On behalf of Rivers Alliance of Connecticut, we would like to express our appreciation to the Water Planning Council for the opportunity to comment on the June 2017 draft Connecticut State Water Plan.

Rivers Alliance of Connecticut is a statewide, non-profit coalition of river organizations, individuals, and businesses formed to protect Connecticut’s waters by promoting sound water policies, by uniting and strengthening the state’s many river groups, and by educating the public about the importance of water stewardship.

------

The development of a state water plan (the Plan) presents a unique opportunity for the people of Connecticut, to protect our valuable public trust waters for our own and for future generations. This effort represents many perspectives, compilesa great amount of data, reviews policy to establish, as well as possible, the state of the state’s water resources.

We have much to be proud of in Connecticut, including good supplies of high quality water, and policies that protect water supply lands. The past investments and wise actions of political, conservation activists, water utilities, and citizens who made decisions with a regard for both present and anticipated future water needs continue to pay dividends today. We hope that this first state water plan will also be a landmark step forward to ensureConnecticut’s water resources will be of the highest quality and ample for people and the environment, now and into the future.

This is the first water plan written for Connecticut and it is noteworthy for its comprehensiveness of data and policy. We are submitting our comments as one document, though we have prepared comments at different times and by different people; and we apologize for the differing formats of the comment sections.

We’ve broken comments out by major topics of concern:

  • Balance and Triple bottom Line
  • Basin Water Summaries
  • Land Conservation
  • Registrations
  • Water Conservation
  • Private Residential Wells
  • Instream Flow/Streamflow/Ecological Flows
  • Wáter Plan Comments: Sections 5 and 6

------

BALANCE and TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

The policy of “Balance” is highlighted in the Executive Summary, though not always carried forward throughout the Plan’s text. We do support the idea of “Balance” in the form of the “Triple Bottom Line” (pages ES-3 and ES-4) where alternatives or decisions are evaluated based on their social,environmental, and economic factors. However, discussion of issues in the text does not always cover all three elements all the time.

------

BASIN WATER SUMMARIES (Appendix E)

The effort to compile available data and present a summary of conditions in Connecticut’s 44 basins during normal and summer conditions is the first time this exercise has been performed. However, we are concerned that the basin graphs and maps require a bold disclaimer to casual reviewers that this is a first broad brush effort. It isn’t clear that the maps and graphs have limitations due to the data inputs and calculations, and require greater scrutiny, better data, and perhaps a rethinking of the calculations. We ask for caution as these maps could very easily be used for planning and development, but do not represent detailed local conditions in the basin, or even perhaps for the entire basin. It would be helpful to include on each page the statement:

“These stress graphs are for reconnaissance and consideration. Due to lack of data there is a large margin of error.”

------

LAND CONSERVATION

The recently adopted “Green Plan” highlights the great importance of protecting and conserving land for water resources, but it is barely referred to in the Plan, and the concept is missed in at least a couple of sections where it should be noted.

In Section 2.1.5.4 (starting on page 2-42) Planning for the Future

The discussion lists a number of infrastructure requirements to be implemented for water quality improvements, but neglects to mention land conservation.

In White Paper 1-8 (starting on page 2-67) Water Quality and Watershed Management

There is also no mention of the “Green Plan” as policy to protect lands for water quality and supply. It should be included.

------

REGISTRATIONS

Registered Water Diversions (“Registrations”) were established in 1982-1983 (under the Water Diversion Policy Act).The Registrations are grandfathered rights to take (divert) large amounts of water. (A “diversion” is any artificial alteration in a water body, whether by damming, pumping groundwater, gravity-piping, etc.).The law was meant to protect natural waters via a permitting requirement for diversions in excess of 50,000 gallons per day; the required permit includes a strict environmental review.(The quantity requiring a permit is any quantity in excess of 50,000 gallons per day.)But an unfortunate compromise in the law provided an exemption from the permitting process for all existing diversions registered with the state by the user.

These registered diversions, or “Registrations,” account for more than 80 percent of the number of water diversions under the state’s permitting system. Frequently, the quantities authorized in a registration exceed the water in the source.It is in fact legal in Connecticut to pump a river dry. There is no environmental review and no legal recourse.

GOOD: The Plan strongly recommends that obsolete registrations should be taken off the books as a potential water demand.For example, on paper it might appear that, because of a registration, there is no water available in a given aquifer.But, in fact, the registration may be obsolete or unusable.An example would be a registration for agricultural irrigation, but now the farm and farmer are long gone; a residential subdivision has replaced the farm.That registration should be taken off the books.(There is less agreement over whether “unused” registrations should be retired because these allow diversions that the water utility or other registration holder might want to use in the future.)

BUT: The draft Water Plan tiptoes quietly around the fact that Registrations are a major roadblock to good water resource planning. Almost all major water conflicts in Connecticut have involved registrations, and these conflicts are the main reason the state decided that a comprehensive water plan is needed.Over and over in the Plan, when Registrations are mentioned, they are acknowledged as an obstacle to understanding or solving an issue. But the Plan is weak on recommendations for removing or breaching this roadblock.Here’s a review of several of the policy areas in which Registrations are problematic.

Conservation:Registered water diversions are not required to implement water conservation measures.

Ecological Needs:Registered water diversions were granted with no environmental review and allow pumping volumes that dry up streams.There is still no process for environmental review now.

Regional Water Planning: A number of the regional basins are shown with critical water needs.Some basins have real water deficits thatneed to be addressed and others do not, but because of registrations included as water claims, realistic planning cannot proceed.

Public Trust Resource: There is no discussion that water is a public trust resource, held in trust by the state for the benefit of current and future uses.When registrations are regarded as “carved in stone” claims on water resources, but no longer benefit current or future uses, the state is not conducting responsible management of our public trust water resources.

No “Pathway Forward” Proposed: Lack of any discussion of revisions to or retirement of registrations in the draft Plan,because it is a politically difficult issue, means the draft Plan does not seriously address improvements in future water resource planning.If we can’t address current problems, how will the draft Plan help us going forward?The Plan needs a bold and brave proposal for a commission to study and prepare a plan recommending how to retire registered water diversions.

------

WATER CONSERVATION

GOOD: The draft Plan has a unanimous goal of encouraging water conservation.Yay! Everyone likes conservation!(We, of course, feel that conservation of natural waters is as important as conservation of water running in pipes.)

BUT: We find the following areas in need of improvement if the goal is a robust and effective water-conservation policy.

Conservation Effort: The Plan is biased towardmodest water-customer conservation efforts, led by the water utilities.But water use by customers has dropped significantly (about 12 percent) in recent years.And, since water conservation normally means less revenue for water utilities, one can hardly expect an energetic and enthusiastic conservation program with utilities in the lead.

Water Conservation Pricing: One promising approach to water conservation that does not unduly stress water utilities is water pricing that separates the direct connection between volumes of water sold and revenue gained. The approved water rate is sufficient for infrastructure maintenance. This is sometimes called “decoupling.” Connecticut has adopted decoupling provisions for private water companies. Public utilities have not been enthusiastic. They do not want state rate regulation.

Drought Planning. Connecticut has been working on an updated drought plan for more than 10 years. There is universal agreement that we need a plan that provides for fair and prudent water management in times of drought (such as the summers of 2015 and 2016). But in the state draft Plan, there is no urgency with respect to moving a state drought plan forward for approval. It is critical to have a better drought plan in place before the next drought.

Water Conservation and Ecological Health: The Plan states that droughts or other water shortages that harm streams must be addressed in planning. Having water available in pipes while streambeds are dry is not acceptable. But, in general, there is little emphasis on using conservation measures to protect natural streams. Taken as a whole, the Plan implies that meeting instream or ecological needs will be difficult or impossible, as if the impracticality of saving high-quality streams is a foregone conclusion.

Municipal Conservation Efforts: The draft Plan gives only slight attention to the role of municipalities and the need for adoption of enforceable municipal water conservation measures. This is important in times of drought and emergency as water utilities have no enforcement powers. The state governor has authority (yet to be exercised) to declare a statewide drought emergency. But often drought and water emergencies occur on a local or regional scale. A local lawn-watering ban might be what is needed, enforced by the municipality. But if the town hasn’t enacted an emergency water conservation ordinance, it can’t enforce a lawn-watering ban or any other water conservation measures.

Water Conservation = Energy Conservation: The Plan needs to give more attention to the relationship between water conservation and energy conservation. Energy is used to treat water before distribution, during distribution, and for wastewater treatment after use. Water is used for cooling power facilities and delivering hydropower. One of the most effective approaches to conserving water and energy is to control peak demand. Entire streams are diverted and power plants built to meet demand in peak-use times. For example, a hydro facility may impound a river year round so that the plant can supply a small amount of electricity for, say, three months of the year.

------

PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL WELLS

Approximately one quarter of Connecticut residents get their water from private residential wells. Residential wells are spread across the state in mostly rural and suburban areas making management as a water resource challenging.

The state Department of Public Health, working with local Health Districts, provides the majority of regulatory oversight for these wells. While drinking water quality rules are established, there is no requirement for testing after a well has been installed. Looking at the water quantity side of private wells, with no required pumping data, quantities used by private well owners can only be rough estimates. Much of the actual data for private wells either is not available or has not been converted to useful digital formats. Consequently, the role private wells play in the use Connecticut’s water resources is murky, at best.

GOOD: The Plan lists a number of actions which could improve management of private wells in Section 5.3.2.14 Private Wells (p. 5-67, PDFfile p. 343 of 612), and we endorse them. Plan recommendations we liked:

More Education: Recommendation for more effort educating private well owners on best practices

Digital Well Reports: Requiring well completion reports in a digital format, and converting older reports into a digital, searchable format.

Periodic Water Testing: Recommendation for a water quality testing and reporting program for private wells.

The first two recommendations are very doable, not expensive, and would be a big step forward in understanding the private well component for any state wide water resource evaluation. We feel there should be more urgency in moving forward on these.

BUT:

Periodic Water Testing:The requirement for water quality testing of private wells is critically important to ensure public health, but is not discussed in detail and with enough urgency. We think this might be because more testing is expensive and may lead to discovery of expensive problems. What do you do if you find out your well water is no longer safe to drink? Potential costs are one reason why both home owners and regulatory agencies are reluctant to do periodic water quality testing.

We believe people should know they have a safe water supply to keep their families healthy. Exploration of cost effective ways to test private wells should be proposed in the Plan. For instance, local health districts could offer information and support for homeowners to collaborate and negotiate a group rate for testing.

Who should be part of this discussion? Certainly the private well owners, but we note their omission in the Plan recommendations to bring; “Homebuilders, real estate associations, and laboratories” into the discussion about private well testing and water quality reporting (p. 5-69).

Outreach to Private Well Owners: While outreach to well owners for best practices is proposed in the Plan, we are concerned it may be passive outreach, such as a website. A more vigorous outreach program needs to be included, especially considering the large percentage of Connecticut residents who rely on their own well for water supply. While wells likely fall into most homeowners’ concern only if they are “broken;” educational messages about preventing contamination and understanding that ground water is a shared resource need to be emphasized. Also as noted above, well owners should be included in any discussions about residential water quality testing.

Water Supply Protections: Private residential well owners do not have any legal protection if a nearby well pumps the local groundwater source dry. This should be acknowledged in the Plan, along with suggestions to move forward to find a solution.

------

INSTREAM FLOW/ STREAMFLOW/ ECOLOGICAL FLOWS

Stream flow regulations are the single most important legislation enacted to protect and improve our water resources since the Clean Water Act. However they have been under attack primarily from water utilities who removed initial language from the draft act that “included provisions for cutting back groundwater withdrawals to protect instream flows.”(page 3-88)

Achieving “balance” is the overarching goal of the Connecticut Water Plan (Plan), but the language used for streamflow and ecological flows topics often casts them in a negative light. The streamflow act was passed in 2005 to ensure some stream water was reserved for ecosystem health (e.g. fish) and to prevent streams from being pumped dry. Initial language in the 2005 law included groundwater withdrawals, though this was removed in a later version. These regulations were enacted after many years of discussion and review. Yet this draft state water Plan portrays streamflow regulations as a big problem and rarely recognizes the overarching “balance” healthy stream flows provide for humans and long term economic and ecological health of our state.

Positive factors or benefits of ensuring healthy stream flows are omitted in many sections where they should be included. Our streams are given short weight on the scale measuring balance in the Plan, and the following comments on specific sections aim to help bring more balance to the topic of streamflow in the draft Connecticut Water Plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Executive Summary treats streamflow regulations and ecological flows with far more balance than in the Plan’s text.

GOOD:

On page ES- 3, we like the very important note that basin summary estimates of ecological flow are generalized and require further study in local reaches. We will provide a separate set of comments on the basin summary maps.

Page ES-6 provides a good neutral review of the state streamflow requirements.

On page ES-18, at the end of the Water Conservation summary, we endorse the observation linking water conservation to increased supplies; “water conservation could be an effective management tool to improve the balance between instream and out-of –stream water uses…”