I have been asked how much will Hudson River desalination cost Rockland residents?

The Short Answer Is:

Based on testimony to the New York State Public Service Commission and other documents prepared by United Water as of March 8, 2010 the Haverstraw Water Supply Project is estimated to cost approximately $140 million when completed.  The annual additional cost to United Water customers could easily approach $25.1 million, the equivalent to an annual cost of approximately $360 per customer per year.

The actual additional cost could be at least $34 million per year or $485 per customer per year.

The Longer Answer Is:

From testimony to the New York State Public Service Commission on 3-8-2010 by Michael J. Pointing, United Water New York Vice-President and General Manger.

 “The Haverstraw Water Supply Project is currently estimated to cost approximately $140 million when completed.”  “This is significant and should be considered in relation to the overall customer cost upon completion of the facility which could easily approach $270 to $300 per customer per year.  The equivalent of a phase-in through incremental surcharges will lessen the rate shock that would otherwise exist.”  

(See: Michael Pointing PSC Testimony 3-8-2010 Page 36 Line 23 through Page 38 Line 2)

United Water’s proposed Hudson River Desalination Plant will cost United Water’s 70,000 Rockland customers an additional $19 million to $21 million per year according to Mr. Pointing’s estimates.

In October 2009 United Water produced a PowerPoint presentation regarding the proposed Hudson River Desalination Plant.  In that presentation the annual revenue requirement was estimated to be $25.1 million.  ( See United Water PowerPoint; Orlando, Florida 10-13-2009 slide 8 )

The annual revenue requirement of $25.1 million is equivalent to a cost of approximately $360 per customer per year.

The actual additional cost could be at least $34 million per year or $485 per customer per year. (See: Annual Cost To Customers Of Hudson River Desalination)

The Escalating Cost of The Haverstraw Water Supply Project

On 1-15-2007 United Water filed with the NYSPSC a description for a long-term major water supply project for Rockland County now known as the Haverstraw Water Supply Project. The estimated cost of the project was $98 million. ( See: United Water New York Long Term Water Supply Project 1-15-2007 Pg. 8 )

On 1-12-2010 the Clarkstown Town Board hosted a town board workshop on United Water’s proposal to desalinate and treat water from the Hudson River for Rockland’s drinking water. When asked how much the project would cost when completed?  Michael J. Pointing, United Water New York Vice-President and General Manger responded, $116.5 million.

On 3-8-2010 in testimony submitted to the NYSPSC Michael J. Pointing stated, “The Haverstraw Water Supply Project is currently estimated to cost approximately $140 million when completed.” ( See: Michael Pointing PSC Testimony 3-8-2010 Page 36 Line 23 through Page 37 Line 2 )

 In only 38-months the estimated cost of constructing The Haverstraw Water Supply Project increased by $42 million, nearly 43 percent.

 The North Rockland “Ratable” Myth

In its Haverstraw Water Supply Project Executive Summary United Water argues, “The Proposed Project is expected to generate a substantial increase in property tax revenues (primarily to the North Rockland community) from the improvement of the Project Sites.” and that “As a result, the Proposed Project is expected to have a net positive effect on the local and regional economies of Rockland County and New York State.”

Estimated annual real estate tax revenues to the North Rockland community are:

$2,649,470             upon completion of its first phase, in 2016,

$3,483,860             at the conclusion of its second phase, in 2021, and

$5,580,455             in year 2030, when the Proposed Project is fully built out

( See: Haverstraw Water Supply Project Executive Summary Socioeconomics Page S-6 )

The Haverstraw Water Supply Project Executive Summary does not mention the higher water rates, which will be paid by North Rockland residents as a result of this project. However, United Water expects that water rate increases could easily approach $270 to $300 per customer per year.  As noted above the cost estimates for this project have increased rapidly.  The actual additional cost could be at least $485 per customer per year.

The Haverstraw Water Supply Project will have an adverse effect on the North Rockland economy.  Approximately 12,000 of United Water’s 70,000 Rockland customers reside in the North Rockland area.

Estimated increase in the annual cost of water to the North Rockland community:

At $270 per customer per year             $3,240,000

At $300 per customer per year            $3,600,000

At $385 per customer per year            $4,620,000

At $485 per customer per year            $5,820,000

The North Rockland community will only profit from The Haverstraw Water Supply Project if real estate tax revenues exceed the increase in the cost of water to North Rockland customers.

Based on current estimates the aggregate tax revenue will exceed the aggregate increase in the cost of water to North Rockland customers in the year:

2030 at an increased cost for water of $270 per customer per year

2032 at an increased cost for water of $300 per customer per year

2050 at an increased cost for water of $385 per customer per year

Never at an increased cost for water of $485 per customer per year

( See: North Rockland Real Estate Tax Revenue Compared To Cost and Annual Cost To Customers Of Hudson River Desalination )

Bob Dillon

By: Bob Dillon

“On December 14, 2006, a New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) Order adopted a three-year rate plan for United Water New York. “The Joint Proposal”, an agreement that was signed and adopted as part of the order, requires United Water to, among other things, develop an additional, sustainable water supply to meet the growing needs for water in Rockland County over the next 20 years. The PSC and the parties to the Joint Proposal found that it is in the best interest of United Water’s customers and for the company to develop new sources of water supply. The parties to the Joint Proposal are: United Water New York, PSC Staff, the Town of Ramapo, the County of Rockland, the Rockland County Fire Chiefs, former Rockland County Legislator and now New York State Assembly Member Ellen Jaffee, and others.” (See: Haverstraw Water Supply Project)

Inadequacies of “The Joint Proposal”

What Was Not Considered

Rockland County Water-Resource Assessment

In March 2004, Rockland County Legislator Ellen Jaffee, Chair of the Environmental Committee, and County Executive Scott Vanderhoef announced a proposal for a comprehensive assessment of Rockland County’s groundwater supply to be conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in order to provide information and data to quantify groundwater resources within Rockland County.   The Rockland County Water-Resource Assessment was completed and released to public in February 2011.

The New York State Public Service Commission (NYSPSC) and the parties to the Joint Proposal did not have the results of the recently completed United States Geological Survey Rockland County Water-Resource Assessment before entering into the “Joint Proposal” agreement.  The assessment indicates that Rockland’s ground water resources are more abundant than thought in 2006 and that the year-to-year recharge rate of Rockland’s aquifer is sufficient to replenish United Water’s wells and other wells that are drawn down during peek demand months. Review of pumpage and water-level data from the bedrock aquifer back to 1989 suggests that there has not been a continuous downward trend in groundwater levels across the aquifer.

Lake DeForest Decision of 7-23-1952

The PSC and the parties to the Joint Proposal did not consider how much of Rockland’s water was being exported to New Jersey in excess of United Water’s Lake DeForest operating permit. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) fined United Water in 2007 for excessive releases from Lake DeForest earlier that year.

The Lake DeForest Decision of 7-23-1952 authorizing the construction of Lake DeForest states that the reservoir was to be operated solely for the benefit of Rockland County citizens.  “The only benefit to the Hackensack Water Company (United Water New Jersey) and the people of New Jersey is the incidental benefit of a regulated flow in the (Hackensack) river.” (Page 10 paragraph 37)

During times of drought from 1991 through 2002 the Excess Flow From Lake DeForest averaged 1.66 million gallons per day at times of County of Rockland Mandatory Water Use Restrictions and 5.26 million gallons per day at times of County of Rockland Intense Observation of Water Resources.

In April 2010 Dr. Daniel M. Miller, Bureau Head for the Water Supply Bureau of the Rockland County Department of Health gave testimony to the PSC regarding United Water’s request for a rate increase.  As part of his testimony Dr. Miller concluded that; on average from 1965 to 2008 an additional 19.25 million gallons per day more than required was flowing to New Jersey for use by United Water New Jersey. (See: Dr. Daniel M. Miller PSC Testimony 4-30-2010 Page 22 lines 6 through 11)

On November 4, 2010 the Legislature of Rockland County unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the NYSDEC to conduct a 50-Year Audit of United Water’s operations at Lake DeForest separate and apart from NYSDEC’s consideration of a potential desalination plant, in order to accurately evaluate and assess the water needs of Rockland County.

Lake Tappan Decision of 7-22-1965

The PSC and the parties to the Joint Proposal did not consider the possibility of additional water supply from Lake Tappan.

On 5-19-1965 the State of New York Department of Conservation Water Resources Commission (NYSDEC) conducted a public hearing in the matter of an application by the Hackensack Water Company (United Water New Jersey) for approval to provide additional reservoir storage for stream flow regulation on the Hackensack River in Rockland County, New York.

Testimony was given regarding the expected increase in yield from the Hackensack River and Rockland County’s riparian rights to additional water supply from the river as a result of building Lake Tappan.

George H. Buck, P.E., President, Hackensack Water Company, testified that the safe yield of the Hackensack River would be increased by 10 million gallons per day from 67 million gallons per day to 77 million gallons per day; that it would be possible to bring Lake Tappan’s water back to Lake DeForest and that it was the water company’s intention to put a pumping station somewhere at the head of the reservoir and pump water up to Lake DeForest. (See: Lake Tappan Hearing of 5-19-1965 Pages 29,33,40)

George O’Keefe, Public Health Engineer, testified for the New York State Department of Health that a portion of Lake Tappan’s yield should be allocated to the use of Rockland County. (See: Lake Tappan Hearing of 5-19-1965 Pages 49-50)

Arthur J. Prindle, Esq., Town Attorney for the Town of Orangetown argued during his cross-examination of George H. Buck that Rockland County should receive an additional allocation from the Hackensack River of 5 million gallons per day, half of the expected 10 million gallons per day increase in yield expected to be created by Lake Tappan. (See: Lake Tappan Hearing of 5-19-1965 Pages 41 through 45)

On 7-22-1965 the New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) ruled that “In granting its approval of the instant application the Water Resources Commission in no way relinquishes its right to consider any future application which may come before it for the taking of- a supply of water from the Hackensack River in New York State whether from the River Vale Reservoir (Lake Tappan) or otherwise.” (See: Lake Tappan Decision of 7-22-1965 CONDITIONS Pages 5 and 6)

Lake Tappan with its entire watershed located in Rockland County and flooding into Rockland County as far upstream as the Village of Nyack’s water treatment plant north of Route 59 in West Nyack, near the Palisades Center Mall, has increased the yield of the Hackensack River by approximately 19 million gallons per day in the peak demand months of June through October.  Together Lake DeForest and Lake Tappan have increased the yield of the Hackensack River by approximately 27 million gallons per day in the peak demand months of June through October. (See: Increase in yield of Hackensack River)

Despite the Lake Tappan Decision of 7-22-1965 and the proven increase in yield to the Hackensack River, the PSC and the parties to the Joint Proposal did not consider exercising Rockland’s riparian rights to additional water supply from the Hackensack River.

The Economic Cost to Rockland Residents

The PSC and the parties to the Joint Proposal did not consider the economic cost of Hudson River desalination. From testimony to the New York State Public Service Commission on 3-8-2010 by Michael J. Pointing, United Water New York Vice-President and General Manger.

“The Haverstraw Water Supply Project is currently estimated to cost approximately $140 million when completed.”  “This is significant and should be considered in relation to the overall customer cost upon completion of the facility which could easily approach $270 to $300 per customer per year.  The equivalent of a phase-in through incremental surcharges will lessen the rate shock that would otherwise exist.”

(See: Michael Pointing PSC Testimony 3-8-2010 Page 36 Line 23 through Page 38 Line 2)

United Water’s proposed Hudson River Desalination Plant will cost United Water’s 70,000 Rockland customers an additional $19 million to $21 million per year according to Mr. Pointing’s estimates.  The actual additional cost could be at least $34 million per year or $485 per customer per year. (See: Annual Cost To Customers Of Hudson River Desalination)

The Escalating Cost of The Haverstraw Water Supply Project

On 1-15-2007 United Water filed with the NYSPSC a description for a long-term major water supply project for Rockland County now known as the Haverstraw Water Supply Project.  The estimated cost of the project was $98 million. (See: United Water New York Long Term Water Supply Project 1-15-2007 Pg.

On 1-12-2010 the Clarkstown Town Board hosted a town board workshop on United Water’s proposal to desalinate and treat water from the Hudson River for Rockland’s drinking water.  When asked how much the project would cost when completed?  Michael J. Pointing, United Water New York Vice-President and General Manger responded, $116.5 million.

On 3-8-2010 in testimony submitted to the NYSPSC Michael J. Pointing stated, “The Haverstraw Water Supply Project is currently estimated to cost approximately $140 million when completed.” (See: Michael Pointing PSC Testimony 3-8-2010 Page 36 Line 23 through Page 37 Line 2)

In only 38-months the estimated cost of constructing The Haverstraw Water Supply Project increased by $42 million, nearly 43 percent.

The North Rockland “Ratable” Myth

In its Haverstraw Water Supply Project Executive Summary United Water argues, “The Proposed Project is expected to generate a substantial increase in property tax revenues (primarily to the North Rockland community) from the improvement of the Project Sites.” and that “As a result, the Proposed Project is expected to have a net positive effect on the local and regional economies of Rockland County and New York State.”

Estimated annual real estate tax revenues to the North Rockland community are:

$2,649,470 upon completion of its first phase, in 2016,

$3,483,860 at the conclusion of its second phase, in 2021, and

$5,580,455 in year 2030, when the Proposed Project is fully built out

(See: Haverstraw Water Supply Project Executive Summary Socioeconomics Page S-6)

The Haverstraw Water Supply Project Executive Summary does not mention the higher water rates, which will be paid by North Rockland residents as a result of this project.

However, United Water expects that water rate increases could easily approach $270 to $300 per customer per year.  As noted above the cost estimates for this project have increased rapidly.  The actual additional cost could be at least $485 per customer per year.

The Haverstraw Water Supply Project will have an adverse effect on the North Rockland economy.  Approximately 12,000 of United Water’s 70,000 Rockland customers reside in the North Rockland area.

Estimated increase in the annual cost of water to the North Rockland community:

At $270 per customer per year $3,240,000

At $300 per customer per year $3,600,000

At $385 per customer per year $4,620,000

At $485 per customer per year $5,820,000

North Rockland community will only profit from The Haverstraw Water Supply Project if real estate tax revenues exceed the increase in the cost of water to North Rockland customers.

Based on current estimates the aggregate tax revenue will exceed the aggregate increase in the cost of water to North Rockland customers in the year:

2030 at an increased cost for water of $270 per customer per year

2032 at an increased cost for water of $300 per customer per year

2050 at an increased cost for water of $385 per customer per year

Never at an increased cost for water of $485 per customer per year

(See: North Rockland Real Estate Tax Revenue Compared To Cost and Annual Cost To Customers Of Hudson River Desalination

• County Executive Vanderhoef declares flooding “State of Emergency” for Rockland County
• Environmentalists call for a water resource plan

by: George Potanovic, Jr.

After a flooding “State of Emergency” being issued by the Rockland County Executive’s office last week, we must ask ourselves the question – does Rockland County actually have a water shortage?

On Tuesday, June 21, about 50 county planning officials and the public heard Paul Heisig, a hydrologist with the US Geological Survey, present the findings of the Rockland County Water – Resource Assessment -a 5-year study. funded by the County of Rockland, The NYS DEC and United Water, that evaluated demand and supply of drinking water. About a dozen members and partners of the Rockland County Water Coalition also attended the presentation. The USGS study suggests that Rockland County has adequate water to meet current demand, but could experience difficulty meeting peak demand in summer months, when outdoor lawn watering becomes a significant factor. The report also indicates that Rockland can improve water conservation and management of its water resources instead of allowing some 14-billon galllons of water to be dumped back into the Hudson River each year and not retaining that water in Rockland to recharge the aquifers. Currently, after a heavy rainstorm, storm water is quickly channeled directly into storm drains and streams that become overburdened. This causes mass erosion and flooding – resulting in tremendous property damage for homeowners and businesses and a tremendous lost water resource each year. The USGS report considers this lost water as a “wasted resource.”

Jonathan Hyman, a consultant to ROSA (Ramapo Organized for Sustainability and a Safe Aquifer) and Director, The Public Forum Group, who attended the Tuesday’s planer’s meeting said, “Paul Heisig’s report was conceptually sound and easy to understand. I was impressed that in addition to the science he presented, he pointed out that the planning and zoning officials of the Town’s and Villages of Rockland County also need to consider ‘stewardship’ of the land and ancillary resources such as wetlands and riparian buffers as they confront the County’s aquifer and water issues.” ROSA currently has law suits pending against the 500- multiple family Patrick Farm development planned for Route 202 near Route 306, which lies above the sole source aquifer that supplies water to a vast area of the Lower Hudson Valley (NY) as well as the northern parts of New Jersey.

Water Coalition members want Joint Proposal reexamined – Water Rate Case reopened
– Rockland water study indicates waste and improved water conservation methods are available

Environmental and civic groups from the Rockland County Water Coalition are asking the Rockland County Legislature to further examine the real environmental and economic costs of the proposed United Water Desalination Plant on the Hudson River and to petition the Public Service Commission to reopen the Joint Proposal Agreement of 2006 – a legal agreement which determined that Rockland County needed to expand its drinking water supply, resulting in the United Water Company proposal to construct a desalination plant along the shores of the Hudson at Havertsraw Bay. Many environmentalists are questioning whether water conservation was adequately considered in the agreement. The Hudson RIver Desalination Plant would produce 7.5 mgd (million of gallons per day), primarily for peak summer demand. It would also result in increased hidden costs to Rockland rate payers and tax payers, intensive energy use, adverse impacts on Haverstraw Bay fish life and potential health issues. USGS Rockland County Water – Resource Assessment shows that our water sources are stressed but they are not on the downward trend as previously thought. However, Rockland County needs to act on sustainable land use planning practices, including grey water reuse and better management of all our water resources within Rockland. In addition, we need much closer accountability for the actual amount of water being sent from Lake DeForest to New Jersey each year.

The County Legislature has included a Rockland County Water Conservation & Management Policy goal in the recently approved Rockland County Comprehensive Plan, but several groups want to see the legislators take action now to implement this into county law and policy. “We are looking to the county to develop a legal framework that would require Rockland development to be sustainable concerning our water resources and not a knee-jerk reaction to builders who demand more and more development without considering the eventual costs to Rockland taxpayers for water, roads, schools and services. Without improved land use planning at the town and village level and a sensible county water conservation and management policy, Rockland is destined to lose its quality of life and accept the eventual environmental and economic burden of overdevelopment. Water is a shared resource and it is about time that we all recognize our collective responsibility to protect it,” says George Potanovic, Jr., president of the Stony Point Action Committee for the Environment (SPACE) and a founding member of the Rockland Water Coalition.

For more information about the Rockland County Water Coalition call 845-429-2020

To help or get more involved with Rockland water issues, please e-mail: RocklandWater@gmail.com

The writer is a Stony Point resident, president of the Stony Point Action Committee Environment, member of the Rockland Coalition for Sustainable Water and a professional photographer whose subjects include scenes from Rockland and the Hudson Valley.

The Cycle of Insanity: The Real Story of Water from Surfrider Foundation on Vimeo.

The Cycle of Insanity: The Real Story of Water is a short, animated film made by a collaboration of creative and dedicated volunteers at the Surfrider Foundation. Several local Surfrider Foundation chapters combined their talents and funds to create the film — and then actor Zuleikha Robinson of Lost, generously agreed to narrate it.

The premise of the film is that the water cycle we all learned about in the 4th grade has been dramatically altered over time, leaving us with a broken system that wastes water and energy, pollutes our natural waterways, harms critical marine life, and poorly deals with flooding and other water management problems.

The film serves to take a holistic look at water management, highlight controversial problems, and suggest solutions that integrate multiple economic and environmental benefits. The intended audience includes entire communities: from homeowners and the general public, to public agencies and elected government officials.

Check out the Surfrider Foundation

Analysis expected to help local officials make decisions about county’s future.

The U.S. Geological Survey has completed a five-year study that looks at Rockland County’s water resources, taking a close look at the underground geological formations that contain much of the supply that is used by Rockland residents for drinking water.

This report represents the most comprehensive evaluation of Rockland’s water resources in over five decades,” Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef said today. “It will be very helpful in assisting the Rockland County, along with our water suppliers, in making the best use of our available resources, and making more informed decisions about planning for the future.

Read the full study

This week’s issue of OUR TOWN has a wonderful editorial and cartoon about the lack of any coherent or coordinated water conservation and management plan or policy in Rockland County. It mentions that while individual agencies ie; Sewer Commission, Drainage Agency. etc. oversee aspects of water use, that  “absent any official directive or oversight, policy decisions are made by default or not at all.” The editorial challenges the County of Rockland to start getting really serious about developing a sustainable water policy that emphasizes very reasonable and necessary water conservation management practices with measurable targets and a schedule for achieving them. The Rockland Water Coalition could not agree more.

Click on the link to access the editorial: Our Town Water Resources

Bob Dillion 9/26/10

A Public Forum: Who Benefits from the Proposed Desalination Plant? Is United Water’s Desalination Plant Right for Haverstraw? Tuesday, September 21 at 7:30pm The Harbors at Haverstraw Social Hall 1000 Round Pointe Drive (Harbor’s Cafe Building) Sponsored by RenewHaverstraw.

An Opportunity for Residents to come together and decide whether a Desalination Plant is right for Haverstraw Haverstraw, NY – RenewHaverstraw is sponsoring A Public Forum – Who Benefits from the Proposed Desalination Plant, on September 21, 2010 to educate residents and open a dialogue about the Desalination Plant proposed by United Water, a subsidiary of French Corporation Suez Environnement. The proposed plant will have a major impact on residents. This Public Forum is an opportunity for anyone who uses Municipal water, whether they are residents, voters, taxpayers or business owners, to learn about the proposed plant and it’s projected impact. The Forum speakers will include Howard Philips, Haverstraw Town Supervisor, Bob Dillon of the Rockland Water Coalition, and a summary of the US Geological Survey’s 5-year scientific study of Rockland’s water supply. United Water feels that new water supply sources will become necessary to meet future water needs, while opponents of the desalination plant like the Rockland Water Coalition feel that there are better alternatives available. There will be an opportunity for questions and discussion of the pros and cons of United Water’s Haverstraw Water Project including projected environmental impact, water rate increases, future water needs, tax increases, and tax income. According to RenewHaverstraw it is vital that the public hears from both sides of the issue so they can make an informed decision and express their opinions to the Town of Haverstraw, which must ultimately approve or turn down United Water’s proposal. A Public Forum – Who Benefits from the Proposed Desalination Plant will be held on Tuesday September 21, 2010 at 7:30 pm at the Harbors at Haverstraw Social Hall located in Haverstraw Village, 1000 Round Pointe Dr. (Harbors Cafe Building). Residents should RSVP by calling (845) 429-1894. About RenewHaverstraw: Formed in March 2009, RenewHaverstraw has become an integral part of Haverstraw’s revitalization and community efforts. Comprised of Haverstraw residents working together for positive change and meaningful improvements, Renew attends Haverstraw Village and Town Board meetings and shares important information gathered with the public. Since its inception, Renew organized and held multiple successful Village cleanups, with volunteers removing rubbish from the Village streets and riverfront. And they are constantly attuned to the issues of Village population density, environment, traffic, housing, and crime, formulating plans and activities that will result in a better quality of life for residents. RenewHaverstraw recognizes that more members make them more effective. A large membership means resident voters, business owners and taxpayers will be informed of Village issues and events, especially proposals and changes that may impact them. Membership in RenewHaverstraw offers residents an opportunity to contribute to the revitalization of Haverstraw and have a strong voice when sharing concerns and needs at Village and Town Board meetings. For more information, please contact SEAN O’MALLEY at 631.896.2511 or RenewHaverstraw@gmail.com # # # — Haverstraw Residents Working Together for a Better Village

Talk about bad timing, foot-in-mouth disease and blatant greed.

A Public Service Commission comment session is scheduled, on Earth Day, to discuss United Water’s request for a 21 percent hike in our Rockland water bills.

Much of that is for us to start paying in advance for an added water supply, most likely an unneeded, generally unwanted and environmentally hazardous desalination plant, so that water from the Hudson River can be piped into our drinking glasses.

The article was published a day after extensive, road-closing flooding, which occurred amid the heaviest March rainfall on record.

It also was a day after publication of a letter to the editor, “DeForest can’t meet area’s water needs,” which asserted that United Water cannot get any more water “safely” from the Lake DeForest reservoir in West Nyack.

Published with the letter was a nice picture of Lake DeForest, enhancing the general misconception that this reservoir is the major source of our water supply.

We seldom see any of our underground water sources, but according to an analysis by scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, 78 percent of Rockland’s water supply comes from wells.

Perhaps the biggest long-term threat to the quantity and purity of our essential, nature-given underground water is the planning by United Water to accommodate and foster major new development and population growth.

This will certainly enhance United Water’s profits, but if the county becomes mostly impermeable roofs and blacktop, how could our precious underground aquifers do their economical, natural job of rain and snow melt filtration and purification, refilling themselves as they reduce flooding? Aquifer pollution could be a catastrophe.

As the county fills up, developers push more and more to build near streams, wetlands and ponding areas, the very places that are especially important for aquifer replenishment, i.e. the contentious Patrick Farm tract in Ramapo.

United Water has repeatedly put out statements about estimated future demand for more water.

However, this demand should be sharply separated from actual needs and wants.

Regarding the desire for growth as “progress,” what has this growth done for East Ramapo and Yonkers?

How far do we want to go with traffic congestion, air pollution, overcrowded schools, crime and skyrocketing taxes to try to fix these things?

Rockland County’s population size seems to be in a good balance with water availability, with no drought since 2002.

Never-ending growth is not inevitable. It is impossible. We can have a better quality of life and retain a sense of shared community by cooperatively living in a sustainable balance with nature.

The choice we make now can shape the lives of ourselves, our children and grandchildren far into the future.

Let’s urge Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef, Rockland County Legislature Chair Harriet Cornell, our other legislators and town supervisors to work against a water treatment plant and any rate increase to pay for it.

We can also oppose the 21 percent water-rate increase at the state Public Service Commission’s public hearings on United Water New York’s request. Comment can be submitted to the PSC until May 15^th.

Say No to increased water rates! Download the flier to learn about United Water/Suez plans for the desalination plant on the Hudson.RocklandWaterFlier-APRIL2010-FINAL