Highlights and Happenings: November 2019

Help CCE build on our success, and support our campaigns to protect public health and the environment in NY and CT. Make a contribution today.

---

Highlights

Victory! Tompkins County, NY Passes Fee on Carryout Paper Bags

The Tompkins County Legislature unanimously passed a local law placing a 5-cent fee on carryout paper bags. CCE staff attended the public hearing and provided testimony to the legislature on the environmental and economic impacts of paper bags. This local law, in conjunction with the statewide ban on plastic bags, is necessary to fully address disposable bag pollution and encourage the public to change their behavior and bring their own bag. Tompkins now joins Albany County and NYC, who passed similar laws earlier this year.  We still need more cities and counties to step up and do their part to address single-use bags!

Victory! Long Island Towns Ban Balloon Releases

The Town of Hempstead, the largest town in America, and the Town of North Hempstead, have banned the intentional release of balloons. Suffolk County and Long Beach had previously passed similar laws to prevent plastic pollution, reduce beach litter, and protect wildlife. Now that most of Long Island now has balloon release bans, we have one town left to go. Next up in our fight to prevent balloon pollution – the Town of Oyster Bay (not to mention all of NYS!).

---

Happenings

Eighth Annual “Water We Going to Do?” Conference

The Long Island Clean Water Partnership held our annual “Water We Going to Do?” Conference in November. We heard great updates from our federal, state, and local officials, as well as scientific experts, on the threat nitrogen pollution and other threats pose for Long Island’s waters. It was a great opportunity to learn about our water quality improvement campaign’s progress, discuss ongoing clean water projects, and set the stage for what needs to happen in the next year. Thanks to everyone who turned out and made it our best conference yet!

Gearing up for our NYS Water Priorities in 2020

In November, we attended several hearings of the NYS Assembly Minority Water Quality Task Force across New York State to discuss water protection priorities for next year’s legislative session, including funding for clean water infrastructure, a stronger Environmental Protection Fund, protecting NY’s streams and wetlands, establishing drinking water standards for emerging contaminants, banning toxic pesticides, and combating PFAS contamination. Stay tuned for more info on our upcoming 2020 campaigns!

Talking CT’s Environment

Want to hear more about some of our Connecticut campaigns? CCE’s Lou Rosado Burch appeared on WLIS/WMRD radio program “CT Outdoors with Suzanne Thompson” to speak about the state-wide disposable bag law as well as our campaign to keep toxic PFAS out of Connecticut’s water. You can check out the interview here.

 Examining NYS Cancer Clusters

The New York State Health Department identified several communities across NYS, including Centereach, Farmingville, and Selden in Suffolk County, which have higher rates of leukemia, bladder, lung, and thyroid cancers then average. After a year-long investigation into the cause of these cancer rates, the health department failed to thoroughly investigate possible environmental exposures in air and water quality issues. In November, we attended a public meeting where the health department released their findings and we were outraged to hear about the state’s lack of serious investigation into this public health crisis in our communities. 

Upcoming Event: Suffolk County, NY: Change Out Your Septic System

We’re continuing our series of forums in 2019 and 2020 highlighting the importance of reducing nitrogen pollution from outdated septics and cesspools and helping Suffolk County residents get grants to change out their old systems for new, on-site, nitrogen-reducing treatment systems. Our next forum is on December 16 at 7pm at the Setauket Neighborhood House.

Keep Toxic “Forever Chemicals” Out of Our Water

Lawmakers in Hartford must adopt critical measures to keep PFAS out of our water and bodies. Email elected leaders today and tell them to protect our drinking water from PFAS contamination and to ban PFAS in food packaging and firefighting foam!

What are PFAS?

Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) refers to a suite of synthetic chemicals used in many household and industrial products, including firefighting foam, food packaging, and numerous water-resistant, stain-proof, and nonstick products. Unfortunately, PFAS chemicals are a threat to human health and are being found in drinking water supplies in CT and across the nation.

An Emerging Threat to Public Health

PFAS are referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in our environment and our bodies. According to the CDC, PFAS are present in the bloodstream of 98% of American adults. Research shows that PFAS chemicals contribute to thyroid problems, adverse developmental effects, higher cholesterol levels and decreased immune response in children. The U.S. EPA has indicated that PFAS may contribute to kidney and testicular cancers.

Contaminating Connecticut’s Drinking Water & Environment

From 2013-2015, the EPA required 40 public water systems in CT to test for PFAS chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS. These chemicals were not detected above federal reporting limits; however, emerging science indicates these chemicals present a serious public health risk, even at very low levels. Several states have taken steps to advance drinking water standards for PFAS well below current federal reporting limits in order to protect public health. More recently, private drinking water wells in Greenwich and Willimantic, CT were found to have high levels of PFAS, prompting state officials to issue “do not drink” orders for residents.

PFAS chemicals are also being discharged into our waterways from wastewater treatment plants and septic systems. In 2018, researchers at UCONN tested twelve sewage treatment plants in CT, and found that 100% of those plants were discharging PFAS chemicals into local waterways that eventually drain into LI Sound.

CT Must Take Action to Protect our Water and Health from PFAS

With the chemical industry pushing back against any meaningful action to protect public health and the environment from PFAS, it is imperative that our elected officials stand up for our health and environment and adopt the following measures:

• Ban PFAS in Food Packaging
  PFAS are widely used in food packaging for their stain and grease repellent properties. Scientific studies show that food packaging is one of the most common ways humans are exposed to PFAS chemicals. Currently, there are no state or federal regulations on the use of short-chain PFAS in food service packaging, and there is no way for consumers to know if their food is packaged using PFAS. The only way to ensure PFAS are not contaminating our food and beverages is to ban them in food packaging.

•  Ban PFAS in Firefighting Foam
  In June of 2019, more than 20,000 gallons of firefighting foam containing PFAS escaped into the Farmington River following an accidental discharge at Bradley Airport. The spill prompted CT DEEP to issue a fishing ban in the lower Farmington River. CT DEEP estimates more than 24,000 gallons of PFAS-containing firefighting foam is stockpiled at fire departments and airport hangars around the State. PFAS-free foams are effective and readily available for use—Connecticut should prohibit the use of firefighting foams containing PFAS chemicals, wherever possible.

•  Adopt Strong Drinking Water Standards for PFAS
  Regrettably, there is no federal drinking water standard established for PFAS chemicals in drinking water.  Many states are stepping up to protect the health of residents by adopting their own drinking water standards. New science is revealing that even extremely low levels of exposure to PFOA and PFOS may cause health effects, such as immune suppression and serious developmental impairments. CT must set drinking water standards as low as possible. It is technologically feasible to treat water supplies down to a combined Maximum Contamination Level (MCL) of 2 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, using activated carbon filtration technology. In order to adequately protect public health, Connecticut should adopt a combined MCL of 2ppt for PFOA and PFOS.

Email Connecticut House and Senate leadership today!

Thanks for taking action. Together we make a difference!

Sincerely,
Your friends at CCE

State orders 'immediate' action to rid Brookhaven landfill of odor

SOURCE:
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/brookhaven-landfill-smells-1.36730075

The landfill in Brookhaven has been the source of odor complaints. Photo Credit: Jessica Rotkiewicz

By Carl MacGowancarl.macgowan@newsday.com  @CarlMacGowanUpdated September 23, 2019 2:12 PM

The Town of Brookhaven has been ordered to take "immediate steps" to rid the town landfill of sickening stenches or face $178,000 in fines.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation on Thursday issued a consent decree requiring the town to find the sources of odors emanating from the dump in Brookhaven hamlet and "take aggressive corrective measures" to prevent the release of offensive smells in the future.

The order stems from odor violations found by the DEC in December following complaints from residents and people who work near the massive landfill on Horseblock Road.

The town also was ordered to enhance gas monitoring near the landfill, improve landfill gas collection and pay $150,000 for an unspecified environmental benefit project. The town will owe $178,000 in fines if it fails to comply with the order, the DEC said in a news release.

“The enforcement action announced today is just the most recent of many actions DEC has taken to prevent the return of odor issues that have affected the quality of life [in] the communities surrounding the Brookhaven landfill,” DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos said in a statement. “DEC is working closely with the town of Brookhaven to address the odors and we will continue to do so in order to protect public health and the environment by taking enforcement against facilities that violate our stringent permit requirements.”

In a news release Friday, town officials said construction work in December to cover, or cap, the landfill caused a "temporary odor event," adding that while the smells were "unpleasant," they "did not impact the health of our residents.

"The DEC agreed with Brookhaven at that time that such work was needed to provide long-term odor control," the town said in the release. "As expected, work during this period resulted in odor complaints from residents living near the landfill from elevated levels of hydrogen sulfide — which causes a distinctive rotten egg smell."

Brookhaven officials said they have spent $20 million to contain odors from hydrogen sulfide and leachate at the landfill. Hydrogen sulfide is a gas that causes throat irritation, watery eyes, respiratory problems and other illnesses.

The landfill, which is slated to close in 2024, was opened by the state in the mid-1970s as a solid waste collection facility. The town took it over in the 1980s and limited waste collection to construction and demolition debris and incinerated trash from waste-to-energy plants.

Several dozen residents and teachers and parents from Frank P. Long Intermediate School in Bellport have filed a lawsuit accusing the town of negligence in its maintenance of the landfill. Some plaintiffs have claimed severe health issues that they blame on the facility.

Adrienne Esposito, a longtime landfill critic and executive director of Farmingdale-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said the DEC order was "a step in the right direction."

“We are delighted to see the DEC taking action to address the consistent odors from the Brookhaven landfill," she said in a statement. "Community members, teachers and students at Frank P. Long School have long suffered from the adverse impacts of the landfill’s noxious odors and the town needs to rectify this burden on the public."

DEC officials said they would hold a public meeting to discuss the landfill at 6 p.m. on Oct. 10 at the Medford Fire Department.

In Trump's clean-water rollback, the latest flashpoint in the urban-rural divide

SOURCE:

Jill Jedlicka, executive director of Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, is concerned that the repeal of clean water regulations will hurt smaller waterways such as Cayuga Creek. (Sharon Cantillon/Buffalo News)

By Jerry Zremski
Published 12:10 p.m. September 23, 2019|Updated 47 minutes ago

·          

Gazing at Cayuga Creek in Lancaster, Jill Jedlicka sees a tributary that could return pollution to the Buffalo River – all because the Trump administration recently decided to roll back regulations aimed at protecting the nation's smaller waterways.

"It's a systematic, disassembling of the tools and the resources and the laws that are on the books to help us protect our water quality," Jedlicka, executive director of Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, said of Trump's effort.

But on the Wyoming County farm where the Buffalo River starts, Pat McCormick couldn't be happier that Trump's Environmental Protection Agency recently repealed Obama-era regulations that extended federal pollution controls to small streams as well as water bodies that come and go with the seasons.

"They were trying to regulate basically every inch of our ground," McCormick said.

That stark difference of opinion over the nation's main clean-water law will now likely be fought in the courts.

In the meantime, though, Trump's decision inflamed passions over a set of regulations that have, for years, served as a flashpoint in the nation's ever-widening urban-rural divide.

For proof, just compare and contrast the comments of Buffalo's congressman and the president who's most beloved in rural America.

Rep. Brian Higgins, a Democrat, said Trump is rolling back regulations that aim to control "the existential threat to the viability of Lake Erie and Great Lakes – and that is farming and other activities."

But Trump said the issue is much simpler than that.

"Government will no longer try to micromanage every rain puddle and every drainage ditch on private land," the president said.

A controversial rule

Then-President Barack Obama and his aides said they were simply doing a common-sense thing when they broadened the definition of water bodies protected under the federal Clean Water Act.

“The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who threaten our clean water,” senior White House adviser Brian Deese told reporters during a conference call back in 2015.

Obama administration officials said their new rule would end the confusion over which waterways are protected under federal law. So long as a body of water flows into another that's navigable, then it qualifies for federal protection, the new rule said.

But farmers saw the new rule as a burden – and they quickly won plenty of allies in Congress, including Rep. Chris Collins. A Clarence Republican, Collins started protesting the new rule in letters and hearings even before it became finalized. He also co-sponsored legislation that would have repealed Obama's effort.

Not surprisingly, Collins was thrilled when Trump finally overturned the rule.

“The Obama ‘clean water’ rule was nothing more than a giant power grab by the Obama Administration that had real and harmful consequences on America’s hardworking farmers and small business owners,” Collins said in a statement last week.

Pollution concerns

To hear environmentalists tell it, though, the real and harmful consequences of the rule's repeal will be on the nation's waterways.

And for proof, they point to the western parts of Lake Erie. There, giant algal blooms have appeared summer after summer, creating "dead zones" so deprived of oxygen that the lake's natural inhabitants can't survive there.

Lake Erie algae blooms like this one at a Presque Isle marina could become worse if predictions in the new National Climate Assessment come true. (File photo)

The National Science Foundation blames Lake Erie's algal blooms on farm runoff – exactly what the Obama-era rule was created to control.

"It's everybody's responsibility to protect our water," said Brian Smith, associate executive director of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment in Buffalo. "And these are rules really apply to everyone, including farmers. They need to follow the rules like everybody else."

Only the federal government can ensure that farm runoff from all the Great Lakes states doesn't seep into Lake Erie and create problems there, Smith added.

Jedlicka, of Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, said the Trump administration's move will remove federal protections from upward of 1,000 miles of waterways in the four-county Buffalo River watershed.

And Lauren Rubin, director of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, said Trump's action will create problems far beyond Buffalo.

"This move undermines efforts to restore the Great Lakes, threatens our drinking water, jeopardizes our public health, harms our outdoor recreation economy, and diminishes our quality of life," Rubin said.

Angry farmers

Farmers say, though, that their quality of life sank as soon as Obama tried regulating every pond and puddle on their property.

"It's so ridiculous when you come down to it," said Ashur Terwillinger, a Chemung County beef farmer and a persistent critic of the Obama regulations. "Now the way they had that worded, if you have a heavy rainstorm or have melt-off in the spring and there's a puddle of water in a field, that becomes 'waters of the U.S.' and is subject to regulation – which is crazy."

And that's not all. A ditch that a farmer digs that becomes filled with rain could be seen as subject to regulation under the Obama rule. So could a gully on the edge of a farm that only fills with water when the snow melts or when there's a big rainstorm.

McCormick, who owns a 600-cow dairy farm in Java Center, said the definitions in the new rule were so vague that he couldn't tell if a pool of water that formed after a rainstorm, and then seeped into the ground, would be subject to regulation.

He also bristled at the Obama officials' apparent assumption that farmers couldn't be trusted to be good environmental stewards of their own land. He said most now take great care in using fertilizer so that it does not run off into waterways and cause problems downstream – as they must under existing state regulations.

That being the case, Lauren Williams, senior associate director of national affairs at the New York Farm Bureau, indicated environmentalists are exaggerating the impact of Trump's move.

"I think that's probably a bit overstated, that they say that we're not going to have clean water anymore," she said. "You know, in New York State, we regulate how manure is spread, how nutrients are applied."

The state's role

New York long has been a national leader in environmental regulation. And if anything, Trump's move may make the state crack down even harder on water pollution.

Two bills pending before the State Legislature would extend clean-water protections to smaller streams and wetlands, and environmentalists said Trump's deregulatory efforts might give that state legislation new momentum in Albany next year.

Beyond that, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced earlier this month that his 2020 State of the State address will include a "Revive Mother Nature" initiative.

"The essence of it is: Let's restore habitats but also restore healthy levels of fish and shellfish in our state's waters while protecting wetlands," said Basil Seggos, commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Like Obama's new regulations, Trump's deregulatory effort is likely to be challenged in court, Seggos said. But he said the state isn't going to wait for any court opinions before strengthening its own clean-water protections.

"Washington is backsliding, and for the sake of our state, we’ve chosen to lead the nation," he said.

Supporters, opponents of Lake Erie wind farm speak out

By Thomas O'Neil-White

A discussion of a proposed wind farm in Lake Erie took center stage in the Erie County Legislature chamber on Thursday. The request was made by legislators Lynne Dixon and John Mills, both of whom oppose the installation of wind turbines off the shore of the lake in the Town of Evans.

Listen

County Legislators oppose building wind farms in Lake Erie

Earlier in the day, in front of the Rath Building, environmental groups voiced their support of the wind farm. Citizens Campaign for the Environment Executive Director Brian Smith said the Great Lakes have suffered from previous energy choices, particularly from fossil fuels.

“Wind power creates zero emissions at the point of production, helps to fight climate change,” he said. “And ultimately can create numerous jobs for our community.”

Erie County Fisheries Advisory Board member Rich Davenport said much and more has been done to repair the damage done to the lake in decades past.

“Over the last 50 years, with the billions of dollars spent, and the efforts from conservationists, environmentalists, the New York State DEC and the EPA has turned this lake around 180 degrees,” he said. “From a dead lake in 1970, to perhaps the greatest fresh water fishery and healthiest of the lakes on the planet today.”

Environmentalist groups standing outside Rath building in support of the wind farms.

Credit Thomas O'Neil-White

Davenport said the power generated by the turbines would only be intermittent because of the intermittent nature of wind.

Both sides stressed the environmental pros and cons of the turbines, yet there was no formal vote on the matter. A return date has yet to be specified.

Lawmakers hear clashing views on offshore wind turbines in Lake Erie

Lawmakers hear clashing views on offshore wind turbines in Lake Erie

By Sandra Tan
Published September 19, 2019|Updated September 19, 2019

There is no formal proposal to install wind turbines in Lake Erie waters off Western New York. But nearly 100 people showed up at an Erie County Legislature meeting on Thursday anticipating or fearing that day is coming soon.

Clean energy advocates pressed legislators to be open-minded about wind energy use. Though there are currently no freshwater wind farms in the United States, a six-turbine project is expected to be installed eight miles off the Lake Erie shores of Cleveland.

What has been informally introduced by the California-based Diamond Generating Corp., a subsidiary of Mitsubishi, is much larger. It would involve the installation of 50 wind turbines off the shores of the Town of Evans. Residents and public officials there have mounted an energetic campaign against any wind farm proposal off the shore of the town's 12-mile waterfront.

Wind energy advocates showed up by the dozens Thursday to decry a resolution by legislators Lynne Dixon and John Mills that preemptively opposes the construction of a Lake Erie wind farm.

Will Kempton, a published wind farm expert and professor with the University of Delaware, said a 200-megawatt wind farm could save seven lives a year.

"People actually die, you know, if you don’t reduce the amount of dirty energy that is produced," said Kempton, who was asked by the wind energy industry to appear at Thursday's hearing.

Chautauqua County Executive George Borrello referred to the "devastating environmental impact" such a project would have on the lake, leading to that county's bipartisan opposition to such a project.

"These industrial wind turbines are nothing but an investment scam," he said, referring to state and federal money these industries would be in line to receive. "The only green involved here, folks, is money."

Opponents referred to the stirring up of toxins on the lake floor and the harm and displacement of fish due to the noise and vibration of the wind turbines' installation and operation. They recounted Lake Erie's polluted past as a "dead lake." Now that the lake is rebounding, they said, nothing should set back that progress.

Proponents said that due to the shale bottom of the lake, wind turbines would not be hammered into the lake floor. Instead, companies would need to use new, innovative methods that would rely on giant "gravity" foundations that would sit on the floor's surface. Kempton also said that fish actually cluster around turbine structures and are popular spots for fishing charters.

Clarke Gocker, director for policy and strategy at PUSH Buffalo, also referred to recent state climate law that requires the state to transition from fossil fuels by 2050 and to meet zero emission targets by 2040.

The wind industry is interested in offshore wind farming because wind picks up speed as it moves across the water, creating more potential energy. Because wind energy is considered pollution and emissions-free, Brian Smith, associate director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said local governments should not shut the door on green energy and green jobs due to "misinformation and fear."

"Give wind a chance," he said.

Dixon and Mills reasserted their opposition to the project, adding their voices to that of Rep. Chris Collins and State Sen. Chris Jacobs. But Energy and Environment Chairman Timothy Meyers said the Legislature has no reason to weigh in on the matter yet since no formal wind farm proposal has been brought forward by anyone.

Five Towners are paying a lot for dirty water

SOURCE:

http://liherald.com/fivetowns/stories/five-towners-are-paying-a-lot-for-dirty-water,117611

Bills are among the highest on Long Island

Posted August 29, 2019

Water discoloration adds to the frustration of paying a high water bill every month, Inwood resident Nathan Wein said. 

FACEBOOK

MOST EXPENSIVE WATER DISTRICTS ON LONG ISLAND

1. New York American Water Service Area 2 (North Shore-Sea Cliff): $1,124.52 per year

2. Shelter Island Heights: $1,090

3. New York American Water Service Area 1: $936.12

4. East Williston: $814.80

5. City of Long Beach: $765.78

6. New York American Water Service Area 2 (Merrick): $719.28

Source: Citizens Campaign for the Environment

By Matthew Ferremi

For the past two years, Inwood resident Nathan Wein said, his monthly water bill has been steadily in-creasing, despite his use of what he described as an “average amount” of water — his household of three uses roughly 23,000 gallons per month.

Wein, who grew up in the Five Towns, said that when he bought his Inwood house in 2017, he paid roughly $50 per month for water. His most recent water bill was $231. “It’s pretty shocking to me how much my bill has gone up the past two years,” said Wein, who is aiming to become more vocal as the Republican candidate for the seat in the Nassau County Legislature representing the 3rd District, which includes Inwood. “It already is expensive enough to live in this area, and now the water bill has become another big monthly expense.”

Wein’s experience is similar to those of many New York American Watercustomers on the South Shore, who have seen a sharp rise in their water bills over the past two years. The increases have been attributed in part to the implementation of “conservation” rates intended to encourage homeowners to use less water.

In 2017, the state Public Service Commission approved NYAW’s request for a four-year phase-in of the new rate structure, and last year homeowners began noticing higher bills — in some cases, double what they had paid the year before for similar water use, according to previous Herald reporting.

For customers in NYAW’s Service Area 1, which includes the Five Towns, the hikes were especially pronounced because of service costs added to their bills, which at a hearing last August were revealed to be the result of infrastructure upgrades, such as the construction of iron-removal plants and maintenance. And because NYAW is a private company, the cost of property taxes it pays on its facilities is also passed on to customers.

Residents are also frustrated about the quality of their water. In the past, NYAW has held community forums in the Five Towns that have focused on discolored water. Utility officials have said it is caused by iron buildup in water pipes. “Most of the water pipes in the Five Towns area were built before 1952,” NYAW Vice President of Operations Richard Kern said at a forum on June 26. “The older pipes tend to get iron buildup which sticks to the wall of the pipe. The buildup then gets reactive and breaks loose, causing the discoloration.”

Wein, who attended that forum, said he wanted to see more of an effort from NYAW to solve the problem. He noted that the water quality has been “sporadic” in recent months. “One week, the water will be clear, and the following week, the water will be brown,” he said. “It’s frustrating, to say the least.” The utility’s latest work in the Five Towns began in June, when it installed a new water main along Hewlett Parkway, Westervelt Place and Wheatley Street in Hewlett. The project took roughly six weeks.

Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a Farmingdale-based advocacy group, confirmed in an Aug. 14 report that NYAW customers on Long Island typically pay more than those who get water from publicly owned and operated utilities.

The report, which compared the average annual cost of water in each of Long Island’s 48 water districts, determined that customers in Service Area 1 pay the third-highest rates on Long Island, roughly $936 per year. Only residents of NYAW’s North Shore-Sea Cliff service area and the Village of Shelter Island pay more annually, $1,125 and $1,090, respectively.

Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, attributed the higher costs to property taxes as well as NYAW’s obligation to maximize its shareholders’ profits. “People don’t understand that just because water is inexpensive doesn’t mean it’s not valuable,” Esposito said. “To get people to understand the true cost of water, the total cost needs to be in the bill.”

Esposito said her team encountered wide discrepancies in how residents are billed, with different metrics — such as cubic feet and cubic meters — used to measure water, as well as differing billing periods. Additionally, some districts include service costs in homeowners’ or business owner’s property tax bills, while others include them in their water bills.

NYAW acknowledged that the added expenses passed on to home and business owners are due to its status as a private utility, but maintained that it provides some of the best service in the area. “New York American Water is aware of the inequity of the tax system, which places a burden on New York American Water customers while all other Long Islanders are exempted,” the company’s president, Lynda DiMenna, said in a statement. “For our Service Area 1 customers, taxes make up 33 percent of their bill. We will continue to work with elected officials to right this wrong for the benefit of our customers. Furthermore, we would caution against comparing rates between public and private water systems, as there are significant differences between the two in terms of taxes, rate structures and investments.”

Toxic algae concerns Long Island communities

SOURCE:

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/toxic-algae-concerns-long-island-communities

NEW YORK (FOX 5 NY) - Lake Agawam acts as a backyard backdrop for Southampton resident Joyce Giuffra. It was one of the reasons why she chose this Hamptons homemore than a decade ago but blue-green algae and growing pollution has caused her and her family nothing but headaches.

"It's disgusting, toxic," she said. "It's a hazard."

You can look but don't swim, fish or boat. Environmentalists say the lake's neon green color.

Attempts to clean up the 60-acre lake haven't prevented these major alga-blooms. Now new leadership in the Village of Southampton will give it another try.

It's formed the Lake Agawam Conservancy- a nonprofit group to protect and preserve the water body.

"We already raised $300,000," said Village of Southampton Mayor Jesse Warren. "Our goal is, by the end of the month, in two weeks to raise over half a million dollars we want to use the money to clean the lake and do public-private partnerships."

Aerial photos taken by lifelong Southampton resident Tim Corwin show the damage. He says something desperately needs to be done.

"If the winds blowing and you can smell the lake you're breathing spores and it could be dangerous to human health," he said.

Experts say blue-green algae are fed by nitrogen from septic tanks and cesspools as well as fertilizers running into the lake from stormwater. The algae attack the liver and are toxic to wildlife, pets, and people.

"Don't use fertilizer, pick up your pet waste and keep a natural buffer around your property to filter out the stormwater so the contents aren't traveling down to the lake," said Adrienne Esposito with Citizens Campaign for the Environment.

Village officials also encourage residents to apply for large grants through town and county programs to replace antiquated septic systems.

Glen Head Town Hall Planned Over New York American Water

SOURCE:

https://patch.com/new-york/glencove/glen-head-town-hall-planned-over-new-york-american-water

A town hall meeting is planned in Glen Head this week, where residents can ask questions about efforts to replace New York American Water.

GLEN HEAD, NY — A town hall meeting is planned this week in Glen Head where members of the community can ask questions about efforts to replace New York American Water.

The meeting, organized by local civic groups, is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the auditorium of North Shore High School, located near Glen Cove Avenue and Plymouth Drive South.

Several area lawmakers are expected to attend, George Pombar, of the Glen Head Glenwood Landing Civic Council, wrote in a Facebook post. He did not name the lawmakers.

"This Town Hall meeting is solely dedicated to answer questions from our community on the progress being made on seeking Public Municipal water for our community," the organization wrote. 

The civic council oversees nine local civic groups dedicated to serving the needs of residents in Glen Head and Glenwood Landing towns. The organization has said the meeting would not be about speeches. The goal is to inform the community on what's happening where things stand on moving away from New York American Water.

In June, the council said a feasibility study — a required step for residents to seek local municipalities to become the new water supplier — would be conducted "shortly." The ultimate goal is to find a water provider at a "reasonable" price.

The meeting comes two weeks after a comprehensive analysis conducted by the Citizens Campaign for the Environment showed that New York American Water Customers pay more than anyone else on Long Island.

A North Shore-Sea Cliff family of four who use the EPA average of 10,000 gallons of water per month pays about $1,124 a year for water. In contrast, if the same family got their water from the city of Glen Cove, they'd expect to pay about $283 a year for water.

"NY American Water rates are confusing, and they have some of the most expensive water rates on Long Island," the authors of the analysis said. "All drinking water on Long Island needs to be controlled by public municipalities and priced fairly for all consumers."

Patch has reached out to the council and the water company and will update when we hear back.

ICYMI: Here's How Much Patchogue Residents Pay For Water

SOURCE:

https://patch.com/new-york/patchogue/icymi-heres-how-much-patchogue-residents-pay-water

PATCHOGUE, NY — A new, in-depth analysis shows just how much Patchogue residents really pay for water. The Citizens Campaign for the Environment unveiled its comprehensive study on Tuesday.

Patchogue, like 80 percent of the county, gets its water from the Suffolk County Water Authority, which services 1.2 million people. Here's the breakdown for the Suffolk County Water Authority:

Estimated cost for first 1,000 gallons of water: $2.028

Billing cycle: Quarterly

Estimated cost per billing cycle: $88.75 (includes rates, taxes and service fees)

Estimated cost per year: $355 (includes rates, taxes and service fees)

Fee structure:

·         Tier 1: $2.028/1,000 gallon for first 78,540 gallons

·         Tier 2: $2.34/1,000 gallon after first 78,540 gallons

·         Service fee per quarter: $27.91

Click here to read the full story.

Report: Valley Streamers' water bills are among the the highest on L.I.

SOURCE:

http://liherald.com/stories/report-valley-streamers-water-bills-are-among-the-the-highest-on-li,117388

Since moving to Valley Stream in late 2001, Dominick Riccardi said, his water use habits have remained largely the same. 

He has long been frugal with electricity, gas and water, particularly when watering his lawn in the summer, Riccardi said. But in the past two years, he has seen spikes in his New York American Water bill — spikes that he said are “wrong on so many levels.”

His experience has been similar to that of many NYAW customers on the South Shore, where homeowners have seen a sharp rise in their water bills over the past two years. Some of the added costs have been attributed to the implementation of “conservation” rates intended to encourage homeowners to use less water. 

In 2017, the state, through the Public Service Commission, approved the utility’s request for a four-year phase-inof the new conservation rate structure, and in 2018, homeowners began noticing higher bills, in some cases double what they had paid the previous year for similar water use, according to previous Herald reporting.

For customers in the utility’s Service Area 1, which encompasses Valley Stream, the hikes were especially pronounced due to service costs added to their bills, which in an August 2018 hearing were revealed to be the result of infrastructure up-grades such as the construction of iron-removal plants and maintenance, whose costs were passed on to customers. Additionally, because New York American Water is a private company, the expense of property taxes it pays on its facilities is also passed on to customers. 

Now, it’s official: New York American Water customers on Long Island typically pay more than those who get water from publicly owned and operated utilities, according to an Aug. 14 report by the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a Farmingdale-based advocacy group. 

The report, which looked at the average annual cost of water for residents living in each of Long Island’s 48 water districts, revealed that customers in NYAW Service Area 1 paid the third-highest water rates on Long Island, spending, on average, roughly $936 per year. 

Only residents living in NYAW’s North Shore-Sea Cliff service area and in the Village of Shelter Island paid more, around $1,125 and $1,090, respectively. 

Meanwhile, residents of water districts neighboring Valley Stream, such as the Franklin Square Water District, for example, pay about $498 annually, and in the Village of Rockville Centre, which operates its own water utility, $457. 

Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, attributed the higher costs to property taxes as well as New York American Water’s obligations to shareholder profits. 

“Water should not be a money-making venture,” Esposito said, noting that regardless of the agency, all water on Long Island comes from the same aquifer. She supports a public takeover of NYAW, the only privately run water utility on the Island.

In Valley Stream, that prospect is unlikely in the near future, with village officials saying the cost would likely be in the millions of dollars. 

“At this time, it looks like an onerous burden on our taxpayers,” Mayor Ed Fare said. 

A confusing constellation of standards

While compiling her group’s report, Esposito said her team encountered wide discrepancies in how water utilities and districts bill residents, with different metrics — such as cubic feet and cubic meters — used to measure water, as well as differing lengths of billing periods. Additionally, some districts include service costs in the homeowner’s or business owner’s property-tax bills, while others include them in their water bills. 

This, Esposito said, makes comparing bills difficult and obscures the actual cost of water, creating obstacles to conservation efforts.

“People don’t understand that just because water is inexpensive doesn’t mean it’s not valuable,” she said. “To get people to understand the true cost of water, the total cost needs to be in the bill.” 

The issue of differing billing standards will be at least partially addressed in January, according to State Sen. Todd Kaminsky, when a state law takes effect requiring all water utility bills to measure use in gallons and to include monthly use comparisons so customers can see exactly how much water they are using. 

Kaminsky said he was open to the idea of a public takeover of New York American Water, but acknowledged that it would be incumbent on local municipalities such as villages and towns to make that decision. “If some want to take that approach,” he said, “we’d be more than happy to listen.” 

New York American Water acknowledged the added expenses passed on to home and business owners due to its status as a private utility, but maintained that it provides some of the best service in the area. 

“New York American Water is aware of the inequity of the tax system, which places a burden on New York American Water customers while all other Long Islanders are exempted,” NYAW President Lynda DiMenna said in a statement. “For our Service Area 1 customers, taxes make up 33 percent of their bill. We will continue to work with elected officials to right this wrong for the benefit of our customers. Furthermore, we would caution against comparing rates between public and private water systems, as there are significant differences between the two in terms of taxes, rate structures and investments.”

California Considers Curbing Chemical In Household Products (1)

SOURCE:

https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-considers-curbing-a-chemical-in-household-detergents

California could force some manufacturers to change their formulas for dishwashing liquids, laundry detergents, and face scrubs if they contain certain levels of a probable carcinogen, 1,4-dioxane. 

A component of that chemical helps get clothes clean in cold water and provides the bubbles consumers expect from their bathroom soap.

The state Department of Toxic Substances Control is considering adding the man-made solvent to the list of chemicals regulated under its Safer Consumer Products regulations. If the state takes that step, manufacturers would have to research safer chemical alternatives when concentrations of 1,4-dioxane exceed a set threshold.

During a public meeting Aug. 21 in Sacramento, manufacturers and industry groups said the chemical—a byproduct of normal manufacturing processes—is difficult to remove and measure in finished products. 

“The goal is always to get to the lowest level possible,” said Kathleen Stanton, a senior director with American Cleaning Institute, an industry group that represents 140 companies like Dow Chemical Co., DuPont Nutrition & Biosciences, L’Oreal USA, and Unilever.

“It is not an intentionally-added ingredient nor is it added as a raw material,” she said.

Unregulated

The federal government doesn’t regulate 1,4-dioxane in products or drinking water. 

The extent of its presence in products is hard to quantify because it is considered a byproduct, not an ingredient added on purpose, so it isn’t listed on product labels. DTSC is doing its own product testing to get a sense of how much of the chemical is in common household products. 

“It can be pretty tough to know what products it is in,” said Anne-Cooper Doherty, a senior environmental scientist with the state agency.

A survey of water suppliers in California found 1,4-dioxane in areas in Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, and others serving nearly half of the state’s population. 

It’s hard to extract from water supplies and conventional waste water treatment plants don’t remove it either. With the state increasing its reliance on recycled water, the issue could become more serious, Doherty said.

“It’s more about the combined use exposure and drinking water consumers that we’re concerned about,” she said. 

Potential Threshold

If the state does establish a threshold, it would take effect no earlier than 2022. One part per million has been discussed but is not final. 

In New York, legislation awaiting the governor’s signature would require 1,4-dioxane levels below 1 parts per million in personal care and cleaning products, and 10 parts per million in cosmetics, by the end of 2023. 

Last year, the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, which operates in New York and Connecticut, tested consumer products and issued a report on the lab results. A body wash from Victoria’s Secret had the highest concentration of the chemical, at 17 parts per million, Executive Director Adrienne Esposito said. 

Canberra Corp., a Toledo, Ohio-based manufacturer of green cleaning chemicals, said replacing 1,4-dioxane would be technically difficult and costly but the company is focused on green chemistry and sustainability, said Roger McFadden, its vice president of sustainability and innovation. 

“I don’t think anyone wants to have 1,4-dioxane in its products,” he said. “But there’s the practicability of that that we need to address as well.”

The supply chain can also be a problem, according to Seventh Generation Sustainability & Authenticity Director Martin Wolf. Many companies buy surfactants, which contain 1,4-dioxane, from outside manufacturers to use in their products.

When Seventh Generation sought to lower concentrations of the chemical in its products, the Vermont company found cross-contamination from outside facilities that complicated efforts, Wolf said.

Connecticut consumers trash move to charge for paper bags

SOURCE:

https://www.middletownpress.com/news/article/Connecticut-consumers-trash-move-to-charge-for-14377001.php

The recently enacted state law phasing out single-use plastic shopping bags is frustrating some Connecticut consumers because it contains a loophole that allows retailers to charge for the paper kind.

A majority of grocery stores and other retailers now make shoppers pay 10 cents for each paper bag, a practice that didn’t exist prior to Aug. 1. State law now mandates retailers charge customers 10 cents for every single-use plastic shopping bag until July 1 2021, when they no longer will be available.

Between now and July 2021, proceeds from the plastic bag purchase will going into the state’s coffers. But money from purchasing the paper bags is being pocketed by retailers, a practice that irks some Connecticut consumers.

David Bednarz, a spokesman for Gov. Ned Lamont, said the plastic shopping bag ban “did not change anything related to paper bags.”

“If a business is charging their customers for paper bags, that was a decision the individual businesses decided to make on their own,” Bednarz said.

Louis Burch, Connecticut program director of the Hamden-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said the idea behind charging for paper bags is to try to change consumer behavior. The organization was one of leading environmental groups that lobbied for the plastic bag ban.

The fact that the loophole exists is reflective of the fact that some Connecticut lawmakers had varying levels of comfort with the legislation as the plastic bag ban made its way through the state legislature, according to Burch.

“We’re not overly concerned with where the where the money goes,” he said. “While it’s true that paper bags are recyclable, we’re in the midst of a crisis in Connecticut because we’re not recycling very much. The cost of recycling is going out of control and paper bags weigh more than plastic, so it’s going to end up costing communities a whole lot more.”

Cheshire resident Donna Lockwood said charging for paper bags “is disgusting.”

“I don’t think any store should charge for paper,” Lockwood said. “I may choose to go elsewhere just for the principal of it.”

Finding stores, particularly large retail chains, that don’t charge for paper bags requires a little work. Among the large retailers that aren’t charging for paper bags are the CVS pharmacy chain and Trader Joe’s grocery stores.

Retailers that charge for paper bags are taking advantage of the situation in Connecticut, said Nels Nelson. The Cheshire resident said the private golf club he works at as clubhouse manager recently switched from plastic straws to those made of paper.

“I don’t charge for them: It is called price of doing business,” Nelson said. “Imagine a coffee shop saying $2.50 for a cup of coffee, but now cream and sugar are extra.”

Lynda Pryzbyski is a Wallingford resident who along with her husband, Alan, owns Bella Gusta. The West Hartford specialty retailer sells specialty cooking oils and vinegars

“I pay between 40 to 50 cents per paper bag I buy,” Pryzbyski said. “If I ever tried to charge even 10 cents for a bag, my customers wouldn’t come any more. Yet the large chain stores get away with it.”

Large retailers contacted by Hearst Connecticut Media for this story said charging customers for paper bags is not designed to boost profits.

Richard Bossie, Big Y’s senior vice president of operations and customer experience, said the 10-cent per bag charge “is basically a break even for us.”

“We’re not big fans of paper bags,” Bossie said. “We’d kind of like to be out of the paper bag business entirely.”

Big Y has been complying with single-use plastic bag bans in several Massachusetts communities since 2014, he said. And so when the Connecticut ban was signed into law, Bossie said the chain moved up its 2020 timeline to eliminate single-use plastic bags at checkouts in all of its locations in order to streamline operations and to do its part to support sustainability.

Stew Leonard Jr., whose chain of seven grocery stores includes Connecticut locations in Norwalk, Danbury and Newington, said his company actually loses money even with the 10 cents per paper bag it now charges. The grocery chain pays 14 cents for every paper bag it buys, Leonard said.

Karen O’Shea, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey-based Wakefern Food Corp., the retailers’ cooperative group of supermarkets that oversees the ShopRite chain, said paper bags are an alternative for customers who are concerned with environmental sustainability.

“Stores are charging the 10 cents on paper bags to cover the higher costs of producing more paper bags,” she said. “ShopRite is committed to sustainability and we encourage all our customers to ‘be the change’ and bring their own reusable bags to the store each time they grocery shop. That is our main message and we are already seeing many people do just that in the weeks since the new law went into effect.”

Burt Flickinger, managing director of New York City-based Strategic Resource Group, said research done by Social Clique, an independant research firm, found that 90 percent of consumers surveyed in southern New England want food retailers in the region to be environmentally responsible. Researchers also found that 30 percent of shoppers in the region in the 19- to 59-year-old age group would switch to a retailer they believe to be environmentally conscious.

Trader Joe’s offered plastic grocery bags in its stores at one time. But at the end of last year, the California-based chain announced a broad initiative to eliminate the amount of plastic waste its stores produces.

“While most of the plastic in our packaging has the highest recyclability acceptance rate in the U.S., reducing the amount of plastic packaging in our stores is another important focus of our sustainability,” company officials said in a written statement announcing the initiative.

The focus of the Trader Joe’s initiative includes:

  Reducing and removing packaging whenever possible.

  Choosing packaging that can be realistically recycled.

  Providing information to customers that increases understanding of how best to recycle or dispose of packaging.

  Replacing plastic produce bags with biodegradable and compostable produce bags.

Some Connecticut shoppers, though, are more accepting of retailers charging for paper bags.

“The cost of paper bags from my understanding is much higher than the plastic bags,” said Mary Moynihan Underwood of Cheshire. “So if stores are going to need to have more available, the cost is going to have to come from somewhere. This will definitely encourage me to have my reusable bags all the time.”

Bryan Ciaburri of Plainville said he’d consider shopping at a retailer that charges for paper bags if the money “was being used for an organization like helping children with cancer.”

“If they haven’t been charging all these years for paper bags, then why start?” Ciaburri said. “How much more money do I have to just give away to live?”

Retailing experts also questioned the wisdom in charging for paper bags.

“I can’t understand why they would charge for paper bags, because it’s going to tick people off,” said David Cadden, professor emeritus at Quinnipiac University’s School of Business. “The paper bags are much suited to stack items in.”

Flickinger said data indicates that consumers in New England already pay some of the highest costs in the country for retail purchases.

“It could create a case of sticker shock for some consumers,” Flickinger said. “It’s definitely going to hurt all retailers in the supermarket sector.”

Warehouse club retailers such as BJ’s Wholesale Club and Costco will be the likely beneficiaries of consumer loyalties that shift as a result of charging for paper bags, he said.

“It’s going to be a bonanza for them,” Flickinger said.

Study Shows Alarming Water Price Disparity From Town To Town On Long Island

SOURCE:

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/08/13/long-island-water-prices-new-york-american-water-citizens-campaign-for-the-environment-water-study/

FARMINGDALE, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — Water bills wildly fluctuate across Long Island. That’s because there are 48 water commissioners, many of whom send out obscure bills with hidden costs.

That’s according to an alarming new study, CBS2’s Jennifer McLogan reported Tuesday.

What does your water cost?

It’s an easy question, but on Long Island it has a complicated answer. There are 48 water districts charging widely different amounts.

Just ask residents.

“I called the water company and said, ‘Why is my bill so big?'” one person told McLogan.

“These rate increases are astronomical,” another said.

FLASHBACK: Water Woes In Nassau County: Frustrated Residents Look To Stop Flow Of Rising Rates

Faucet (credit: CBS2)

“Convoluted, so obscured and so cryptic that the average person is unclear about what water actually costs,” said Adrienne Esposito of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment.

According to a just-released study by the Citizens Campaign, homeowners who water their lawn in one village may pay more than homeowners in the neighboring town.

Some have a flat rate, tiered system based on usage and add capitol costs. Others charge service minimum use annual access fees.

“Cleverly hidden in residents’ property taxes,” one person said.

There is a discrepancy between counties. A Long Island family of four using about 10,000 of water per month pays, on average, $500 a year in Nassau County and $347 in Suffolk County. It’s the same water. It comes from the same aquifer.

The cheapest water districts are Greenlawn, Jericho, Riverhead, Sands Point and Freeport.

The most expensive are New York American Water of North Shore, Shelter Island, and New York American Water of the Five Towns, East Williston and Long Beach.

“We’re having a lot of problems with American Water,” one resident said.

New York American Water, Long Island’s only private water supplier, blames the inequity of the property tax system. It says it is investing in infrastructure. However, watchdog groups are pushing for a public takeover.

“What we’re calling for right now is what’s fair and constitutional. Everyone in Nassau County deserves municipal water — property tax and profit free,” said Dave Dennenberg of LI Clean Air, Water and Soil.

The report says the Public Service Commission must ensure water districts consolidate with a uniform rate structure and incentives to promote conservation.

Beginning next year, it will be illegal to bill customers for cubic or metric feet of water. Usage must be specified in gallons to make it easier to understand.

Greenlawn Water District Provides Lowest Cost, Report Finds

SOURCE:

https://huntingtonnow.com/greenlawn-water-district-provides-lowest-cost-report-finds/

A report by the Citizens Campaign for the Environment found that the Greenlawn Water District provides homeowners with the cheapest water on Long Island.

At $148 per year, Greenlawn was far cheaper than the 10 most expensive districts,topped by The  New York  American Water Service Area 2 (North Shore/Sea Cliff) at $1,124.52. 

The only other local district to make it into the 10 lowest-cost districts was South Huntington, at $315.78.

The report also took issue with how rates are calculated, noting that some districts measure in cubic feet or 100 cubic feet, saying that consumers have trouble figuring out what they’re paying per gallon.

Water Cost Report

Report: True cost of water varies greatly across Long Island

http://longisland.news12.com/story/40910639/report-true-cost-of-water-varies-greatly-across-the-island

A glass of tap water in your house may cost more than the same glass in a house just a few miles away.

A new report by Citizens Campaign for the Environment says the cost of bringing water into homes on Long Island varies greatly among the 48 different water districts serving Nassau and Suffolk.

Customers of the only privately owned Long Island water provider, New York American Water in Nassau County, pay the highest bills, according to the survey, at nearly $100 per month. The nonprofit says that because New York American Water is a for-profit company, it has to pay for property taxes which then can be passed down to the consumer.

The rest of Long Island water providers are government entities that are exempt from paying taxes. The Suffolk County Water Authority, which serves about 80% of Suffolk residents, is among the cheapest, with bills averaging less than $30 a month.

Residents in Greenlawn in the Town of Huntington have the lowest water bills on Long Island, paying an average $12 a month.

The nonprofit says it also discovered that some districts charge hidden fees that you can't see on your bill, and some water districts don't have water. The districts just have the infrastructure and buy water from neighboring districts.

The Citizens Campaign for the Environment recommends that smaller water districts be consolidated, and that there should be a requirement that all water bills be uniform and transparent.

New York American Water provides for three districts in Nassau County, including Sea Cliff, which has the highest rate per month at $93. The other two districts have the third and sixth highest rates.

New York American Water agrees to sell property to Sea Cliff

SOURCE:

http://liherald.com/stories/new-york-american-water-to-sell-property-to-sea-cliff,117217

Water district is priciest on Long Island

NORTH SHORE WATER DISTRICT RATES VS. JERICHO’S WATER RATES

Although it is less than 10 miles away, Jericho residents pay significantly less than the North Shore Water District residents for water.

North Shore monthly water rates

Tier 1: $0.2233 per 100 gallons for first 3,000 gallons — $2.233 per 1,000 gallons

Tier 2: $0.5376 per 100 gallons for next 3,000 gallons — $5.376 per 1,000 gallons

Tier 3: $0.6552 per 100 gallons for next 9,000 gallons — $6.552 per 1,000 gallons

Tier 4: $0.6166 per 100 gallons for over 15,000 gallons — $6.166 per 1,000 gallons

Jericho’s quarterly (every three months) water rates

$1.00 per 1,000 gallons for 0 to 10,000 gallons

$1.05 per 1,000 gallons for 10,001 to 30,000 gallons

$2.00 per 1,000 gallons for 30,001 to 100,000 gallons

$2.65 per 1,000 gallons for over 100,000 gallons

What does this mean?

North Shore ratepayers have far smaller rate differential windows than Jericho. This enables New York American Water to increase rates faster than Nassau County’s public water.

If a home in Jericho were to use 10,000 gallons of water per month — or 30,000 per quarter — it would be charged roughly $31.50 in a quarter, or $10.50 per month. When adjusted for quarterly prices, North Shore ratepayers who used 10,000 gallons of water each month for three months would be charged $147.11, or $49.04 per month, nearly five times as much as Jericho’s customers.

Including taxes, North Shore district residents pay roughly an additional $281.13 — or $93.71 per month — along with their rates. Residents in Jericho pay an additional $17.97 in taxes per quarter, or $5.99 per month.

Source: Citizens Campaign for the Environment

American Water has agreed to sell its property at 325 Prospect Ave. in Sea Cliff to the village, discounting it by $1 million. This would enable the village to take ownership of the two-and-a-half acre lot, which consists of an office building and a pump station, for $600,000 and repurpose it. 

Additionally, all ratepayers throughout the water district — which includes Sea Cliff, Glen Head, Glenwood Landing and some residents of Glen Cove, Roslyn Harbor and Old Brookville — will split a $1.6 million credit on their future water bills, in accordance with recommendations made by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

“We have worked collaboratively with the village to preserve this unique parcel of open land, while ensuring the net proceeds of the $1.6 million proposed sale would benefit our Sea Cliff customers,” NYAW President Lynda DiMenna said in a statement. “New York American Water will be submitting a petition regarding the proposed sale for the New York State Public Service Commission’s consideration and approval.”

Sea Cliff village administrator Bruce Kennedy said the village and NYAW are working on a joint petition, which they intend to submit to the PSC within the next few days. The property sale agreement still must be approved by the state Supreme Court and the PSC and pass through a 30-day public comment period before the purchase can become official.

In an executive session at its Aug. 7 meeting, the Sea Cliff board of trustees discussed the village’s next step in moving forward with pending litigation involving New York American Water and the New York Public Service Commission, according to a press release provided by the village the following day.

The village brought an Article 78 proceeding against NYAW in September of 2017 in response to “unreasonable” rate increases for Sea Cliff residents. An April 2018 PSC report found that NYAW’s “erroneous tax calculations” caused an overpayment of $2.3 million over the previous four years. Sea Cliff ratepayers were overcharged by $282,000, or $65.50 per customer, according to the report. Cuomo eventually stepped in, insisting NYAW correct its mistakes and compensate ratepayers for their overpayments.

Kennedy and Sea Cliff Mayor Ed Lieberman both said the discounted purchase of the property will benefit the village and its residents. “The potential of obtaining this property would be an incredible benefit to the residents of the Village of Sea Cliff,” Kennedy said, “not only because it can be used for a variety of public services, but it would also ensure that a developer would never take over the property.”

Lieberman said he is “very excited” about the village’s progress throughout these proceedings. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s a win-win situation,” he said, later adding, “We’re very pleased that this is finally on the verge of being resolved.”

He also said that the proceedings are, in part, meant to help establish a public water entity for Nassau County, which would effectively end residents’ dependence on private water companies like NYAW. He said the village has received state grants secured by former Sen. Carl Marcellino and Sen. Jim Gaughran, a Democrat from Northport, to make that happen.

Most expensive on L.I.

According to a study by Citizens Campaign for the Environment released on Tuesday, there is a massive discrepancy between what residents across Long Island are paying for their water. And with annual estimates of $1,124.52 in water payments per year, the North Shore-Sea Cliff district is the most expensive. For comparison, ratepayers in Jericho, who live less than 10 miles away, pay an average of $195.89 per year on water.

“New York American Water is aware of the inequity of the tax system, which places a burden on New York American Water customers while all other Long Islanders are exempted,” said Lee Mueller, NYAW’s external affairs manager. “For our Service Area 2 North Shore customers, taxes make up 59 percent of their bill. We will continue to work with elected officials to right this wrong for the benefit of our customers.

“Furthermore, we would caution against comparing rates between public and private water systems, as there are significant differences between the two in terms of taxes, rate structures and investments,” Mueller continued. “New York American Water makes significant investments in our infrastructure to ensure the sustainability of our systems and to deliver high-quality water to our customers that meets all regulations, including pending regulations regarding emerging contaminants.”

Gaughran, who has long advocated for public water on Long Island, released a statement condemning NYAW.

“NYAW is not only the single most expensive water provider on Long Island, its rate structure is confusing and difficult to navigate, [its] customer service is abysmal, the company lacks transparency and fails in communications with customers,” he said. “This report underscores that clean, safe drinking water is a human right and affirms our battle for public water on Long Island.”

Agatha Nadel, of Glen Head, is a founding member of North Shore Concerned Citizens, a local group dedicated to fighting NYAW’s presence in the community and establishing a public water entity. She said that while she is pleased the $1.6 million credit should benefit the entire district, any relief that ratepayers receive would be negated by further surcharges.

Nadel is also part of a village task force tasked with developing a feasibility study to establish a public water entity. She said she is “cautiously optimistic” that the study will yield a positive outcome and that the Town of Oyster Bay will ultimately condemn NYAW. She hopes to see support from Albany in grants to buy out NYAW. 

“The goal is still affordable public water,” Nadel said. “As far as I’m concerned, this isn’t going change the end goal.”

When Nadel heard that the North Shore Water District was the most expensive on Long Island, she said she was not surprised. In fact, she said she was almost glad to see the district at the top of the list, as it validated what she and others in North Shore Concerned Citizens have been “screaming and fighting about” for years. Now she hopes that elected officials will step in to bring public water to the North Shore Water District.

Steve Warshaw, of Glen Head, said he is more concerned with NYAW’s continued high water rates than the village’s securing of the Prospect Avenue property. “It’s a sad epilogue that we get stuck with high bills,” he said, “and Sea Cliff purportedly gets a good reduced price on a piece of land that they believe is valuable to them.”

County unveils ‘significant’ $4B plan to address nitrogen pollution

SOURCE:

https://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2019/08/county-unveils-significant-4b-plan-address-nitrogen-pollution/

Suffolk County officials last week unveiled a $4 billion plan they say will serve as a blueprint for transitioning away from traditional cesspools, which have been identified as a main culprit of nitrogen pollution in ground and surface waters.

Approximately 74% of county residents rely on “antiquated” on-site wastewater disposal systems. Cesspools were outlawed in new construction in 1973 and, as of July 1, legislators amended the county sanitary code to close a loophole that allowed existing cesspools to be replaced with newer models of the same technology.

The Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan calls for the elimination of more than 253,000 cesspools countywide, either by replacing them with innovative or alternative wastewater systems, known as IA, or by connecting properties to existing and expanded sewer districts. The plan would be implemented in four phases over the next 50 years.

Officials say that if the plan is implemented, worsening water quality trends could begin to reverse within 10 years.

“This plan represents the first meaningful strategy to address legacy septic nitrogen pollution since countywide sewering objectives were abandoned some four decades ago,” said Walter Dawydiak, director of environmental quality for Suffolk County.

County Legislator Al Krupski (D-Cutchogue) said the plan is “significant” and “will serve as an invaluable tool as we move forward” in cleaning local waters.

Scientific data shows that nitrogen pollution is the main driver behind harmful algal blooms and fish kills, and threatens Long Island’s drinking supply, which comes from a sole-source aquifer.

Data from a 2010 Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources management plan shows that between 1987 and 2005, nitrogen levels in the upper glacial aquifer increased by 40%. During the same period, levels in the magothy (lower) level rose by 200%.

Health officials estimate that 70% of the nitrogen found in local waterways can be attributed to 360,000 cesspools and septic systems across Suffolk County.

Stormwater runoff and lawn fertilizers also contribute to nitrogen pollution.

Joyce Novak, executive director of the Peconic Estuary Program, described the plan as a “giant leap” toward a healthier ecosystem and cleaner waters in the Peconics.

“The Peconic Estuary is a system driven in large part by groundwater,” she said Friday. “Based on sound science, this new plan outlines a clear strategy for addressing nitrogen input to our bays and coastal waters via groundwater pathways,” thus enabling a more targeted approach to reducing nitrogen.

A key component of implementing the plan’s recommendations will be identifying a $50 million annual funding source that will make new systems or sewer connections affordable for residents. The plan references measures taken in other states, such as the Bay Restoration Fee in Maryland and fees on water consumption in Spokane, Wash., as examples county lawmakers could follow.

During Phase I of the plan, which would run until 2023, officials estimate that 5,000 cesspools would be replaced through a continuation of the county’s current voluntary program. An additional 5,000 homes along south shore waterways would be connected to sewer districts as part of the post-Sandy Suffolk County Coastal Resiliency Initiative. It’s also estimated that approximately 4,000 new construction units would be required to install IA systems.

All work in this phase could be funded through existing grant sources, officials said, including $440 million in federal and state funding the county has already been awarded and an anticipated $95 million in grants for IA technology.

The management plan also calls for amendments to the county sanitary code that would require the use of new IA systems in all new construction starting in 2020 and the creation of a countywide wastewater management district. In addition, the plan recommends that lawmakers include a stipulation that septic systems be replaced when properties are expanded or sold and when existing systems fail.

In Phase II, 177,000 cesspools and septic systems in high-priority areas, identified in the plan as low-lying coastal areas, would be eliminated between 2024 and 2054 at an estimated cost of $1.9 billion.

Phase III calls for upgrades in other low-lying priority areas over 15 years at a total cost of $730 million.

Phase IV, which extends to 2068, would cover all remaining areas in the county at a projected cost of $1.3 billion, bringing the overall cost of the program for all phases to $4 billion.

Environmental advocates applauded the plan, which is currently undergoing a detailed environmental review by the county Council on Environmental Quality. A 30-day public comment period is set to open Aug. 14, and public hearings are planned for Thursday, Aug. 29, at 6 p.m. in eastern Suffolk County and Thursday, Sept. 5, at 3 p.m. in western Suffolk, a health department spokesperson said. The locations are still being finalized and will be published within two weeks on the Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality website.

“While I have spent my career documenting the degradation of Long Island’s fisheries and aquatic habitats, it is inspiring to finally see a plan designed and implemented that will reverse course on decades of negative trajectories,” said Christopher Gobler, chair of coastal ecology and conservation at Stony Brook University.

Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said the plan can help reverse decades of damage.

“It doesn’t just identify and characterize the problem, it sets forth an ambitious plan to solve the problem,” she said in a statement. “The lack of infrastructure to treat sewage is making our island polluted and unsustainable. We now have the road map to restore surface water quality within 10 years of implementing wastewater treatment upgrades.”

The plan is largely dependent on the growth of the burgeoning IA industry.

Currently, some Suffolk County residents are voluntarily testing such systems through a county grant program established to offset the cost of installing the systems, which can cost upwards of $20,000 and require more maintenance than traditional cesspools and septic systems.

During a presentation before the Riverhead Town Board in September 2018, Justin Jobin, an environmental project coordinator with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, noted that six systems have been provisionally approved for use in Suffolk County.

He provided provisional results of sampling conducted last year, which showed that some of the approved systems were struggling to reduce wastewater nitrogen content to the mandated maximum of 19 milligrams per liter. One system made by Orenco averaged 32.3 milligrams per liter of nitrogen during the sampling period, though the data was limited.

“You can’t draw a lot of scientific conclusions off of one system,” Mr. Jobin said during the presentation.

He also noted that the systems perform better in warmer weather.

Health department officials said the Orenco system has since improved to 21.9 mg/L and further improvement is expected.

Additional nitrogen reductions in initially underperforming systems were attributed to adjustments made to the systems’ operation and maintenance.

For 2018, the cumulative average performance for all six approved systems was 17.8 mg/L, officials said.

Despite the mixed results, Ms. Novak said the systems have led to a remarkable reduction compared to traditional septic systems, which release an average of 60 milligrams of nitrogen per liter.

“Suffolk County cannot approve any system that is above 19 mg/L, but what is being achieved here with nitrogen reduction is great news for a future of clean water,” she said.

The plan was developed based on findings from two studies: the Smarter Cities Challenge report, prepared by IBM in 2014, and the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, completed in 2015.

Funding for development, which began in 2016, came from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and brought together a multitude of stakeholders.

“The fight to reverse decades of nitrogen pollution from outdated cesspools and septic systems has created a unity of purpose among scientists, business leaders, environmentalists, the building trades and organized labor,” County Executive Steve Bellone said in a statement.

But Mr. Bellone also stressed the need to allocate funds: “No plan to reverse nitrogen pollution will be successful unless policymakers find a way to make it easy and affordable for homeowners.”

Long Beach Water Among Most Expensive On Long Island, Study Finds

SOURCE:

https://patch.com/new-york/longbeach/long-beach-water-among-most-expensive-long-island-study-finds

A new study shows Long Beach residents shell out hundreds of dollars a year for water.

LONG BEACH, NY — A new, in-depth analysis shows just how much Long Beach residents really pay for water. The Citizens Campaign for the Environment unveiled its comprehensive study on Tuesday.

Long Beach provides water to its own residents and charges the fifth highest amount on Long Island at $765.78 per year, the study found. Here's the breakdown for Long Beach:

Estimated cost for first 1,000 gallons of water: $4.41

Billing cycle: Quarterly 

Estimated cost per billing cycle: $190.71 (includes rates, taxes and service fees)

Estimated cost per year: $765.78 (includes rates, taxes and service fees)

Fee structure: 

Minimum charge: $52.44

$4.41 per 1,000 gallons for up to 12,000 gallons.

$4.72 per 1,000 gallons for 12,0001 - 150,000 gallons.

$4.79 per 1,000 gallons for 150,001 - 300,000 gallons.

$5.01 per 1,000 gallons for 300,001 - 600,000 gallons

$5.50 per 1,000 gallons for 600,001 and over.

Daily service charge:

$0.587 for 5/8 and 3/4 inch

$0.870 for 1 inch

While that may seem high, get this — New York American Water Service Area customers in the NorthShore-Sea Cliff area pay an estimated $1,124.52 a year, more than anywhere else on the island. Shelter Island Heights and service area 1 of the New York American Water Service Area rounded out the three most expensive districts. 

Adrienne Esposito, executive director at the organization, told Patch on Wednesday they initially thought that determining the cost of water on Long Island would be easy — they would grab the water rates from the various districts and compare them. 

"We found it easier to find the lost continent of Atlantis," she said.

Finding out what water districts charge is actually "obscure," "convoluted" and "cryptic," she told reporters on Tuesday. Some districts tack on fees separate from the actual water rates included in the bill, some have a yearly access fee, and still other have hidden fees that are separate from the water rates and are not included in the consumer bill, such as for infrastructure and water treatment.

New York American Water has a residential water service charge applied to every bill based on size of water meter. Those with a 5/8-inch water meter pay $12.50, while those with a 1-inch meter pay $17.74. Furthermore, rates for the district are based on various factors that "substantially fluctuate" depending on the community.

Esposito said it's a public right to know the price of water, and the major takeaway is that people don't know how much they pay. 

"The bottom line is there's no uniform cost for water," she said. "The existing pricing scheme is confusing and obscure for the public and it needs to be more transparent."

The report looks at how much water costs, where the different water costs are hidden in water and tax bills, and what that means for residents.

There are 48 water districts on the island, 11 in Suffolk County and 37 in Nassau County. The researchers said they used the most recent data available on water districts' websites and annual drinking water reports for the study. The vast majority of districts were also called multiple times for further data and verification of costs, the group said.

Researchers assumed a typical family had four members, which the typical uses about 10,000 gallons of water per month, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

The organization also issued several recommendations: 

·         Consolidate water districts.

·         Establish a uniform rate structure with transparency.

·         Implement more incentives for conservation.

·         Educate the public on tiered water rate systems.

·         Ban private water districts.

Here's Just How Much Patchogue Residents Pay For Water

SOURCE:

https://patch.com/new-york/patchogue/heres-just-how-much-patchogue-residents-pay-water

A new study shows Patchogue residents shell out hundreds of dollars a year for water.

PATCHOGUE, NY — A new, in-depth analysis shows just how much Patchogue residents really pay for water. The Citizens Campaign for the Environment unveiled its comprehensive study on Tuesday. 

Patchogue, like 80 percent of the county, gets its water from the Suffolk County Water Authority, which services 1.2 million people. Here's the breakdown for the Suffolk County Water Authority:

Estimated cost for first 1,000 gallons of water: $2.028

Billing cycle: Quarterly 

Estimated cost per billing cycle: $88.75 (includes rates, taxes and service fees)

Estimated cost per year: $355 (includes rates, taxes and service fees)

Fee structure: 

·         Tier 1: $2.028/1,000 gallon for first 78,540 gallons

·         Tier 2: $2.34/1,000 gallon after first 78,540 gallons

·         Service fee per quarter: $27.91

Your turn: Tell us on Facebook or in the comments how much you pay for water.

While that may seem high, get this — New York American Water Service Area customers in the NorthShore-Sea Cliff area pay an estimated $1,124.52. That's more than anywhere else on the island. Shelter Island Heights and service area 1 of the New York American Water Service Area rounded out the three most expensive districts. 

Adrienne Esposito, executive director at the organization, told Patch on Wednesday they initially thought that determining the cost of water on Long Island would be easy — they would grab the water rates from the various districts and compare them. 

"We found it easier to find the lost continent of Atlantis," she said.

Finding out what water districts charge is actually "obscure," "convoluted" and "cryptic," she told reporters on Tuesday. Some districts tack on fees separate from the actual water rates included in the bill, some have a yearly access fee, and still other have hidden fees that are separate from the water rates and are not included in the consumer bill, such as for infrastructure and water treatment.

New York American Water has a residential water service charge applied to every bill based on size of water meter. Those with a 5/8-inch water meter pay $12.50, while those with a 1-inch meter pay $17.74. Furthermore, rates for the district are based on various factors that "substantially fluctuate" depending on the community.

Esposito said it's a public right to know the price of water, and the major takeaway is that people don't know how much they pay. 

"The bottom line is there's no uniform cost for water," she said. "The existing pricing scheme is confusing and obscure for the public and it needs to be more transparent."

The report looks at how much water costs, where the different water costs are hidden in water and tax bills, and what that means for residents.

There are 48 water districts on the island, 11 in Suffolk County and 37 in Nassau County. The researchers said they used the most recent data available on water districts' websites and annual drinking water reports for the study. The vast majority of districts were also called multiple times for further data and verification of costs, the group said.

Researchers assumed a typical family had four members, which the typical uses about 10,000 gallons of water per month, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

The organization also issued several recommendations: 

·         Consolidate water districts.

·         Establish a uniform rate structure with transparency.

·         Implement more incentives for conservation.

·         Educate the public on tiered water rate systems.

·         Ban private water districts.