HOULTON – Despite some reservations and lingering questions from several property owners who will be affected by the edict, town councilors on Monday evening adopted an ordinance that was crafted to further protect the town’s drinking water from any potential contamination.

Councilors also vowed to revisit the issue in six months to see if any issues with the drinking water protection ordinance had developed. The ordinance can be amended by a majority vote of the council.

Late last month, the board postponed the potential adoption of the ordinance for another three weeks to give the public additional time to ask questions about the proposal.

The protection zone of the ordinance is centered on the McPartland Wells, which are located on U.S. Route 2 neighboring the Meduxnekeag River and are a major water source for the town.

There are several homes in the area of the wells, as well as a gravel pit.

Officials are most concerned about protecting the water source from contaminants that could threaten it, such as a fuel or gasoline spill.

On Monday evening, councilors took questions and heard concerns from Torrey Sylvester, an attorney for the Lawrence Gough family, and Forrest Barnes, an attorney for Morris Cote.

The Goughs, who live in Hodgdon but farm on land in Houlton, own 6-8 acres that will be influenced by the ordinance.

Morris Cote also owns land in the area, including a gravel pit.

All were concerned that the ordinance could restrict future activities on their property.

The planning board has worked diligently on the protection ordinance for approximately four years.

Under the terms of the ordinance, no action in Zone 1 of the protected area can be undertaken without a permit. However, there is a provision in the ordinance that allows for uses that are in existence at the time that the council adopts the ordinance.

Farm equipment storage and nonorganic growing, for instance, are prohibited within the protection zone.

Violators will face escalating fines for each incident.

Officials have estimated that it would cost more than $6 million to create a new water source for the town should the McPartland Wells be contaminated.

Both attorneys stressed that there had been no spills or other incidents on the land owned by the Goughs or Cote, and said they felt that Houlton’s proposed ordinance was unduly harsh. Barnes noted that Houlton’s ordinance was more restrictive than a model ordinance put forth by the Maine Rural Water Association and the law firm Eaton Peabody.

The attorneys also said they felt that if the ordinance is enacted, it has the potential to amount to a constitutional “taking” of the Gough and Cote land under the law, saying that restricting future uses on the property could potentially devalue it or render it useless, and that the landowners wouldn’t be compensated for the land.

Sylvester urged councilors to revise the document to soften the wording so that the ordinance would be less restrictive.

Municipal Attorney Stephen Nelson reiterated on Monday evening that a condition in the mandate would allow work in the affected area to continue uninterrupted after the ordinance is adopted.

Residents affected by the ordinance would need to complete a present use form and submit it to the town. The reports will help the town sketch a blueprint of how land in the protected area is being used. Applicants then would automatically be granted a present use permit to continue their operation.

Nelson stressed that the ordinance was only as restrictive as it needed to be in order to protect the town’s water source. He added that the town had put certain provisions in the proposal to allow the Code Enforcement Officer to monitor the area covered by the ordinance and so that the town could act quickly to contain a problem should one occur.

He denied that a “taking” was going on.

“In order for it to be a taking, it has to render the property substantially useless,” he argued. “Its a pretty high burden … We see this as a restrictive ordinance for sure because of the resource that we need to protect, but it certainly doesn’t amount to a taking.”

Councilors took testimony and discussed the matter for more than an hour and a half on Monday evening. The board said they had carefully weighed the needs and rights of the landowners versus the need to protect the water and the heath of Houlton’s approximately 6,500 residents. In the end, councilors said they were compelled to protect the water and stressed that clean water was crucial for the population’s overall wellness and for economic development.

The board voted 6-0 in favor of approving the ordinance.