What is United Water’s proposal?
Suez / United Water has proposed a desalination/water treatment plant, which would draw water from the Hudson River for Rockland County. In addition to desalination of the brackish river water, the plant would use reverse osmosis to remove PCBs and other industrial chemicals from the water. With the proposed siting in of this water supply project in Haverstraw, almost directly across the river from Indian Point, the plant would also need to remove radionuclides such as strontium 90 and tritium. The Suez / United Water proposal would draw 10 million gallons of water per day (MGD) from the Hudson River to produce 7.5 MGD of potable water.
What is the Rockland Water Coalition?
The Rockland Coalition for Sustainable Water, a coalition of many of the environmental and civic groups in Rockland County, was formed to take a critical look at the impacts of this proposal and to advocate sustainable water management policies, such as conservation, in Rockland County. The Rockland Water Coalition includes Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Food and Water Watch, Nanuet Civic Association, Preserve Ramapo, Rockland RAFT, Ramapo River Watershed Intermunicipal Council, Ramapo River Committee, Rockland Sierra Club, Stony Point Action Committee for the Environment (SPACE), Torne Valley Preservation Association and West Branch Conservation Association.
What is the status of this proposal?
Suez / United Waters proposal is currently being reviewed under the New York SEQRA process. This review is led by the Department of Environmental Conservation as lead agent. The DEC has stated that there are likely to be serious environmental impacts and has developed a scope for a full Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) to be submitted by Suez / United Water. Once this Draft EIS is produced the public will have an opportunity to make comments before the DEC make their assessment. Suez / United Water have attempted to downplay the significance of the desalination elements of this project by describing it as the ‘Haverstraw Water Supply Project’.
What are the negative impacts of this proposed facility?
Effects on the Hudson River?
- Desalination plants can suck in, trap, and kill fish and other organisms in their machinery, a process known as entrainment and impingement.
- The desalination process leaves brine, containing salt, radioactive byproducts, and industrial chemicals. United Water plans to send its waste to the Joint Regional Sewage Treatment Plant[i], which has no facilities for treating these toxic chemicals. Ultimately this waste brine will be discharged back into the river.
Safe for drinking?
- While technical experts agree that reverse osmosis can reduce the pollutants to levels below EPA’s “level of concern”, many citizens are concerned that trace amounts in drinking water will pose human health risks. Almost directly across the river from the proposed site, the aging Indian Point nuclear power plant has leaked radionuclides into the Hudson for years, with the source of the leaks still undetected. United Water asserts that the level of tritium, which cannot be removed by the technology, will be below the level of concern.
- In addition to being downriver from GE’s planned dredging of PCBs, the proposed water intake pipe would be adjacent to two inactive hazardous waste sites, the Haverstraw Landfill and the Kay Fries Chemical Plant, and just south of an operational gypsum plant. When the Haverstraw Landfill was still in operation, it was determined that the leachate system, which collects toxic effluent and protects groundwater, was not installed and operating properly.
Rising costs for Rockland residents?
- United Water estimates construction costs at around $120 million. Desalination costs are often higher than projected, with many plants operating at less than full capacity.
- A highly energy intensive process, desalination would peg our water rates more closely to rising energy costs. UW’s cost estimates are based on the salinity of brackish water, yet many scientists predict a possible rise in average salt levels of the Hudson, due to the impacts of climate change.
- The additional water supply would also result in higher property taxes to cover increased costs for waste-water treatment, also an energy intensive process.
- Desalination costs are 10 times more expensive than conservation measures.
Should we be locking ourselves into escalating energy use and increased greenhouse gas emissions?
With the scope and seriousness of climate change increasingly clear, this plant would lock us into a long term escalation of energy use for drinking water and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. United Water says its proposed plant will use between 4,427 and 6,520 kilowatt hours of electricity per million gallons of water produced (kWh/Mgal). Most water utilities in New York use less than half that much energy, and only a very few use as much as 4,000 kWh/Mgal.
Is this plant needed? How would it impact development?
- United Water’s estimates of Rockland County’s water needs are not based on how much water current residents use, but rather on how much water the county will use assuming that there will be 15,540 new connections in the water system between 2008 and 2025.
- Tapping into the Hudson River to quench the thirst of these new developments will not create a sustainable supply of water. Instead, it will further increase overdevelopment. Rockland County’s natural resources cannot sustain this endless development – and neither can Rockland taxpayers, as new development also brings added expenses for municipal services, expanded infrastructure and schools.
What regional studies have been completed regarding groundwater and surface water resources quantity and quality from a watershed perspective?
United Water- New York and United Water New Jersey operate as if they are two separate companies, withdrawing water from separate watersheds — but in fact, our water supply all comes from the Hackensack, Saddle River, Mahwah and Ramapo watersheds that span the state boundaries. United Water, NYS DEC, NJ DEP and all interested parties need to work cooperatively, across jurisdictional boundaries in order to develop a science-based, sustainable watershed resource management plan before proceeding with any plans for a desalination plant.
Why are cheaper alternatives not being considered?
Rockland County needs a serious water conservation program
- United Water’s plans do not factor in a serious conservation program, a far less expensive way to address Rockland’s water needs. A study last year by the Los Angeles Economic Development Council found that conservation would cost $210 a year per acre-foot, compared with more than $1,000 per acre-foot for desalination.
- The current desalination plant proposal is based on United Water’s future water usage predictions for 2020 of 35.4 MGD and 53.4 MGD peak day demand. However these calculations only include increased water usage due to unchecked development and do not factor in a serious initiative to reduce average water use and peak day demand.
- A serious conservation program has the potential to help the county avoid drawing on new water sources. Our average non-summer usage is relatively high, 81 gallons per capita per day (gcpd), compared to a national indoor usage average of 70 gpcd. New York City reduced per capita consumption 39% between 1979 and 2006, while Cary, North Carolina, a suburban area similar to Rockland County, reduced its per capita residential water consumption by 15% from 1996 to 2007.
- The company could save 2 million gallons a day just by fixing its leaks, nearly as much water as the desalination plant in its initial years. Water leakage in pipe-work system also contributes to the inefficiency of current water supply systems in Rockland County. Up to 2 million gallons per day in avoidable losses occur in United Water’s distribution system. This is over 6% of the total average supply on a daily basis.
To truly address Rockland County’s water supply, citizens and policymakers must take a comprehensive approach to water management that includes conservation and resource based planning, rather than allowing corporate interests to drive water policy. To learn more about why desalination has proved itself an unsustainable water supply option for most communities, check out Desalination: An Ocean of Problems at www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/desalination.
Contact us: To receive more information or be notified of future meetings, please send your name and e-mail address to: RocklandWater@gmail.com