AMHERST — Private wells will get the same protections as public drinking water supplies from construction of solar arrays and installation of battery energy storage systems in Amherst’s bylaw that facilitates development of clean energy projects.
Despite concerns from members of both the Town Council and Planning Board that offering 200-foot no-disturbance zones for all drinking water sources will reduce the amount of land suitable for developing photovoltaics, councilors unanimously adopted the amended Small Clean Energy Infrastructure Bylaw Monday.
The amendments from District 2 Councilor Lynn Griesemer, approved by a majority of councilors, are to have 200-foot no-disturbance distance zones for solar arrays from all drinking water sources, and keeping any battery energy storage systems at least 400 feet away from reservoirs and wells.
Griesemer said the largest concentration of private wells are in the northeast corner of Amherst, supplying about 5% of Amherst homes, and are deserving of sufficient protection as public water supplies.
“I’m respectively asking that those wells be treated just the same way that any public water source is,” Griesemer said.
In addition, these zones would limit the number of trees taken down in wooded areas.
“Once you disrupt this land you’ve taken away a lot of the natural ability of the land to replenish itself and protect the water that’s under it,” Griesemer said.
That amendment was approved in a 7-5 vote. Voting with Griesemer were District 1 Councilors Jill Brevik and Cathy Schoen, District 2 Councilor Amber Cano-Martin, District 3 Councilor Heather Hala Lord, District 4 Councilor Jennifer Taub and District 5 Councilor Sam MacLeod.
Those opposed to the amendment were District 3 Councilor George Ryan, District 4 Councilor Pam Rooney, District 5 Councilor Ana Devlin Gauthier, At Large Councilor Andy Churchill and Council President Mandi Jo Hanneke.
At Large Councilor Ellisha Walker was absent.
The second amendment, related to battery energy storage systems, was adopted in an 8-4 vote, with only Devin Gauthier changing her vote, noting that the extra protection is important in case of one of these needs to be extinguished by firefighters.
Brevik noted the clear cutting to install solar panels and the possibility of using herbicides and cleaning solvents could affect private wells.
“I think that there are good reasons for setbacks from public water sources,” Brevik said. “I think that the same rationale should be applied to private water sources, and I don’t see why we would have a distinction between the two.”
Cano-Martin said the bylaw should be cautious and might help to protect the clear-cutting of woodland.
“I think we need both: I think we need solar energy and we need to keep our forests, because in terms of mitigating climate change, having forests is a major factor in that,” Cano-Martin said.
Schoen said since there are a limited number of private wells, there would still be opportunity for solar development. “I think we’re talking about a very small portion of Amherst,” Schoen said.
But Ryan said doubling the no-disturbance distance for private wells actually quadruples the protected land and would likely render some future projects infeasible. Ryan added that there is no connection between such developments and contamination to groundwater, though there could be some risks to surface water such as in reservoirs.
“There’s no evidence, there’s no concern, it seems simply to be a fear,” Ryan said. “Now if there’s evidence, I’d like to hear it.”
Ryan said the town also needs to address the climate emergency rather than being overly restrictive.
“How serious are we about our climate action and sustainability goals?” Ryan said.
Hanneke said the town’s Water Supply Protection Committee did a white paper on solar and made recommendations on the no-disturbance distance, with the bylaw as drafted following the advice of experts.
Even if a small number of private wells are affected, Churchill said the amendment is problematic because it could cancel a lot of area. “Are we trying to ecourage solar developmnent or are we trying to discourage it?” Churchill said.
The bylaw provides a means for developers to apply for a consolidated permit and the process for simple solar and battery energy storage system siting requirements in compliance with state law in effect by Oct. 1.
Rooney, who chairs the Community Resources Committee that recommended the bylaw, said it provides a clear path for proceeding and enforceable standards for operation and removal that provides safe clean energy development.
The amendments were endorsed by Smart Solar Amherst, with Eric Bachrach of Shutesbury Road telling counciolors that not making the change “clearly disadvantages and potentially harms town residents who rely exlcusively on drinking water derived from private well systems” and makes the northeast section of Amherst less protected, even though there is great potential for such developments.
Two members of the Planning Board, Chairman Doug Marshall and Bruce Coldham, spoke against the amendments and also wrote memos to the council.
By increasing the no-disturbance distance from solar photovoltaic installations to private wells from 100 to 200 feet, Marshall said this would reduce the efficiency of land use, especially for the scale of parcels that are typical in Amherst.
“I fear that it would, at best, increase local sustainable energy costs, and at worst, render many potential solar photovoltaic installations economically infeasible,” Marshall said.
Stephanie Ciccarello, director of sustainability, has been the staff liaison for the panels developing the bylaw. Ciccarello said measures are in place as part of the bylaw related to erosion controls and stormwater management, as well as use of herbicides. Ciccarello said the focus on distances isn’t backed by any scientific reasoning.
“Just talking about a distance in and of itself is not going to offer a protection,” Ciccarello said.
