The Water Planning Council, made up of state officials from P.U.R.A.; O.P.M.; D.E.E.P.; and D.P.H. have met in December, 2017 and in January, 2018 to consider public comments and suggested input into the draft plan.  The comment log can be viewed at:
www.ct.gov/water/lib/water/publiccomments/state_water_plan_public_comment_tracking_log.pdf

Thanks are due to the MANY supporters of Save Our Water CT who sent in impassioned pleas for the state officials to recognize water as a public trust (perhaps the most frequently mentioned comment) and to recommend regulations for the sale of CT water to industrial corporate water bottlers.

After a heated debate, the consensus of the panel was to include water as a public trust in the body and executive summary of the State Water Plan, largely due to overwhelming public comment. Of note, the D.P.H. representative, Lori Mathieu, opposed its inclusion.

Still unknown is whether any mention of water bottling appears in the finalized document.  Despite multiple comments made in person by members of Save Our Water CT, the draft plan included scant mention of the issue.

Stay tuned! The finalized plan will be submitted to the CT General Assembly on January 22, 2018.  Public hearings will be held before it is adopted as state policy.

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?"

Calling all citizens:  now's our chance to have input into the draft version of the CT State Water Plan.  After a year long process, the plan is out. The Water Planning Council is interested in hearing what the citizens of CT have to say.  The plan will be submitted to the CT legislature in January of 2018.

Rivers Alliance and the CT Fund for the Environment have created a special website for citizen input.  It leads you step by step through the process of commenting and allows you to view comments made by others before you: www.ourwaterct.org/

Save Our Water CT is in the process of reviewing the 612 page plan, but here are some initial comments:

• CT needs to create sensible regulations that provide oversight of large industrial water bottlers. Bottled water is often shipped outside of its native water basin and is never re-cycled into that watershed. Other large inter-basins transfers require a permit.  We need to insure that we have enough water for our environment, our agriculture, and our residents before allotting it in perpetuity to corporate water bottlers, especially given climate change. In addition, our waterways are being polluted by billions of discarded plastic water bottles. This cost should be borne in part by the corporations profiting from this product.

• Our Class A drinking water is a public trust resource. We're proud that CT has the cleanest drinking water in the nation and want to keep it that way.  We need to protect our Class I and Class II watersheds, which filter and protect the purity of our water.

• Drought triggers need to be updated and strengthened. They are based on decades-old data which do not incorporate climate change or recently enacted stream flow regulations.

• Water conservation needs to be promoted in CT.  Let's use the "watersense" designation for water appliances, much like "energy star".
  

• Drought response needs to be more robust, esp. as concerns outdoor watering.  Also, during drought, industries such as those bottling water should be preferentially restricted as they transfer water out of native basins, stressing already endangered streams and reservoirs. 

• Water is not just for drinking.  We need to insure that our streams, rivers, and lakes have an ecologically sound amount of flow.  Retire unused water registrations.
  

  

Disappointing News: The gavel will be coming down on this year's legislative session and unfortunately it won't include any regulatory oversight of the ever-growing water bottling industry. Earlier this winter, Save Our Water CT's bills were not allowed to come to a public hearing in the Environment Committee. Despite this setback, we worked hard to craft an amendment that would require bottlers using our municipal water to publicly apply for and receive approvals from the Dept. of Public Health....and to ensure that they would be subject to all applicable contingency plans for drought, including any restrictions felt necessary by the Commissioner of Public Health. Negotiations with water utilities, the Dept. of Public Health, environmental allies, and our legislative champions ultimately failed just days before the end of the session. Hard news, especially given our state's recent serious drought. Steadily climbing corporate profits from bottled water, the anti-regulatory atmosphere beginning to pervade our legislature, and the opposition of the water bottlers all played a role.... See more below...

Still No State Oversight of Large Water Bottlers
 
Save Our Water CT is disappointed that despite the state’s recent severe drought, legislation to provide reasonable oversight over large water bottling industries in Connecticut failed to be taken up in the 2017 General Assembly Session.
 
 An amendment requiring the Department of Public Health to certify the adequacy of the water supply for bottlers using municipal water, and to allow the Commissioner of Public Health to issue restrictions in cases of severe drought, hit roadblocks in the final weeks of the session. Last minute opposition by the industry contributed to the breakdown of negotiations between the water utilities, the Department of Public Health, environmental allies, and legislative champions Sen. Beth Bye (D-West Hartford) and Rep. Derek Slap, (D-West Hartford)
 
“These would have been reasonable and appropriate measures,” Valerie Rossetti of Save Our Water CT’s steering committee, said.  “Presently no environmental review or renewable permitting is required for massive water bottling operations which often transfer water out of native watersheds and across state boundaries.”
 
Outcomes on water-related legislation:
 
CONSUMER ADVOCATE ESTABLISHED AT THE MDC: The group is pleased to report however, that HB 6008, creating an independent consumer advocate at the Metropolitan District Commission, has now been signed into law by Governor Malloy.  The bill was driven by citizen outrage at the District’s decision to provide 1.8M gallons of water each day at discounted water and sewer rates to Niagara Bottling.  It authorizes the Office of the Consumer Council to appoint a utility lawyer, who will hopefully provide increased transparency at the “quasi-public” water utility. Though the discounted rates were rescinded last year, the MDC has publicized its intention to re-explore an industrial rate structure. https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2017&bill_num=6008
 
DEEP STRENGTHENS OVERSIGHT TO PROTECT STREAM FLOWS: Save Our Water CT also worked to support a newly amended Department of Energy and Environmental Protection regulation designed to help protect CT stream flow levels. Diversion permits will now be required to withdraw or transfer large amounts of water in certain watersheds affected by expanding or merging water utilities.
https://eregulations.ct.gov/eRegsPortal/Search/getDocument?guid=%7B401A7D87-838A-40B4-8F6C-8607AE59CB3A%7D
 
ACCESS TO WATER PLANNING INFORMATION STALLED: HB 7221, designed to allow access to non-security-sensitive water planning information, appears to once again have died in the legislature.  Environmental advocates and citizens remain blocked from reviewing even one sentence of the massive 800-plus page MDC water supply plan, limiting their ability to provide input into decision-making for CT’s most valuable natural resource.

The Environment Committee of the CT Legislature heard testimony overwhelmingly opposed to SB-753, An Act Concerning the Viability of Expanding the Bottled Water Industry in Connecticut, on Feb 3rd. Despite being placed last on the list of bills to be discussed, numerous supporters of Save Our Water CT patiently waited till late afternoon to demonstrate their concern over further expansion of large water bottling in CT without state oversight. Nearly 50 opponents of the bill submitted testimony which can be viewed at: www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmyBill.asp?comm_code=env&bill=SB-00753&doc_year=2017

Save Our Water's Testimony can be seen on our  blog from 2/5 and registers opposition to a "study" bill, which will delay any regulation of more water bottling.  On Jan 29, 2017 the New Haven Register quoted a spokeswoman for Southwest CT Regional Water Authority who noted that the water utility was considering investing in water bottling.  Should a non-profit municipal water utility be re-packaging its clean, healthy, safe water into plastic and re-selling it to residents at an exponentially higher price, all the while dumping millions of plastic bottles into CT's waterways and landfills? And, as we saw with Niagara, the utility would entice a bottler to set up shop by offering it discounted rates on water once it used over 500,000 gallons/day.....Meanwhile, the drought continues statewide.

For updates on all the legislative action, follow our Facebook Page at www.facebook.com/saveourwaterct/. 

Testimony on SB-753: “An Act Concerning the Viability of Expanding the Bottled Water Industry in Connecticut” (OPPOSED):

Dear Senator Kennedy, Senator Miner, Representative Demicco, and Environment Committee Members:

On behalf of our 3,000 supporters, Save Our Water CT would like to thank the Committee for taking up the is of water bottling. The fact that the bill has been raised indicates that the Committee recognizes this as a state-wide issue. However, Save Our Water CT opposes the concept of a mere “Study Bill,” which would preempt urgently needed substantive action now:

• SB-753 would authorize a STUDY plan, not due until Feb 2018. There are no assurances that
meaningful action would ever be taken. There will be NO oversight of the bottled water industry while
reports are being written. A study bill announces open season for corporate raids on CT water.

• The state remains in a severe drought, which could become record-breaking by next summer. Now is
NOT the time to be studying the expansion of the bottled water industry in CT. According to the
US Drought Monitor for Jan 2017, 100% of the state remains in drought, with 41% in extreme drought and 78% in severe or extreme drought. Residents are being asked to conserve water and areas of southwestern CT and central CT are receiving emergency transfers of water. Despite some recent “normal” amounts of precipitation, our deficits over the past 3 years have not been reduced.
What will happen this spring and summer to crops, rivers, and residents?

• Our state drought plans do not include any intermediate triggers - so they offer no way to prioritize
water usage or protect residents and essential services during droughts. Only when the state’s largest
reservoirs reach the disastrous level of 10% of their storage capacity will our commissioner of public
health have the authority to order mandatory restrictions on the state’s largest water bottler, Niagara
Bottling. At that point, all industrial and residential use will be similarly affected. We need to halt the
production of bottled water that’s sent out of a stressed watershed or out of state at the very start of
voluntary conservation, unless a public health emergency requires it. We urgently need a revision of our
drought protection plans before allowing any expansion of the water bottling industry.

• Do we have enough water? The state water plan has now presented evidence that certain watersheds in the state contain more registered water diversions than water. During a recent Water Utility Coordinating Committee meeting, the vast majority of water utilities stated they expect to need more water within 5 years. Stream flow regulations, guaranteeing enough water for our state’s aquatic environment, are only now being implemented. Water supply plans have been shielded from public view and there is no indication that projections for precipitation and temperature changes due to climate change have been included. We need to establish renewable permitting for large water bottlers to ensure that state’s drinking water supplies, its agriculture, and its aquatic environments are protected now and in the future.

• Without immediate action to provide some oversight of the water bottling industry, our state public
trust waters are at risk of being sold off to corporate super-users at a discount. Discounts to super-
users promote over-use and contradict the conservation ethic of both the state plan of conservation an
ddevelopment and the state water plan. Should we all be turning off the water while brushing our teeth
while hundreds of millions of gallons of Grade A drinking water are heading out of state for corporate
profit? Declining block-rates for water should be re-examined now.

• CT residents have paid for the state’s water infrastructure. We are one of only 2 states in which
drinking water comes only from the purest sources, never from water that has previously been used.
The water bottling industry has already sought to take our municipal water while evading its fair share
of the costs. Niagara Bottling negotiated a deal to cut almost 80% of its Clean Water Project charges
once it uses over 500,000 gallons of water/day - a charge paid to fund infrastructure to keep the CT
River and L.I. Sound clean. After public outcry, the MDC wisely rescinded the ordinance codifying this
deal for 2017. But there’s no guarantee those discounts will be resurrected in the future. If anything,
our state could benefit from a surcharge on water bottling to cover its share of water infrastructure
costs- and from an increased bottle deposit fee to fund additional recycling efforts. Let’s not
shortchange our state economy.

• SB 753 mentions many worthwhile considerations, but omits explicitly mentioning legitimate issues
that need to be addressed. In particular, certain environmental and quality-of-life impacts are not
mentioned, including the effect of increased use of water for bottling on stream flows and aquifers,
increased pollution and noise from truck traffic, road wear and tear, chemicals used in the manufacture of plastic bottles, as well as the millions of additional plastic bottles added to the waste stream. About
60% of bottles with deposits are re-cycled – but 40% are not. Large water bottling plants - such as Niagara’s existing plants that operate 4 lines – can produce over 10 million bottles per day. For such plants, on average, 4 million bottles per day are not recycled – instead ending up in land fills and in our environment.

Study alone is essentially a call to INACTION for two more years. We need thoughtful, reasonable,
action NOW, as presented in several bills that have been introduced and that deserve a hearing:
• HB-6349 Drought Protection
• HB-6341 Permits for Large Water Bottlers
• HB-6319 Water Rates for Water Bottlers
• HB-6342 Uniform Clean Water Project Charge Rates
• HB-5619 Regulation of Bottled Water in CT

These bills would provide critical pieces of action needed to ensure the prudent management of our state’s valuable water resources. Among these are:
• Establishing prioritizations for water usage during declared droughts
• Ensuring that water rates for large-scale water bottlers in the state are not lower than rates for residential customers
• Providing for the uniform assessment of the “clean water project charges” of the Metropolitan District Commission
• Requiring a permit for large-scale bottling operations, except when such bottling operations are required to meet a public health emergency. If these bills are not raised for a public hearing,the substantive protections contained in them must be included in SB-753.

Again, thank you for raising this issue and for your consideration.
SAVE OUR WATER CT
(submitted by Paula Jones)

As our state continues to suffer from a withering drought, I am calling on you to protect our public trust waters. With climate change an ever-increasing concern, it’s crucial to preserve our Grade A drinking water and protect our watersheds, not only for the immediate future but for generations to come. We need to ensure adequate water supply for our homes, environment, agriculture, businesses, and recreation before allocating it irretrievably to private corporations.
 
Last year we saw a multi-national water bottling company establish itself in our state with virtually no public input or state oversight.  Niagara Bottling of California received local tax abatements and unprecedented discounts on water and sewer rates (Clean Water Project rates) on up to 1.8M gallons/day of Grade A municipal drinking water.  No environmental review or state permitting was required. No expiration date on its claim to state waters was placed.  While drought warnings were sent to much of the state asking residents to conserve, this corporation was preparing to ship millions of single-serve plastic water bottles out of the watershed and beyond state borders. To our dismay, our current state drought plans do not include mandatory restrictions on this large-scale extraction until long after residents are voluntarily cutting back and reservoirs are at dangerously low levels.
 
SB-753 recognizes critical issues confronting Connecticut’s water supplies and environment as major water bottlers move into our state.  However, study alone is essentially a call to inaction for 2 more years. As such, SB-753 is flawed if left without revision. We need legislation NOW that provides sensible, reasonable oversight of any sizeable expansion of the bottled water industry:

• Protect the state’s waters during a drought:  limit water bottling while watersheds are stressed and residents are conserving- it’s ALREADY happening.
• Require a permit for any large expansion of water bottling so we know there’s enough water for both our drinking needs and our environment- for now and for decades to come. Place a moratorium on major expansion of water bottling while an appropriate permit is developed.
• Ensure water rates are not incentivizing over-use of water:  lowering rates for super-users contradicts the conservation ethic this natural resource requires.  
• Support public clean water infrastructure by requiring corporations profiting from Grade A CT water to pay their fair share.

See the Hartford Courant on Dec 23, 2016:
www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-mdc-water-down-20161222-story.html

After months of below normal precipitation, MDC reservoirs have now fallen to 75% of their capacity, triggering the first drought advisory for MDC's 8 member towns.  Municipal governments in its  service area are being asked to cut down on non-essential water use such as street cleaning, municipal watering, and the washing of  town vehicles. Residents are not yet under water restrictions, but 5-10 Million gallons of extra water/day will be leaving the MDC reservoirs to aid New Britain.  A long-standing agreement for the MDC to aid New Britain in case of a water supply emergency is now being activated for the first time in decades. That additional water draw may trigger residential restrictions next spring if significant rainfall does not arrive. That could happen as early as May, when the MDC's reservoirs could be down to 53% capacity.

The MDC- with the largest state reservoir (Barkhamsted)- has begun publically recognizing its value as an essential water reserve for less water-rich parts of our state.  Though the state has often been viewed as one with a plentiful water supply, that concept has been drastically challenged this year.   83% of the state is now listed as being in severe or extreme drought.

How ironic that Niagara Bottling will being drawing water from the system for what has to be the most non-essential use of all:  sending single-serve water bottles out of the MDC watershed! Unfortunately for state residents, Niagara's bottling operation will be  immune from mandatory water restrictions until MDC reservoir's are at 10% of capacity!  That's all the protection our current DPH drought policy provides us. There's no permit required for Niagara's water draw nor any time limitation, so their corporate profits will essentially be prioritized over municipal and residential uses.  Time for a change in state water policy!

The discounts would have kicked in once the private water bottling corporation used over 500,000 gallons of water per day, essentially incentivizing the large-volume super-user to use even more of the district's water.  Last year's rate structure would have given the bottling giant a nearly $2M/yr discount if all 4 bottling lines were open:  a 19% discount on water once the low rate was triggered and a nearly 80% discount on the special sewer service charge (aka the clean water project charge).  Meanwhile, resident's water rates and clean water project charges went up.  The discount would have applied only to Niagara this year, and was developed after email pleas by the corporation that doing business here  would require special incentives.

Water bottlers have come under fire recently for aggressively marketing single-serve bottles of water (often filled partly with re-packaged municipal water); for the environmental harm caused by billiions of long-lasting PET bottles littering the landfills, rivers, and oceans; and for the oil, water, and energy used in creating and transporting the heavy water bottles. Once one major water bottler was essentially invited into the state, and rewarded with attractive rates for Grade A CT water, fears mounted that more could follow in its steps.  Markets outside CT-such as the metro Boston area- have been one of the targets.  The shipment of water outside the state's watershed, especially during the most signficiant drought since the 1960's, is particularly problematic.

As water utilities struggle with debt service and the need to replace infrastructure, they have turned to selling more water as their primary tool for revenue enhancement, even while preaching conservation to their  residential consumers. Pricing structures utilizing "conservation pricing" and including infrastructure replacement reserves need to be developed and adopted for municipal water utilities in the state.

www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-mdc-discount-water-vote-1206-20161205-story.html