Watershed Protection & New York City's Water Supply

by Elana Mass

Supplying drinking water to New York City is a tall order.

Approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water are consumed daily by eight million New York City residents and one million upstate customers. At present, all of New York City's drinking water is unfiltered. Although approximately ten percent of the supply, coming from the east-of-Hudson reservoirs, will begin filtration in 2012, the vast majority will remain unfiltered.

How does New York City keep its water supply clean and protected, especially in the face of increasing development pressures in the watershed?

New York City 's drinking water supply system consists of 19 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes within a 1,972 square mile watershed that stretches north and west of the City.

The watershed has two subregions:

1. The Croton watershed on the east side of the Hudson River, providing about 10% of the City's water,

2. The Catskill/Delaware system to the west, which supplies 90%.

All watershed lands are subject to the Watershed Rules and Regulations (officially known as the Rules and Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation, and Pollution of the New York City Water Supply), which govern activities that could degrade water supply such as sewer collection, stormwater discharges, and impervious surfaces.

Before entering City pipes, all drinking water is treated with chlorine, fluoride, food-grade phosphoric acid, and sometimes with sodium hydroxide. Water quality and infrastructure are overseen by the City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in coordination with the EPA and New York State 's Department of Health.

An Ounce of Protection v. a Pound of Cure

In the densely developed Croton watershed, which contains extensive NYC suburbs, development pressures and the high cost of land have limited the DEP's ability to undertake protection mechanisms such as land acquisition (although land acquisition is used as an secondary layer of protection).

As a result, although water from this system currently meets health standards, the City is constructing a filtration plant, to be completed by 2012, that will correct aesthetic issues with color, taste and odor (that primarily occur in the summer) and to ensure the Croton supply's continued compliance with surface water regulations.

By contrast, the Catskill/Delaware system, covering 1,600 miles, remains unfiltered, making it the largest unfiltered water supply in the US. Maintaining quality standards for such a large water supply without filtration is a tremendous challenge that requires millions of dollars each year on outreach and education, land management, land acquisition, and partnerships with watershed non-profits and municipalities.

Given the time and energy devoted to developing and managing these programs, it might seem that a combination of filtration and disinfection would be a simpler way to achieve standards. Yet, the DEP has concluded that filtration and disinfection are insufficient without preemptive watershed protections.

To begin with are the costs involved: the construction cost for a filtration plant large enough to support the Catskill/Delaware system is estimated to be $6 - $10 billion dollars, with an additional $110 million annually in operation and maintenance.

By contrast, although the total cost of watershed programs are difficult to quantify, it is not more than $100 million a year. In addition are the health and safety issues that would arise: without preemptive land protections, significantly higher levels of disinfecting chemicals would need to be used to purify the water. By-products from these chemicals are known to pose serious health risks and their use is in fact limited by federal law. Finally, high levels of chlorine are believed to damage the fittings within the water delivery system.

For all these reasons, it is preferable to protect the drinking water at its source.

New York City's water supply protection programs rely on both regulatory and voluntary actions.

The DEP uses an innovative combination of regulation and voluntary programs and partnerships to protect the Catskill/Delaware watershed. Regulation alone cannot guarantee that water quality criteria will be met: with more than 70% of the Catskill/Delaware lands under private ownership (for residential, commercial, and agricultural uses), activities can only be constrained to a limited extent before regulatory takings issues arise.

The voluntary programs allow the DEP to work with watershed communities to meet quality criteria while enabling economic and productive use of land by landowners.

The watershed programs fall into three main categories:

1. Land Acquisition Program (LAP)
   Purchases are undertaken selectively, with properties prioritized for purchase based on the presence of key natural features such as streams and wetlands, proximity of land to reservoirs, and potential for development. Land is only purchased from willing sellers, and at fair market prices. Since 1997, the City has acquired or contracted easements for approximately 70,000 acres of land at a cost of $168 million. Prior to purchasing the land, the City consults with the municipality to ensure the community's interests are taken into account. Watershed communities are able to exempt certain areas from solicitation under the LAP.
2. Land Management
   The DEP has numerous programs designed to encourage private landholders to protect watershed lands. These programs are operated in concert with watershed municipalities and non-profit partners, including the Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC) and the Catskill Watershed Corporation (CWC). Management programs include Stream Management, Wetlands Protection, the Watershed Forestry Program, Waterfowl Management, public outreach and education, and agricultural pollution prevention plans.
3. Capital Programs
   On its own or with its partners, DEP undertakes numerous capital projects in the Catskill/Delaware watershed designed to preserve and improve water quality. These include:
   
   Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) Upgrades.At its own cost, the City has upgraded and operates over 100 non-city treatment plants to ensure the highest degree of wastewater treatment; the DEP has also funded the construction of new WWTPs or septic systems were existing systems were failing.
   
   Septic System Rehabilitation and Replacement.
   In partnership with the CWC, the City has fixed over 2,000 failing septic systems in the watershed and helps cover the cost of pump-outs, maintenance, and inspections of single- and two-family septic systems.
   
   Stormwater Retrofit Program.
   Jointly administered by the DEP and the CWC, the program encompasses stormwater infrastructure assessments, maintenance, planning, and capital expenditures.
   
   Sewer Extension Program.
   Working with watershed municipalities, the DEP has extended sanitary sewers where systems were failing or likely to fail.

How to Measure Success

It should be noted that the water supply's unfiltered status is not a given: the DEP must regularly submit proof to the EPA that the water meets a set of filtration avoidance criteria. The criteria include quality standards for coliforms, turbidity, and disinfection by-products; operational criteria requiring that pathogens (like Giardia and viruses) be deactivated with a minimum of chlorine residual in the system; and watershed control criteria to minimize potential contamination of source waters.

To date, the EPA has issued a Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) allowing the water to remain unfiltered provided that certain milestones are met over time to ensure that water quality is maintained.

Through the programs and partnerships described above, NYC's drinking water has maintained its reputation as one of the finest supplies in the United States. The innovative combination of watershed programs and partnerships limits the need for filtration and disinfection, and supports the adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Source: Prince William Conservation Alliance

http://pwconserve.org/issues/watersheds/newyorkcity/index.html

Fracking Could Cause a New Global Water Crisis

“Does the rest of the world want to live this nightmare?”

- Common Dreams staff

 

As the oil and gas industry heads more towards hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, to access resources, a new report out today from Food & Water Watch states that the process may become a global environmental and public health threat. Numerous communities in the U.S. where fracking has occurred have suffered long-term damage to their public water, as gas and oil companies leave a legacy of carcinogens and climate damage in their wake. The group says that the worldwide community must heed the warnings out of stricken communities in the U.S. and ban the practice.

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, states:

Fracking is a dangerous American export that should be viewed critically by countries just starting to engage in the practice.  Modern drilling and fracking have caused widespread environmental and public health problems, as well as posed serious, long-term risks to vital water resources.”



Photo: Justin Woolford


“While the oil and gas industry is profiting off of this technology, it has been a disaster for Americans exposed to its pollution. They have dealt with everything from mysterious ailments likely caused by hazardous air pollution to well water contamination that has left rural communities unable to use their water for washing, brushing their teeth or cooking—much less drinking,” adds Hauter. “Does the rest of the world want to live this nightmare?”

Numerous communities where fracking has occurred in the U.S. have had their public water resources contaminated as a result of fracking. One community the report highlights is Dimock, Pennsylvania:

In 2009, Pennsylvania regulators ordered the Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation to cease all fracking in Susquehanna County after three spills at one well within a week polluted a wetland and caused a fishkill in a local creek. The spills leaked 8,420 gallons of fracking fluid containing a Halliburton-manufactured lubricant that is a potential carcinogen. Fracking had so polluted water wells that some families could no longer drink from their taps. Pennsylvania fined Cabot more than $240,000, but it cost more than $10 million to transport safe water to the affected homeowners. In December 2010, Cabot paid $4.1 million to 19 families that contended that Cabot’s fracking had contaminated their groundwater with methane. In 2012, the U.S. EPA began providing clean drinking water to these families after Cabot had been released of its obligation to do so by the state of Pennsylvania.

Fracking pollution hasn't been limited to water; it has also caused air pollution near fracking sites, the report states:

Hazardous air pollutants found near fracking sites include methanol, formaldehyde and carbon disulfide. Volatile organic compounds, including nitrogen oxides, benzene and toluene, are also discharged during fracking. These compounds mix with emissions from heavy-duty truck traffic, large generators and compressors at well sites to form ground-level ozone that can, in turn, combine with particulate matter to form smog. [...]

In Wyoming, drilling and fracking have caused ground-level ozone pollution to exceed amounts recorded in Los Angeles, affecting the quality of life for Wyoming residents.

Methane, a key greenhouse gas, is also implicated in fracking, showing that heading towards fracking means heading toward more climate change:

Recent scientific studies have demonstrated that, due to the amount of fugitive methane released during modern shale gas development as compared to during conventional gas development, any increased use of shale gas instead of coal may actually accelerate climate change in the coming decades, not reduce climate change impacts.

Food & Water Watch shows that the natural gas and oil industry have had their eyes worldwide to expand fracking, with some countries showing tremendous resistance to it:

[C]ountries around the world are grappling with how to address the push to drill and frack. In Europe, while France and Bulgaria have banned fracking in the face of strong public opposition, Poland has welcomed the industry. In China and Argentina, shale gas extraction is being developed with government support. In South Africa, pending an environmental review, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell may be granted permission to extract shale gas.

These countries would be wise, Food & Watch believes, to learn the lessons of communities in the U.S. that have had their water and environment damaged by fracking.

The report concludes:

Photo: Adrian Kinloch

Taken together, spills of toxic fracking fluid and fracking wastewater, water well contamination from the underground migration of methane and toxic fracking fluid local and regional air pollution problems from shale development, explosions at the sites of shale wells, and substantial emissions of the global warming pollutant methane during drilling and fracking make the dangers of shale development clear.

Countries not yet exposed to the risks and costs of drilling and fracking have an opportunity to choose a different path, one that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Enacting a national ban on fracking and investing in the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies will set a sustainable course.

Source:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/07-2

Fracking: Pennsylvania Gags Physicians

Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting high volumes of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to release natural gas. The issue of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, is currently a contentious issue in New York. The Marcellus Shale, which covers areas in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Maryland, totals 95,000 square miles, and is a prime target of oil and gas companies. Although hydraulic fracturing has been carried out in the U.S. for many years, it is being done much more frequently now and in larger areas of the country, the Marcellus Shale covers the largest region. Complaints from residents in areas where fracking has taken place raise the level of concern over the pollution of water resources.

If you are not following the fracking trail in your area, it's time to get involved.

Fracking: Pennsylvania Gags Physicians

By Walter Brasch

Part 1 of 3

A new Pennsylvania law endangers public health by forbidding health care professionals from sharing information they learn about certain chemicals and procedures used in high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing. The procedure is commonly known as fracking. 

Fracking is the controversial method of forcing water, gases, and chemicals at tremendous pressure of up to 15,000 pounds per square inch into a rock formation as much as 10,000 feet below the earth’s surface to open channels and force out natural gas and fossil fuels. After drilling down vertically, the natural gas company will create a lateral borehole that will fracture the shale and rock for up to about 6,000 feet.

Advocates of fracking argue not only is natural gas “greener” than coal and oil energy, with significantly fewer carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur emissions, the mining of natural gas generates significant jobs in a depressed economy, and will help the U.S. reduce its oil dependence upon foreign nations. Geologists estimate there may be as much as 2,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas throughout the U.S. If all of it is successfully mined, it could not only replace coal and oil but serve as a transition to wind, solar, and water as primary energy sources, releasing the U.S. from dependency upon fossil fuel energy and allowing it to be more self-sufficient.

The Marcellus Shale—which extends beneath the Allegheny Plateau, through southern New York, much of Pennsylvania, east Ohio, West Virginia, and parts of Maryland and Virginia—is one of the nation’s largest sources for natural gas mining, containing as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and could produce, within a decade, as much as one-fourth of the nation’s natural gas demand.  Each of Pennsylvania’s 5,255 wells, as of the beginning of March 2012, with dozens being added each week, takes up about 8.8 acres, including all access roads and pipe, according to data analysis by Nature Conservancy.

Over the expected lifetime of each well, companies may use as many as nine million gallons of water and 100,000 gallons of chemicals and radioactive isotopes within a four to six week period. The additives “are used to prevent pipe corrosion, kill bacteria, and assist in forcing the water and sand down-hole to fracture the targeted formation,” explains Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. However, about 650 of the 750 chemicals used in fracking operations are known carcinogens, according to a report filed with the U.S. House of Representatives in April 2011. Fluids used in fracking include those that are “potentially hazardous,” including volatile organic compounds, according to Christopher Portier, director of the National Center for Environmental Health, a part of the federal Centers for Disease Control. In an email to the Associated Press in January 2012, Portier noted that waste water, in addition to bring up several elements, may be radioactive. Fracking is also believed to have been the cause of hundreds of small earthquakes in Ohio and other states.

The law, known as Act 13 of 2012, an amendment to Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, requires that companies provide to a state-maintained registry the names of chemicals and gases used in fracking. Physicians and others who work with citizen health issues may request specific information, but the company doesn’t have to provide that information if it claims it is a trade secret or proprietary information, nor does it have to reveal how the chemicals and gases used in fracking interact with natural compounds. If a company does release information about what is used, health care professionals are bound by a non-disclosure agreement that not only forbids them from warning the community of water and air pollution that may be caused by fracking, but which also forbids them from telling their own patients what the physician believes may have led to their health problems. A strict interpretation of the law would also forbid general practitioners and family practice physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreement and learn the contents of the “trade secrets” from notifying a specialist about the chemicals or compounds, thus delaying medical treatment.

The clauses are buried on pages 98 and 99 of the 174-page bill, which was initiated and passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and signed into law in February by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.

“I have never seen anything like this in my 37 years of practice,” says Dr. Helen Podgainy, a pediatrician from Coraopolis, Pa. She says it’s common for physicians, epidemiologists, and others in the health care field to discuss and consult with each other about the possible problems that can affect various populations. Her first priority, she says, “is to diagnose and treat, and to be proactive in preventing harm to others.” The new law, she says, not only “hinders preventative measures for our patients, it slows the treatment process by gagging free discussion.”

Psychologists are also concerned about the effects of fracking and the law’s gag order. “We won’t know the extent of patients becoming anxious or depressed because of a lack of information about the fracking process and the chemicals used,” says Kathryn Vennie of Hawley, Pa., a clinical psychologist for 30 years. She says she is already seeing patients “who are seeking support because of the disruption to their environment.” Anxiety in the absence of information, she says, “can produce both mental and physical problems.”

The law is not only “unprecedented,” but will “complicate the ability of health department to collect information that would reveal trends that could help us to protect the public health,” says Dr. Jerome Paulson, director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C.  Dr. Paulson, also professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, calls the law “detrimental to the delivery of personal health care and contradictory to the ethical principles of medicine and public health.” Physicians, he says, “have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the health of the public, and this law precludes us from doing all we can to protect the public.” He has called for a moratorium on all drilling until the health effects can be analyzed.

Pennsylvania requires physicians to report to the state instances of 73 specific diseases, most of which are infectious diseases. However, the list also includes cancer, which may have origins not only from chemicals used to create the fissures that yield natural gas, but also in the blow-back of elements, including arsenic, present within the fissures. Thus, physicians are faced by conflicting legal and professional considerations.

“The confidentiality agreements are worrisome,” says Peter Scheer, a journalist/lawyer who is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. Physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreements and then disclose the possible risks to protect the community can be sued for breech of contract, and the companies can seek both injunctions and damages, says Scheer.

In pre-trial discovery motions, a company might be required to reveal to the court what it claims are trade secrets and proprietary information, with the court determining if the chemical and gas combinations really are trade secrets or not. The court could also rule that the contract is unenforceable because it is contrary to public policy, which places the health of the public over the rights of an individual company to protect its trade secrets, says Scheer. However, the legal and financial resources of the natural gas corporations are far greater than those of individuals, and they can stall and outspend most legal challenges.

Although Pennsylvania is determined to protect the natural gas industry, not everyone in the industry agrees with the need for secrecy.  Dave McCurdy, president of the American Gas Association, says he supports disclosing the contents included in fracturing fluids. In an opinion column published in the Denver Post, McCurdy further argued, “We need to do more as an industry to engage in a transparent and fact-based public dialogue on shale gas development.”

The Natural Gas committee of the U.S. Department of Energy agrees. “Our most important recommendations were for more transparency and dissemination of information about shale gas operations, including full disclosure of chemicals and additives that are being used,” said Dr. Mark Zoback, professor of geophysics at Stanford University and a Board member.

Both McCurdy’s statement and the Department of Energy’s strong recommendation about full disclosure were known to the Pennsylvania General Assembly when it created the law that restricted health care professionals from disseminating certain information that could help reduce significant health and environmental problems from fracking operations.

Read Parts 2 &3:



http://ecowatch.org/2012/fracking-pennsylvania-gags-physicians/

Celebrate World Water Day

Here is a collection of links to World Water Day news and activities:

Donate Your Voice - Matt Damon & Gary White

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-damon/world-water-day-waterorg_b_1370644.html?ref=impact

Bringing Joy With Clean Water - Water.org

http://water.org/post/bringing-joy-clean-water/

World Water Day 2012 - Voice of America

http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/WORLD-WATER-DAY-2012-143815446.html

World Water Day 2012: Facts &Ideas For A Sustainable Future

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/318068/20120322/world-water-day-2012-facts-ideas-events.htm

Review - Climate Change on the Move by Michael Werz and Kari Manlove

By Barbara Wheat 

Countries around the globe have had to deal with the effects of emigration and immigration, but according to authors Werz and Manlove, the world will soon become familiar with another type of migration as climate migrants flee areas affected by the warming of the planet and the resulting dwindling resources. In their article, Climate Change on the Move, Werz et al. highlight the challenges the world will face once climate refugees are on the move en masse.  

Photo: http://www.dialogue4health.ning.com/

World population recently crossed the 7 billion mark, and according the United Nations, is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 (Wertz et al. 73). Growing populations faced with decreasing natural resources, and hit with increasing natural disasters such as hurricanes and drought as a result of climate change, may not be able to cope with these “extreme circumstances” (74). An estimated 200 million people could become climate migrants by 2050. 

Many areas expected to be hit the worst by climate change may be the least able to cope with the effects. Areas identified as being most at risk include:

-Asia: warming will shrink freshwater resources adversely affecting 1 billion people;

-Africa: agriculture yields could fall by 50%, food and water insecurity;

-Latin America: melting snowcaps will harm agriculture areas (73).

The authors also cite security issues as a cause of concern as the mobilization of climate refugees will likely aggravate conditions in areas already facing conflicts. Areas most likely to be hit hard by climate change are also the most vulnerable where government and political instability currently put their people at risk.    

With the huge number of climate migrants expected in the coming years, it seems vital to take this into consideration when studying the globalized world. Thomas Friedman’s in-depth analysis in The World is Flat does not address issues related to the warming of the planet and how it will affect people around the world. His vision of the flat world seems to assume that all the pieces of the puzzle will fit nicely together. Closer inspection of problems in the world calls upon us to reconsider the globalized economy from angles other than that of the mega-corporation.

References:

Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat. A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.
Updated And Expanded. 2005, 2006. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York. Print.

Werz, Michael, and Kari Manlove. Climate Change on the Move. D. Stanley Eitzen and
Maxine Baca Zinn, eds. Belmont: Wadsworth Centage Learning, 2009. Print.

Kiribati & Global Warming: Entire Nation May Move To Fiji

Imagine a world where we will have hundreds of thousands of climate refugees. This kind of news will become more frequent with the result of climate change. It's time to think about what your plans are for the future.


Huffington Post-- Fearing that climate change could wipe out their entire Pacific archipelago, the leaders of Kiribati are considering an unusual backup plan: moving the populace to Fiji.

Aerial view of Kiribati

Kiribati President Anote Tong told The Associated Press on Friday that his Cabinet this week endorsed a plan to buy nearly 6,000 acres on Fiji's main island, Viti Levu. He said the fertile land, being sold by a church group for about $9.6 million, could be insurance for Kiribati's entire population of 103,000, though he hopes it will never be necessary for everyone to leave.  

"We would hope not to put everyone on one piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it," Tong said. "It wouldn't be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger generation. For them, moving won't be a matter of choice. It's basically going to be a matter of survival."

Kiribati, which straddles the equator near the international date line, has found itself at the leading edge of the debate on climate change because many of its atolls rise just a few feet above sea level.

Tong said some villages have already moved and there have been increasing instances of sea water contaminating the island's underground fresh water, which remains vital for trees and crops. He said changing rainfall, tidal and storm patterns pose as least as much threat as ocean levels, which so far have risen only slightly.

Some scientists have estimated the current level of sea rise in the Pacific at about 2 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year. Many scientists expect that rate to accelerate due to climate change.

Fiji, home to about 850,000 people, is about 1,400 miles south of Kiribati. But just what people there think about potentially providing a home for thousands of their neighbors remains unclear. Tong said he's awaiting full parliamentary approval for the land purchase, which he expects in April, before discussing the plan formally with Fijian officials.

Sharon Smith-Johns, a spokeswoman for the Fijian government, said several agencies are studying Kiribati's plans and the government will release a formal statement next week.

Kiribati, which was known as the Gilbert Islands when it was a British colony, has been an independent nation since 1979.

Tong has been considering other unusual options to combat climate change, including shoring up some Kiribati islands with sea walls and even building a floating island. He said this week that the latter option would likely prove too expensive, but that he hopes reinforcing some islands will ensure that Kiribati continues to exist in some form even in a worst-case scenario.

"We're trying to secure the future of our people," he said. "The international community needs to be addressing this problem more."

Tong said he hopes that the Fiji land will represent just one of several options for relocating people. He pointed out that the land is three times larger than the atoll of Tarawa, currently home to more than half of Kiribati's population.

Although like much of the Pacific, Kiribati is poor – its annual GDP per person is just $1,600 – Tong said the country has plenty of foreign reserves to draw from for the land purchase. The money, he said, comes from phosphate mining on the archipelago in the 1970s.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/kiribati-global-warming-fiji_n_1334228.html?ref=topbar

Photo: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kr.html

Ohio House Introduces Revised Great Lakes Compact Implementation Bill

New bill ratchets down daily water withdrawals limits, but rolls back tributary protections and thwarts public's appeal rights

Columbus, OH - A revised bill to implement the Great Lakes Compact was introduced unexpectedly in the Ohio House of Representatives, yesterday.

Representative Lynn Wachtmann (R-Napoleon) introduced House Bill 473, following months of negotiations by Governor Kasich's staff with Wachtmann and industry and environmental leaders. Wachtmann had sponsored a previous Compact bill that Governor Kasich vetoed last July.



Cleveland Harbor Lighthouse


The Kasich administration had been working with the House to craft a new bill since the Governor vetoed an overly industry-friendly bill approved mostly along party-lines by the General Assembly last year.

The bill was opposed by former Governors Bob Taft and George Voinovich, the governors of Michigan and New York, and environmental and conservation groups.

While the new bill is much improved, Governor Kasich's staff has signaled publicly that the bill's introduction was unexpected and that several important issues remain unresolved.

Sportsmen and conservation groups see the renewed debate as a second chance for Ohio to fully protect Lake Erie and the tributaries and ground water that feed the Lake from unsustainable water withdrawals and consumptive uses by stone and mineral mining and other industrial activities.

Conservation groups credit Governor Kasich and the Ohio DNR for achieving substantial improvements in the new bill, including:

• Significantly reduced limits on the amount of water an industrial operation may withdraw or use before triggering a permit;
• Strengthened protections for high-quality streams;
• Empowering Ohio DNR regulators to develop rules to enforce the Compact;
• Added checks and balances to ensure that permit requirements are followed; and
• Grounding in science the management of Ohio's Lake Erie basin water.

"We appreciate the solid work that Governor Kasich and legislative leaders have put into revising the legislation. We agree with the Governor that more work needs to be done to further protect Lake Erie, its tributaries and groundwater and the people and wildlife that rely on these resources for water, jobs, and recreation," said Kristy Meyer, OEC Director of Agricultural and Clean Water Programs.

The OEC and its environmental-conservation allies are urging the General Assembly to shore up four major issues:

Inadequate Protection for Tributaries and Groundwater

Current Ohio law (Ohio Revised Code Section 1522.07(B)(2) ) requires that both Lake Erie and its tributaries be protected from large water uses. This Compact bill, however, repeals the current law.

Instead, the new bill extends protections only if the entire Lake Erie basin is threatened by a proposed water withdrawal-but not if individual tributaries or groundwater sources may suffer a significant negative impact. The Compact and current Ohio law require that tributaries be protected from any water withdrawal or use that may cause significant harm.

Unprecedented Limitation on the Right of Aggrieved Citizens to Appeal a Permit

In an unprecedented move, the bill would thwart the ability of anglers, boaters and other recreational water users to appeal a water withdrawal or water use decision that may negatively impact their ability to enjoy Ohio's natural resources. Under the bill, only industrial facility owners applying for a permit or those who can prove injury to a direct economic or property interest could appeal a permit decision.

The bill effectively bars recreational fishers, boaters, and swimmers from appealing a permit that may decrease water levels and fish populations or result in increased toxic algal blooms. Limiting historic appeal rights long protected for all water users and instead reserving these rights only for those persons with a vested economic interest is an outright abandonment of Ohio's public trust responsibility and a radical move toward privatizing Ohio's water and natural resources.

90-Day Averaging of Water Withdrawals

The bill measures water withdrawals and consumptive uses based on an average over a 90-day period as opposed to a "per day" measure. This opens the door for mining and other extractive activities, including oil and gas fracking operations, to withdraw and/or consume quantities of water in excess of permit thresholds without having to obtain a permit. This could occur, for example, if a facility withdrew or consumed 6 million gallons of water in a single day and did not withdraw or consume any additional water over the remainder of the 90-day period. When the 6 million gallons is averaged over 90 days, it would not trigger the bill's proposed gallons-per-day permit thresholds. Fish and other wildlife do not live in a mean amount of water.

Experimental Permits

The OEC applauds the concept of experimental permits, which could encourage the development of new water conservation technology. A few revisions, however, are needed to close potential loopholes and give businesses certainty, while also protecting Lake Erie and its tributaries and encouraging technological advancement.

As the legislation currently is written, water users do not have to meet all the provisions of the decision-making standard within the Compact, particularly the "no significant impact" provision. This provision is required, however, if a permitee wanted to pursue using the technology under the new or increased water withdrawal and consumptive use regulatory program. In addition, the legislation does not outline how many times a water user could apply for an experimental permit.

Lake Erie is a precious resource that is vital to people, wildlife, and jobs. Lake Erie supplies drinking water to 11 million people, 3 million of whom live in Ohio, and supports 1 out of every 10 jobs in seven counties bordering Ohio's Lake Erie coastline. Tourism and travel in the Lake Erie basin generates $10.1 billion annually to the Ohio economy and supplies $1.4 billion in federal, state and local taxes.

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact is a binding agreement between the eight Great Lakes states that restricts water from being exported or withdrawn from the Great lakes drainage basin and requires minimum standards for how water will be managed within the basin. Ohio has until December 2013 to adopt and implement legislation that employs the Compact's water management provisions.

In 2011 the legislature passed a Great Lakes Compact bill that violated the Compact and gave a green light to industrial facilities to withdraw millions of gallons of water from Lake Erie and inland waterways that drain to it without government oversight.
"We look forward to working with the Governor and the General Assembly to ensure the legislation fully complies with the Compact, doesn't roll back current Ohio law, and guarantees that anglers and boaters can continue to enjoy Lake Erie and its connected waters for centuries to come. It is critically important that Ohio gets this right. We call on the General Assembly to take action to address the remaining issues in this bill," said Meyer.

The mission of the Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) is to secure healthy air, land, and water for all who call Ohio home. The OEC is Ohio's leading advocate for fresh air, clean water, and sustainable land use. The OEC has a 40-year history of innovation, pragmatism, and success. Using legislative initiatives, legal action, scientific principles, and statewide partnerships, the OEC secures a healthier environment for Ohio's families and communities.

Source: http://www.theoec.org/PressReleases/PR_RevisedCompact_3-8-12.htm