Water flows abundantly at the Scituate Reservoir spillway, but experts say Rhode Island’s water supply is threatened if new rules aren’t imposed to limit water use across the state.

The Providence Journal Kathy Borchers

Heavy rains during the last month are expected to prompt the state to drop its drought watch this week.

Water levels in the Scituate Reservoir, along with other local reservoirs, have risen above the rated capacity.

And at the Old Forge Road Dam, on the East Greenwich-North Kingstown line, on the Hunt River — ground zero to those concerned about the state’s drinking water supplies — the water flows so heavily it roars and fills the river with white froth.

By all outward appearances, Rhode Island’s drinking water supplies are in good shape.

But those more familiar with how the state stores and delivers drinking water know that is not so.

This year, they seem optimistic that following more than two years of studies, reports and hearings, the General Assembly will pass legislation designed to increase supplies, to reduce summertime consumption and to protect rivers and streams from being pumped empty during dry periods.

The consequences for the average Rhode Islander might be somewhat higher water rates, and a growing array of obstacles to watering lawns and gardens in the summers.

Already, the bills have generated emotional responses: Should farmers or water departments be allowed to pump so much groundwater that rivers or streams dry up? Should homeowners pay hefty fees for outdoor watering in the summer? What is the best way to generate new water supplies?

Farmers and landscapers have raised some big objections. They are fearful of regulations that could keep them from getting enough water to grow their crops. Water suppliers also have complaints.

But the experts say the consequences of not acting this year could include dramatic water shortages, more harm to the environment and an inability to provide additional water supplies to companies considering doing business in Rhode Island.

Sen. J. Michael Lenihan, D-East Greenwich, who has been deeply involved in studying the state’s water problems, says he would not want to see all that work wasted by another year of inaction.

“I’ve sat through hearings on this for two years,” Lenihan said during yet another hearing last week. “I’d hate to lose all of our institutional knowledge and not get something done this year.”

Two bills have been introduced and reviewed at hearings in recent weeks. In addition, House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox has created a study commission that is scheduled to meet in a few weeks and produce a report as well as its own legislation.

One of the existing bills was written by Sen. V. Susan Sosnowski, chair of the Senate’s Environmental and Agriculture Committee, and Lenihan, along with Senate policy staff. Their bill is a condensation of a huge bill introduced by the Senate’s staff late in the last session, following a study led by Sosnowski and Lenihan.

Where last year’s bill called for spending more than $30 million in state money to help improve local water systems, any extra spending in the new bill would be done by water departments.

The focal point of the new bill is creation of an oversight board to facilitate the development of new water supplies. The board would be comprised by the chairperson of the Public Utilities Commission as well as the directors of the state departments of Health and Environmental Management, the associate director of administration for planning and the general manager of the Water Resources Board.

The oversight board also would be charged with creating a statewide water supply development plan that would set priorities for developing sources of water, making recommendations to protect watersheds and monitoring the withdrawal of water from the ground.

The legislation gives farmers great latitude in using available water supplies. It authorizes municipal water departments to be organized as enterprise funds so they can better meet their obligations. It creates a state revolving loan fund to assist local departments. And it authorizes water departments to use rates or other measures to promote greater conservation.

A second bill was written by a group called the Coalition for Water Security. It has 29 members that include most of the state’s leading environmental groups as well as the state’s Economic Policy Council and the Rhode Island Public Expenditures Council.

Sheila Dormandy of Clean Water Action is coordinator and Harold Ward, professor emeritus in environmental studies at Brown University, is policy director.

Their bill eschews the oversight board but also focuses on promoting water conservation, protecting streams and groundwater supplies and investing more in water infrastructure.

It requires water companies to raise money to set aside as capital reserves for maintenance and repairs as well as additional money to cover potential losses incurred by conservation efforts.

It requires the state to establish and enforce standards to protect flows in streams that are necessary to support aquatic life. And it requires water departments to prepare long-range plans for conserving water.

At a hearing last week before Sosnowski’s committee, farmers in jeans and flannel shirts sat in one corner, environmental advocates in another, and water system operators along one wall.

Ward reported that the good news is that water use in winter months is declining in Rhode Island, probably as a result of people using more energy efficient appliances. But summer use continues to increase at the very time supplies are at their lowest.

“This stresses water systems and natural systems,” Ward said. “In one North Kingstown neighborhood, outdoor use is 75 percent of total uses.”

The farmers objected to language in the bill that said “The waters of the state of Rhode Island are a natural resource owned by the state in trust for the public.”

“We feel we own our water and we don’t waste it,” said William Stamp, speaking for the Rhode Island Farm Bureau. If the state is going to stop farmers from using water on their property during a drought, he said, it ought to pay for the crops that are lost.

Henry Meyer, president of the Rhode Island Waterworks Association, said water suppliers don’t want to see firm standards set for stream flows — goals would be better.

And he said the legislation doesn’t do enough to provide backup supplies of water.

“Sixty to seventy present of the state depends on one water source [the Scituate Reservoir], one treatment plant and two pipes,” Meyer said.

James Pagliarini, a member of the Rhode Island Nursery and Landscaping Association, said the group is concerned that summertime water restrictions will hurt their businesses.

“How would you like to spend $10,000 to $12,000 on your landscaping and be told you couldn’t water it?” Pagliarini asked.

“We’re not pumping reservoir water on our crops. We use our own wells. Many farmers spent $50,000 to $100,000 on those wells. Now the state says it owns our water?” he added. “The water belongs to the person who owns the real estate.”

Stuart MacDonald, a dairy farmer from Exeter, said he had a steer go down on some ice on his farm and die from its injuries. If the state owns the water, shouldn’t it pay him for his lost steer? he asked.

“The way this is written from what I can see,” he said, “it’s a bunch of foolishness.”

Juan Mariscal of the Water Resources Board said his agency voted to endorse the coalition bill, but had not yet reviewed Sosnowski’s bill. She urged him to do so soon.

Sosnowski, who is also a farmer, said she was concerned that the water coalition drafted its bill without talking to farmers, and the DEM has proposed stream-flow guidelines also without talking to farmers.

plord@projo.com