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.
 

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?"

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.

Thanks to Jon Lender, the secrecy surrounding water utility water supply plans is once again in the news. See;  www.courant.com/politics/hc-lender-secret-water-20170313-column.html  
published in Sunday March 19th in the Hartford Courant.

Water utilities are required to file supply plans every 8-10 years with the Department of Public Health, documenting what they estimate is their "safe yield" for water projected far into the future. The plans contain numerous details about where our water comes from and goes, drought triggers, and projections for future use.  They also contain critical security information on their contingency plans, control systems, chemical storage locations, and other details that no one in the environmental community wishes disclosed.  But the fears of terrorism involving the water supply system are now being used to withhold ALL details of water utility plans from the public or water planners. Analysis of our critical natural water resources, which may be increasingly under threat from climate change, is being removed from the pubic domain.

Negotiations have been ongoing since 2003 to develop a methodology for the water utilities, the Department of Public Health, and environmental water advocates to share this information in a way that both preserves critical infrastructure information and allows public access to planning information.  One idea is to submit these plans in 2 forms:  one closed to the public and another with agreed-upon public information. But each year talks have broken down leaving the plans essentially under lock and key.

HB 7221 in this year's legislature seeks to enact clear guidelines as to what water utility information IS actually critically secure and deserving of protection.  That would allow the vast majority of the plan to be open to environmental planners and the public, without the lengthy fights that currently occur.

Val Rossetti of Save Our Water CT still has yet to see a single word of the MDC 2008 plan, requested back on March 1st of 2016. We're not yet holding our breath.

ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING (10:30 am/Room 2B):

• SUPPORT HB 5618 Concerning an increase in the handling fee for bottle redemption centers. Email to: ENVtestimony@cga.ct.gov.
• OPPOSE SB 996 To eliminate the Bottle Deposit Bill and replace it with a less effective program.

PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING (10:30 am/Room 1D):

• SUPPORT HB 7221 Access to water planning information. Email to:PHtestimony@cga.ct.gov.

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ELECTION COMMITTEE (10 AM/Room 2A):

• OPPOSE HB 7051 Section 31 Implementing the governor's budget recommendations, which calls for the defunding and complete elimination of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), our state’s only environmental watchdog. Email to: GAEtestimony@cga.ct.gov.
  
  

You can submit your comments by email directly to the committees as indicated above, ideally before 3 pm this Friday. Your comments will still be accepted (and are just as important) after the hearing as part of the public record to help inform legislators when it comes time to cast their votes on these bills at a later date.
Be sure to include your name and town in your testimony, and to clearly state that you SUPPORT or OPPOSE __bill # name___.

Submit written testimony or call your legislators. Come to the hearings if you can to make a show of concern with SAVE OUR WATER CT and other environmental activists. Wear your SAVE button. Note: The first hour or two is generally made up of elected officials speaking so late arrival is fine.

(Thanks to Lori Brown, CT League of Conservation Voters, for much of this information.)

It's an all too painful recent memory: Bloomfield residents stunned to learn that wetlands and zoning permit applications submitted under the name of a local engineer were in reality designed for Niagara Bottling's multi-million dollar factory. With no legal requirement for the end-developer to reveal its name or intentions, "competitive business advantage" trumped the right of the ordinary citizen to know what was to be built in their neighborhood. Then came the further revelation that unprecedented volume rate discounts on water and clean water project charges--designed specifically to attract Niagara--had been quietly passed in the board rooms of the Metropolitan District Commission. And with it, an $8M rate-payer financed bond to extend a water main to the Niagara's area. Let's not let decisions like these-devoid of real public input-happen again!

Testimony on three bills of interest to SAVE activists will be heard this Friday, March 3rd beginning at 11 AM in Room 2D of the Legislative Office Building 300 Capitol Ave. in Hartford. Come and testify, submit written testimony, or sit at the hearing wearing your blue SAVE button.

1.HB 6004 AN ACT CONCERNING LAND USE, ZONING, WETLANDS AND TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION TRANSPARENCY: Submitted by Rep. Baram, Rep. Slap, and Sen. Bye.  (www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/h/2017HB-06004-R00-HB.htm) An updated variation of Rep. David Baram’s “Transparency” bill that failed to pass last year. It would require mandatory disclosures of the developer as to the true use of a property on municipal applications for land use, zoning, wetlands approval, and tax abatements. SAVE strongly supports this bill:

• It will help prevent another “Niagara” situation where a business negotiating with a town or utility deliberately avoids the public eye because of concern about citizen reaction or regulatory review.

• It will facilitate a consistent approach to disclosure across the state, helping to level the playing field for all businesses and municipalities. A developer's desire for secrecy to protect its perceived competitive advantages should not circumvent a citizen's right to know.

• It allows good deals to withstand public scrutiny, questions, and suggestions.
  

Additionally there are two "concept" bills concerning the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) and public water projects, whose ideas SAVE generally supports:

2. HB 6008 AN ACT AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION TO ADD A CONSUMER ADVOCATE BOARD MEMBER:   Submitted by Rep. Slap, Rep. Baram, and Sen. Bye. (www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/h/2017HB-06008-R00-HB.htm) The advocate, appointed by the Office of Consumer Counsel, would function as a non-voting board member to keep MDC member-town officials and residents well informed about MDC matters impacting their towns.

• As water becomes an ever more important resource, there should be a mechanism to keep member town officials and residents advised and regularly updated on the policies, ordinances, and operations of the MDC.
  

3. SB 241 AN ACT CONCERNING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: Submitted by Sen. Bye and rep. Slap. (www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/s/2017SB-00241-R00-SB.htm) This bill would require all public water projects transporting above a designated threshold of water (gallons/day) to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the member-towns’ legislative bodies. The objective is to increase public oversight of public water systems by elected officials.

• Large public water projects should at least be subject to a vote of member-towns’ legislative bodies before construction begins.
  

Details on attending the hearing or submitting testimony follow below.

Save Our Water CT is continuing to work through the legislative process on bills concerning drought protection, permitting of large water bottlers, and unfair large volume discounts on water rates. Thanks to YOUR activism, legislators are taking interest and momentum is building to address the protection of our most valuable public trust resource- water. We couldn't do it without you!

Here are some general tips for submitting testimony to the Planning and Development Committee on Friday:

• Email written testimony in Word or PDF format to PDtestimony@cga.ct.gov. Clearly state your name and the bill number and title in your testimony. Also put the bill number and title in the subject line of your e-mail.
• If you wish to attend the public hearing:
  
  
  • Submit at least 2 copies of your written testimony to the Committee staff in Room 2100 of the LOB between 9:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. Testimony received after the designated time may not be uploaded until after the hearing.
  • If you speak, you will be limited to three minutes of testimony. The Committee encourages witnesses to submit a written statement (see above) and to condense oral testimony to a summary of that statement.
  • Sign up to speak Friday AM in Room 2100 between 9 and 10 AM.
  • You can speak on all of these bills, but you will only have a total of 3 minutes. You might simply mention your support on two of them and focus your comments on the one that is most important to you.
    

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)

Listen in as the Dept. of Public Health (DPH) responds to a request for the 2008 MDC Water Supply Plan:  ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=13391

On March 1, 2016 Valerie Rossetti of Save Our Water submitted a request to the DPH to view the most recent MDC Water Supply Plan - or any portions of it open to the public.  That request went unfulfilled.  The DPH reportedly sent the plan to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) for redaction, a process whereby information on the truly critical infrastructure is blacked out for security reasons in keeping with a 2022 federal law. Months passed.  Late in August, Rossetti was informed that she would receive NONE of the plan.  According to the DPH, the MDC had submitted its multi-volume plan to the Department of Homeland Security shortly after Save Our Water's request, resulting in the entire plan being ruled off limits to the public.

The timing of the MDC request was "coincidental", which may well be true.....However earlier in the year,  the water authority, the governor's office, and multiple environmental groups had been in negotiations over access to water supply information in order to do wise state water planning.  Unbeknownst to those groups, the MDC -alone among CT utilities- had forwarded its plan to Homeland Security. is that negotiating in good faith?

Why the request for the water supply plan.  Save Our Water certainly does not want to put at risk any truly critical water infrastructure.  however, it's important that the public and environmental advocates actually KNOW where their water is coming from, where it goes,  how much of it there actually is, and what the projections for future needs are.

The MDC has been guilty of some "doublespeak" in the past year.  For example, it represented to the public that it had no choice or control over to whom it supplies water.  If there's enough, anyone who asks for it gets it.  Then it was revealed that the MDC "jumped over hoops" to accommodate Niagara, including a series of emails discovered under a FOI request that showed the private corporation demanding- and receiving- special discounts never before provided by the MDC.  Although the public was told that the MDC had more than enough water and that a multi-year drought in CT was unlikely, here we are with the first in history state drought declared by Governor Malloy.  With 2 large reservoirs containing a multi-year supply of drinking water, the MDC represents that it has plenty.  But does the rest of the state?  Ask Greenwich, Norwalk, New Britain, Manchester, Storrs, and others.  Of even more concern is the environmental need for enough water to keep our aquatic environments and recreation healthy.  Mr. Jellison, MDC's has stated that if stream flow requirements are met, the drought triggers for MDC would have been hit multiple times already.  Should we be sending water out of state in single serve plastic bottles while our streams lack enough water to keep fish healthy?