1974 - Revised May 7,1987

The League of Women Voters of Rhode Island supports long-range statewide planning for solid waste management. This should include:

1.  Reduction of wastes volume and materials recovery through source reduction, source separation and recycling, and composting. (In December of 1985, the LWVRI supported legislation calling for mandatory source separation of municipal wastes and recycling in Rhode Island.)

2.  State leadership in the promotion of markets for reclaimed material and state and local government purchase of recycled materials when practicable.

3.  Further volume reduction and energy recovery from the unrecyclable materials by the use of waste-to-energy facilities, designed and operated in compliance with state and national environmental laws for air and water.

4.  Disposal of the residue in well-sited, designed, and managed sanitary   landfills, run in conformity with strict environmental controls.

5.      Rejection of the concept of local veto over siting of state facilities.

6.      Public education to bring about general understanding and cooperation with government authorities in the management of our solid waste problem.

Links

Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation

Back to Top 

Land Use Position

LWV RI position

Revision: April 1986 (based on Consensus of 1970's)

The Rhode Island league of Women Voters believes that the State of Rhode Island should establish a broad overall land use plan including general land use goals, policies to accompany these goals, identification of critical areas and activities, and regulations for specific land uses.

The state should be the primary governmental unit for identification and regulation of critical areas and activities. To the extent that these areas and activities cross state boundaries, regional planning and regional controls are advisable. The decision malting process should include ample local input. Incentives to encourage local communities to follow the broad guidelines of the plan are necessary, and penalties may be needed in case of noncompliance.

State government should help localities develop and exercise local land use management functions.  Local communities should have the power to use innovative land use planning and regulatory techniques. The state should compensate localities that suffer revenue losses from state override of local land uses.

Impact statements for development involving critical areas and activities should be required; the scope of these statements should be in relation to the size of the project. Impact statements should be made public early enough to avoid costly investment and in time to allow decision changes.  We support the exploration of alternative taxing methods, as land use decisions made on "best use of land" criteria will be hard to make under the present property tax system.

Citizen input in land use planning is a major concern. Provisions for public participation

throughout the planning process should be mandatory. Training in basic land use planning should be required for local zoning, permit and planning boards.

Definition of Terms

A. Critical Areas: fragile or historic lands where development could result in irreversible

damage (such as shorelines, including those of rivers, or lakes; wetlands; Indian burial grounds); renewable resource lands, where development could result in the loss of productivity (such as watershed, forest lands, agricultural lands); natural hazard lands, where development could endanger life and property (i.e. flood plains).

B. Critical Activities: activities in areas impacted by public investment where siting results in secondary land use demand (11ighways, water and sewer, utilities, etc.); in large scale private development which may have a substantial impact upon the environmental, social and economic environment (industrial parks, shopping centers, apartment complexes, etc.); land developments by public bodies (1ow and moderate income housing, recreation, open spaces, etc.).

C. Resources Available to Management: increased state financial and technical aid, and data information.

Public Involvement: could include: individual comments, attendance at public meetings or hearings, citizen action, lobbying, citizen advisory committees and appellate boards.

Water Policy Position 

LWV RI position

May 1984

The Rhode Island league of Women Voters cannot support the Construction of the Big River Reservoir:

1.  before implementation of a statewide water conservation plan and the effects are fully known

2.  unless an updated feasibility study including environmental assessment clearly shows the need exists,

3.  until updated population and demand projections warrant it.

If the above conditions are met, the LWV of RI will reevaluate its position on the Big River Reservoir. If the above conditions are not met, the LWV of RI will oppose the construction of the Big River Reservoir.

Conservation and groundwater protection and use should be considered as alternatives to the development of surface water supplies.

Groundwater Protection

The State should change its zoning enabling act and take any other measures necessary to protect aquifers and recharge areas currently in use or identified for future water supply.

Environmental Issues

If the Big River or other reservoirs should be constructed, the following environmental impacts should be addressed:

· Recreational use of reservoir: The LWVRI supports limited and controlled recreational use of proposed reservoirs and contiguous watershed lands. Uses such as those proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact Statement, Portion 3 Plan for Big River Reservoir and endorsed by the Department of Environmental Management (see Recreational Plan section) should be permitted. Monitoring and policing must be adequately financed.  Some of the financing methods proposed include user fees, permits and licenses. A minority feels that recreational use should not be permitted. Potential threats to water quality and inadequate monitoring were primary concerns.

· Downstream flows: It should be required that Continuous downstream flow take precedence over either uses of the released water from the Big River or any proposed reservoir. A minimum release should be maintained at all times.

· Roads: Safety features to prevent hazardous spills and runoff form entering reservoirs should be included in the designs for remaining roads. Road construction over or adjacent to reservoirs should be kept to a minimum. The cost of maintenance of these features should be included in the financing plans for any reservoir.

· Wetlands mitigation: Wetlands mitigation should be required and absolutely financed.

Reservoir Financing

A combination of revenue and general obligation bonds should be used to finance the Big River Reservoir. A ratio of revenue bonds to general obligation bonds should be employed in such a way that users of water, recreation, roads and potential growth areas repay the bonds equitably.  A minority favored the use of revenue bonds entirely.

Recreational Plan

The DEM generally endorses the Option 3 Recreation Plan proposed in the Big River Reservoir Environmental Impact Statement E.I.S.) prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers. Their position is that a commitment of such a large tract of land to a single purpose is not in the best interests of the population. They feel the plan offers unique opportunities to provide water related recreational experiences. Furthermore, with proper management recreational experience can be provided without compromising water quality. They also feel this issue has been well examined and substantiated.

The following activities should be permitted in the BRR watershed under certain conditions:

A. Boating - electric motors, sailboats, rowboats.

B. Fishing - this activity should be heavily controlled to establish a strong fish population

C. Swimming - not allowed in the reservoir. Allowed at Carrs Pond and Phelps Pond.

D. Trail bikes - a well-defined and planned trail system, coordinated by DEM and the Trail Riding Organization.

E. Camping - permitted under highly controlled conditions and only outside the watershed.

Other recreational activities such as picnicking, horseback riding, hiking; cross-country skiing, ice skating, and hunting would also be permitted under less restrictive conditions. Most activities would be regulated by a permit system. Proposed fees for activities would be used to finance additional personnel needed.

Links

Commission to Study All Aspects of the Kent Water Authority

RI Department of Health Office of Drinking Water Quality

Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000 - U.S. Geological Survey

Back to Top