Water Supply Plan Details Remain Secret

Public Act 17-211, " An Act Concerning Access to Water Planning Information"
(effective July 1, 2017) is a "Functional Failure"

See Jon Lender's article in the November 19, 2017 Hartford Courant: www.courant.com/politics/government-watch/hc-pol-water-secrets-20171114-story.html

In October 2017, Val Rossetti of Save Our Water CT sent the Water Planning Council a detailed letter regarding concerns over the continued lack of public access to safe yield assumptions and calculations. There has been no response. Here's the tale of her frustration over the hidden facts:

"I am not a hydrologist, just someone who was concerned about 1.8MGD being drawn from MDC reservoir 6 for the Niagara Bottling plant- in perpetuity.  As I looked out over the reservoir, I wondered how much water was in it? How did they calculate how much water was where in the state? How is it decided and who decides whether allocating that water is wise? I learned that there seems to be no mechanism for the prioritization of water use:  a small-town council seeking economic gain can decide to grant zoning privileges no matter what the estimated water use, if its water utility states that this draw will not currently exceed the 10% margin of safety for “available water”.

Citizens of Save Our Water CT began wondering how these safe yields, available water, and margin of safety calculations were done.  WHEN had they last been done? Are stream flows used to estimate reservoir inflows and ground water re-charge still the same as in the 1990’s?  Were any projections for climate change in them? Did they consider the growth of impervious surfaces and changes in precipitation patterns and evaporation coefficients? Did they include updated stream flow release requirements? What were the projections for water use not just today, but out 10, 20, and 50 years?

When I requested to see the MDC Water Supply Plan on March 1, 2016, a lengthy tug of war occurred.  After a Freedom of Information agreement on Nov 1, 2016 a redaction of the water supply plan supposedly began.  On June 7, 2017 HB 7221 was passed with nearly universal support and became effective July 1, 2017 (now Public Act 17-211).  Its list of items considered security-sensitive for water supply plans did NOT include quantitative data on individual water sources or the calculation of safe yields. The redaction continued through the summer and in late August 2017 I was invited to schedule an appointment to view the plan. 

My trip required a verification of identity at the DPH and a supervised viewing of the document in a conference room there. Numerous redactions were still present, including a complete black out of most of the quantitative figures in the report and of the actual safe yield calculations.  In one section, an overall figure for safe yield was left un-redacted, but it others it was blacked out.  There was no information on how “available water”, which takes into account distribution limitations, pipeline losses from leaks, contractual obligations to other water systems, etc. was determined. There was no information as to any modeling for climate change.

It made a difference to me, as a citizen, to know that MDC’s safe yield calculations were upped from 68MGD to 77MGD in 1996, information one can gain by searching the internet.  Previously, draining only the Barkhamsted Reservoir was considered in a major drought event.  Now all 4 reservoirs would be drained, there would be no releases from the Goodwin Dam for the Farmington River, there would be no filling of Lake McDonough for recreation. Quite a more ominous scenario. In its defense of selling 1.8MGD of water to Niagara Bottling of California in perpetuity, the MDC listed its safe yield of 77.1MGD but did not publicize the fact that its available water was decreased by almost 6MGD by contractual arrangements for untreated water to New Britain and Collinsville, even further by requirements to supply 3.74MGD of treated water to Portland, Berlin, and Unionville, and by some unpublished amount due to losses in the system (?10%). The water “left” for MDC towns was therefore significantly less.

Only when all 4 reservoirs were drawn down to their 10% “trigger point” (according to its “MDC WATER SUPPLY FACTS) would restrictions be placed on industrial water uses, including that of a water bottling operation sending millions of gallons a year out of the watershed.

I am not contesting the fact that MDC, with its enormous surface reservoirs likely has enough water, especially given the decreasing consumption by the public.  But I am concerned that the state- either the DPH or the DAS- or the MDC feel that safe yield calculations be shielded. Other water systems in the state, especially those using well field which drain rivers, those subject to new stream flow requirements, and those in the water-challenged areas noted in the recent State Water Plan may need a more critical and more urgent look at their dated safe yields.

As noted previously, the July 1, 2017 law does not include "safe yield" among the facts considered security-sensitive.  A quick internet search yields the reservoir capacities of the Barkhamsted and Nepaug Reservoirs, information blacked out by the state officials.  Indeed, the MDC itself has published some of the redacted information in its quest to justify its Niagara decision. Detailed calculations for safe yields in specific rivers and reservoirs systems in Georgia and North Carolina appear on the first page of an internet search. The Water Research Foundation of Denver, CO (supported by nearly 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and the federal government among others) published a 2013 study specifically addressing the need to update safe yield calculations for reservoir systems in the light of climate change (www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/4304.pdf). So what's going on in our state? When a water utility and the state departments withold the detailed assumptions behind the calculations of how much water we have, one wonders (at least I do), what's going on?"