Listen LIVE button

WBURWhen Rivers Run Dry: Northeast Wrestles With Water Shortages

Published January 5, 2010  UPDATED 5:51 AM
(Sacha Pfeiffer/WBUR)

Bob Zimmerman of the Charles River Watershed Association points to the gushing Moody Street Dam in Waltham, which can slow to a trickle in the summer. (Sacha Pfeiffer/WBUR)

WALTHAM, Mass. — If you really use your imagination, this sounds a little bit like Niagara Falls. But it’s just the Moody Street Dam, where the Charles River isn’t always so thunderous.

“Literally, at times in the summertime, particularly in August and early September, this would be a trickle coming over this dam,” said Bob Zimmerman, executive director of the Charles River Watershed Association. “And there are times where it doesn’t flow at all.”

When rivers run low, that threatens the wildlife that depend on the rivers for survival. So Zimmerman says states need to get serious about limiting how much water is taken out of streams and rivers for human use.

“If we don’t do that,” he cautioned, “these rivers are going to seriously suffer, and we really will run into a shortage-of-water problem.”

We get drinking water from many places, including wells and reservoirs, such as the Quabbin. But we also get it from rivers and streams, where we share it with fish.

That isn’t easy. For one thing, stream flow isn’t a constant. When snow melts in the spring, rivers rise. In the heat of the summer, they slow down — yet that’s when people want the most water.

And it’s when our systems have pumped rivers dry.

“That really is not acceptable,” said Laurie Burt, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

“The challenge,” she added, “is how do we make sure that doesn’t happen, but that we are also providing water when it’s needed and where it’s needed?”

Four prominent conservation groups recently resigned from a state panel in Massachusetts because of a new policy they said could let rivers turn to mud. They rejoined after Burt’s office rescinded that policy.

“What we urgently need, and has been needed for a very long time,” Burt said, “is to be able to predict how much water can safely be withdrawn from a river basin.”

Thousands of fish were killed because rivers were pumped dry in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Some reservoirs in New York are dangerously low. In Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, snow-making takes millions of gallons of water from streams and rivers.

And Elizabeth Gara, executive director of the Connecticut Water Works Association, is worried.

“People are so used to turning on the faucet and having a nice, clean, ample supply of water,” Gara said, “and they don’t understand all of the work and all of the money that goes into making sure that that water is coming to them in that way.”

Connecticut has proposed new rules that would redirect more water to rivers and streams and less to public use.

But Gara warns this could hamper economic growth and force water utilities to restrict people from filling swimming pools and washing cars.

“We have to be very careful when we deal with water allocation policies that we make sure that when we’re trying to protect aquatic life,” Gara said, “that we don’t do that to the detriment of human life.”

But some states are already imposing tough restrictions.

Vermont, for example, regulates how much water ski resorts can divert. Maine sets a minimum flow for its streams and rivers. And Massachusetts is working to define the amount of water that can be taken safely from its waterways.

Mark Smith of the Nature Conservancy says more states should consider these kinds of steps.

“As I like to say, fish can’t hold their breath,” Smith said. “So even if [a river] is just dry for a day or two, and that’s not natural, it really can cause fish kills and very dramatic outcomes.”

Of course, a lot of money — millions of dollars — has gone into reservoirs and water treatment facilities. So if restoring a dry river means removing a dam or decommissioning a treatment plant, that’s probably going to cause a big fight.

But Smith says some communities have taken those dramatic measures. Case in point: the town of Reading stopped using its wells because they were sucking too much water out of the Ipswich River.

“It’s often pitted as fish versus people, or people versus fish,” Smith said. “But the issue that we’re working on is how to make it an ‘and’ statement — that it’s water for people and water for nature, and how do you really figure that out?”

For now, there’s no one answer. It’s a long-term question that the federal government lets the states decide. But it’s important to resolve because — even in this water-rich region — demand threatens supply.

WBUR Topics: Boston   Environment   Health & Science  
Your Comments
Comments RSS
  • I co-authored an article in 2007 that showed data, for 6 MA towns in the past ~20 years, that the # of days per year where the towns was under a water-use restriction (voluntary or mandatory) has increased, while the amount of precipitation has also increased (or at least not decreased).

    Posted by Colin Polsky on January 6, 2010, at 7:09 AM
  • Peter, your comment makes the assumption that human population growth is flat or negative. Do you really think it is? In fact it as growing and become more tightly clustered in higher densities, increasing dramatically the local water needs of the human population. Unfortunately, the supply of fresh water is finite. As we take water out of our environment for public and industrial uses we take it away from the natural world and often pollute it badly before returning it to it’s source making it unusable by either. Your skepticism that our increasing population is not impacting water resources defies common sense.

    Posted by Paul Mueller on January 5, 2010, at 4:29 PM
  • As I understand it, most of the water that goes into the sewerage outfall pipe is fresh. That water leaks into the porous sewerage system instead of returning to the lakes and streams.Maybe we could get some TARP money to fix this archaic system.

    Posted by Steven McArdell on January 5, 2010, at 2:41 PM
  • In addition to creating legistlature to protect our waterways from overuse, I think that we should educate the public about ways to conserve water right at home. I do not think that we can keep pretending that water is a given and not a precious resource. If we take the wildlife out of the equation, which I certainly do not condone, we are still looking at a picture in which fresh water is finite, whether we like it or not.

    Posted by Sadie Welsh on January 5, 2010, at 10:30 AM
  • Peter, I’m not sure statistics are needed, although they would be required before any substantive action is taken. In my town, accelerated development is causing the water company to pump more water from our reservoir and underground wells and they want to open more wells to accommodate growth. That activity is having a dramatic impact on the Weir River, which in the summer, often ceases to exist — which never used to be the case.

    Posted by Wayne Eckerson on January 5, 2010, at 10:01 AM
  • It seems to me that this is a lot of hand wringing, but about what? Is there less precipitation than “before”? Do the ski resorts keep and store the water now, after the skiing season? I would like to see some comparative statistics about increasing water use and precipitation in New England over a decade and whether that increase reflects a net loss, gain, or is stable.

    Posted by Peter Meyer on January 5, 2010, at 8:49 AM
Have something to say?
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief. These comments are moderated by WBUR, but you are solely responsible for the content of your comments. By commenting, you agree to our Community Discussion Rules.

WBUR Topics
Most Popular
This site is best viewed with: Firefox 3.5 | Explorer 8 | Chrome 2 | Safari 4 | Weather provided by Yahoo!