In response to rapid and growing public protest, the findings of the Independent MDC Consumer Advocate, and questions as to whether the structure of the proposed discounts violated the MDC's charter, the MDC board issued a press release on 11-16-2018 notifying the public of their intent to withdraw proposed ordinance changes prior to their scheduled November 19th Public Hearing.

Protestors still gathered outside the MC headquarters at 555 Main Street, Hartford prior to the hearing, chanting and displaying "No More Groundhog Days" posters- a reference to how the discounts "popped back up " just as Niagara Bottling applied for permits to expand the number of its bottling lines. The hearing room was packed to overflowing due to multiple citizen concerns:  the discounts, the marked increase in water and ad valorem rates, concern for the availability of water to low-income residents, the need to continue the mandated cleanup of the 800 million gallons of MDC sewage which spill into the CT River each year during large rainstorm events, and more.

Of concern-and noted in the press release- are plans for the MDC to seek charter changes at the upcoming legislative session which would allow it to develop what is being labelled an "Economic Development Rate" similar to that in place at South Central Regional Water Authority. Though the SCRWA economic rate is time-limited, it is once again keyed to large water users.  The entire question of whether the MDC should be involved in "economic development" remains very controversial- and is never mentioned in its charter. Stay tuned.

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?

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)