ISDS 



Even in towns having planning resources, implementation of 

 comprehensive wastewater management programs has been uneven. While 

 some municipalities have developed successful programs, others have established costly 

 and unfortunate sewering precedents in low density areas, or have used sewering to attract 

 development at high cost to the general public. 



It is extremely important that towns make clear commitments to sound 

 planning and sound wastewater management, using veriflable water quality 

 data to support decision making. Wastewater Management Plans should be 

 prepared as an integral part of the Comprehensive Planning process, and 

 should clearly identify degraded areas to be sewered, and timing of sewer 

 extensions to be made into other resource areas. In areas unsuited to use of 

 ISDS, lot sizing or other land management controls should be used to ensure adequate 

 treatment capacity for effluent. 



The technical planning capability and expertise of the Division of 

 Planning is insufficiently utilized by local governments and other state 

 agencies. Technical input from the Division is given insufficient weight in permitting 

 decisions by DEM and CRMC. Division personnel, conversely, do not feel that diey are in 

 a position to gainsay regulatory agency decisions. 



Special Issues Concerning Regulatory Authority 



Within the past few years, court decisions and appeals reversals have contributed to an 

 atmosphere of great regulatory caution with regard to the legitimate use of local police 

 power to protect public health and welfare, and to die use of state regulatory authority as it 

 affects land use. As a result, limited state zoning enabling legislation has been interpreted 

 as placing more severe restrictions on exercise of local police power than it actually may. 

 (See Appendix I on the use of local regulatory authority. 



A major educational outreach campaign from the State Attorney 

 General's Office is needed in order to dispel undue fears of inverse 

 condemnation suits among permit granting agencies at the local and state 

 levels. Currently, such fears are routinely affecting decision-making. 



The regulatory appeal procedure applied in Rhode Island creates a presumption that the 

 burden of proof should fall to a regxilatory agency to demonstrate that enforcement of 

 regulations would not do manifest injustice to a permit applicant. The appeal procedure 

 is cumbersome and gives excessive power to the judiciary in interpreting 

 technical regulatory mandates of executive agencies. The appeal procedure 

 should be limited by strict criteria of entry. The criteria should ensure that 

 the burden of proof falls to the applicant to demonstrate that the same 

 degree of environmental protection could be achieved without strict 

 application of the provisions from which relief is sought. 



SPECinC PROGRAM FINDINGS AND CONCERNS 



The following sections outiine specific program strengths and limitations identified 

 during the course of the present research investigation. Findings and concerns are 

 presented, and reconunendations are made as to potential regulatory or administrative 



51 



