Watershed groups rejoin state panel

Last month, four conservation groups abruptly resigned from a state waterway advisory panel, saying that a new state policy removed ecological considerations from decisions about how much water could be removed from river basins for industry, agriculture, lawn watering, and other household uses. The organizations said the policy could allow some waterways to run dry.

State officials disagreed, saying that the policy would help waterways and that environmental concerns would still be weighed.

Late yesterday, however, Patrick and representatives of the Conservation Law Foundation, Charles River Watershed Association, Ipswich River Watershed Association, and Clean Water Action said that they had agreed to work together to develop a water-withdrawal policy and that the groups would rejoin the advisory panel.

“I am pleased to announce these important voices are back at the table participating,’’ Patrick said in a conference call with reporters and the environmental representatives. “We share common goals . . . for Massachusetts to lead in water conservation and water management.’’

A statement issued by the state made clear that environmental groups persuaded officials to their way of thinking. The state agreed to suspend the policy and meet with the groups to come up with a new one that includes protections.

At issue is a cornerstone of the 1986 Water Management Act, a requirement that the state determine the “safe yield’’ of river basins. That was long considered by state officials and environmentalists as the amount of water that can safely be taken from a waterway during a drought while protecting fish and other river life. The state spent years struggling, and failing, to come up with a formula to calculate safe-yield amounts for the state’s 27 watershed basins.

Faced with lawsuits over the safe yield definition - and with growing stresses on the waterways - state environmental officials issued a formal definition last month, describing safe yield as the amount of water present during a drought year in each of the state’s 27 watershed basins.

Environmental groups were outraged, saying the policy removed ecological criteria that served as a safety net for rivers. They said the policy could allow an additional 22 million gallons to be taken from the Ipswich River, for example. The river, largely considered to be the most stressed in the state, has suffered from fish kills because the state allowed parts of it to be pumped dry.

They also accused the state of failing to consult with the water management advisory group on which they sat.

State officials said that the policy would help set Massachusetts on a path to sustainable water withdrawals and that the state could not consult the groups because they were the ones suing the state over the safe yield issue.

Now, state officials agree that safe yield will include the ecological health of river systems. The statement says that they will work with the environmental groups to develop interim safe yield definitions and use their best efforts to finalize a safe yield decision by Oct. 31, 2010, so it could be applied to water withdrawal permit renewals.

Environmental groups were pleased to have met with Patrick and were eager to work toward a safe yield goal.