evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice

MWRA Quabbin–Wachusett Watershed Protection Program (USA)

United States of America · Boston · See the United States of America profile

By protecting 75% of the Quabbin, Ware River and Wachusett watersheds as forested open space and buying about 1,500 acres a year, Boston's MWRA won a 2000 federal court ruling that its supply meets all criteria to avoid a filtration plant, saving an estimated $180M.

75%
Watershed area protected as open space
~1,500 acres/year
Additional land purchased
$180 million
Estimated cost avoided by not building a filtration plant
11 of 11
Federal filtration-avoidance criteria met (ruling issued 2000-05-05)
MWRA Quabbin–Wachusett Watershed Protection Program (USA)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA)
Period
1992–present
Keywords
water utility, land conservation, drinking water regulation

Context

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) supplies drinking water to greater Boston from the Quabbin, Ware River and Wachusett reservoir system. Under the state's 1992 Watershed Protection Act, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has kept about 75% of these watersheds as DCR-owned or otherwise protected open space, and continues to purchase roughly 1,500 additional acres of forest and farmland per year to keep development and pollutant sources away from the reservoirs.

Activities

Under the federal Surface Water Treatment Rule, a 1993 consent order gave MWRA until 1998 to either build a full filtration plant or demonstrate that source-water protection kept water quality within the criteria for filtration avoidance. MWRA built a new ozone/chloramination disinfection plant rather than a granular filtration plant, relying on upstream land protection to keep raw-water turbidity low.

Results

After EPA opposed a waiver, the dispute went to federal court; on May 5, 2000, Judge Richard Stearns ruled that MWRA's integrated programme met all 11 federal criteria for avoiding filtration. Adding filtration would have cost an estimated $180 million more than the ozonation plant that was built instead, a saving directly attributable to decades of watershed land protection keeping raw-water turbidity low. It is one of only a handful of major U.S. utilities, alongside New York City, to have achieved a court- and regulator-validated filtration avoidance determination on the strength of upstream land conservation.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) land management staff, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) water-supply operations

Conditions for success

  • Statutory backing via the 1992 Watershed Protection Act
  • Sustained, continuous land acquisition (~1,500 acres/year)
  • Investment in alternative disinfection technology (ozone/chloramination) rather than filtration
  • Willingness to defend the approach through federal regulatory and legal processes

Common failure modes

  • Land protection alone was insufficient without also building the alternative disinfection plant
  • Development or pollutant-source encroachment would undermine turbidity control if acquisition stopped

Where it fits

Governance type
US state agency (DCR) + regional water utility (MWRA), federal court validation
Scale
regional (greater Boston water supply)
Income level
high-income country (USA)

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful