Opponents described the ordinance as government overreach that could restrict homeowners’ ability to use groundwater beneath their land; supporters and staff said other municipalities have adopted similar measures to protect public water quantity and quality.
Brandon Fox, identified as part of the city’s water administration, explained technical distinctions between groundwater and surface water and detailed how the city’s water plant and river interact. Fox said that extensive groundwater withdrawals north of the plant could reduce river levels during droughts and that, in some geologic areas, groundwater extractions are more strongly connected to surface supplies.
A law‑department representative and city staff noted that existing private wells would not be affected and that the ordinance includes exceptions—permits can still be sought when a property lacks reasonable access to city water or would suffer undue hardship. Staff also described an enforcement pathway: the county health department will continue to issue well permits and will notify city staff for locations inside city limits, at which point a permit could be denied if the property can connect to the municipal system.
Opponents warned of a prospective fine cited during public comment (one speaker referenced a potential $1,000/day fine), and council members acknowledged property‑rights sensitivities while concluding the ordinance is necessary to protect long‑term municipal supply and guard against contamination. The ordinance passed on roll call 9–1.
