Report on the Clarkstown Public Hearing on Desalination

January 13, 2010　

A most informative informational meeting was held before the Clarkstown Town Board last night. The most interesting information was provided by a well-informed and persistent audience that would not accept the evasive answers provided by executives and engineers representing United Water.

The meeting lasted more than three hours. After United Water presented its well worn dog and pony show "Why we need to build a Hudson River desalination plant" the audience was able to spend about two hours raising issues that had been carefully avoided by United Water.

Several speakers expressed anger regarding the content and cost of the United Water’s extensive public relations campaign. The last to speak on this point was Alexis Starke a representative from the Sierra Club. More than a month ago she asked United Water how much this campaign would cost. Unfortunately, this sophisticated corporation seems to have no idea. Michael Pointing, the Suez Corporation’s local manager explained that these monies were spent out of a variety of corporate budget lines. After much embarrassment and prying by the public, Steve Goudsmith, the company’s public relations spokesman, said that United Water "might" be able to gather some figures together. And this is from a corporation that calls for "transparent" decision making.

In its defense United Water pointed out that it had a legal obligation to keep the public informed. Members of the public argued that information and propaganda are not the same thing, and wanted to know if the rate payers were going to have to pay for this propaganda. No answer was forthcoming.

The public was also concerned about radioactive materials that might enter the water system from Indian Point which is only a short distance upstream from the proposed plant and across the river. Here United Water did a somewhat better job. Something like 11 billion gallons of water goes downstream every day and the navigation channel is on the Indian Point side. United Water has not detected any radiation in the water it has sampled, and it assured residents that the proposed system would filter out any radioactive materials if they did manage to get across the river. The company tests 74,000 water samples a day and would be ready to close the desalination plant if necessary.

This did not satisfy the public which forced United Water’s representatives to admit that tritium cannot be removed from water. Martyn Ryan, the Sierra Club’s water coordinator, noted that Indian Point in its application for plant license renewal specifically argued that Hudson River water is not used for drinking and suggested that here was an inconsistency between the license applications.

The most telling arguments against the desalination plant came relatively late in the evening when several audience members discussed water conservation. Using data from a variety of sources it was argued that water usage could be reduced by 15 to 30 per cent and that this would obviate the need for a desalination plant. Several speakers were also concerned that given the high fixed cost of the plant, the ratepayers would end up paying for a desalination plant even if it were not needed.

United Water never really addressed Bob Dillon’s charge that for many years United Water had been sending millions of gallons of water downstream to Bergen County each day in excess of what is legally allowed and mandated. Early in the evening, during its presentation, Mr. Pointing referred vaguely to Bob Dillon’s remarkable study when he argued that the unidentified analyst did not take into account water that flowed over the Lake Deforest dam or that entered downstream from Lake DeForest that bypassed the lake.

In his comments at the end of the meeting Dillon effectively refuted this argument citing data from his report that had been referenced more briefly by this writer at the beginning of the public discussion. His data showed that during 4 of the 7 months in the period from 9/1/71 to 12-31/2008, when there were extreme drought conditions, United Water illegally sent more than the minimum flow of 9.75 gallons required downstream. His data also shows that during ordinary droughts from 12/1/1958 to 12/31/2008 United Water released excess water 76.4% of the time. In his public comments Dillon suggested that if the public service commission had known these facts it might have reached a different conclusion after the 2006 rate case.

United Water did make one important admission. While it still maintains the current fiction that Hudson River water will be cheaper than Ambrey Pond water it raised its projected cost for the proposed facility from $79 million to $116.4 million.

At various times, United Water referred to its wonderful campaign to encourage conservation. It did not refer to the remarkable position taken in one of its recent brochures where it argued against government control of water use because it would be expensive to hire "water conservation police" who would intrude upon our private lives. It is clear that United Water wants it both ways. It wants credit for its wonderful efforts to encourage conservation, but it is also opposed to effective action led by government.

In this writer’s opinion, it is clear that in the short run the public supporters of conservation won the argument. If we can make significant reductions in water use desalination or the utilization of the Ambrey Pond will not be necessary for at least a few more years. On the other hand, it is quite possible that by 2030 the population of Ramapo will increase by 50%. This means an increase of perhaps 65,000 people for a countywide increase of about 20%, with an ever-accelerating growth rate in Ramapo. To that we must add normal population growth in the rest of the county of perhaps 35,000. So we are looking at a countywide increase of 100,000 people. These numbers suggest the days of cheap water will soon be over.

While the final figures will be unknown for some time, we can look forward to the day when we have a new water supply that will provide water for at least ten times its current cost. Perhaps folks in Ramapo can celebrate the fact that the entire county will have to bear a good part of this cost.

[You can read the United Water presentation here.]