It was a disappointing end to the 2018 General Session, with the failure of the first State Water Plan to be adopted.  But the overwhelming public support for the inclusion of "water as a public trust resource" in the plan - and the vehement opposition by industry groups- brought the importance of our environmental protection laws to the forefront.  Our 1971 CT General Statute 22a-15 declares as state policy that our air, water, and natural resources are held in the public trust. The plan is intact, still contains its important public trust language, and will return to the General Assembly next year, hopefully to more receptive legislators.

Save Our Water CT is taking a necessary break to re-assess, re-group, and re-strategize for the coming year.  As we write, decisions are being made over allowing Tilcon Connecticut to strip mine Class I and II watershed lands, to allow California corporations to buy out CT water utilities, and to potentially re-instate water rate discounts for industrial water bottlers like Niagara Bottling of California.

We hope all those who care deeply for this precious resource make it an issue in the upcoming 2018 elections!

The 2018 legislative session ended at midnight on May 9th with no vote taken on the State Water Plan. After a public hearing on April 17th by the 4 committees of cognizance at at the General Assembly (Environment, Public Health, Planning & Development, and Energy & Technology) further advancement was blocked by a combination of special interest groups. Although a coalition of environmental advocates reached compromise language with the CT Water Works Association (CWWA) and the MDC, the CT Business and Industry Association (CBIA), and Sen. Len Fasano remained firmly opposed. The mere mention that "water as a public trust" was a frequently made public comment during the draft review, along with the citation of CGS 22a-15 in the draft document, was the reported cause. After years of work, the input of countless experts, and over a million dollars of state funds, our first state water plan will sadly need to await next year's legislative session.

With an ongoing bidding war by California corporations for a major CT private water utility, a pending decision on a proposal to grant Tilcon CT access to Class I watershed land for strip mining, and the possible re-introduction of large volume water discounts to Niagara Bottling of CA by the MDC, it's ever more important to make water policy an issue in this fall's elections.

Our first State Water Plan:  developed after years of work, with input by multiple expert stakeholders and with unanimous approval by 4 state agencies (DEEP, DPH, OPM, PURA). It now awaits approval at the General Assembly.  A fierce last minute lobbying campaign by the water utilities and business interests (among them MDC, CWWA, and CBIA) is attempting to strip out public input and delete recognition of water as a public trust resource.  Will big $$ and scare tactics win again at the legislature?  Or will our elected representatives respect citizen's concerns for our vital water resources? See the advocates' statement below.

It's here: the key Public Hearing for CT's first State Water Plan. Four committees of cognizance (Public Health, Environment, Planning & Development and Energy & Technology) will decide whether the plan is forwarded to the General Assembly for adoption. It should be a "no-brainer":

• Over a year of effort and a million dollars worth of in-depth work by multiple expert stakeholders
• Detailed, centralized information on the state's water resources
• Development of priorities for our state's water, some of which include maintaining CT's highest quality drinking water, protection of watershed lands, increased conservation, updated drought planning, safe levels of water for our streams and rivers, and improved scientific data collection
• Creation of a platform for making informed decisions which balance "in-stream needs" for the environment with "out of stream needs" for humans and the economy...and one which provides only guidance, not statutory mandates

Yet, the draft plan is now being opposed by water utilities, the business lobby, and anti-regulatory interests.....all because CT residents overwhelmingly requested the plan include a reference to water as a public trust resource. The demand that the plan remove any mention of "public trust", would threaten our state's long held policy, ALREADY-EXISTING in CT Gen Statute Sec. 22a-15 that: "It is hereby found and declared that there is a public trust in the air, water, and other natural resources of the state"...
As federal regulations protecting our environment are eviscerated, it's ever more important that we let our officials know: water belongs to us all and is our most important resource.

HELP ASK the COMMITTEES to PASS the STATE WATER PLAN AS DRAFTED!

1. Write a brief statement and save it as a word or pdf document. Attach it to an email addressed to phtestimony@cga.ct.gov. Submit it by 2 pm on Friday April 13th.
2. Come to hearing at 11 AM on Tuesday April 17th at the Legislative Office Building: Room 2C at 300 Capitol Ave. Wear your blue Save Our Water CT Button to let legislators know we're watching. Free parking at the L.O.B. can be tough; you may need to arrive early, find on-street parking, or take public transport.
3. If you plan to testify, sign up begins at 9:00 AM in the L.O.B. lobby.
4. Further details of the plan, its Executive Summary and a 2 page description of key topics can be seen at the Water Planning Council's website.

Thanks for acting. If the plan is not passed as is, our public voices may be left out!

Judy Allen for the Save Our Water CT Steering Committee
Follow Us on FACEBOOK
www.saveourwaterct.org
info@saveourwaterct.org

A recent Senate Bill SB-427, introduced by a water utility association president from southeastern CT and Sen. Formica, argued that all well water in the state- no matter how large or small- be exempted from the protections of public trust.  Oral testimony, given by the CWWA lobbyist, registered their opposition to the specifics of the bill, but used it as an opportunity to urge that public trust language be struck from our State Water Plan.  Save Our Water CT regards it as the opening salvo in a battle over protection of our public waters. See the bill at   www.cga.ct.gov/2018/TOB/s/2018SB-00427-R00-SB.htm and read
all the testimony at  www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmyBill.asp?comm_code=env&bill=SB-00427&doc_year=2018

​
Save Our Water CT is a non-partisan, citizen-led group working to protect Connecticut's waters though increased citizen engagement.  Though we started in Bloomfield to fight the incursion of a massive water bottling plant, we now reach throughout the state, allying ourselves with multiple environmental organizations concerned with protection of our water resources. Our core belief is that:
 
WATER IS A PUBLIC RESOURCE, BELONGING TO THE PEOPLE OF CT AND HELD IN TRUST BY THE STATE TO BE MANAGED SUSTAINABLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF GENERATIONS TO COME.
 
Raised SB 427 is problematic in multiple ways and should not be voted out of Committee:

• This bill represents an attempt to subvert CT’s Environmental Protection Act by removing a large proportion of water (“private drinking water wells of any size”) from the public trust considerations of CGS 22a-15.
• It counters the foundational principle that Connecticut’s waters are a natural resource which need to be managed sustainably for all for generations to come. We have “rights” under existing state regulations which allow us to responsibly use water, but these rights are not absolute.  They may, on rare occasions, be overridden by the public interest in decisions involving water resources.
• This law misunderstands the state water plan.  The plan has no regulatory force:  it is a platform for best practices in future decision making about our water resources. 
• This bill fails to recognize the now scientifically proven connection between surface and ground water.  According to the USGS, it is invalid, inappropriate, and scientifically mistaken to view groundwater from wells as somehow separate from the surface water in rivers and reservoirs. What happens to one effects the other.  Removing one part of the system from public oversight opens the other components to harm.
• The provisions of this law would allow major water utilities to claim their well fields are now their private property and not subject to state regulation.  A large water bottling plant could purchase land and drill multiple wells, exporting the water out of state with impunity. During droughts, private well owners could claim they are not subject to any water restrictions.

Save Our Water CT strongly opposes Raised S.B. 457.  Thank you for considering our view.

A furious letter-writing campaign to the Water Planning Council (WCP) and Department of Public Health (DPH)  prevented a last-minute push by water lobbyists, corporate interests, and-surprisingly- the DPH to remove all mention of "public trust" or to relegate it to the end of the  plan under "future topics to be considered". You can view the plan, its 26 page executive summary, and the compendium of responses to citizen comments at www.ct.gov/water/site/default.asp
 
Page 2 of the Executive summary contains references to "public trust", noting:

• "One related aspect to the the concept of balance, which was widely brought up during the public comment period following Plan development is water as a public trust.  Following Water Planning Council (WPC) discussion of this prevalent comment, it was noted that there is an existing statute as follows: "Sec. 22a-15. Declaration of policy.  It is hereby found and declared that there is a public trust in the air, water and other natural resources of the state of Connecticut and that each person is entitled to the protection, preservation and enhancement of the same.  It is further found and declared that it is in the public interest to provide all persons with an adequate remedy to protect the air, water and other natural resources from unreasonable pollution, impairment or destruction."
  

While the words "public trust"remain, and a citation to the 2014 statute is included, the WPC did not explicitly endorse the principle.  Our first ever state water plan may be one that sadly shied away from declaring the waters of the state to be a resource held in trust for the present and future generations.

The document now heads to the General Assembly where it will be presented to 4 committees of cognizance (Environment, Public Health, Energy and Technology, and Planning and Development). If approved, the Plan will move on to the General Assembly. If not approved, the Plan will go back to the WPC for revisions and then be re-submitted. At 24 months from the date of first submission, if the plan is not approved by the General Assembly, it will be forwarded to the Governor for adoption or rejection.

A scheduled Jan 19th vote on the final draft of the first ever CT state water plan was abruptly cancelled after the Water Planning Council (WPC) received last minute letters from water industry and business lobbyists as well as a letter from the Republican Senate leaders demanding that "public trust" be removed from the document.  See the Rivers Alliance website to read a copy of the letters
www.riversalliance.org/Topics/State_Water_Plan.php#squawks

From Rivers Alliance:  "The CT State Water plan has hit an astonishing road block right before it is due to go to the General Assembly for consideration. Public comment on the draft plan emphasized the importance of the concept that water is a public trust resource: it belongs to the public and is held in trust by the state, which must manage it in the best interests of the public. According to Kirk Westphal, the consultant most knowledgeable about the plan: "... the plan simply acknowledges the existence of the current statute, lists the issue as one that warrants further discussion, and introduces the concept in the section on balance in the executive Summary ('each person is entitled …').  The plan makes no effort to advocate for, interpret, or prioritize this issue." 

The Dept of Public Health (DPH), CT Water Works Association (CWWA), and others immediately launched a campaign in opposition to this concept. Senators Len Fasano and Kevin Witkos also oppose this concept and insist that references to the public trust concept should be deleted.

The state comprehensive water plan is due to go to the legislature in February.   Final edits were to be done Friday 1/19 in a meeting  of the Water Planning Council.  That meeting was rescheduled to Tuesday, January 23, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., at the offices of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, Ten Franklin Square, New Britain, Connecticut. The purpose of the meeting is to vote on the finalization of the Draft State Water Plan. The meeting will be open to members of the public, but participation will be limited to the members of the WPC.  For those not attending in person, the Call-In Number is 888-658-6260 and the Participant Code is 7094124."

Of note, members of the public,  a stakeholder in the process, noted numerous times throughout the planning process that this key principle should be deliberately expressed.  It was, in fact, the number one issue commented on during the official comment period.  Three of the 4 members of the WPC, as well as the plan's chief consultant, agreed.  CT Statute 22-a15 already recognizes that" there is a public trust in the air, water and other natural resources of the state of CT and that each person is entitled to the protection, preservation and enhancement of the same". 

However, receipt of the above letters and abrupt cancellation of the scheduled vote leave in doubt what the final version of the plan will be. Any omission of this concept would be a step backwards and a dismissal of the public's participation. And it would belie the foundational principle of the state water planning process that our state waters need to be held in public trust for the future as well as the present.

The WPC meets Tuesday 1/23 at 10:30 am at P.U.R.A. 10 Franklin Square New Britain.  Comments can be sent to wpc@ct.gov

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?"

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.