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 IN 2016 AFTER A PUBLIC OUTCRY, THEY RESCINDED THE DISCOUNTS….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.
 

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.

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)

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

MDC Commissioners will be voting on an important institutional policy immediately following a public hearing at 5 PM on Monday December 5th at their 555 Main St. Headquarters in Hartford.  Top officials, including Scott Jellison, CEO and Chairman William DiBella have recommended that the volume discounts enacted last December- and as of yet unused- be rescinded AT LEAST FOR THIS YEAR.

The discounts, which could have amounted to ~$2M/year if Niagara opened 4 lines, have been vigorously opposed by the public, environmentalists, and Save Our Water CT.  With over half the state in a severe drought, and the reservoirs of MDC serving as an emergency back-up for surrounding towns, exporting single-serve bottles of water out of state seemed poor public policy.  In addition, incentivizing one company to use large amounts of water, while calling for conservation measures for residents made little sense. 

It is unclear how the MDC commissioners will vote on Monday the 5th.  Save Our Water CT is encouraging all concerned residents to voice their opinions at the meeting or by contact their MDC representatives by email or phone (themdc.org/district-board/board-members). Of note, the MDC foresees asking its member towns to weigh in on the subject of water rate discounts, which could be re-instated at any time as an "economic development" tool.  Save Our Water CT notes that shareholder-owned water utilities in CT, which are regulated by P.U.R.A. (the Public Utilities Regulatory Agency), are allowed to give discounts based on the category of use and the cost to supply the water, but not based on volume.  During periods of water supply shortage, volume based discounts directly contradict conservation efforts. Instead, "conservation pricing" should be instated by the public and municipal water utilities.

www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-mdc-niagara-discount-delayed-1122-20161121-story.html