Attorney David Silverstone, the Independent MDC Consumer Advocate, examined multiple aspects of the proposed 2019 MDC budget. Of special note were his findings on the proposed "Economic Development Rate, which he deems : "especially problematic" :

"The proposed Economic Development Rate would give a 20% discount on all water consumption over 600,000 gallons per day. There is no cost justification for such a discount. Second and perhaps more importantly, for these largest customers the clean water project charge (also known as the special sewer service charge} would no longer be based on water consumption for water in excess of this 600,000 gallon threshold, but rather would be based on sewer flow associated with the excess over 600,000. The fundamental principle of linking the clean water project charge to water consumption would therefore be broken. This approach favors water customers who discharge less into the sewers than water used. This approach favors customers like water bottling plants, golf courses and the like.

The MDC should not be picking which types of customers get better rates for service. It should be providing service to all customers on an equitable basis. This treatment is simply not equitable. For example, a condominium association approached the MDC in the last several months and argued that it should not have to pay the clean water project charge on the water it used for irrigation.  It meters this irrigation water separately from domestic consumption and the irrigation water was not discharged to the sewer. The argument was rejected on the grounds that all metered water is subject to the clean water project charge, whether it goes into the sewer or not. Under this proposed economic development rate, this principle is clearly violated. discount

The magnitude of this change in how the clean water project charge is calculated will vary depending on the tpe of customer. It could be substantial and in all likelihood will be far in excess of a 20% discount. For example, if a customer only discharges 30% of purchased water to the sewer, the customer would be getting a discount of 70% off the clean water project charge for water usage in excess of the 600,000 gallons/day."

OF NOTE: Niagara Bottling of California is the only MDC customer currently approaching this 600,000 gallons/day and discharges approximately only 20% of the water it uses into the sewers.  Most leaves in millions of bottles a day loaded onto semi trucks and leaving the watershed.

See his full analysis in the document below.

On Tuesday November 13, 2018 the Bloomfield Town Council unanimously adopted a resolution instructing its MDC Commissioner to vote against the proposed ordinances which would provide a 20% water rate discount and a potentially 80-90% Clean Water Project Charge discount to large water users  for volumes of water that exceed 600,000 gallons/day measured through a single meter.

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Bloomfield hereby states its opposition to any discounting or reduced rate schemes for large volume users of our water..."

Multiple residents spoke before a packed town hall to voice opposition to what they perceive as a repeated attempt by the MDC to offer discounted rates for Niagara Bottling in return for increased water usage. Similar discounts were rescinded after a public outcry two years ago.

"What don't you understand about the word 'NO'?" asked one resident.

The proposed discounts have reappeared just as Niagara filed permits with the Town of Bloomfield to expand the number of bottling lines and just as a larger water main necessary for the increased water draw is nearing installation.

The discounts are the antithesis of a water conservation ethic and viewed by many as a very specific corporate giveaway.  What other industry uses massive amounts of water through a single meter? And  since much of the water is shipped away in bottles, up to 80% will not be discharged to the sewers. That will result in a Clean Water Project Charge discount of up to 80%. No other category of MDC consumer is treated in this way.

See the full text of the resolution below.

IN 2015 the MDC GAVE NIAGARA BOTTLING A BACKROOM SWEETHEART DEAL. IN 2016 AFTER A PUBLIC OUTCRY, THEY RESCINDED THE DISCOUNTS…. NOW THEY COULD BE COMING BACK….

MDC’S PROPOSAL FOR A SPECIAL ‘ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RATE’? Those using over 600,000 gallons/day through a single meter will get a 20% discount on the excess. Their Clean Water Project charge also will be discounted- potentially by 80 or 90%.  The Clean Water Project Charges, which exceed the actual water rate, are billed to all MDC residential customers who use MDC sewer services. They fund the EPA mandated Clean Water Project, slated to clean up wastewater overflow from the MDC's system. For everyone except the massive water users, the charge is based on the amount of water used. But for the super-users, they would get huge discounts by having only their actual wastewater measured. Residents who water their lawns, farmers who irrigate their crops, golf courses- all whose water goes back into the ground rather than the sewers, get no such break.  BUT, bottling companies who export water out of the watershed in bottles and trucks, would be HUGE winners.

Of note, the rate cut is designed to exclude the purchase of treated water by other municipalities. So, large water sales to other CT Municipalities in need of drinking water, even if they exceed 600,000 gallons/day,   would not be eligible.  The most likely beneficiaries:  large bottling companies. Who else uses such quantities of water through a single meter and transports water away from sewers.
 
Meanwhile:

• Resident ratepayers will pay more for their water than corporate super-users
• Residents will continue to pay the full Clean Water Project Charge to fund the cleanup of overflow from MDC sewers that pollutes our streams, rivers, and Long Island Sound
• Residents will be advised to conserve water while the MDC promotes massive water sales to big business
• When the next drought occurs, residents will be asked to conserve while water bottling is allowed to continue until reservoir levels are dangerously low

Attorney David Silverstone, the independent MDC Consumer Advocate, has published an initial analysis (see the previous blog post) which questions why no cost analysis has been done and notes that the special treatment for the Clean Water Project Charge will likely be unfavorable to all other customers.

Members of Save Our Water CT are opposed to large volume discounts, which are in direct opposition to the conservation ethic promoted by the State Water Plan and most water utilities. They also object to  the  discounted CWPCs. MDC consumers have paid for years, in their water charges and property taxes, for their water infrastructure.  To exempt one large corporation such as Niagara Bottling of California, from paying its fair share points  to an unnecessary corporate giveaway. As the only state in the country to have Class A drinking water which has never mingled with waster water, why is there ANY need to discount this public resource?

CT's WATER FOR SALE: San Jose Water (SJW) of California is currently seeking regulatory approval to acquire CT Water Co., one of CT's largest private water utilities. Last year, Aquarion Water Co. was bought by Eversource. Who will have the right to store and distribute (i.e. control) large volumes of CT's water? Many, many questions are being raised. Is this in the public's best interest? What will be done with any lands SJW wishes to sell off? Will it support the proposed State Water Plan? Does it regard water as a public trust resource? Are there potential conflicts of interest, given SJW is an out-of-state for-profit company which also has interests in real estate development? Will it be a good steward of our water sources and water infrastructure? Hopefully CT is not to become the land of "water opportunity" with a reasonably plentiful supply and "a favorable regulatory climate".


PLEASE SEE RIVERS ALLIANCE WEBSITE http://www.riversalliance.org/Top…/Water_Infrastructure.php… for an in-depth discussion. Details on submitting a comment or question to the Public Utilities Regulatory Agency, are also provided there: Docket # 18-07-10.

Save Our Water CT has submitted the following comments and questions to the Public Utility Regulatory Agency for its consideration in this deliberation:

September 2, 2018
Re:  Docket 18-07-10 [Application of SJW Group and Connecticut Water Service, Inc. for Approval of Change of Control].
 
We are writing on behalf of Save Our Water CT to share our concerns regarding the acquisition of Connecticut Water Service, Inc. by SJW Group. 
 
Save Our Water CT is a citizen-activist group that formed in early 2016 in response to Niagara Bottling’s negotiations with the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) and the Town of Bloomfield to bring a large water bottling plant to Bloomfield.  In 2012 the MDC proposed an 18 mile out-of-basin transfer of water to UConn.  During the last two and a half years we have witnessed a serious, prolonged state drought; a reluctance and outright refusal by water utilities to publicly release non-security-sensitive water supply plan details; industrial rate discounting of water that rewards increased usage as opposed to conservation; and the opposition of the business and water utility lobby to the already-established statute referencing water as a public trust resource (CT G.S. 22a-15). Consequently, we have been following news of the proposed “change of control” of Connecticut Water Service with interest.  Quoting briefly from page 3 of the joint application: 
 
“The Authority has also found that it has a statutory responsibility, inherent under Title 16 of the General Statutes, to ensure that the change of control is in the public interest…… The change of control is in the public interest as it is expected to provide benefits to customers by providing opportunities to increase the reliability and adequacy of water service, to increase access to capital, and to improve customer service. Moreover, in the long run the Transaction will provide opportunities to reduce costs through economies of scale and operating efficiencies which will benefit customers by exerting downward pressure on rates.” 
 
Our expectation and hope is that PURA will take a sufficiently broad view of what constitutes “the public interest” in considering this application.  We think that Connecticut state agencies have an obligation to consider long-term impacts on all Connecticut citizens and on the environment in proposed “changes in control” of public trust resources – not just the proposed new company’s customers.
 
Apart from the question of whether the proposed acquisition would actually deliver to customers those purported benefits it is “expected” to provide, the acquisition would impact more than the company’s customers.  For example:

• What about the potential sale of undeveloped land that SJW deems unessential?  The list of commitments on page 9 of the application does not include any representations regarding potential disposition of land holdings. Class III watershed lands act as important forested buffers, provide open space for CT communities, and serve as prime ecological resources. Will SJW, for example, commit to first offering any “unwanted” land to conservation interests? Are SJW stockholders also involved in real estate development, which could lead to conflicts of interest in determining the disposition of land?
• What would be the impact of future offers for the company?  It’s increasingly apparent that water is a “growth” industry.  What guarantees do we have that any representations made in this application would be honored if future company circumstances change? Or if a larger or even a foreign entity- acquires SJW at some future point?
• Current state regulations provide no oversight to large water transfers that happen within already registered diversions as long as the water utility maintains a margin of safety. Nor do they provide oversight to the transfer of water OUTSIDE an exclusive service area by truck (or non-piped means).  Is it in CT’s interest to allow transfer of Class A waters out of state?
• Why would the consolidation of utilities be considered a priori to be a good thing and in the public interest?  The argument made here is consolidation offers economies of scale, resulting in decreased costs and increased operational efficiencies.  Apart from the fact that promised expected gains are often not delivered, such consolidation often brings fewer resiliencies, especially in the events of natural disasters (becoming more prevalent with climate change).  When things break down, they break down on a large scale, with a corresponding ripple effect.  A good example is Eversource’s performance in the aftermath of Storm Alfred, the 2011 Halloween nor’easter.  The smaller utilities in Connecticut restored power much more quickly.  Local control delivered much better results.
• Does SJW view water as a public trust resource? What is their understanding of CT’s Gen. Statute 22a-15?  Have they reviewed the draft of CT’s first State Water Plan and will they support or oppose it?
• Is there any law or regulation that limits the ability of any private (or public) company or person from buying every water utility in Connecticut?  Does the (advisory) State Water Plan even address this issue?  SJW’s and CTWS’s joint press release from March 15, 2018 stated:  “The combined company will have a strong multi-state presence with high-quality and well-run operations, with constructive regulatory relationships in California, Connecticut, Maine, and Texas.” [emphasis added] What’s meant by “constructive” here?  Lack of adequate protections and regulation?  Given Mr. Thornburg’s background, he and the rest of the leadership team are well situated to navigate the regulatory landscape and exploit existing loopholes.  This concerns us, given our recent experience.

 
We hope that PURA will take time to thoroughly and thoughtfully review this application.  Connecticut water is a public trust resource and citizens are relying on you to safeguard that resource.
 
Thank you for your consideration.
 

The Tilcon proposal to expand into Class I and Class II watershed lands in exchange for money, the promise of a new reservoir 40 years from now, and less valuable acreage appears to be dead.  At least for now..

On Aug. 22, 2018, Mayor Erin Stewart submitted a letter to the Water Planning Council (W.P.C.) withdrawing the city's proposal in light of significant public opposition and the need for further review "before any such project could move forward".  On Aug. 24th the W.P.C. in turn forwarded to the CT. General Assembly its review of the environmental study. It found serious flaws in the argument that this proposal would be beneficial to New Britain's water supply....and in addition found that the risks posed to the environment by the project were significant.  (See the WPC letter below).

This is the second time in which Tilcon and the City of New Britain have attempted to skirt the process of obtaining a permit from the D.P.H. to impact Class I and II watersheds.  Knowing that such an application was unlikely to be approved, they instead turned to the legislature to bypass environmental regulations- and nearly succeeded in doing so. The Mayor's letter leaves open an implicit suggestion that a resurrection of the deal is a possibility, and the citizens of CT will need to remain vigilant .

It was largely with the activism of Atty Paul Zagorsky and other members of Protect Our Watersheds CT that this round was won.

Despite- or due to-legislative inaction, Governor Malloy today (June 14th) issued an Executive Order for state agencies to begin implementing the State Water Plan as originally drafted. The order also directed the Water Planning Council to re-submit the plan- in its original draft form- to the legislature by Dec 1st.

His order left intact the "water is a public trust" language that was so opposed by a coalition of water utilities, golf associations, and the CT Business and Industry Association.

As the water plan is largely a platform for informed decision-making, much of its work can proceed while awaiting a second round at the legislature. The Water Planning Council will meet on June 15th with "Implementation" leading its agenda.

See the Executive Order at: portal.ct.gov/-/media/D5B15C2FB2134AFAB6E70F56F516B7E7.pdf

Both CT's Council on Environmental Quality and the CT Water Planning Council recently released their reviews of the City of New Britain’s Report entitled Environmental Study: Change in Use of New Britain Water Company Land (Proposed Quarry Expansion and Future Water Storage Reservoir). Both the CEQ and the WPC concluded that the environmental damage caused by the expanded strip mining operation in Class I and Class I watershed lands would be significant.  In addition, both expert bodies found  quite questionable the study assumptions and conclusion that an additional reservoir was necessary for New Britain's future water needs.

Given the alarming precedent that this proposal would set-allowing Class I and II protected watershed land to be sold for the benefit of a private for-profit corporation- it is hopeful that these expert analyses of its impact will put a halt to this ill-advised plan.

Read the Executive Summary from the Water Planning Council below. The full C.E.Q. report can be found at:www.ct.gov/ceq/lib/ceq/CEQ_Comments_on_NB_Watershed_Environ_Study_-_final_5-25-18.pdf

The “Water Planning Council’s” Review Pursuant to Public Act 16-61 of the City of New Britain’s Report entitled Environmental Study: Change in Use of New Britain Water Company Land (Proposed Quarry Expansion and Future Water Storage Reservoir):
 
"Public Act 16-61, An Act Concerning An Environmental Study On A Change In Use Of New Britain Water Company Land, required the City Of New Britain to commission an environmental report  to be submitted to the Water Planning Council (WPC), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the City of New Britain’s Conservation Commission.  The purpose of the report was to examine the potential impact of changing the use of some of its city water department-owned Class I and Class II land to allow the lease of land for the extraction of stone and other minerals on such property.
 
This extraction operation, which would be done over a period of 35-40 years, could potentially create a new public water supply reservoir of 2.31 billion gallons capacity for the New Britain Water Department.  The reservoir would be filled with water from a flood-skimming operation at Coppermine Brook in Bristol, taking an estimated 6-28 months to fill the reservoir from this source.  The new water supply reservoir is described in the Executive Summary as being 109 acres in surface area (though other figures are given elsewhere in the Report) and up to 130’ deep.
 
PA 16-61 charges the WPC and the CEQ with reviewing the report to determine:

1. the potential impact on the environment and the purity and adequacy of the existing and future public water supply; and
2. to provide guidance to the New Britain Water Department concerning the suitability of the best management practices identified for the protection of the environment, public water supply and public health.

 
Much of the area that would be impacted in the proposed expanded area of quarrying is located in the active public drinking water supply watershed of the Shuttle Meadow Reservoir.  That area also includes rare habitat and, according to the city’s report, the area is also home to a plant species previously thought to no longer to be present in the state.
 
As will be discussed further, the WPC finds that preparation for quarrying, including clear-cutting the forest and removing the stumps, soil and other natural material, followed by quarry operations, would eliminate much of the wild habitat of the site while creating the potential for decades of increased risk to the city’s nearby Shuttle Meadow Reservoir.
 
The WPC finds that the city’s report does not substantiate the need for the proposed new reservoir or, in fact, that the proposed reservoir would even be a viable public water storage facility.  Based on its review, the WPC finds that the proposal’s risks to the current public water system and the environment are significant and the city’s report does not make a plausible case for undertaking such an activity."

 It was a disappointing end to the 2018 General Session, with the failure of the first State Water Plan to be adopted.  But the overwhelming public support for the inclusion of "water as a public trust resource" in the plan - and the vehement opposition by industry groups- brought the importance of our environmental protection laws to the forefront.  Our 1971 CT General Statute 22a-15 declares as state policy that our air, water, and natural resources are held in the public trust. The plan is intact, still contains its important public trust language, and will return to the General Assembly next year, hopefully to more receptive legislators.

Save Our Water CT is taking a necessary break to re-assess, re-group, and re-strategize for the coming year.  As we write, decisions are being made over allowing Tilcon Connecticut to strip mine Class I and II watershed lands, to allow California corporations to buy out CT water utilities, and to potentially re-instate water rate discounts for industrial water bottlers like Niagara Bottling of California.

We hope all those who care deeply for this precious resource make it an issue in the upcoming 2018 elections!