GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT IN RHODE ISLAND A POLICY ANALYSIS

The grO\md water in Rhode Island is plentiful and generally high quality. There have been no major <nnflicts thus far over allocation of grmmd water, thoUJh aquifer yields are limite:i. There have been instances of pollution fran waste disposal practices such as landfills, septic systems. and seepage pits, and sorre aquifers have been rendered unpotable because of dense overlying urban develop:nent. The real extent of pollution is unknown, as there is no ~ehensi ve ground water quality noni toring program. Quall ty is rronitored only where ccntamination sources are knCMn and major, or where ground water is currently used for public water supply. There is no regulation of ground water withdrawals (quantity). Managenent of the ground water in Rhode Island is incarplete and fragrrented aroong various levels of governrrent, agencies and departrrents. The federal _governirent has funded ground water research and programs geared to specific pollution problems (such as hazardous waste). At the state level, the Water Resources Board has concentrated "'' on develcping major public water supplies and deperrls primarily on surface water. The Statewide Planning Program has studie:l instances of ground water pollution and has proposed new legislation to manage the ground water resource, but these proposals have not been adopted by the legislature. The Departnent of Healt.'1 limits itself to regulation of public drink.in;J water systems and prefers a narrow interpretation of its responsibilities to protect future supplies. The Depart:Jrent of Environmental Managem:mt operates several prcgrams

ii which protect ground water quality and attempts to adopt a ccrrprehensive -perspective but is limited by specific authorizing legislation to specific sources of pollution (such as septic systems and landfills).
At the local level, only one ta>Jn has attenpted to zone far aquifer protection. Other ta>Jns fear that the courts will not support such regulation based on the existing enabling legislation.
Ground water nanagerent requires a eotprehensi ve perspective, however. Sources of contamination are many, and polluted aquifers may never cleanse themselves. Land use decisions made without regard to_ ground water may effectively eliminate the resource, i.np)sing costs on future generations for expensive treatrrent plants or limited developrent ~rtunities.
Managerent is possible, but must follow from a kncwledge of the resource and available options. To this end, this paper defines the policy arrl program choices in Rhode Island, and inclu:les sare consideration of irrplementation.      There is as yet no canprehensive grotmd water i;olicy or managenent in ~e Islarrl. In recent years, however, the need for ground water management has becx::me rrore obvious as aquifers are fotmd to be i;olluted by waste disi;osal practices and land uses which did not take grotmd water into accotmt.
RhJde Island has developed numerous programs to manage other aspects of the environment and to mitigate impacts on natural systems. Some of these programs and i;olicies offer some protection for ground water but none fonn a canprehensive managenent scheme.
This investigation attempts to lay the gro~rk for ground water management in RhJde Island. Chapter 2 discusses the hydrogeological characteristics of ground water which rrrust be recognized in any successful management schane. Chapter 3 describes the nature of the ground water resource in Rhode Island. and the literature available regarding threats to ground water quality. Chapter 4 examines the existing p::>licies and programs in Rhode Island to determine what protection they offer and where they fall smrt. Chapter 5 then examines the p::>licy and program choices for i;olicy makers seeking to develop ground water managanent in Rhode Island, with sane suggestions for a 'YK)rkable approach.
The ercphasis thrc:ngh:mt is on policy. R>licy is a ccmni.ttn'ent toward a stated end utilizing a defined rceans. Policy requires a clear, unarrbigoous definition of the ideal sought (goals) arrl the interim targets which help to attain the ideal (objectives). R>licy is also specific about what actions are to be taken to accomplish the objectives and goals. Different p:>licies na.y serve different goals with the sarre programs, or the sarre goal with different programs. Policy thus serves to link purpose an::1 action. Policy formulation is rrost critical when conflicts arise between goals arrl/ or prcgrams. Programs without a col1erent policy fourrlation are cbaned to be incanplete an1 inefficient. Moreover, p:>licies without specified goals or without consideration of irrplementation are also doomed to inefficiency, or ~rse, they na.y create larger problems. Grotmd water nanagement can be rife with conflictirg goals and prcgrams. Should "<Ne develop the larrl or preserve the grourrl water?
A road salting prcgram may prevent traffic accidents, but the salt nay ruin an aquifer. Grourrl water management thus r8:1Uires careful p:>licy formulation.
The enphasis herein is also on Rhode Island. Other states have different geology arrl hydrology, an::1 public policy institutions not fOurrl in Rhode Island.
The conclusion is a discussion of policy chod.ces. A: specific reo:xcmerrlation ~uld be worth little until choices are made as to what is needed an1 how it can be best achieved in Rh:>de Island. A clarification of the issues should make the choices rrore obvious, .
tl'x::n¥Jh not necessarily easier. Further work is necessary on pararreters which can only be identified here.
Olapter 2. Grourrl Water: The Issues Ground water is that water which lies between the soil particles and within the bedrock beneath the earth's surface. It accounts for over 98% of the fresh water available to hunans. In the U.S. ground water accounts for 2,000 to 3,000 tlires as much storage as exists in all of the surface rivers and lakes at any rroment (Fetter, 1980). Access to ground water is gained by tapping surface springs or by digging or drilling wells into the earth's surface until.
ground water is reached, and then lifting or pumping it to the surface.
Ground water, however, is part of the larger hydrologic envirorunent.
It is stored noisture, ever replenished by precipitation, allowing plant growth during dry periods, and providing a baseflow to wetlands, streams and lakes between rainsto:rms, which helps to maintain habitats for aquatic and terrestrial species.
Despite the renewable and extensive nature of ground water, the use of ground water and the land above it can have profound effects on the quantity and qua.li ty of the resource. Heavy pumping by one user or paving over large areas of the recharge zone (the land above and around ground water aquifers which feeds precipitation to the a~fers) can reduce the resource, precluding its use by others. Landfills, septic systems, heavy road salting, agricultural operations, and other human activities can degrade the qua.liq of ground water for many years.
Because ground water resources are shared by many users, and today's use of the resource and the related land surface can affect users for many years, it is appropriate that goverrunents attempt to conserve, allocate, protect and otherwise manage the resource. Sound 4 management can help to assure equity anong users across space and time. For ground water p::>licy to be relevant and effective, however, it rrrust follow fran an understanding of hydrologic principles, kn:lwledge of the resource and p::>tential threats to ground water, and a a:msideration of p::>licy options for management, inclu:ling questions of which activities to rontrol and which level of government should be authorized to control them.

General Ground Water Principles
Hydrologic cycle Ground water is one stage in the hydrologic system (see Figure II-1). That part of precipitation Which dOes mt evap::>rate, run off into surface streams and lakes, or which is not absorbed by plants (evap::>transpiration), eventually perrolates through the soil and reaches the water table, the surface of the underground, watersaturated zone. Other inputs to ground water include the effluent from individual subsurface disp::>sal systems (ISDSs , or septic systems) and in sane cases, injection wells (used for purrping water into the ground for storage, or disp::>sal of wastes) , and in some cases by · overlying. streams. (e.g. during ficods or heavy pllll"ping of nearby wells).
Ground water flows fran higher elevations toward sea level.
One can predict the direction of flow by mapping the elevation rontours of the water table, nru.ch as the land surface is represented on top::>graphic maps. The direction of low from a given p::>int, then, is toward lower water table elevations -i.e., perpendicular to the equi-elevation contour at tha.t p::>int, and "downhill" (or aown:.. ::s ~~ Cl. ·r-i ~ below the water table, the ground water is expressed as a wetland, spring, stream or lake (see Figure II-2). Ground water which flows into a stream is said to be "discharging" into that stream. The much less corrnon situation in New England is where a stream is higher than the water ta.bJ.e, and "recharges" the ground water.
Aquifers and recharqe zones I.a.rge l:xxlies of ground water which lie in surf icial naterials which easily relenquish that water -such as glacial outwash (areas of stratified sands arrl gravels) -are called "aquifers". Fbnral definitions usually include .l::oth requirements: size and relative ease of withdrawal. If the surficial dep::>sit is not thick, such as where the bedrock is close to the surface and does mt itself have large fractures or joints, or if the surficial naterials do mt readily transmit water, soch as when clays and fine particles are mixed in the dep::>sit, the structure ~uld not be labeled an "aquifer". Glacial till is one example of such a naterial. Till is unstratified sands, silts, clays, gravels, and .l::oulders which nay hold large quantities of water, but which does mt allow rapid underground flow, and hence, a well in till will mt yield quantities of water for nore than a fev househJlds. tbt even all areas of outwash are aquifers, as often the outwash is only a fev feet thick and would not yield large quantities of water to wells. Geologic fonna.tions which are relatively impenneable are labeled "aquicludes", e.g. dense unfractured granite, clay strata, or fragipan. (Fragipan is dense basal till thought to have resulted frcm the pressure of overlying glaciers. Fragipan is so compact it is virtually :impermeable, and is often found only _ several feet below the surface.)  (Transmissivity is a property relate:i to penneability -the greater the transmissivity, the nore readily can water be extracted.) The area directly above and adjacent to the aquifer is calle:i the recharge zone. This area may not rontain large am:mnts of ground water itself, but precipitation falling on it flows down to the water table or underlying iroperrreable surface, and then laterally to join the deep der:osi ts which make up the aquifer proper, thus recharging the aquifer. (See Figure II -1. ) A distinction is sanetirres made between prirrary and secondary recharge areas, however, the distinction is made differently by different authors. Often, the area directly ab:Jve the "aquifer" is referred to as the primary recharge zone, since water perrolates rrore or less vertically to reach the aquifer. The aquifer is rrost sensitive to contamination in this primary recharge zone because PJllutants travel the least distance to reach the aquifer and so minimal adsorption (nnlecular.. attraction) of. pollutants. by· soil particles can occur.
where water Im.lSt travel cbwn and then laterally to reach the aquifer.
Cbntamination of this area is not as critical since nore opr:ortuni ty for adsorption of PJllution is r:ossible, and sane dilution may take place before reachi.Ii.g the aquifer. The-areal extent of the "secondary" recharge zone may be the ground water divide between aquifers (in which case all land would be in either primary or secondary recharge zones) , or nore narrowly, the land within sane distance of thet iprimary recharge area. (One useful r:ossibili ty might be to define the secondary recharge area as the eX:tent of outwash materials surrounding the principle recharge area, leaving till and less penneable surficial materials out of the recharge area.) In reality, however, such distinctions should be oonsidered sorrewhat arbitrary, as sane p:>llutants can travel far. arrl water fran patches. of upland tilL may. be indoced into wells, even beneat.°11 streams.
Ground water is oot a mysterious forever unseen underground entity. It plays an imp:Jrtant role regarding surface water. In the case of the Beaver River, the stream level is the expression of the height of the ground water. The discharge of the aquifer is to the stream and the increase ±n streamflow between where it enters the aquifer and where it leaves it approx.irra.tes the yield of the aquifer, which varies with season and year depending primarily on the precipitation.
The hydrologic cycle is canpleted as the ground water evap:>rates, through vegetation or after discharge into the surface water bodies, and bea:mes atrrospheric water, which falls again as precipitation.
Threats to ground water resources Aquifers, therefore, · . can provide large quantities of water, for residential, agricultural or industrial use. The advantages of the ground water resource are that ground water is usually naturally free of oontamination (except that dissolved iron, calcium and magnesium may make the water hard, which may fohl plunbing or discolor sinks). In addition, the land above an aquifer and recharge area may safely sustain sane developrent, unlike surface water reservoirs, which flood the land rendering it useful only as a water supply, and perhaps for recreation.
(pumping rrore fran the aquifer than is recharged by precipitation) leads to a lower water table. This oot only· renders existing nearby shallow wells useless, and "dries cbwn" streams, killing fish and aquatic life. It may also lead to land subsidence which destroys an aquifer's storage capacity by oollapsing the subsurface p::>res.
OVerpumping near salt water l:odies may cause displacanent of fresh ground water by saline water ( sa1 t water intrusion) • Eventually, this salt water could reach tile well and render it unp::>table for years, until natural fresh water percolation in the absence of pumping displaced the new saline boundary.
Pollution of ground water is a much rrore intractable problem than p::>llution of surface water. Unlike rivers, ground water rroves very slowly -sanet.irres only a feN feet each year. Its large yields result fran the volume of storage and large areas of recharge. This means that once an aquifer is p::>lluted, it may be years before the oontaminant is disoovered in down-gradient wells. By that ti.m=, the plume of oontamination may be measurable in square miles. A oontaminated aquifer·will probably n6t flush itself for decades.
Residual p::>llutants adhering to soil particles may mean that some trace of the oontarninant will persist for much longer. Many oontaminants such as nitrates can be eventually diluted to safe levels, but carcinogens such as benzene are · toxic at such low ooncentrations that a few spilled gallons oould ruin square miles of an aquifer.

Sources of Ground Water Contamination
There are many p::>tential sources of ground water oontamination, sane have occurred in Rhcxie Islarrl, others have rot yet occurred.
It is beyond the scope of this 'YX)rk to present in depth the various facets of ground water fQllution. Yet, in ·order to understand tx)licy requiranents, sane kn:Mledge of p'.)tential problems is necessary.
Hence, a brief outline of tx)tential threats follows. Serre sources have been c:mi.tted because Rh:xle Island geology makes them unlikelysuch as rontamination of aquifers by underlying tx)lluted ronfined aquifers which were tapped by row abandoned wells. Confined aquifers are una::mron in Rhcxie Island.
The extent of the literature on ground water tx)llution is exanplif ied by a recent a::imputer search of the articles included in Water Resources Abstracts dealing with both ground water and tx)llution, which yielded over 2200 citations since 1968. References for this section will not be specific, as many texts on ground water discuss the general nature of ground water rontamination.
Especially useful references incltrle Todd (1981)  . resulting in· excess nitrates. leaching into the ground water.
The ma.jar problem associate:i with agriculture is the leaching l9 of pesticides _ into grormd water. This has p::>sed a major problem on long Island with the heavy use of Temik on potato crops (Hang and Salvo, 1980, p.II-32).
Accidential spills · Even if all pollution sources were raroved from sensitive lands, some threat would exist where major roads or railroads cross aquifers.
In an accident, a-: tank car , plane or truck a:mld rupture, leaking large volumes of contaminants. Ironically, accidents may be rore frequent in bad weather -just when irrmediate clean-up is rrore difficult.
Toxic substances which were not imned.iately contained could irreparably hann sensitive aquifers. Radioactive substances are especially dangerous because of half lives which might be thousands of years.

Septic Systems
Individual subsurface disposal systems (ISil3, or septic systans) arrl cessJ;XJOls have mixed value. On the one hand, they provide a source of recharge to grotmd water. A oousehold will thereby replenish the water it renoved via a well. If a large area is served by a public water systen fran aznther aquifer, but relies on ISil3, an aquifer may receive a positive net recharge.
The problem withC-cesSJ;XJOls and ISil3s is that certain pollutants are not neutralized. If the system is well designed, the soil will renove nearly all bacteria, viruses, poosphates, magnesium, calcium and potassium within a feN inches. Other substances, such as nitrates, sodium, chlorides, and sulfate are rot .readily adsorbed or broken down, arrl can enter the grormd water, only to be withdrawn in a well.
In recent years, problans have begun to emerge from dis:r;:osal of musehold toxics and the use by haneowners of ISDS degreasing agents.
The problem is canpJunded when the ISDS is close to the"hausemld well or when the ground is underlain by shallow rock and the well is-· daWA.. -gradient : fn:llft... the< leach field.
Waste disp::isal in excavations Following the extraction of minerals, sand or gravel, an open pit ma.y be left ex:r;:osed. These pits were. often the site of. municipal dl.lnps, or became receptacles for a variety of wastes fran hazardous materials to srDW remJved fran roads and streets (often containing large anounts of road salt) • Since the site of the sand and gravel operations may be extensive and may in fact be part of an aquifer systen, the :r;:otential for ground water :r;:ollution is great.

Underground storage and pipelines
Underground storage tanks (e.g. gasoline) may corrode over the years and leak a steady flow of contaminants directly to the ground water. Sewer lines are often built of smrt sections of pipe and these may be separated by freezing ground, releasing raw sewage.
These undergronnd leaks may go undetected for years, and in the case of pipelines, may be 'so expensive to find and repair that the owner makes little effort to stem the leak. Ieaks in 'UI'dergrourrl gasoline storage. tanks nay also· ocx:ur _in. residential installations.

Induced recharge
An operating well will cause a local lowering of the water table, a cone of depression. It will also .3.1.ter the local natural flow patterns of ground water. If located near a stream, the stream nBY be induced to recharge the ground water renoved by the well.
If the stream is J;Olluted, the ground water will then be degraded.
If located near salt water, the zone separating salt from fresh water nBY nove inland toward the well causing it or inte.rnediate wells to punp salt water. Purrping must t'1en be redu::ed perhaps entirely · -until natural fresh water recharge can displace the salt water.
Sumps, dry wells, injected waste SUmp5 and dry wells used to collect runoff or disi:ose of-·.
liquid waste are obvious direct sources of ground water J;Ollution While in sane areas of the country, deep wells a:e drilled to ~low injection of waste into subsurface spaces the geology of Rhode Island is such that anything injected into the ground will probably appear in the ground water.

Improperly constructed wells
Dug wells are usually large diameter (three feet) and uncased.
These roles in the ground can channel PJlluted ~f directly into the ground water. The principle cure is to regulate well drillers and apPly construction standards to ensure that the well is sealed fran surface infiltration which might degraqe the water below.
· The-.:next....chapter< reviews. the-literature on ground water contamination problems· . in...Rh:lde. .Isl.ard,. though this -literature is incc:rnplete .am needs upeating· in Jrarty . cases. · Some. kna-m. problems are being · !tDnitored,, others. .are unknc:w.n ard await detection. Policy must at least address the kn::Mn problems, but smuld also consider t.l-ie potenial ones presented above. 01apter 3 . Ground Water Resources in Rhode Island Any analysis of policy needs for ground water management must consider the nature of the resources to be managed. The purpose of this chapter is to describe in general terms the nature of the Rhode Island ground water resources, their current use, and existing threats to their quality.

Nature of the Ground Water Resource
The location and extent of Rhode Island ground water is determined largely by the surficial deposits left by the receeding glaciers .
Where the ice melted 'it deposited boulders, gravel, sand, silt and clay. Left undisturbed by other major forces this deposition became glacial till, which covers nearly all of the bedrock in Rhode Island.
The rivers and streams resulting from the melting ice then redeposited glacial rubble in the pre-glacial valleys, in stratified deposits called "outwash".
Till and outwash have very different water-bear. in:; propertie s .
Till, made up of an unstratified, unsorted conglomeration of materials of varying textures, is usually not very thick (generally abou~ twenty feet, Lang (1961)). Though porous, till does not readily yield water because the pores are small (surface tension thus holds a greater percentage of the water) and not well interconnected (Fetter, 1980, Lang, 1961. Glacial outwash, havever, may be much thicker (in the valleys often over 100 feet) and consists of stratified layers of "uniform" materials. During the deposition period, the finer particles were washed out to sea, and the reIIE.ining deposits are primarily sands and gravels, with. an occa,sional thin layer of silt. Sands and gravels tend to have large interconnected pores and hence yield large volumes to wells. Although a well in till usually will yield enough water to supply a household, outwash deposits are necessary for volumes required by public water supply.
Investigations of ground water in Rhode Island began at least as  (Allen et al. 1966, Rosenshein et al., 1968, Gonthier et al., 1974. Before retiring, Allen wrote a report assessing twenty-one ground water reservoir areas in Rhode Island in teTIIlS of their potential for public supply. The text remains unpublished, but maps of the twenty-one areas were printed. These maps identify stratified drift Coutwash) aquifers, the water-rich reservoir areas within them and the "secondary recharge areas" (WRB, 1980). Also identifed were sources of contamination (e.g. landfills, salt piles) and existing and potential pumping centers (groups of interrelated wells) and the safe yield of each (that maximum yield which preserves streamflow and wetlands even during the dry per:>iods). These maps show the current and Cone estimate of) potential use of the gIDUnd water resource, and its spatial relation to surface water of various qualities.
The Sl.Dlll'IlarY map is reproduce~ in Figure III -1. A list of the aquifers is reproduced in Table III-1 along with the yields of existing and potential centers. Estimates of potential yields were not made for aqUifers in the northern part of Rhode Island either because areas are adequately served by surface water, or because the potential for pollution is too great. For example, the Blackstone aquifer could yield very large quantities, but tlflis would mean inducing recharge from the B3tackstone River where the water is not drinking quality. The aquifer underlying Providence, Cranston, and Warwick would also yield large quantities, but because of the intense urban development, the potential for pollution is 1.IDacceptably high (Calise, 1982).

Ground Water Use in Rhode Island
As of 1977, there were more than 500 public water supply syste.i-ns (Hagopian, 1982) supplying an average of 114 million gallons per day (mgd) to more than 90% of the residents of Rhode Island C. Kumekawa et al., 1979). In 1970, ground water accounted for over 24% of the water from public supplies (Allen, 1978). Some tc::wns rely entirely on ground water for water supply, public or private.    3) no additional major industrial demand is expected to upset the residential: commercial: industrial demand ratios; 4) by the year 2 0 20 , without new systems, demand will surpass supply in 94% of the canmunities studied; 5) sufficient water resources are available, but intercorrmunity transfers will be necessary; 6) conservation efforts could reduce demand substantially , but new supplies would still be needed; 7) ground water is preferable to surf ace water, environmentally and economically.
General recanmendations included: 1) active conservation efforts to reduce demand; 2) residential: canmercial use be limi'ted t o .1. 5 ;J.. o_ ratio; 3) plumbing codes be changed to require flow restrict ors in ne.w construction; 4) retrofit programs be instituted to reduce leakage and use; 5) water pricing be restructured to discourage high use; 6) well f ielos be sited for minimum oa;roage. to surface water or vegetation; 7) adoption of wa.Ste water disposal practices which will recharge aquifers; and 8) including reduced streamflows resulting from nearby ground water pumping in consideration for waste loads and flc:Ms in streams.
The study recorrmended devlopment of ground water resources because, although ptrnping ca-pa.city was 45.5 mgd in 1975, the sustained safe yield of Rhode Island aquifers is 138.4 mgd. (No satisfactofy explanation was offered hc:Mever, on how safe yields were calculated.) These estimates of safe yields and proposals for further ground water development were site specific and excluded aquifers in major urban ~as; near known salt stc!Jrage prol':llems; or near highways. The study assumed that water would be transferred between camnunities in cases where towns had no local aquifers . Areas of known or suspected nitrate, chloride, or chemical contamination were avoided.
The study developed several alternatives -emphasizing surface or ground water, and/ or conservation efforts . The recommended alternative was the "least cost plan". This plan emphasized conservation efforts, one I'lel1' surface reservoir-(Big. -River} . ani new-~ls .. were prop::>sed to ~t ·-~·· demand·-and replace:·snall-surface reservoirswhich would probably requir~-expensive treatment to -Jneet. new criteria in the future. New surface water.·reservoirs were de-errphasized because by f lcoding-. the lard they take it alt. o~ otherwise productive use. Ground water requires only the 400<11 radius axuund the well. In passing, there was some recognition that ground water recharge areas would need protection, but it received no :!ltubstantial attention.
TableIII-2shows those towns in Rhode Island where future ground water developnent was recommended for .two alternatives; the latter was preferred for -economic reasons. Estimates of costs are annualized (at s 51 s%) and include capital improvements, operation and maintenance costs, and electric pc:Mer. · .These estimates include treatment and transmission-costs -but not the cost (Or benefits} of the conservation efforts or of opportunity costs when aquifer recharge areas are removed from dense urban developnent. Table III-1 cannot be compared directly with Table III-2. The f onner lists ground water sources by aquifer, the latter by t<Nm . Table   III-1 includes an estimate of potential yield of 26_. 5.0_ mgd f:rum -"South Cotmty" 6SPP, 1S8l). The estimates in Table III-2 for Washington County alone smn to 9 . 5 mgd for Alternative 5 . Alternative 3, ho;.;ever, relied rrore heavily on ground water and proposed that yields be developed of 22. 7 5 rngd in Washington County. There is thus good agreement on the possible yields (not surprising since the same WRB-USGS data is used), · the di'sCPepancies a;Pise when ~pec:if ic well p~poqa,ls ~ fon:Dula,ted .
The result, however, is a recel!lt estimate of the extent to which ground water may be needed for public water supply. Al though the Metcalf and Eddy study seems "long range", the year 2020 is less than 40 years away. Since ground water is flushed very slowly, consideration of 40 years is minimal, and not extreme at all. Hence, grotmd water yields should probably be treated on the basis of "pbtential" 30  (Fall River) 1 The fundamental difference between the al terna.ti ves is t.'1at Al ternative 5 includes reduced demand from conservation efforts, and is not constrained by intennunicipal transfers.
2 Conrnunitias in parenthesis would receive water exported frcm CO!!'l!lunity at left. "Providence" is the Providence W ater Supply Board.
Source: ~tcalf and Eddy , 1979. rather than "proposed", and aquifer protection should be geared accordingly.

Threats to Ground W ater Quality in Rhode Island
Although there are a number of potential threats to ground water quality, only a few have received any systematic study in Rhode Island.  (SPP, 1978:5) found 16 landfills which were in the ground water, 11 wfilch were near ground water reservoirs .and 42' wtiich-nad indirect effects on ground water reservoirs. Of these, at least two sites held hazardous wastes. A number of sites were then chosen for nore detailed study of ·the grouni.water ·llnpa.cts. ·Figure II-2 (from Figure 1, SPP, 1S78b) shows the location of the chosen landfills as darkened triangles, with respect to ground water areas identified by the WRB (1978) (circled numbers refer to the landfill numbering in the report).
These landfills were tfien examined to detennine the direct:Lon of ground water flow and their relationship to surf ace water (Weston, 1978a2. M:mitoring wells were drilled, and chemical samples and/or electrical resistivity measures were taken to estaJSlish tlie nature and location of the leachate pllnnes. Problems were encountered in gaining_ access to the privately-(N.lned sites and only one round of chemical 4zo oo '    , 1978) analysis was made. Cin some cases, DEM has made subsequent analyses.)_ Although leachate plumes from the landfills were foW1d, the conclusion was that none of the landfills studied posed a major threat to drinking water supplies. In sane cases, Ce.g. Sanitary landfill in Cranston) the leachate plume probably discharged into a major surface water stream or river, which diluted the leachate. In other cases the site was well a.OOve the water table. A typical data surrmary for one landfill is reproduced in Table III-3. Note that there was l limited testing for organic chemicals or pesticides. later DEM analyses at sane sites, e.g. the Sanitary landfill site, did reveal significant levels of various organics. DEM defines existing laixifills as "sensitive" if they lie within the recharge areas~of · aquifers identified in the SPP 208 map, "Water Related Sensitive Areas" (SPP,1979, Stevenson, 1982. Inc. (Burrillville). lt>ne of these has been proven to be upgradient of a plblic water supply well, but there is a possibility that the J. M. Mills site is close erxm:Jh to a CUmberlarrl well to have been resp:sible for its closure (Stevenson, 1982). These sensitive 1.arrlfills may be closed if perlin:;r legislation passes the state legislature (see next chapter).
Several instances of well contamination have occurred fran l accidental spills. One example was the closin:;r of both public and private wells in North Smithfield. The rontani.nant was fourrl to w ""' be trichloroe.t.~y lene, and resulted from a 500 gallon spill at Stamina ~1ills (na,,r c losed) years aiJO .

Septic Systems
Jo comprehensive study of individual sewage disposal systems CISDS, or septic systems) has been done in Rhode Island . One analysis of the problem has r elied on existing data (SPP , 1978a) . Another analysis involved surveys of rural villages (Hughes and Eiendeau, 1982 ) .
The SPP attempted to ascertain the extent of the problem as part of the "208" effort (SPP, 1978b) . Tuo forms of data were utilized : IX)H reports on the geographical distribution of the failure and/or repair of ISDSs, and well water quality data from the WRB and IX)H. The report concluded that there appears to be no large scale concentration of ISDS failures which affect a public water supply. However , individual private wells may still be threatened by their own or neighboring ISDS pollutants .
As noted in the foregoing chapter, the major ISDS pollutant is nitrate, which results fran the breakdown of organic rriatter, including sewage as well as food wastes (a major source in homes with in-sink garbage disposals), and agricultural and domestic fertilizer s . . l~LraLeS are problematic because they are not adsorbed by the soil and hence . once reaching the water table, nitrates can travel great dis'tances.
Given enough time, nitrates in the ground water will eventually be broken down to nitrogen gases (which then rise t o the atmosphere) or are discharged to surface water. SPP also used well water quality data .from. the LOH. Wells with over 10 ppm of nitrate (EPA drinking water standard) were identifed and compared with the surrounding land use to determine whether the high levels were correlated with urban development . The results are not definitive since not all areas within the state are represented in the well tests • The study concluded, however, that ; 1) nitrate levels greater than 10 ppm were recorded at various sites and times in Rhode Island C:sarne as early as the 19.50'sl; 2) nitrate levels were generally higher in ground water tnan surf ace water; 3) nitrate levels were generally higher in non-sewered areas; 4) no correlation existed between nitrate-levels and land use Ce.g. residential, agricultural, wooded, commercial, vacantl; 5) no long term trends in 1 nitrate pollution were evident C:in individual areas or statewide)_. Recently, however, the Town of Linroln lost 45% of its public water supplies when three wells were closed due to chemical rontamination. A ner~ i~l site capable of 1.0 mJi was finally located but preliminary testing found unacceptable levels of scrlium, apparently f:ran an up-gradient oar salt pile (Truieau, 1982).
Herx:e, al t.'1ough existing ground water supplies ha'V'e been spared, retential supplies have been damaged because of inadequate rceasures to vontain the-runoff f:ran salt storage piles. Aeration impoundments usually included same mechanism to aerate the wastes to improve oxidation or Bacterial decomposition. Seepage impoundments were intended to leak the wastes into the ground (disposal)_.
Since there were no regulations governing non ... hazardous liquid waste impoundments at the time, only three of the sites had JIDnitoning wells, and only two of them sampled the ground water .
'Ibe waste in the industrliial impoundments consisted of industrial rinse waters, (which contain alkalie~, acids, light oily wastes or degreasers) or dye wastes and sanitary wastes. Municipal :impoundments usually held water pur>ification sludge or septage (semi-solids pumped fram cesspools and sept:j:'c tank~ L Agricul tlrr>al impoundments· usually held wastes f:r10m poultry, dairy or pig operatibns .. Each impoundment was rated on several measures: thickness and permeability of the unsaturated zone; thickness and penneal5ility of the saturated zone; underlying ground water quality (measured as total disolved solids); waste hazard potential Ctype of operation and waste, Source: DEM, Surface Impoundment Assessment, 1980 e.g. , -agricultural, chemical, radioactive) ; and potential endangerment to water supplies (distance to ground or .surface water, up or down gradient). A high score indicated greater severity of actual or potential pollution, with a maximum score of 29. possilile.
The study concluded fran the assessment that: 1) no engineering design standards exist for surf ace impoundments; 2) the majority of impoundments were industrial; 3) the majority of impoundments were unlined seepage pits; 4} 75% of the .Dnpo1imdments were in moderately to highly permeable soils; 5) 43% of industrial :impoundments were in "major shallow aquifer systems"; 6) there was no recording of wastes disposed in impoundments; 7) many were near the water table.
At the time of the study, however, IEM concltxied there was no threat tJ?·-existing public supply well_ _ §:ystems. Resp:>nse, Cbmpensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("Superfund"}. Phase III of the stu:iy (DEM, 1981) provided a rrore extensive analysis of selected sites, but confirmerl that no existing public water supplies were in i.nmedi.ate danger. Apparently, one major reason is that industries were tra::litionally located near rivers in RhOOe Island arrl, hence, the irnpo'l.m.drcents leak into grourrl water which quickly discharges into, and is diluted by, the surface water.
It is possible, however, for pollutants to travel beneath a stream when a well is hea.vily pumped. The preliminary results fran test wells rronitared by the EPA have irrlicate:i that three municipal wells in Lincoln were contaminated by pollutants dumped in a lagoon at an industrial site across the Blackstone River (Stevenson,1982).
This contamination was due to the heavy pUitping of those wells which not only drew fron the river, but pulled grourrl water which normally fed the river f:ran the other side. Su::h ccrrplex hydrolo;is circumstances may be found to be rcore comoon as new cases of well contamination are stu:iied, and should make policy makers m:re cautious in permitting industries in aquifer areas.
Several studies bave examined potential ground water pollution from landfills, septic systems, road salt, and surface impoundments.
None of these have been found to be causing rrajor contamination in underground public water supplies. The extent of pollution of private water supplies or untapped aquifers is unknown in rrost cases. It is probable that most of the aquifers in Rho<ile Island remain of high quality (except for iron and rranganese) ·and wolllld be suitable for public water supplies. Rhode Is"1and has inadvertantly been spared serious grourirl water contamination corrmon to other states. As the population of Rhode Island continues to grow, water demand will outstrip existing supplies and:--.new supplies will be needed. The ground water resources are abundant and can provide a large share of the State's future water requirements -provided that these resources remain high in quality, are not allocated for other uses,. and that grounc:;! water. reservoirs · and .recharge areas~are not rendered miusable by the increrrental spreed of urban develqxrent.
There is no program or organization in Rhode Island government dedicated to canprehensively managing ground water quantity or quality.
What management arrl p:>licies that do exist are fragmented and implemented by a variety of public agents. The chief actors in ground water p:>licy in Rhode Island are 1) federal agencies (chiefly the EPA and USGG) in so far as they provide data, operate programs, channel rroney to the state for state-level programs, or set standards which the state must rreet; 2) the state courts in so far as they set case law precedents governing liability applied to ground water withdrawal or p:>llution; 3) Rhode Island agencies and departrrents which develop and implerrent programs in resp:>nse to p:>licy mandates fran the state legislature, arrl local goverrments to request EPA to designate aquifers am recharge areas as sole sources of public water supply arrl limit federal activities to protect ground water quality (EPA, 1980). This designation can blcx::k federal funds to projects which may errlanger public health by degra:ling drinking water quality (Ibgers, 1977). 'llle major sh::>rtcanings of such a designation are that ll it 'per.taiils only to federal activities, which are not the major threat to ground water in Rhode Island, and 2) the purpose is limited to protecting existing drinking water, with no provisions for long tenn protection of r::otentd!al supplies.
The UIC program is designed to protect current and r::otential drinking water supplies fran contamination by wastes dis:p?sed in wells.  (EPA,. 1980), yet two-other provis.ion.s oo bear on ground water. Section 208 provided funds for water quality planning, and Rhode Island used these to assess both surface and ground water problems (see, e.g., SPP, July 1977). (Sate states, e.g. Connecticut, used these funds to develop a:mprehensive ground water protection programs.) In addition, since wells are sanetimes designed to induce infiltration fran surface water, any program which protects surface water quality throU;Jh major aquifer areas may also protect water quality in wells.
The "Superfund" · :*l.egislation recently enacted by Congress set up a fund fran taxation onirrlustries to provide for the restoration of the worst hazardous waste dumps. While this is a post hoc measure, and cannot entirely remoV"e ground water contaminants, the fund has made it possible to minimize "'further ground water pollution. Rhcrle Island is currently targeted for funds to clean up three sites: The Picillo dump, Western Sand and Gravel, and Landfill Resource and Rea:>very (Stevenson, 1982 Acoording to the English camon law, a property owner may use (er abuse or contaminate) absolutely anything within the bourrlaries of, arrl un:ier:neath his land "to the center of the earth" (Adams, 1978, Bosch, 1978, Weston, 1976. The American rule was established in Wheatley v. Baugh 25 Pa. 528, 1855, which acknowledged the rights of the larrlowner to use grourrl water rut separated ownership of the grourrl water, stating that no one can have exclusive rights to water or air (Weston, 1976).
A distinction was also made between subterranean streams arrl percolating waters. s in:e there was little }cl'X)WJ'l arout grourrl water flow in the 19th century, it was t±ought unreasonable to hold lan:i owners acccuntable for percolating, diffuse ground water. Un:iergrourrl streams, h:YNever, could be traced arrl so the doctrine of riparian rights applied to surface water was also applied to subten:anean streams. The specific doc trine which applied varied anong the states, but for any state, so undergrourrl strearrs would be treated as surf ace streams and larrlCMners were not permitted to unreasonably reduce a "cbwnstream" landowner's use of the water. The riparian doctrines will mt be discusse::l here because the presence of undergrourrl channels is uncamon in glacial deposits which are the najor ground water bearing stru::tures in Rhode Island. Subsurface channels would ee nore cx:.mnon in states where grourrl water was primarily fourrl in bedrock fractures. It is possible, hCMever, that riparian rights might ee involved if a large well relied on irrlucerl recharge fran an adjacent stream.
A landCMner was mt absolutely free. He o:mld be held liable if he acta:l rraliciously or negligently in changin;J the ground water quantity or quality and caused his neighbor hann. The limited knCMledge regarding grourrl water hydrology was such that negligence was difficult to establish (Weston, 1976). Rhode Islarrl case law bears on this directly.
In Rose the plaintiffs charge::l that t.;e adjacent owner (oil refinery arrl petroleum storage) had polluted the grourrl water by dun;>in;J petroleum into un1inej pits in the ground. The polluted grourrl water ha:i then cause::l the death of 136 pigs and 700 hens.
This established that the deferrlent had created a nuisance. Once a nuisance is establishe::l, the plaintiff would normally be granted sare fonn of relief or carpensation. In the case of percolatin:J grourrl waters, havever, the court rulerl that negligence by the deferrlant must also be established because the def errlant could not knCM exactly where the polluted grourrl water ~uld go. Negligence is mu:::h ITDre difficult to establish, however. The court recognize::1 that in sane other casa;.· negligence was not required, but that those cases took place in prirrarily agricultural areas. This case took place in a heavily industrialized area which relied on such ~ations as oil refineries far econanic prosperity. 'llros proof of negligence was required.
The court concluded that the def en:lant had not actsi negligently sin:e all the wastes had been kept on the defen:lant's property arrl were not allowed to enter streams leaving the property, arrl since no evidence existed that t."1e deferrlant had acted intentionally to injure the plaintiffs. This case hinged on the belief that grourtl water flew could not be preiicted and thus a stronger test was required. Since the defendant used practices camon to an irrlustrial area arrl did not act naliciously, he could oot be held liable far darrage.
Later, in Gagn?n, the court further defined the law to require a p:>lluting landowner to repair the source of the problem, once kncwn, with reasonable prC!Tt'tness or be held. liable for failinj to prevent "rontinuing p:>llution of percolati.Jl:j waters" (Burke, et al •. , 1971}. This was established statutorily in 1980 in Rhode Islarrl: "any person who shall negligently or intentionally pollute grourtl water shall be liable to any other person who is damaged by such pollution". (General La\-1S of Rhode Islarrl, 46-13-30.) In the rcost recent case, Picillo, a farmer had allowed t.1'1e rurial and dtmping of large quantities of chemical wastes on his property.
Neighbors had been nade ill by the fumes and nearby springs were foun:i to be grossly contaminated by the sane chemicals fotmd at the durrp.
These streams errptied. into public waterways supplying fish arrl other wildlife and recreation for the p.iblic. The durrp thus caused both private arrl public nuisance and the state (DEM) OOUJht relief in the form of closing t.11.e dump and requiring the CMI'lers to clean up the prq::ierty and rel'COV'e the r:ollutants. The rourt refused to require proof of negligence since experts were able to establish the direction of ground water fla-1 based on test wells arrl proved that ground water was polluted be the chenicals. The coort fourrl the defendants guilty of nuisance arrl required them to remerly the problem. The f urrlamental difference in this case frcm previous cases was the acknowledgerrent that ground water flow~ be predictei arrl that the environnent is threatened by many new forms of contamination which may have profa.md effects on man and the ecology in general. Since both p.iblic arrl private nuisance were established, the court declined to hold the defend.ant "strictly liable" (liable for any arrl all damages resulting from his actions whether p.irpseful or not ) , but sug:rested su::h a rulir:q would have been appropriate. 'lllus, this one case has rroved Rhode Islarrl groun:i water law into the present and will ~an that larrlowners will be liable for polluting ground water which harms others.
The problems of relying on courts for managing ground water are manifold and the reader is referred to Burke (19.71   Metcalf anj E.ddy I (.1979) of "safe yield".. M:tcalf and Eddy's (.1967}_ proposals for ground water developnent were limited to wells in southern ~ode Island serving southern Rhode Island ccmnunimes (Washington County), Jamestown, and Newport (via 3. major pipeline over the Jarnest:o.m;_,and Newport Bridges)_ .
All other demands were to be serviced lJy surface water reservoirs.
The purpose of the C.A. .Maguire (.l968a). report was to examine for the City of Providerx::e the--future need .for public ·wate£-an:i the r:otential supplies. It concludes that demand will outstrip supplies within its planning period (_to 2015) and that developnent of the Big River, The WRB, relying on these two studies, places its major emphasis on surface water and has structured its developnent plans accordingly. The result has been an attempt to proceed with develoµnent of the Big River Reservoir ( th:Jugh it has net with 1.imi ted success in bond referenda) and to acquire a few sites in southern Rhode Island for public supply wells. The extent of the ground water developnent seems to be acquisition and testing of a few weli sites (and a 400 foot radius at each site), and a continuing program to improve the data base for predicting safe yield. The WRB has rot, however, µiblished or even prop::>sed a "long term ccrrprehensive p.lblic_ water Sllpply plan". which adequately incluies the entire state. Only the later M:tcalf and F.ddy (1979) study included cost ccrcp:lrisons for various alternatives. None of the studies examined the opportunity cost of the floOded land beneath surface water reservoirs being taken out of any productive use. Likewise, any costs associated with regulating land use over aquifers was igl"X)red. There was an assumption in the past that surface water developnent was nore expensive because it required rrore treatrrent than did ground water . C.A. Maguire, ha-Jever, argues that the cost of iron and manganese rerrova.l is also high. Energy costs for lifting ground water must certainly have increased, though probably mt as fast as real estate! Metcalf and Eddy (1979) made a much nore substantial estimate of the costs of various alternatives, including pumpin:J oosts and iron/manganese treatrrent plants, and their proposals emphasized ground water much rrore than J?C!.St reports.
The third, and major reason for the lack of emphasis on local ground water developrent and rnanaganent by the WRB is institutional.
Their legislative mandate is to provide major public drinking water supplies. They are mt responsible for other uses of ground water. protection. This legislation will be discussed in a I.later section.
SPP has, however, been the driving force in prcm:rtin:J new authority for ground water management.
A recent example of SPP's efforts to irrprove the base of information regarding management of grol.md water is a recent study of "South Col.mty", Rhode Island (SPP, 1981) • The purpose of the sttrly was to examine the grol.md water rich area of southern Rhcrle Island (generally, Washington Col.mty) in terms of 1) the quantity and quality of ground water, 2) threats to the resources, 3) existing grol.md water use, 4) potential additional safe yield, but rrost imf:ortantly, 5) existing land use, and 6) potential land use allowed by existin3' zoning. The report relied on sources of data fran past SPP, DEM, and WRB studies, Kelly (1975), andKelly andUrish (1980). The report discusses each aquifer in detail -imf:ortant because the location of the pollution source within the aquifer is imf;ortant with respect to directions of grol.md water flow and the location of well sites. The report fol.md, as did previous studies, that existin:J public water supplies do not appear to be contaminated, that ma.jor sources of high quality grol.md water exist whidl are presently unallocated, that existin:J pollution sources tend to be located dam gradient of pumping centers (current or proposed) . Unlike other sUudies, however, the examination of current and zoned land use in the reservoir and recharge areas revealed that in many cases tcMns have not oriented land use control to protecting aquifers (see Table IV-2) . In several cases, large areas of the recharge zone were zoned for industrial use, or mediun to high density residential use where sewers were not available.
Zoning does not necessarily mean those areas will be developed for industry or dense housing, but tcMns v.ould be less able to prevent      such p:>tential ground water p:>llution sources if they were prep:>sed.
One reason for the apparent lack of local concern is that public water supplies in these rural towns are a distant p:>ssibility. There is also a proposal being championed by the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns to extend local zoning authority to include gro.tmd water quality objectives. Towns could then enact ordinances to safequard aquifers without fear of litigation (Keller, 1982). To what extent they will do this is a serious question. Nevertheless, scm= towns (e.g. South Kingstown) are rrovi.n; ahead with plans for aquifer protection (.Prager, 1982).
This bill will probably meet with harsh resistance fran developnent interests because it is a major revision of the zoning enabling legislation (G.L. 45-24). The grotmd water provisions are only part of a broad thorough update which ex:i;:ends municipal authority in many areas.

repartrrent of Health
The IXlH is designatied as the primary enforcement agency under the federal SI:WA, P .L. 93-523-197493-523- (Kmekawa, 1979 . State statutes including the Public Drinking Water Supplies Act (G.L. 46-13, as arrended) further define OOH's duties. OOH's authority is primarily over public drinking water supplies, defined as those which serve over 25 people (including restaurants). There are over 500 of these supplies in Rhode Island. (Hagopian, 1982).
IXlH approval is required for any site· plan for public supply wells. The site plan nrust shcM all existing or proposed p:>tential sources of pollution within 500 feet of a drilled, dug or driven well and within 1000 feet of gravel-packed wells. Larrl use must be controlled within 200' of the form=r and 400' of the latter to ensure water quality protection. OOH also routinely tests public water supplies for inorganics (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chraniurn, fluoride, lead, mercury, nitrate, deleniurn, and silver), organics (including endrin, lindane, rnethoxgchlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-TP Silvex), turbidity, coliform bacteria (ground water nrust meet collifonn standards before disinfection)' and radioactivity. As is the case with similar federal programs, these regulations pertain only to surface waters. They are mentioned here because large wells may induce recharge fran adjacent streams. These regulations enable DEM to control the quality of those streams .
In addition, there is a bill (82-H7039) to include ground water as a water of the state. This would enable DEM to classify ground water and control discharges into it, arrl perhaps, where water quality is affected, to control large ~ers. The authorities and regulations for surface water pollution are clearly inade:;ruate for ground water management, but lessons l earned in surfaee water managenen-t-maY-·be· ~licabl-e. m -groun:i water. drinking water source was designated, on the· basis of nydrologic data, as a future or potential municipal water source by the city or town in which the underground water source is located and further rrore providing that there is a local ordinance relatin<tr.
to groundwater aquifer zone." The problem is that, lacking speeific enabling legislation, Rhode Island municipalities (_except North Kingstown) have been reluctant to develop ground water ordinances, although this section may be interpreted to provide that authority.
In reality, local opposition to any hazardous waste facilities, or even non-hazardous landfills, will be so strong as to preclude neN installation. DEM regulations will help prevent further ground water degradation arrl ground water provisions are in place in the event a proposal is developed. DEM' s ISDS regulations are inadequate for protecting ground water fran pollutants in four ways. First, although there is a limit set on the slONest percolation rate allowable, no limit exists on the rnax.ilnun permeability. Sands and gravels with very rapid permeability do not allON adequate adsorption of nutrients Qecause the effluent flONs through so quickly. (Such sofls may also lead to hydrologic failure, since the required size of the leach field i is inversely related to permeability. After years of use, ho.vever, an organic "mat" fonns in all systans, reducing the effective permeability to a comron value. Systans designed for rapidly permeable soils may be too small once the ~ability is reduced by the mat, and the effluent may rise to the ground surface.)

DEM -ISDS
A second proBlem is that, while most i;x:>llutants are adsorbed, nitrates travel readily through the soil, with little attenuation in the typical ISIS systen. Potential problems occur where an area relies on ootli ISIS and private wells. The simplest solution "WOuld be to control the allowable density of housing units per acre to attain sufficient dilution. DEM has no such requirement.
The third problem is that, altlough ISI:Ss are required to be set back fran wells at least 100 feet, the converse is not regulated.
There are no setback requirenents (or any other regulation) for

IJEM -Undergrotmd Injection Control
The UIC program is operated at the federal level, but the IEM water resources division is seeking to take over the regulation authority (Annarurro, 1982) . The EPA developed a classification schema of tmdergrotmd injection wells, based on the type of waste discharged (e.g., hazardous, cooling waters) an:i 'Whether the mrlergrotmd point of injection was above, within, or below a fonnation supplying drinking water (DEM, 1981, p.12). The geology of Rhode Island, ha-1ever , Goe& not l~nd itself to undeP~d inj~ction because few, if any, aquifers are sufficiently isolated fran other strata to prevent contamination of water supplies. The UIC proposal seeks to prohibit nearly all "classic" fonns of underground injection, and extend "underground injection" to include subsurface disposal of waste oot regulated by the ISI:G or hazardous waste programs. The program needs legislative authority, however, and increases in rnaxinrum penalties before Rhode Island can assume primacy from the EPA.

DEM -Sewage Sludge Disposal
Sewage sludge is the solids by-product of waste water treatment facilities (WWI'Fs) .which settles during sewage treatment. Sludge from ISDSs (septage) is regulated as hazardous waste. Publicly owned WWl'F sludge disposal is regulated under a separate program (DEM 198ld) and usually rreans deposition in a landfill. Other disposal options are also regulated, including land application (as fertilizer or soil oonditioner) , incineration and a:::mr::osting. Land disposal and application of sludge may potentially pollute groun:i water as infiltrating precipitation leaches pathogens, nitrates, netals or organic oonpounds.
DEM regulations seek to mitigate ground water pollution by requiring sltrlge disposal site plans to include data on ground water elevations, and direction and rate of flow. 1-bnitoring wells are required in locations to be detennined by DEM, and ground water quality must be sampled at least quarterly. A minimum thickness of soil is required between the l:::ottom of the sludge deposits and the ground water table.
Surface drainage must be directed away from the sludge to minimize infiltration. Setbacks fran wells are established and OOH revierN is required if the site is located near a public water supply. The a::xnp::>sition, quantity and location of dis:r;osal is then rronitored by DEM and maximum p::>llutant loadings are established (e.g. for metals).

Municipal AqUif er Protection
Before there was a bill to grant explicit authority for towns to zone for aquifer protection, one town -North Kingstown -needed such legislation, had a progressive planning department and town solicitor, and construed its zoning enabling ":Ording to include aquifer protection. Other tciwns are apparently reluctant to enact such ordinances for fear the courts will strike them down.
Sections 10.4 and 10.5 of the North Killilgstown ordin.¥1ce relate to ground water recharge and reservoir areas respectively. Section 10.4 does little rrore than describe what oonstitutes a recharge area -but by including any area with · a tra.11Sffiissivity greater than 0. O gallons per foot per day includes the entire tc:Ml. Section 10. 5, however, is an overlay district and specifies that lots oveJr ground water reservoirs (defined as areas with saturated outwash greater than 40 feet thick and transmissivity greater than 4000 gallo~ per foot per day) shall be at least 3.0 acres, and that irrpervious surfaces be limited to 20% of the"lot.
It is curious that, alth:>ugh this 3 acre requirement is significantly greater than that justified by the 208 calculations (SPP, 1979, p.96) and no other justification apparently exists, the ordinance has not been challenged in the courts. This is probably due to two factors. First, the areas defined as reservoirs are narrow. The lot "location" is detenni.ned by the site of the principal structure. Since the area is narrow, the developer can arrange to place the structure outside the "reservoir" and avoid the 3-acre requirement. The planning department makes a conscious effort to prevent ISDSs locating in the "reservoir", and cluster course,there is no sflarp limit to a ground water "reservoir". Hence, tlie regulation has limited utility. The second reason is pragmatic.
North. Kingstoml residents have been sensitized to environrcental protection by years of progressive pilianning efforts. A developer seeking to cballel'l9'e the 3·acre requirerent woulli. meet substantial resistance But even if he won he would create doubts in the citizenry regarding water qaality, and cannit "econcmic suicide." Connecticut may well be the rrost advanced state in tenns of ground water management and, since it is geologically similar to Rh::xie Island, may be a good rrodel. Connecticut utilized "208" funds to improve its ground water data base and developed ,t:0licies which integrated surface and ground water management. Connecticut includes ground water as a "water of the state" in its water ,t:0llution act and thus authorizes the Deparb'rent of Environmental Protection (DEI.') to set .qua-lity· standards~ and rfigUlate (via· permit) discharges into ground water much as surface water discharges are regulated. The quality standards for ground water are reproduced in Figure N-3. Connecticut's ,t:0licy is to: "Restore and maintain groundwaters to a quality oonsistent with its use for drinking without treatment except in certain cases where: a. groundwater is in a zone of influence of a pennitted discharge; b. groundwater is suspected to be oontaminated (GB) and there is ro overriding need to improve; and c. the -. groundwater classification goal is GC." (DEP, 1981, p. 4) The DEP is in the process of examining each of the ground water basins (assumed initially to oonfonn with surface water drainage ha.sins) and inoor,t:0rating local input in \\Drksh::>ps in the classifications.
Towns may then adopt rrore stringent standards and regulations, but the state may preenpt local authority for statewide pur,t:0ses. May not be suitable for All the above plus it may be suitable potable use unless treated for receiving certain treated indusbecause of existing or past trial wastewaters when the soils are 1 and uses.
an integral part of the treatment system. The intent is to allow the soil to be part of the treatmen t syst&n for easily biodegradable organics and also function as a filtration process for inert solids. Such discharges shall not cause degradation of groundwaters that could preclude its future use for drinking without treatment .
May be suitable for certain All the above plus other industrial waste disposal practices wastewater discharges that do not due to past land use or result in surface water quality hydrogeological conditions degradation below established class -•rJhich render these groundwaters ification goals. The intent ·s to more suitable for re-allow the soil to be part of th e treatceiving permitted dis-ment process. charges than development for public or private water supply. Downgradient surface water quality classification must be Class B or SB.
•NOTE-Th e State policy regarding the dischargers responsibility for owning or having other property rights to a groundwater discharge zone of influence is implemented during the State's discharge permit review process and is applicable, no matter what the groundwater quality classification is.
Despite a lack of canprehensive ground water mangerrent in Rhode Island, sane aspects of ground water protection and allocation are inherent in the i;X)licies of various agents. The federal governrrent has decided not to attempt a new ground water program, but to rely on existing programs to help states manage ground water quality. These programs relate to Clean surface water (wliri.Ch may be induced into ground water by heaving pl..U"Clping) , hazardous waste, drinking water supplies, and pesticide controls. Perhaps the rrost important programs involve data collection related to ground water resources, a crucial elerrent of any management attempt.
The state has numerous programs which are related to indivd!dual facets of ground water managenent but are all lacking to some degree.
The WRB attempts to define the resource, but its perspective is biased tcMards surface water and the provision of vecy large public water systems. It lacks regulatory authority over land use, and since purchase of ground water aquifers is vecy expensive but its only m=thod of protecting quality, the WRB ±s unable to "manage" ground water. DEM has regulatory authority but only over certain threats to ground water, such as landfills, septic systems, hazardous waste, sludge dispJsal and surface water quality. DEM is denied broad authority to protect ground water since ground water is excluded as a "water of the state". LOH has broad pciwers to protect water quality but only when the source is for drinking pur:pJseS and is a publ.>ic source. OOH does not attempt to protect the unused resource or private wells. The SPP develops statewide. plans but !"'.as mt at~ed o:mprehensive water. .supply· planning,. s:L""lCe· .J:his authority was delegated to the WRB. SPJ? has developed data on threats to ground water quality and has attempted to establish authority to protect ground water quality at both the state and local levels.
Mlmicipalities have shc:Ml a stubborn reluctance to return any land use control to the state. Yet, cities and towns have refused to push their own authority to land use control of ·ground water resources. Each level of goverrment thinks it is nore capable of regulating than the others but each c:ntplains of the lack of financial or technical reoources to regulate.
New legislation may explicitly grant tavns the authority to regulate land use for ground water protection, but there will likely be numerous problems associated with inter-municipal allocation of resources and the protection of resources in one town to be used in another.
The courts play a role in so far as· ground water is perceived as private property and individuals are liable for damages to others' property. Historically, however, tit? courts have evidenced an ignorance of ground water principles ~d thus have been reluctant to provide substantial protection to individuals or the pulJlic fran contamination or excessive use of ground water. This, and the post hoc natlilre of litigation, means that little reliance shJuld be placed on the courts with:mt substantial foresight authority being given to sane public agent.
The nature of ground water requires a rcore ccmprehensive approach than other resources. Threats to cwali ty and quantity are di verse and insidious.. Contamination may require many decades to be purged, and unplanned develop:nent of large wells or urban activity may preclude other, nore valuable uses of ground water for drinking water supply. An understanding of the current m:magercent is necessary for better managanent but not sufficient.
One must first examine what canplete managanent should achieve (in terms of objectives, not necessarily specific programs) and the institutional limitations of existing state J?Olicy agents.
Ground water management is a classic planning problem for it involves the public interest as it is affected by many actors, public and private. It involves balancing canpeting uses of the land and water and adopting a perspective of many decades. Ground water is replenished by precipitation, but ground water novement is so slow that p:>llution may be irreparable. Ground water management requires balancing interests and having foresight.
Ground water management is a proper role for govenment because it involves future.. generations whidl_ have nc> voice, externalities anon; current and future users, and requires consideration of cumulative rather than marginal impacts. Present users may not need gro~ water supplies arrl may opt mt to preserve their quality. Future generations, however, may find a shortage of public drinking water, and may wish that urban developnent had been regulated over aquifers, or that recharge areas had been preserved. The cost of purifying water for future generations may well justify preservation in the present. Even in the present, econanic externalities exist a:rcong ground water users. One finn may profit by allowing waste disp:>sal on its land, but when ground water p:>lluted by the waste forces another finn to abarrlon its well, the latter nrust bear the oosts. The federal goverrnnent can require oonsistency anong states in ground water managenent to ensure that one state's activities Cb oot harm aoother's waters, arrl that ground water management is oot used exclusively for econcmic developnent purposes.
I.ocal governments have been proposed as the rrost efficient level for ground water management in other states. Rayner (1972) argues that local governnents are best suited for ground water management because they overlie the areas being o:mtrolled, are rrore responsive to public demarrls and rrore sensitive to the special needs of the citizenry, and local oontrol means that those who benefit fran management pay for it. He rotes, however, that local governments are often unwilling to fund activities w'nich they admit are needed especially when the costs are short term and the benefits long tenn. M:>reover, Raynor's argume.nt.s are based on the situation in a large state (Texas) where "local governrrent" TIE.Y encompass the entire ground water supply . In Rhode Island, however, nearly all of the aquifers underlie :rrore than one town (see Figure   III-1. which makes an aquifer-wide approach by one town nearly irnp:>ssible. In addition, past plans (e.g. Metcalf and Eddy, 1967, Maguire, 1968  perspective of state level management t..dth concerns at the local level arout relinquishing control of larrl use. Although ruode Island is a small state, equivalent to "regions" within other states, an intrastate ''regional" governrrent may provide ccmnunities with rrore control over the p:>Ucy fonnulation and implenentation specific to each aquifer. Inputs to p:>J,.icy formulation might incltrle determining ho.¥ much grcwth should be allowed, arrl thus how much water will be required arrl how much of that can be provided by small domestic wells.
When towns encourage devel.oµoont that relies on high quality ISDSs, recharge of the grol.md water is preserved arrl active nanagemant of ground water allocation may be si.rrpler, if needed at all. Intrastate "regional" governnents ma.y have greater local credibility in determining the proper level of crnpensation when ground water is ~ for use in another cc:mmmity especially when this requires larrl use regulation ~ the original ~ty to preserve ground water quality. This regional governrrent ma.y take t.l-ie form of districts coterminous with the aquifer 1:o1.mdaries, or may incltrle the entire towns. These decisions deperrl on what is to be controlled. Innovation will be the prime ingredient in overcaning past obstacles and achieving a roore resp:>nsive institutional arramercent.
The nature of ground water managanent Ground watermanagenent encanpasses both i::olicy and programs.
I?olicy smuld be developed to define public goals. Policy irrplementation is the develoµnent of programs to supi::ort i::olicy goals and evaluating those programs to detennine their effectiveness, perhaps leading to a refonnulation of i::olicy and adjustment of programs.
The tenn, "management", is used here to encx:mpass this dynamic, iterative process of i::olicy fonnulation and irrplenentation. It is difficult for this writer to specify what the "ideal" ground water management should be, since it requires a detennination of goals and probably a resolution of oonflicting goals. Grol.IDd water hydrology arrl i::olicy science can suggest guidelines for managenent, and nunerous writers suggest i::olicy choices which will need to be made. Other states have taken an active role in ground water management, and, with the EPA, proviC.e guides for i::olicy and programs.
Five principles serve as guidelines for ground water management.
First, it should reflect hydroge::>logical principles and laws. (Cassel, 1979, Weston, 1976) Otherwise it will be unrealistic and will rot last. For example, there is oo hydrologic distinction between l.IDderground streams and peroolating ground water. The distinctions made by the oourts are invalid and lead ·1.:o gaps in protection.
Se:ond, management requires i::olicy on what oonstitutes appropriate use of grol.IDd water (Weston, 1976) • If all ground water is to be usuable for drinking supplies, much nore management is required. If sane may be used for waste disi;::osal, then landowners' rights to ground water may need to be purchased, and different rronitoring programs will be required to safeguard downstream ground water.
Third, management should seek to maximize economic efficiency (Weston, 1976, Adams, 1978. Legal doctrines in other states have not allowed land ~ers to transfer water from the parcel from which it was pumped. This was jlrlged as an "unreasonable" use. where agencies will be expected to make J;Olicy. A clear, well defined role for implementors means they will rrore likely assume the resfOnsibil.ity they should and forego making fOlicy when they should mt , (see, e.g., Pressman andWildavsky, 1980, Nakamura andSrnall"MX>d, 1980) •

Policy f onnulation
Ground water managerrent means that policy choices will be required. These choices arise from two sources. First, goals for groUI'P water use must be establisherl. The purpose of policy is to rrove tn-tard these chosen, and perhaps idealistic goals. The goals may never quite be achieved but serve as a •beacon" to guide action. Second, groUI'P water goals and policies will be f orrnulated in a canplex environment of other goals and policies, sare of which will undoubtedly conflict with grotmd water goals. Developnent of groUI'P water poliaies must therefore incluie the exist.ir.g p::>licies in other areas. Policies in the conflicting areas rrust also be refonnulated to reduce the conflicts between various goals.
In discussions of goals for groUI'P water use, rrost authors recognize water supply as t.'1.e rrost valuable use of grourrl water.
HCMeVer, groUI'P water serves other important functions such as maintaining the basefla-1 in streams airl wetlands, crucial for certain aquatic and terrestrial habitats. There are both quantity and quality considerations for both water supply and ecosystem maintenance. Sare of these choices are presented in Table V-1, Step 1.
Quantitative aspects of ground water for water supply involve decisions as to the artOW'lt required. These needs should be couched in a statewide water supply plan • Bartel (1973) ,in a stu::iy of water supply alternatives in Rhode Island, ccmnented: "If there is an issue that transcerrls all others encountered in this stu::iy, it is the nee::! for a clear definition of policies an::l objectives for water resources developrent in the state." (p. 3-28). This determination slx>uld consider future as well as present users, econanic efficiency of various public water supply alternatives (including opi:ortunity  costs of flocded land), and provisions far conservation. Simply providing all the water the population might want is not econanic (Bartel, 1973). Private well supplies should be considered as well as large public supplies, an cr.tl.::;sion in current WRB planning arrl DOH nonitoring. In determining nee::ls arrl the role of·grourtl water in supply, hydrologic data will be essential. Fortunately, Rhcrle Island has been as t.OOroughly studied as any other state-, arrl. a wealth of data is already available (calise, 1982).
Other rotential. uses of ground water for water supply incltrle livestock watering, irrigation, and irrlustrial processess, arrl even waste disposal. Goa.ls for ecosystem maintenance also in::ltrle l:oth quantitative and qualitative ::tspects. Mini.mm\ streamflow considerations may limit the anount of water p.unpe::1 fran certain wells, when that water is rot all0He1 to recharge the aquifer (su::h as when ser~s carry waste water to rivers or water is transferred to other basins).
Goa.ls should be area-specific, perhaps different for di fferent aquifers. With ~oving capabilities for the prediction of ground water flows, it may be reasonable to establish separate goa.ls for different parts of the~ aquifer, maintaining the upper parts for water supply, and the lower parts for uses requiri.n:; less than perfect quality. Recharge areas must be inclu:ied in these policies since they are integral to the aquifer.
Ground water is affected by so many and varied activities of man that grotmd water policy :nust be integrated with other policy areas. Three parameters cut across all land developnent: location, density, and timing. Clearly, certain locations (such as primary recharge areas) are rrore sensitive than others. Many problems can be avoided by controlling the density of the land use (e.g. ISDS).
Finally, when the land is developed may be important, both to stagger major short term impacts (such as heavy construction) and to rronitor the cumulative impacts so that as each irrpact is assessed, a better idea of the ultimate carrying capacity of the aquifer is possible.
Waste disposal has been the I!Dst obvious threat to ground water quality. Cbnsequently, these activities have been rrore thoroughly controlled. Existing waste disposal policies strive to prevent all grotmd water ccntamination from existing and future waste disposal operations, and these policies continue to be refine:i. Once ground water goals are determined on an area-specific basis, sane relaxation of ground water protection nay be possible in limite:i areas.
Hazardous materials uses are largely uncontrolled. 'Ihl.s activity will probably require new policies and prcgrams regarding ISDS "cleaners", chemicals storage, arrl transportation of substances which, if spilled or leaked, may degrade groorrl water quality. It is doubtful that local spill response crews (usually f irem:m) know which areas are rrost sensitive to groun<l water pollution. Policies and programs may be developed to prevent inadvertant . . . . 10rsening of pJllution fran spills in highly penreable aquifer areas ( e.g. to prevent large anounts of water being used to "wash ~ay" the spilled materials, only to result in infd!ltratrl..on into the aquifer).
Public water supply plans are currently focused on large surface water supplies. Small local denands and ground water have been inadequately considere<l in the past, with the possible consequence of a loss of potential resources. Soxre ccordination statewide is essential to integrate supplies and ground water protection between ta.oms.
Ground water policies will re'.l'lire further rronitoring and data collection to define t.l-ie resource and to ensure that the resource rerrains useable. Surface water and ground water should be treated as the integrated resource they are.
Policy choices thus must reflect ground water goals and existing pJlicies. This policy formulation process must include many interests and agencies at several levels of governnent. Policy should not be left to water developnent interests, public or private, or even those actors responsible for regulation. Policy formulation should be ccordinated by some party wit."1 broad perspective and foresight in order to resolve the conflicts inherent in multiple uses of t.l-ie 1arrl and water resources. These choices will be difficult and fraught with political and econanic pitfalls, hut only if they are made can programs be designed to effectively manage the ground water resource and activities which affect it.
Program developnent, operation and evaluation is the implementation aspect of FOlicy. In developing programs to implement FOlicy several considerations are .irrq;xJrtant (see e.g. Hatry et al., 1976)  and Hanks, 1968, EPA, 1976, Weston, 1976, .Adams, 1978, Wickersham, 1981 Giese, 1982). Which targets are addressed depends on how well the state can afford not to address targets, i.e. the perceived threat (perceived by analysts, not necessarily the public, though public perceptions of threats may make implementation easier). Which techniques are ch:Jsen depends on general tolicy implementation considerations (e.g., Ha.try, et al., 1976), the seriousness of the threat, and the difficulty of reversing the target activity. A feN examples illustrate the toint. It would be unwise to expect the WRB to regulate environrcental tolluters, since the WRB has traditionally been limited to purchase of land and facilities. DEM TM' .:>uld be a rrore logical cm ice since it has experience in regulating and has the institutional "infrastructure" in place (vehicles, secretaries, legal expertise).
Pennits TM' .:>uld be appropriate for rotentially major tolluters, such as gasoline tanks or hazardous waste storage, or for "pennanent" structures such as septic systems and pipelines. Performance controls might be appropriate for highway deicing or agricultural pesticides where the level or rreth:xl of use is i.n;x:>rtant. Information gathering via rronitoring wells or registration of rotential tolluters (or well anal¥ses} allows the state to plan future ground water programs based on the quality of the resource or the likelih::x::xi of a particular tollutant in a particular place (e.g. , to ensure local firefighters do not automatically spray water on toxic chemical spills, which makes collection of the toxic material rrore difficult) • Public education seems essential in order to develop suprort for programs. An enlightened public will also avoid tolluting ground water -with septic system "cleaners", for example. People who kn::>w what to look for can retort a problem before it becomes a hazard, whether it is a failing septic system or a neighl:Dring business storing strange barrels. Education has increased public supfX)rt for clean-up efforts in Naragansett Bay. Ground water nore directly affects many people (they do not drink from the Bay) -the pulic should :.tt>; capable of providing substantial supfX)rt for ground water programs once they understand its imt:0rtance.
Municipalities have traditionally controlled land use and development, and in Rhode Island have been unwilling to relinquish that control to the state. Once enabled, some comnunities will undoubtedly wish to protect local aquifers by creating aquifer overlay districts or limits on land uses. IDcal protection can be enhanced and shaped to provide for statewide protection. State investment, consulting and other services can serve to ccx::>rdinate local efforts. Corrmunities rray be required to adopt certain minim1..1!1l measures and neighl::cri;:1g towns may be given standing to participate in l and use decisions affecting inter-town aquifers. 'The WRB might take a nore active role in helping corrmunities negotiate for intennunicipal water transfers and easing public doubts a.tout intennunicipal equity by ensuring that all costs are included in intermunicipal agreements.
Surrnary an:i conclusions Rhode Island's existing programs can be sunnarized and ccmpared with r:ossible programs to .discover weaknesses (Chapter 3 discusses these programs in detail). The state does nonitor air and surface water and accepts certain ambient standards based on air and water quality plans. These plans do not include impacts on ground water.
In fact, the only Water Quality Managarent Plan which attempts to ad:ire:3s ground water (Pa~tuck River Basin) treats seepage lagoons as a way to prevent surface water problems, igmring the resultant r:ollution of ground water! The only ground water nonitoring is at kn:Jwn sites of contamination and public water supplies. Only sketchy data are available for the untapped aquifers or aquifer areas distant (but perhaps up gradient) to wells. Existing ground water quality data is surely inadequate for detailed plannin:J pUip)ses. Sufficient data Cb exist, however, for an aquifer by aquifer approach tD plc<nning water supplies or lan:i use. Decisions can be made on the conservative side and relaxed as additional data are available.
There is m regulation of wells, well drillers, well punping, or well construction (including location) . The exception is a requirement in site plans for public supply wells for infonnation al:x:>ut nearby FOlluters, and ground water quality standards in existing public supplies.
Well drillers are s~sed tD infonn the WRB of -where wells are drilled and what materials were encountered during drilling, but -what data is supplied is often of little use for planning pUip)ses. A geographic computer data base might help tD integrate ground water data with other (e.g. land use) E1ata.
The state has developed programs to regulate and rronitor various waste disr:osal . activities, and includes various specific provisions for ground water . protection.. The major gap -industrial subsurface non-hazardous waste disi:osal -will ~.,,; addressed hy the 1 .JIC program.
Storage of "hazardous" waste is regulated by the s tand?....!:"--:s required by DEM. Other storage, e.g. gasoline, may be regulated by construction standards or local ordinance but little or no rronitoring has been done to detect leaks. I..ocal problans with i:oor ground water quality have developed and been traced, but have met with limited success in canpensation or ~eme<':y.
Some transi:oration of fluids is regulated, especially if liquids are "hazardous". Highway deicing takes little regard of ground water.
Only one comnunity, tbrth Kingstown, regulates land use for ground water protection puri:oses. Several comnunities are aware of the need but are hesitant to develop ordinances without specific enabling legislation. Except for regulation of specific activities such as waste disi:osal, the state does not regulate land use for aquifer protection .
What programs do exist to protect ground water state,vi~e do so in a ground water i:olicy vacuum. There is no romprehensive plan or ongoing discussion of ground water resources, in terms of allocation, uses, recharge, or threats. There is not even a plan for water supply ,which should be part of water resources management. There is a plan for surface water, with quality standards and goals, and with reoorrrnendations for p~grams to iroplanent the i:olicy, but this plan is inadequate in its ronsideration of ground water resources, and thus invalid.
The "ideal" in Rhode Island might be outlined. Some form of task force with broad representation but sane technical expertise is needed to formulate i:olicies for ground water use and protection. The aquifers should be .considered both individually and with respect to state.wide nee:is. This task force will probably rely rrost heavily on SPP for t=elicy guidance, the legislature and governor's office for legitinacy, and the WRB and USGS for hyd.rologic data. Towns should have input arid hearings and infornation programs can incori::crate citizen input. A strong state role is essential if t=elicy is to have a state.wide focus.
Existing DEM programs controlling t=ellution of ground water could be given an explicit authorization, such as defining ground water as a "water of the state". local government will retain land use authority but specific activities can be regulated by DEM if local governrrent is lax. Planning functions in the WRB-belong under :the SPP or the DEM Water Resources Division. OOH should be required to rronitor untapped ground water and sh:::>uld supi::crt DEM in its resource management efforts.
The programs and t=elicies of other agencies, such as car and DED should be examined to identify conflicts with ground water management, and these conflicts should be resolved. Public education is critical.
Ground water is a special resource. It should receive priority in water resource management because it supplies surface water. It should receive priority in general resource planning because once t=elluted, it ma.y never be cleansed. These sean simple, p:iwerful argunents for ground water management. Yet it does rot exist in Rhode Island (except .in pieces ) . Ground water is largely invisible -it simply appears when a h:meowner turns on the tap. Ground water has the :r;otential to provide high quality :r;otable water for a large part of Rhode Island -it does so already. Those who depend on it row and those in the future wh:J need it for drinking water, or some as yet unimagined puri::cse are rot guaranteed the quality or quantity which may water have been and continue to be unchecked. Aquifers have been damaged by land develoµnent and waste disp:>sal. Rhode Island has been spared many of the problens encountered by other states, but oot by explicit ch::>ice. Policy efforts have been directed at other issues, usually less long ran:Je than ground water quality. Fortune canoot be relied on to maintain Rhode Island's existing resources. l'bt to :rranage is to lose.