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 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.

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.

HB -6008 received a favorable vote from the Planning and Development Committee in the state legislature and will hopefully move on to consideration in the House of Representatives later this session. See: www.senatedems.ct.gov/bye-news/473-bye-170324#sthash.kaaH8WOR.vdIQkaC0.dpbs

The Metropolitan District Commission, which provides drinking water to 8 Hartford area municipalities, came under intense fire this past year.  First, with its decision to offer water and clean water project charge discounts to multi-national  California water bottler Niagara.  Secondly, with its last minute demand for contingency funds from municipalities to avoid a damaged bond rating should the city of Hartford default on its ad valorem sewer payments.

The 29 member MDC board, comprised of both legislative appointees and commissioners appointed by its member towns, was criticized for its lack of communication with member town councils, and its lack of transparency with the public.

The consumer advocate, funded with $50,000/yr by the MDC, would be an attorney with experience in utility law and public advocacy.  The position would provide a set of "eyes and ears" to the public on maters of consequence to the general public, both in member towns and in non-voting towns served by the MDC.

Sen. Beth Bye, Rep. Derek Slap, and Rep. David Baram all worked to forward the legislation out of committee. Save Our Water CT considers this a good first step in restoring public trust to the agency.