NEW SCOTLAND — Members of the town board, the zoning board, and the planning board Tuesday had a heated two-hour discussion about a proposed water-well law, with some members contending that the law would harm local farmers and longtime residents, and others citing a moral obligation to provide safe water to taxpayers.

The proposed water-well law could require those who subdivide properties, or improve their existing homes, to put in new wells.

The bill comes after expensive homes were built in New Scotland after water tests certified by well drillers proved unreliable. A suggestion by Building Inspector Jeremy Cramer to require well drillers to have town licenses that could be revoked could eliminate much of the boards’ dissension over the proposal.

Water bill

Hydrogeologist Kevin Phelan, of Alpha Geoscience in Clifton Park (Saratoga Co.), told The Enterprise that he submitted comments to draft the bill.

The law would establish town standards that are “intended to be consistent with county well regulations” for wells on newly subdivided properties, he told the board members.

The proposal “uniquely adds an oversight factor on the part of the town,” Phelan said.

Planning board member Robert Stapf, a retired surveyor, protested the proposed law as unnecessary.

“A lot of [farmers] are on dug wells, which meet Albany County Department of Health” well regulations now, he said. “You’re going to penalize all those farmers.” Many town properties use cisterns and filtration systems, which are approved by the health department, he said.

Stapf opposed wording in the bill that required a new well to be drilled for existing homes if owners want to add a bathroom.

“You’re throwing another $10,000 on it,” Stapf said. “It makes no sense in those situations….You’re creating a hardship for people who are living in this town.”

Part of the proposed law also called for drilled wells to be 100 feet away from a neighboring well.

Stapf said that a parcel may not be able to fit a well within the 100-foot limitation, which could create unbuildable lots. He also said that courts have upheld that groundwater is available to property owners.

“Everybody has a right to put their straw down in the ground and take their fair share,” he said.

Lack of available clean water is a longtime issue in New Scotland, and a reason the town has not yet outgrown its rural character, according to planning board member Thomas Hart. Hart said that he spent 10 years as a research scientist working on public water supplies in New York State.

“Water is the limiting factor,” he said of New Scotland development restriction. Hart supported the proposal, saying that it introduces a level of certainty for potential builders.

“There are a lot of scary wells out there” that are not in compliance with state regulations, he said. “I don’t mind seeing this moving forward. As far as dug wells being fine? They’re not.”

Revision disagreements

Stapf asked that the proposal include references to hydraulic fracturing, which has been used in New Scotland to create private water supplies. He said that he agreed with Hart that, when homes are sold, standards for chemical tests on water must be met, but he suggested that the law should address pre-existing, non-conforming properties.

Stapf and fellow planning board member Kurt Anderson agreed that well-water issues are handled by the county health department.

“I don’t understand why we’re even considering it,” Anderson said. “Tell me what the problem is we’re trying to solve here.”

Supervisor Thomas Dolin said that the health department is “very much in favor” of the law, and that the town would not take over jurisdiction, but attempt to support compliance of water regulations for the health department.

Planning board attorney Jeffrey Baker said that common law, like the groundwater sharing mentioned by Stapf, does not preclude a regulatory authority like the town from enacting a law.

Dolin said that the proposal would require certification by a licensed professional to approve water supplies on building lots within the town.

“Unreliable testing — that’s the biggest problem,” Dolin said.

“Let me tell you why it will never be reliable,” Anderson said.

“Aw, come on, Kurt!” Dolin said.

Anderson said that the drawdown of groundwater affects the “cone of influence” on a property based on permeability.

“It may be constant, but, in New Scotland, it can be all over the lot,” Anderson said.

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation website, drawdown is a lowering of groundwater caused by pumping. Pumping causes water to dip down to form a cone shape, or cone of depression, which can vary according to porosity, and the land above the cone is the area of influence, according to the DEC.

Dolin said that Anderson’s assessment minimized the issue.

Stapf argued against Dolin’s comment, reiterating, “You’re going to hurt the farmers!” He said that he had not explained his position well enough because members in the room did not yet understand him.

“I guess the people here are not as smart as you are,” Dolin said.

Checks and balances

Planning board member Jo Ann Davies said that water certification notification should not be a cost borne by the town.

“I’m not seeing a system of checks and balances here,” Davies said.

Planning board Chairman Charles Voss said that he wants to know what the fiscal impact of the proposal is for the town.

“I started seeing dollar signs lining up,” he said about reading the document.

Dolin said that the property owner or developer would pay for needed tests, whether the tests are required by New Scotland or Albany County.

Voss also asked about the requirement to drill a new well if a property owner added a bathroom onto his home.

“That’s an issue that’s going to be discussed,” Dolin said.

Real estate attorney Roz Robinson told the boards, “The law doesn’t represent what Tom [Dolin] says is the intent.” She said that the costs involved with drilling a well on each subdivided lot are cost-prohibitive.

“I think that’s a problem,” Robinson said, indicating not every property buyer wants to build. “What if somebody wants to hunt on it?” she asked.

Finding water on a property is “not an exact science,” she said. “If these laws are for 100-lot subdivisions, I get it.” She said that the proposed law does not work for small subdivisions. “Have a perc test,” she suggested in place of a well requirement.

“These points are well-taken. This is why we’re here,” Dolin said.

He said that new town residents who purchased $300,000 and $400,000 homes now have bad water because of unreliable water testing.

“We have some sort of obligation,” Dolin said. “It’s just moral.”

“As it is written, I don’t support what’s here,” Cramer said. “It could be massaged to do what we want it to do.”

Cramer suggested that a requirement for well drilling be removed if a bathroom is added, as a new room does not mean there has been a change in the number of people in the home, which directly affects the amount of water used. Instead, property owners adding a bedroom would indicate a growing number of people with water needs, he said.

If someone buys a lot of forestry, “are you going to make them dig a well?” Cramer asked.

He suggested that the town does not need to “over-regulate” areas of town where water is known to be safe and plentiful.

He asked if the health department has information on a chart overlay or map that includes homes that currently have water that flows at less than 5 gallons per minute.

Robinson and surveyor Cindy Elliott shook their heads no.

“Could we start one?” Cramer said.

Cramer said that, under current law, homeowners can hire plumbing and electrical services that are not licensed with the town.

“Maybe we need a license for well drillers in town? If they are fraudulent, we take them off the list,” he said.