Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cornish council reviews state reply on springs UDI designation; considers testing and counsel
Summary
The Division of Drinking Water told Cornish its appeal lacked additional technical data and that 'The order remains valid and is final and unappealable.' Council discussed paying for independent testing (estimated ~$1,000), seeking grants, and consulting a water attorney.
Get email alerts on the Water Quality Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its meeting the Cornish Town Council reviewed the state Division of Drinking Water’s response to the town’s appeal of a Unidentified Designated Impairment (UDI) designation on local springs. The mayor read the division’s conclusion: “The order remains valid and is final and unappealable,” and advised the council on next steps.
Council members and staff said the division’s reply emphasized that the town’s appeal did not contain additional technical or scientific information (such as water-quality data, groundwater modeling or geological characterization) to warrant removal of the designation. The mayor and planning staff discussed options including commissioning independent sampling and hiring counsel to evaluate re-opening the case.
Estimated costs discussed in the meeting included roughly $1,000 to run independent water testing and about $700 as a preliminary filtration-related estimate. Planner remarks urged caution and suggested consulting a water attorney before or after testing to clarify legal options and funding strategies. The council also noted the Division’s offer to work with Cornish on a compliance plan, and staff highlighted that the town can now request $40,000 in reimbursement tied to the recently accepted master plan by submitting required forms and proofs of payment.
Council members emphasized their desire to be thorough: several suggested hiring a professional lab to collect samples (to avoid claims of tampering) and obtaining legal advice from a water attorney familiar with state processes before escalating public messaging or litigation. No final decision to sue or formally reopen was made; staff were asked to get test-cost estimates, consult counsel, and report back.
