Freeport's 2 wells. Well #1 installed in 1988-1989 under local ordinance, in the corner of Freeport near Pownal/Desert Road area. Well #2 installed in 2003 at same location. The 2,500-day travel time for the wells is all within Freeport. The watershed extends to Pownal. Confined aquifer of 40-80 feet with clay on top.

Well #1 cost: approximately $585,000, including well and infrastructure.

Well #2 cost: Cost the same, with most funds being spent on local approval process, models, testing.

Review process for the second well:

At State level: new well approval criteria. No NRPA, site law, etc.

At Local level: site plan review. Freeport ordinance language: activities cannot lower water table beyond project area of 10 feet, no ground subsidence greater than 1 inch, no salt water intrusion.

Rate: PUC approval required. If spending too much, will go before PUC.

Public concerns with the new well:

The modeling was questioned; there were concerns about the accuracy of predictions, even though the modeled impacts were not expected for decades. They wanted to determine the possible impacts of potential future water demands.

Some were concerned about restrictive resource protection district. Freeport has wellhead protection - 500 feet radius around wells.

Yarmouth and Pownal wanted a part in the process. Pownal claims Freeport is taking their water. Yarmouth residents were concerned that the salt-water interface would not move inland. This was the most sensitive aspect of project.

Aqua Maine did additional work and meetings over three years. They basically asked Freeport for an allocation, seventy-five percent of available resource. There was no recognition in process that would prevent future conflicting uses, especially if in another town.

A regional view/analysis not required, although they do monitoring. Any enforcement actions would be by the town, but since they pay for water it might not be that rigorous.

Modeling: Freeport's allocation is based on a model, but the water district cannot enforce or defend the allocation. Models have many assumptions that need careful consideration and that can drastically affect the outcome of the model. Other uses change the conditions that go into the model, so the model becomes invalid.

These are real examples of new withdrawals. State agency permitting generally considers these other uses. In Dallas Plantation, the two major water users agreed among themselves on conditions for new water withdrawals.

In this example, the users that foot the bill got to decide how to proceed, and this may be different from other permitting situations.

The watershed level is a good level to consider sustainability.

How does policy best integrate pieces? GW/SW interfaces? What are important factors that need to be in policy?

Situations are local, defined by watershed, local people. Locals can work it out or go to court. Protection might mean buying more of the upstream resource. These are business decisions. Stewardship, ownership.

Need to discuss appropriate kinds of standards that we need to address. Freeport had some examples; but, not necessarily practical. These conditions and standards may need to be considered in a case-by-case process.

Triggering the process: There might be additional triggers, such as surface water not meeting quality standards; not meeting federal standards. There could be petitions by others as well to get the process underway, particularly since some local government might not have the capacity to begin the process.

We discussed whether an individual landowner might petition should be included as trigger. Several noted that this approach is not intended to be a dispute resolution process for individual landowners.

Structure: several supported having a point agency that people could go to, that has some resources for modeling efforts, etc. Monitoring efforts - need analysis, etc. Encourage people to work together, but then there needs to be some leverage.

Costs: Each step costs money. To do an analysis of watersheds at risk, we need information from users. MGS thinks that for the first step of analysis, we have the information we need from the water use reporting program and other readily available sources. We need to consider how well can we use this format to manage transaction costs. In the Freeport example: high cost for a small problem. The tiered approach outlined in the MGS chart has potential. But the process will fail if transaction costs are too high.

Ownership: We need to consider the ownership issue and the duration of allocations. Uses can be changed over time. What are rights of other property owners when allocations happen?