Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br /> a <br /> Mr, Rich suggested G distinguish between loading and withdrawal points <br /> they are 2 separate areas. If you establish a maximum concentration level <br /> at the withdrawal point which i s half of the safe drinking water act you <br /> will have legal problems . <br /> Tori said this i s not placing limits on the well , it is a target for land <br /> use regulations ,, <br /> Tony said it sounds like sone re-wording i s involved. 4 <br /> Mr. Rich says policy #16 says in such wells' . <br /> That is a conflict with the safe water drinking act. <br /> De id re G ree 1 i s h sa id she supports ghat the water Commissioners are saying , <br /> she would not support excessive regulations. Let use ghat is safe . she <br /> feels some of the goals and objectives are too broad. E is expensive. , <br /> the ,words cape cod commission should be removed . All ambiguous language <br /> should be removed for the document r <br /> Tom said he can 't believe people don ' t want to protect their wells. 5 <br /> parts per million has been a dashpee bylaw since 1987 , the town has been <br /> enforcing it for years . 5 parts per million for a target does not conflict <br /> with the 10 parts of the safe drinking water act, <br /> He can suggest some wording changes for G. <br /> Tony said the community will have to decide if they want to accept the <br /> Commission guidelines or the Federal and state guidelines . He agrees that <br /> the ambiguous language should be removed, it leaves the door open for <br /> s i tuati ons in the future to develop that we have no idea of i . e G "any <br /> other drinking water standards from being met" . only specific standards <br /> should be referenced . <br /> Tom said it is ars objective, not a standard . <br /> Ed Baker was present, not representing the dater District. He said he <br /> didn ' t trotice phosphorus mentioned anywhere yet recently he heard it is the <br /> problem with As hument Pond. He has heard phosphorous is the problem i s <br /> fresh water and nitrogen in salt. <br /> Tom said phosphorous is a nutrient and therefore covered when nutrients are <br /> mentioned. <br /> Ed said it would be nice to see it mentioned . <br /> Mr. Dake r said so many parts per million doesn't really mean a thing to <br /> hire. The issue is really how many parts you send into the ground . someone <br /> should be able to calculate how much the river can take (per younds) and <br /> you could then allocate a weight per acre. You could determine how much <br /> nitrogen a new development can put in the ground. It should be budgeted on <br /> a 1 for 1 basis . Reserving of conservation land should not make <br /> contribution available to another party. <br /> All of this talks about averages and we know it is not an average world . <br /> The population density of the town between summer and winter is a vast <br /> difference and you will therefore see a vast difference i n the nutrient <br /> loading between winter and summer. He would like to see something in the <br /> plan that controls discharge to the pea,,, condition , not just average . <br /> Torn said it is a good point but it i s something to be considered during the <br /> action plana further down the line. <br /> 3 <br />