Cornell Submits Final Comments to PSC on UWNY Long-term Water Supply Source

New City, NY  (November 7, 2013) – Rockland County Chairwoman Harriet Cornell submitted her final and expanded comments to the Public Service Commission in response to their directive ordering United Water NY (UWNY) to restate its need for the development of a new water source. Chairwoman Cornell appeared before the PSC on October 1st to make her statement at a public hearing held at Clarkstown South High School.

In her expanded comments, Cornell calls for the formation of a Rockland County Water Task Force to develop a comprehensive long-term County Water Plan to ensure a safe, long-term water supply for Rockland that incorporates sustainability, demand-side principles and conservation.  

FULL COMMENTS BY CHAIRWOMAN CORNELL FOLLOW:

Case 13-W-0303

Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Examine United Water NY, Inc.’s 

Development of a New Long-Term Water Supply Source.

Statement to Public Service Commission

On Need for New Water Supply

(Expanded version of statement presented on October 1, 2013

at Clarkstown South High School.)

Harriet Cornell

Chairwoman, Rockland County Legislature

November 7, 2013

I am Harriet Cornell, Chairwoman of the Rockland County Legislature.  Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Thoughtful consideration and wise decisions made by the PSC are of critical importance to the people of NY State—and certainly for Rockland County.  The hearings have been called in order for the PSC to ascertain need for a new water supply and-- if you find that Rockland has sufficient water and there is no need—then, it is my understanding that the process is over. If there is need, it will lead to studying how best to meet it in the most cost-effective way, and least painful for rate-payers.

 I will certainly follow your instructions for these hearings, to focus on the question of need--but forgive me for expressing a level of frustration and confusion which has dogged this process since UWNY announced its preferred project—a desalination plant to convert brackish water from the Hudson River into drinking water.  

It has been a never-never land of twists and turns:  calls for the DEC to hold an issues conference which is a reasonably standard process have been ignored, so disputed issues of fact raised by the DEIS have never been resolved.  Thousands of signatures, hundreds of meetings, scores of legislative resolutions have fallen into a void. Not-for-profit organizations and local governments have spent their resources on studies focused on one project. The public is angry, which accounts for this overwhelming turnout.

Believe me; I truly appreciate your desire to hear from the public and to provide transparency to the process.  I also know the PSC has a wide-ranging jurisdiction.  As it says on your website, The Public Service Commission of the State of New York has been “Ensuring safe, reliable service and just and reasonable rates since 1907.”  And State law forming the PSC gives it sweeping powers and responsibilities. 

I will address Section 5, #2 of PSC Law.

“The commission shall encourage all persons and corporations subject to  its  jurisdiction  to  formulate  and carry out long-range programs,  individually or cooperatively,  for  the  performance  of  their  public service  responsibilities  with  economy,  efficiency,  and care for the public  safety,  the  preservation  of  environmental  values  and   the conservation of natural resources.”

My comments will focus on how to determine need objectively and then how to ensure that the need for water is met while still ensuring “just and reasonable rates”.  And I will present a plan for a Task Force of “persons and corporations subject to PSC jurisdiction to formulate and carry out long-range programs, with economy, efficiency, and care for the public safety, the preservation of environmental values and the conservation of natural resources.”

Offers of proof from testimony at previous hearings tell us that the combined capacity of the Rockland water supply system, managed properly, will be adequate to meet projected future need for a long period of time—ten years— negating the need to increase the water supply via an infrastructure project.

Given the evidence that demand in recent years has been significantly less than previous projections relied on at the time of the original order (which as you well know was never a requirement for a single project,) it is necessary to focus on safe yield of Lake DeForest, better management of existing water resources, groundwater recharge rates and available demand side management techniques.  

I would like to start with a real-life story which had major implications for Rockland County’s future and this county’s ability to conserve natural resources with economy, efficiency and the preservation of environmental values (as the Public Service Commission law enshrines) while preventing what undoubtedly would have become a stranded investment.

Over twenty-five years ago a garbage barge (the Mobro 4000) hauled the same load of trash  from Islip in Suffolk County, NY to Belize and back again-- unable to dispose of it because of a national landfill shortage.  Rockland County decided to construct an expensive incinerator to burn the County’s trash.  A site was selected and a land purchase on Route 303 in Orangetown was about to occur, when environmental activists prevailed upon legislators to reduce the waste stream by supporting recycling instead. I remember this well:  I was a relatively new legislator. Today the RC Solid Waste Management Authority efficiently deals with the County’s recyclable materials and collects revenue to offset its operating costs.  Recycling is a more sustainable solution and has spawned all sorts of other environmental programs.  County residents have embraced recycling as a way of life.  

Despite United Water’s statements that Rockland’s water situation has not changed, that is simply not true.  New information has come to light since 2010—and certainly since 2006. The fact that the PSC ordered UW to develop a long-term source to ensure Rockland’s projected need for water was not an order for a single infrastructure project.  There are a number of ways to ensure water supply, and Rockland’s Water Coalition has been examining model programs in this country and overseas, working with elected officials and nationally-known experts to offer a plan that will satisfy the need, protect ratepayers, create many more permanent jobs and promote economic development.

Relevant new information includes:

Changing Demographics

Availability of 2010 U.S. Census Figures–Growth in the number of residents 65 years and older comprises a major shift in the age structure of Rockland’s population.  The number of seniors is expected to grow in both actual numbers as well as in share of the population from now until 2040, according to population forecasts prepared by Cornell University’s Applied Demographics Program in 2011 and utilized by the Rockland County Department of Planning.  The forecast figures show an overall increase in Rockland’s population between the years 2010 and 2040 of 44,137.  Of that total increase, 18,598 (42%) will be 65 or older.   This represents a growth for this population of more than 44% between 2010 and 2040. The rate of increase will be greatest in those 80 years or older.  By 2040, 17% of Rockland’s total population will be over the age of 65. We know that people on fixed incomes are not going to be able to pay higher rates for water, and rate increases will exert downward pressure on demand. Many older people are already forced to choose between food and necessary medications, often splitting pills in half or skipping days at a time.  Cost of water will depress demand.

Lake DeForest Reservoir

2007 – Fines by NYS DEC levied on UWNY for illegal releases from Lake DeForest - Documentation of illegal water releases from Lake DeForest led to $10,000 in fines levied against UWNY by NYS DEC.  

2013 – Request by County Executive Scott Vanderhoef that DEC Reopen the Water Supply Permit for Lake DeForest and renegotiate the rule curve.  This was the fourth request made by the County Executive and was informed by research data from former New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Water Manager Robert Kecskes.  His report stated that the average amount of water that could be diverted from Lake DeForest for Rockland’s use could be increased from 9.75 mgd to more than 14 mgd if DeForest employed the same passing flow requirements as used in New Jersey.  That would add an additional 4.25 mgd, more than half of the amount PSC ordered UW to develop in the 2006 Rate Case.

2013 – Rockland Water Coalition Report on the Lake DeForest Rule Curve/Pass Flow.

This report was based on the work of Robert Kecskes, former water manager of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.  “The initial passing flow that was included in the 1952 permit was, and remains, unwarranted and inequitable…Revising the permit would be a far simpler, more cost effective and equitable way of managing Rockland’s water supply than current proposals to build a $200 million desalination plant.”  Revisions to the permit in 1982 increased the amount of water allowed to flow downstream to New Jersey at the expense of Rockland.  There is no public benefit rationale for this.  

2013 – The Intercompany Agreement between United Water New York and United Water New Jersey expired on September 26, 2013.  This agreement spells out how the two entities share costs.  Negotiations are currently underway.  We ask that the agreement reflect the value of drinking water and not just the operation of the reservoirs.  Rockland has asked to be party to these negotiations, but has been refused.  We seek a more equitable use of Lake DeForest.  UWNY needs to exercise more muscle with its parent company, UWNJ.

2010 – Request by Rockland County Legislature that NYS DEC Conduct a 50-Year Audit of UWNY’s Operation of Lake DeForest, Nov. 4, 2010 – The County Legislature passed a resolution requesting that NYS DEC conduct a 50-year audit of the operations of Lake DeForest to assess the water needs of Rockland County.  This was prompted by documented releases of nearly 2 million gallons per day over and above the permit for 9.75 mgd. This audit has presumably never occurred.

Water Supply

Release of the U.S.G.S. report by Paul Heisig entitled Water Resources of Rockland County, New York, 2005-2007, with Emphasis on the Newark Basin Bedrock Aquifer, February, 2011 - Based on available data and computer modeling, that study indicates that the Newark Basin aquifer can and is replenishing itself at sustainable rates during non-peak periods. Peak water use during the summer can be addressed in a variety of ways far less costly than the proposed project.  Six additional water sources that could be further explored were outlined.  This study was based on a conceptual computer model developed to analyze available groundwater in the aquifer; it is available for use by the Task Force to consider future scenarios regarding this water source.  

2012 - Publication of Water Conservation and Long-Term Water Supply Planning in the Hudson Valley: A Rockland County Case Study, Stuart Braman and Simon Gruber, CRREO, Discussion Brief #7. This study states that Rockland County can further reduce its indoor household water consumption rate, in contradiction to United Water New York’s statements.  The authors further suggest that Rockland County government should lead conservation efforts for Rockland.

2013 – Release of Report by Albert F. Appleton, Former NYC Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection and Director of Water Supply regarding the proposed Project to Desalinate Hudson River Water.  Mr. Appleton’s report concluded that Rockland needs better water supply management, not new supply.  His report documents that a combination of three demand side measures (1) a better operating rule for the DeForest Reservoir; (2) reducing water main leakage; and (3) reducing consumer water use could provide 8.5 mgd—more water faster and far more cheaply than the desalination plant.  His full testimony is on record.

2011  - Adoption of Rockland Tomorrow: Rockland County Comprehensive Plan, March 1, 2011.  The County’s Comprehensive Plan calls for a Comprehensive Water Plan which focuses on best management practices, leak control, conservation and makes recommendations

regarding conservation, waste water reuse, storm water, pervious surfaces, to name a few.  The Plan can be accessed online at www.rocklandgov.com  

2012– A Report by ECONorthwest, a respected economics, finance and planning organization, studied the cost sections of the DEIS and found them “almost useless” for those interested in independently verifying cost results.  One example was the failure to use consistent measures and commonly-accepted industry standards to determine comparative costs for alternate projects that could achieve the same goal.  The study, released on April 19, 2012, concluded that the proposed project may not be the most cost-effective solution.  Due diligence regarding planning studies, sector by sector water conservation analysis and rate impact modeling was not done.

State and Regional Initiatives

2010 – Passage of the Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy by NYS Legislature -

Effective September 29, 2010, the Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Act requires most state agencies and all state authorities, to prepare and file a Smart Growth Impact Statement finding that the project is consistent with ten Smart Growth Criteria or justifying why it is not practicable to do so prior to approving or funding any public infrastructure project.  The relevant public infrastructure projects are defined very broadly as consisting of “transportation, sewer and waste water treatment, water, education, housing and other publicly supported infrastructure.” United Water’s projects should be subject to these criteria. 

2013 - Release of Mid-Hudson Regional Sustainability Plan, March 2013, prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc., for the Mid-Hudson Planning Consortium.  Water was highlighted as one of the five themes.  The first of eight objectives for water use is “Increase available water supply by reducing water consumption.”

2013 – Passage by the States of New York and New Jersey of the Rockland Bergen Bi-State River Commission Legislation.  A bi-state commission would identify and address potential flood hazards and protect the watersheds of shared rivers and creeks.  While this legislation focuses on flood mitigation, it also addresses watershed protection which ensures better water quality and increased groundwater supply.  This legislation has been signed by Governor Christie and is awaiting signature by Governor Cuomo.

Governor Cuomo’s sustainability agenda seeks to address climate change and energy efficiency. Implementation of an energy intensive solution, when there are other non-capital solutions, would run counter to this agenda. His goals for the Hudson Valley stated earlier this year are to “Meet water quality and water efficiency objectives set by the region. With this action, the region can preserve this resource for the future and competitively differentiate itself from water-scarce parts of the U.S. as a sensible location for business development. It will do so by protecting the habitat and water quality and improving the reliability of water treatment and distribution systems and wastewater treatment collection systems.”   

Rockland’s Plan for the Future

There has been no comprehensive statewide water plan since 1989, and that plan is outdated.    Some parts of the State have regional water commissions, but Rockland is not included in any. In the 1980s New York State actually conducted water planning, but that function has since been divided among DOH, PSC and four offices within the NYS DEC with no single agency responsible for developing a comprehensive approach to water supply planning.  Jurisdictional issues also abound around the issue of water supply, quality, rates and conservation.  DEC monitors water quality and withdrawals and promotes water conservation but does not engage in regional water planning.  Rockland borders New Jersey and some Rockland water naturally flows through the Hackensack River and Lake Tappan into New Jersey.  There is an agreement between the two companies, UWNY and UWNJ but no bi-state water commission or plan with regard to equitable sharing of drinking water.  

The County of Rockland has already commenced a process to prepare a comprehensive, long-term plan to address water supply. A working group has been formed.  We are developing a program to conserve and better manage our water resources. Goals and objectives have been carefully studied, with public input, and are documented as recommendations for action in Rockland Tomorrow:  Rockland County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2011.  The County is also investigating successful models throughout the country and beyond with regard to best management practices and conservation.  What would serve the purposes of the PSC, I believe, is for it to endorse a Task Force, including United Water as described below, to develop a plan to ensure the health and adequacy of Rockland’s future water supply.  We have the time; there is no water crisis.

Rockland County Water Task Force

Mission:   to develop a comprehensive long-term County Water Plan to ensure a safe, long-term water supply for Rockland that incorporates sustainability, demand-side principles and conservation.  These elements are already a key part of the County Comprehensive Plan; the Task Force will now take the steps to implement them.  The process will insure that future demand will be maintained within sustainable limits. This plan must include a mission statement, clear objectives, achievable goals, a specific timetable, staffing plan, reporting requirements and a realistic budget to support its implementation.

One of the first objectives of the Task Force will be to ensure that demand will not come close to available supply while this program is being fully developed.  Consequently, the Task Force will initially assess its Mandatory Conservation Measures Program to ensure that it can sufficiently reduce demand during periods where it otherwise would increase to excessive levels.  If this assessment concludes that the existing program cannot adequately maintain demand well below existing supply, the program will shortly be revised to guarantee that it will. This would provide Rockland County with the necessary “buffer” to develop a comprehensive program that meets the water supply needs of the next generation.

Members:  representatives from United Water New York; county and municipal elected and appointed officials; scientists from Lamont Doherty Earth Institute and U.S.G.S, experts from Pace and other institutions of higher education; advocates from the Rockland Water Coalition, Scenic Hudson, Riverkeeper and Clearwater;  representatives from economic development agencies and business organizations; and the general public.  Technical advice will be sought from New York State Department of Conservation, Department of State , Department of Health and the Public Service Commission.

Process:  The planning process will be transparent, collaborative and inclusive. It will ensure that we understand our water consumption usage patterns and trends, available water resources and costs associated with various alternatives. 

Functions: 

To identify and conduct analyses that are essential to understanding our unique situation in Rockland including but not limited to the potential rate of aquifer recharge, consumption patterns of Rockland households and businesses, and modeling of various rate increases.  Regulation, management, education, and incentives will be explored. 

Specific analyses include but are not limited to:

a baseline analysis of current water consumption and usage for residential, institutional, industrial and commercial users;

trends analysis for future water consumption in the County, given the national trend of lower water consumption

a cost benefit analyses for an aggressive leak management program by United Water New York to determine the most optimal investment to address leakage, 

an economic modeling of the impact on demand of ascending block rates  

5)  an audit of Lake DeForest water releases for the past ten years.

All members of the Task Force should agree on methodology, goals for the studies and the use of independent parties to conduct the analyses.

To investigate case studies of communities that have fully embraced conservation in their water planning and identify means and methods that are applicable to Rockland.  The NYS DEC published a Water Conservation Manual in 1998 that is comprehensive and can serve as a template.

To study green infrastructure projects involving water that are being built all over the country and investigate the most promising ideas in order to determine their applicability to Rockland.  (Just recently, a group from IBM Intelligent Water program made a presentation to the Rockland County Legislature about a new software platform that helps water managers better monitor their systems and assets, quickly allowing them to identify and correct leakages, saving “lost water.”  In another impressive presentation I attended with town and village officials, Onondaga County and the City of Syracuse opted not to build three wastewater treatment plants to address sewer overflows polluting Lake Onondaga; instead they invested in green storm water management.  Rather than treating more wastewater, they have redirected that storm water to recharge their groundwater supplies.)  

TIME TO PLAN

Fortunately, we have the time to give this issue the attention it requires.  Until this hearing by the PSC, it appeared that the collective “we” were on the verge again of doing something that isn’t necessary, environmentally sustainable or cost-effective.  In fact, UWNY’s recent applications for rate increases and a surcharge underscore how expensive this unnecessary project will be and how it can become a stranded investment, as demand decreases with increased rates.

Without being facetious, the reality is that UW’s proposed desalination project has created enormous public awareness about the value of water and galvanized the public in opposition.  We are in a better place now:  residents have educated themselves and have greater understanding of water as a finite resource, and the need to plan and preserve.  A stirring example of water conservation comes from the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA), responsible for the water supply for the 2.3 million people in the greater Boston area.  Facing a major infrastructure project to increase water supply, they reduced per capita water consumption by one third after a sustained conservation effort.  This was achieved by first addressing ‘lost water’ or leaks in the system, implementing code changes, and instituting an aggressive conservation program.  The program included directly installing water saving devices in homes, public education to teachers and students, outreach to the private sector and collaboration with other utilities.  The leak detection program is on-going, as is the public education.  As its Director of Research explained in a phone call, “The best time to do conservation is when you have people’s attention.”  We have the public’s attention and, thankfully, the attention of the PSC.

According to United Water's own data, we now have adequate supply for the next decade.  In addition, better system management and conservation measures currently underway can increase Rockland’s supply, cost-effectively, by more than the 7.1 mgd ordered in 2006.  There is no need for a new water supply and we urge the Public Service Commission to withdraw its order requiring that UW develop a new supply.  Instead we formally request that the PSC recognize and support the formation of a Rockland County Water Task Force as herein described as the planning entity to develop a plan for Rockland’s water needs for the next ten years.

If we harness the professional and technical expertise of UWNY with the passion and commitment of the public, the business community and Rockland County government, I am convinced that together we can develop a plan to ensure a sustainable water future for Rockland, with-- as the Public Service Law states: “economy, efficiency, and care for the public safety, the preservation of environmental values and the conservation of natural resources.” Rockland has no need for a water project.

# # #