HydroQuest report

Preliminary Assessment of Hydrologic Issues Associated with Sale and Distribution of “Surplus” Cooper Lake Water

1

Preliminary Assessment of Hydrologic Issues Associated with Sale and Distribution of

“Surplus” Cooper Lake Water

Paul A. Rubin January 12, 2015 Introduction On behalf of Save Cooper Lake, HydroQuest addresses hydrologic issues of potential concern within the Beaver Kill and Saw Kill watersheds as related to the City of Kingston’s proposed plan to sell up to 1.75 million gallons of water per day (MGD) to a private bottling company. These issues include:

1. Prolonged and significant reduction in Cooper Lake levels;

2. Potential exceedance of the safe yield of Cooper Lake;

3. Potential failure to maintain sufficient reserve storage capacity in Cooper Lake;

4. Potential reduction in groundwater availability to Town of Woodstock water supply wells;

5. Adverse impacts to downstream fisheries and ecosystems;

6. Availability of sufficient water quantity to the City of Kingston during low flow and drought

conditions;

7. Water rights and the legal implications of the City of Kingston’s right to sell water that naturally

originates within the Town of Woodstock and flows into the New York City water supply system

to a bottling company for corporate profit; and

8. Who actually owns the water rights to the Woodstock watershed and how the revenues should

be divided among the parties.

This report provides background and insight into hydrologic and water rights issues. In order to best grasp the underpinnings of water rights and related legal agreements, it is first necessary to understand current water use in the hydrologic context of water flow into Cooper Lake (Figure 1), the source water for the City of Kingston’s water supply.


2

Figure 1. Cooper Lake photos (George Washington) City of Kingston Water Use The City of Kingston, Kingston Water Department (KWD) seeks to sell up to 1.75 MGD of “surplus” Cooper Lake water to the California-based Niagara Bottling Company. Based on recent information, it is unlikely that there is any surplus water available for new, large-demand, consumers. The current 2013 average daily water demand for both the City of Kingston and the Town of Ulster is approximately 3.9 MGD (CDM Smith Technical Memorandum to Judith Hansen 11-12-14; Niagara Water Bottling Plant Demand Analysis Results). CDM provides the following information on page 5 of their Technical Memorandum:

“The current (2013) average daily demand (ADD) in the distribution system is approximately 3.9 MGD and the estimated maximum day demand (MDD) is 4.6 MGD, as reported by the KWD. The demands include an ADD and MDD demand to the Town of Ulster, located north of Kingston along the Hudson River, of approximately 0.7 MGD and 0.83 MGD, respectively.”

Full build-out of the proposed Niagara bottling facility will earmark and forever commit nearly a fifty percent increase in average daily demand water use (~ 44.9%) for private corporate use and profit. Current information and hydrologic analysis documenting the SAFE YIELD of the Cooper Lake reservoir during drought conditions appears to be based on little empirical data and is likely long outdated. The most current SAFE YIELD value available is 6.1 MGD according to a 2007 report titled “Report on the Impact of the Proposed Hudson River Landing Development on Kingston Water Department”.

This SAFE YIELD value (6.1 MGD) was confirmed as being “correct today” by Judith Hansen (Superintendent, Kingston Water Department) at a Water Board Meeting held on October 8, 2014, while acknowledging that it was calculated in 1961, fifty-four years ago.


3

In supplying Niagara with 1.75 MGD, the City of Kingston would be providing and guaranteeing a single company unrestricted use of nearly 1/3 of the SAFE YIELD of the City’s finite water resources (~29%). Residents, businesses, and politicians may not view this use of their limited water resources as being its best use and as being in the City’s best interest.

No major water applications should be advanced without first completing a rigorous, up-to-date, SAFE YIELD assessment of Cooper Lake. To do otherwise needlessly jeopardizes Kingston’s finite water resources, as well as the City’s future expansion potential. Therefore, HydroQuest recommends that the SEQRA review process be placed on hold, effective immediately, pending completion and public review of an empirically-based SAFE YIELD report. The stated capacity of the Edmund T. Cloonan water treatment plant (Kingston Water Department October 14, 2014 Presentation to CAC) is 8 MGD. Based on a daily demand of 1.75 MGD, the City of Kingston would commit to providing a single PRIVATE company with unrestricted use of nearly ONE QUARTER of the City’s water treatment capacity (~ 22 percent). Furthermore, based on maximum daily water demand values presented by CDM Smith (City of Kingston & Town of Ulster: 4.6 MGD; The Landing: 0.55 MGD; Niagara Bottling 1.75 MGD), the combined total maximum day water demand of 6.9 MGD exceeds the SAFE YIELD of Cooper Lake, a situation that appears unwarranted when water quantity has repeatedly been documented as a concern in the past, especially during numerous prolonged dry periods. As projected, this maximum daily water demand value exceeds the 6.1 MGD SAFE YIELD of Cooper Lake by 0.8 MGD (i.e., 113% of SAFE YIELD). Approval of 1.75 MGD of water for the Niagara Bottling facility with water requirements that would likely, at times, exceed the Kingston Water Department’s current SAFE YIELD value is not prudent. Approval of a new large water use beyond a water supply’s SAFE YIELD might then logically limit or preclude future growth and business expansion in the City of Kingston and Town of Ulster. Residents, businesses, and politicians may not view this use of their limited water resources as being its best use and as being in the City’s best interest. Another key concern is whether the proposed Niagara bottling project is justified by public necessity. Many of the concerns raised in this report, along with several non-water related issues involved with the Niagara project, would appear to significantly mitigate this claim. Surface Hydrology Downstream reaches of the Mink Hollow stream and Cooper Lake are situated within the Town of Woodstock. The natural, undiverted, flow path of the Mink Hollow stream is into the Beaver Kill watershed (Figure 2). Cooper Lake receives surface flow diverted out of the Mink Hollow watershed, a natural sub-basin of the Beaver Kill watershed.

Why is any consideration whatsoever being given to approving, advancing, holding meetings,

jeopardizing, or committing to supply almost 1/3 of the City’s safe water yield to a single major user

based on highly questionable data and antiquated calculations completed over half a century ago?


4

The Greene County headwaters of the Mink Hollow stream receive runoff and base flow from the flanks of Plateau, Sugarloaf, Olderbark, and Twin mountains (Hunter and Bearsville quadrangles). From Greene County, the Mink Hollow stream flows south-southwest into Ulster County where it forms the headwaters of 4 the Beaver Kill. The stream’s natural flow route trends west of Lake Hill, through the Willow Flats area, and into the Beaver Kill - a tributary of the Esopus Creek. This flow route is depicted on the 1903 Kaaterskill 15 minute quadrangle (Figure 3) which was surveyed in 1892, the 1945 Bearsville 7.5 minute quadrangle (Figure 2), and the 1961 Hudson-Mohawk sheet of the Geologic Map of New York.

Figure 2. Headwater watershed area of the Beaver Kill includes the natural flow of the Mink Hollow stream. Much of the Mink Hollow stream flow is now diverted into Cooper Lake to the City of Kingston. Overflow from Cooper Lake enters the Saw Kill drainage. Black arrows indicate flow direction of surface water runoff.


5

Examination of post glacial sediments along the upper reaches of the Beaver Kill, in the Willow Flats area, show that this area supported active post glacial fluvial stream flow until about 10,400 years ago when beaver-constructed log dams impounded a large wetland complex throughout much of the area (Rubin, unpublished radiocarbon data). Slow deposition of about six feet of finely-layered sediments occurred after beaver occupation. Since that time, surface flow from Mink Hollow continued uninterrupted into the Beaver Kill drainage until being partially diverted southeast into Cooper Lake for water supply purposes. Prior to modification for reservoir/water storage purposes, it appears that Cooper Lake was a natural glacially-sculpted lake. A 1985 Board of Water Commissioner’s report discusses a 12-inch cast iron pipe that was installed in 1899, thus indicating the lake’s long-term usage for water supply purposes. Cooper Lake’s natural outflow comprises a small headwater tributary of the Saw Kill watershed. After this tributary enters the Saw Kill, stream flow continues eastward through Bearsville and Woodstock. In Woodstock, infiltration of the Saw Kill into permeable sediments provides recharge to the aquifer which the Town of Woodstock taps for its water supply.

Figure 3. Cooper Lake on an old 1903 topographic map.


6

Note that Cooper Lake’s natural drainage is into the Saw Kill. The Mink Hollow stream is a headwater tributary of the Beaver Kill. Prior to partial diversion of Mink Hollow stream flow into Cooper Lake, the entire volume of Mink Hollow stream flowed to the Beaver Kill. Stream Flow Reduction and Potential Ecosystem Degradation Both the Beaver Kill and Saw Kill are beheaded streams because the full volume of their natural courses no longer flows freely. Instead, significant headwater Beaver Kill stream flow is diverted to Cooper Lake, while a portion of the Saw Kill flow (obtained from the watershed tributary to Cooper Lake) is held in storage in Cooper Lake.

Removal of surface water that would naturally overflow from Cooper Lake into the Saw Kill reduces the flow of the Saw Kill.

The flow reduction to the Saw Kill from the natural Cooper Lake watershed (0.6 mi2 ; KWD Presentation 10-14-14) is less than the volume of Mink Hollow stream flow diverted into Cooper Lake. Downstream of Cooper Lake, the Saw Kill flows through Bearsville and Woodstock. The tributary stream network to the Beaver Kill and Saw Kill are important habitats and are critical contributors to the stream flows, water quality, and habitat quality of the larger streams (Hudsonia, Ltd.; Significant Habitats in the Town of Woodstock, Ulster County, New York, 2012).

Increased demand on the Cooper Lake reservoir will result in prolonged periods of reduced flow to the Saw Kill which may have significant adverse ecosystem impacts. This should be addressed via the SEQRA process.

Substantially reduced stream flow required to respond to increased City of Kingston water demand may adversely impact the Beaver Kill fishery and stream ecosystem health. Diversion of Mink Hollow stream flow out of the Beaver Kill watershed substantially beheads the natural flow of the Beaver Kill (~ 8.6 mi2; KWD Presentation to CAC), particularly during periods of low flow and drought. The potential removal of even more flow in response to meeting Niagara’s water needs during future low flow and drought situations must be carefully evaluated in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Community Water Rights The City of Kingston’s right to take and use Mink Hollow stream water does not supersede water rights of the Town of Woodstock. A 1929 legal decision seeks to maintain and protect the Town of Woodstock’s water rights while ensuring that a minimum of 500,000 GPD of Mink Hollow overflow water enters the Beaver Kill drainage. This is important because the Town of Woodstock may require additional water in the future. This is borne out by the 1985 Board of Water Commissioners report which states that the Town of Woodstock expressed a desire to connect to the City’s system for 0.25 MGD.


7

On May 27, 1929, the Water Power and Control Commission (Water Supply Application No. 493) issued a decision stating:

“(1) The project which the city is authorized to carry out is as follows: (a) To divert from Mink Hollow stream, above the existing intake, all of the water available therefrom; except that no water shall be diverted when the natural flow of said stream, below said intake ,would be equal to or less than 500,000 gallons per day.”

Furthermore, the 1929 Commission decision clearly states:

“(6) Nothing in this approval shall be construed as giving the city of Kingston rights in the watersheds above described and above the proposed points of diversion superior to those of the inhabitants of such watersheds. The right of said inhabitants to be supplied with water from said watersheds, either by privately or publicly owned water supply systems, shall in no way be altered or abridged hereby, but shall remain exactly as they would have been if the city had never acquired any rights under this decision.”

“(7) The Commission reserves full liberty to authorize any portion of the Town of Woodstock to be supplied with water from any part of the watersheds of Mink Hollow stream or the Sawkill, whether the points of diversion be above or below the intakes or reservoirs of the city of Kingston. Such adjustments of interest as may be necessary between the said city and the proposed takers of the water may, at that time, be settled by agreement or, if agreement cannot be reached, shall be decided by this Commission.”

It appears that the New York Water Power and Supply Commission’s directive was to ensure that those requiring water for routine use purposes, (rather than for private corporate profit from sale of a food product; water is considered a food product), had sufficient water available.

A legal question that may be raised from review of this and related material is whether the City of Kingston has the right to sell “surplus” water that originates from Town watershed lands for profit. Perhaps profits from the sale of this water, should Niagara project approval occur, should be exclusive to the Town of Woodstock or equally shared.

On April 6, 1954 the State of New York Conservation Department; Division of Water Power and Control decided to allow extension of a water supply main into the Town of Ulster for a new IBM plant site (Water Supply Application No. 2510), a use that provided jobs for thousands of area residents; therefore, at face value, an IBM reference appears to be a wholly different situation than that of the Niagara Bottling Company that may provide only up to 120 jobs designed for corporate profits through repackaging and resale of City water.


8

The 1954 State of New York Conservation Department’s decision estimated peak daily water demand as 6.5 MGD. A daily maximum use of up to 1 MGD was determined to be within the surplus quantity of water available at that time. However, with project approval, the decision pointed out that:

“15. The officials of the city of Kingston should be made aware of the fact that by meeting the demands of the new plant the limit of the capacity of its water supply facilities will be closely approached. Possible further increased use in the city itself may make it necessary for Kingston to seek out new and additional sources of water supply…”

Furthermore, two of the six Statutory Determinations present in both the 1929 and 1954 Water Power and Control Commission decisions demonstrate the vastly different circumstances surrounding approval of the IBM water supply extension:

“STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The Water Power and Control Commission, having given due consideration to the said petition and its exhibits and the proofs and arguments submitted at the hearing, determines and decides as follows:

Second. That the plans proposed are justified by public necessity.

Fifth. That said plans are just and equitable to the other municipalities and civil divisions of the State affected thereby and to the inhabitants thereof, particular consideration being given to their present and future necessities for sources of water supply.”

The decision to approve sale of source water must factor in current water demand, the SAFE YIELD of the water supply, and projected future water demand.

The City of Kingston’s water needs have changed over time, necessitating periodic increases in Cooper Lake dam elevation to provide added storage capacity in keeping with increased demand. Changes in spillway elevation provide clear indication that future population and business growth will eventually require more water. Any excess reservoir reserve capacity that may, at times, exist should be maintained for potential City expansion and drought protection.


9

Reference to past modifications made to the Cooper Lake reservoir document the need to maintain significant reservoir reserve capacity vs. allocating virtually ALL available “surplus” water to a single for-profit water bottling company.

• The original spillway dam elevation was 1086.3 ft msl. An August 6, 1984 report by MueserRutledge-Johnson & Desimone on the Cooper Lake & Dike states that the Main Dam was raised in 1924 to 1092.3 ft msl and again in 1927 to a spillway crest elevation of 1103 ft msl, some 16.7 feet, thus underscoring the recurrent need to increase reservoir storage capacity as City of Kingston population growth and water demand increased. The 1984 study addresses the need to again increase reservoir storage capacity, this time by another five feet. Schnabel Engineering (Nov. 6, 2014; Cooper Lake Dam & West Dike - Preliminary Engineering Phase 1 Technical Memorandum) documents the present crest of the existing wooden stop-log weir at the spillway has an elevation of 1105.6 ft msl, some 19.3 feet higher than the original spillway dam elevation.

The April 1985 Board of Water Commissioners Report on Proposed Improvements to Cooper Lake Reservoir provides a number of summary and conclusions items. The first two are:

1) Water supply for the City of Kingston and its existing commitments is presently inadequate during recurring drought conditions, and

2) This inadequacy will increase as population growth in the area occurs, as existing commitments are exercised, and as prospective commercial and industrial consumers express interest in locating in the City.

Clearly, City of Kingston water demand has and continues to increase with time - each time necessitating more and more storage capacity. Additional expense would also be involved in order to meet the water supply demands requirement of the Niagara Water Bottling Facility. This includes the likely construction of a second water main in parallel to convey water from the source to the City’s treatment plant. The second transmission line would allow the City to provide the required full build-out demand of up to 1.75 MGD (9-18-14 Chazen report prepared for Town of Ulster Planning Board). Impact to Town of Woodstock Water Supply Wells The potential removal of “surplus” overflow water from Cooper Lake into the Saw Kill could decrease the amount of surface flow available to infiltrate into sediments and recharge groundwater proximal to Town of Woodstock water supply wells. Prior to the diversion of Mink Hollow waters into Cooper Lake and the Saw Kill, the watershed area of the Cooper Lake is approximately 0.6 mi2. Because water overflowing Cooper Lake contributes to the recharge of the Town of Woodstock aquifer, this issue should be further reviewed and evaluated within the context of a DEIS.


10

Safe Yield At this time, a current, empirically-based, determination of the SAFE YIELD of Cooper Lake has not been made. All City of Kingston/Niagara-based water availability decisions hinge on a long antiquated (54-year old) SAFE YIELD assessment that is not available for public review.

There is no sound reason to further any discussion of the Niagara Bottling or other large-scale additions to the existing Kingston water supply system until AFTER a long-term drought analysis and current safe yield assessment have been completed and reviewed by the public.

Determination to add major new water users to the City of Kingston’s finite water supply should first be predicated on completion of an up-to-date, empirically-derived, SAFE YIELD assessment of Cooper Lake.

Assessing SAFE YIELD is somewhat similar to assessing flood return intervals, the longer the period of record the greater the reliability or confidence one has in related water availability predictions. Certainly, in the fifty-four years since the 1961 SAFE YIELD value was derived (for which the public has no information to evaluate) there have been:

more droughts

more prolonged periods of no rain

more information correlating daily and peak water demand, water use and reservoir storage

more quantitative information on Mink Hollow stream flow prior to diversion

new data amassed on reservoir storage and capacity, long-term records of Cooper Lake outflow, modifications in reservoir storage capacity

new reservoir level and volume records

multiple decades of new precipitation information

new projects requiring water

changes in population

… altogether, lots of new information, all of which should be factored into a current assessment of SAFE YIELD.

Historic SAFE YIELD reports and supporting calculations should be found and distributed for public evaluation. In the absence of any recent assessment of SAFE YIELD, it would be premature and imprudent to consider addition of any new large water users. Such decisions should be based on having scientifically-based data:

1. to support the availability of the amount of water desired without having to rely on

emergency out-of-system water agreements 2. to confidently assert that numerous potential adverse impacts may not occur (e.g., loss

of future City of Kingston expansion options, impacted Beaver Kill fishery and ecosystem, reduced outflow to the Saw Kill, etc.).


11

Watershed Rights It appears, based on the evidence presented, that the Town of Woodstock and the City of New York should have involved agency status. If they are not, efforts should be made to rectify this.

In 1929 New York City may not have contemplated the need to insure that most of the Mink Hollow and Beaver Kill flow remain within the catchment of the Ashokan Reservoir; however, the request for increased water demand should now be factored into any plan to commit diversion of a significant portion of this flow, especially for private corporate profit.

Therefore, prior to submitting reports and scoping comments to the Town of Ulster Town Board (lead agency):

A legal review and interpretation of water rights issues should be conducted specific to the Town of Woodstock and Beaver Kill property owners.

This review should include a determination regarding the legality of the Water Power and Control Commission’s decisions to divert waters of the Mink Hollow stream (Beaver Kill) and Saw Kill.

These Water Rights issues require additional document review and legal opinion.

Key issues are whether the Town of Woodstock and New York City have priority rights to a natural resource flowing within their watersheds vs. the City of Kingston which seeks to sell “surplus” Mink Hollow stream water for corporate profit. The discussion and maps provided in this report provide important background information specific to water rights.

Similarly, New York City may also wish to legally preserve their water rights should they require supplemental water during times of drought.

The Town of Woodstock and involved landowners may also be entitled to a share of any water revenues that may be realized by the sale of water from the Woodstock watershed.

Conclusions 1. Incredibly, serious consideration is being given to approving, advancing, holding meetings,

jeopardizing, and committing nearly 1/3 of the City’s safe water yield to a single major user based on highly questionable data and antiquated calculations completed over half a century ago.

This needlessly jeopardizes Kingston’s finite water resources, as well as the City’s future expansion potential. No major water applications should be advanced without first completing a rigorous, up-to-date, SAFE YIELD assessment of Cooper Lake. To do otherwise needlessly jeopardizes Kingston’s finite water resources, as well as the City’s future expansion potential.


12

Hydrologically, major water use project applications should be predicated on documented water availability. Such applications should be advanced only after an adequate SAFE YIELD has been documented - one that is protective of today’s community water demands, as well growth options and does not require reliance on emergency out-of-system water agreements.

2. Approval of up to 1.75 MGD water for Niagara Bottling would knowingly overextend the City of

Kingston’s Cooper Lake reservoir water supply. Based on maximum daily water demand values presented by CDM Smith:

City of Kingston & Town of Ulster: 4.60 MGD

The Landing: 0.55 MGD

Niagara Bottling Co: 1.75 MGD This combined total maximum daily water demand of 6.9 MGD exceeds the 1961 SAFE YIELD by .8 MGD (13%), leaving no room for judicious system expansion.

While maximum daily demand values are short-term in nature, conservative water planning would wisely use these as benchmark values as potentially indicative of future growth rather than as spurious values of little relevance. Approval of 1.75 MGD for the Niagara Bottling facility may:

Limit or preclude future business expansion and new business growth in the City of Kingston and Town of Ulster.

Completely dewater Cooper Lake during prolonged periods of low flow and drought. 3. Full build-out of the proposed Niagara bottling facility will earmark and forever commit nearly a

fifty percent increase in average daily demand water use (~ 44.9%) solely for private corporate use and profit.

4. In supplying Niagara with 1.75 MGD of water, the City of Kingston would be providing and

guaranteeing a single company with COMPETITIVE AND UNRESTRICTED USE of nearly 1/3 of the SAFE YIELD of the City’s finite water resources (~ 29 percent).

5. The proposed Niagara bottling project is not justified by public necessity. Jeopardizing the future

water needs of Kingston’s inhabitants and new business development by introducing a significant corporate competitor that will vie for their water needs is clearly not in the interests of the community.

6. Increased water demand required to supply water to a single major water user will result in

prolonged and significant reduction of Cooper Lake levels below that of recent years. 7. Review of any application that will significantly increase City of Kingston water use must extend to

source water rights issues.


13

Recommendations To date, much of the concern leveled at the proposed plan to construct a 414,800 ft2 Niagara Bottling facility along the Lower Esopus Creek in the Town of Ulster has focused on environmental issues proximal to the building site. It is critical that the Niagara Bottling DEIS include a comprehensive assessment of source water issues inclusive of water rights specific to the Town of Woodstock, the City of New York, and property owners along the Beaver Kill and Saw Kill.

1. It is important that the Town of Woodstock reserve and not forfeit, diminish, or jeopardize water supply options that may one day be needed. In contemplating potential approval of the Niagara Bottling Company’s application, it is critical that the authorizing parties fully factor in the Town of Woodstock’s potential future water supply needs such that sufficient water remains available during low flow and drought conditions, as well as for possible town expansion. While decisions are in place to protect the Town of Woodstock’s water rights, this water may not be available if the City of Kingston overextends water consumption beyond the SAFE YIELD of Cooper Lake.

2. Legal review and interpretation of water rights issues should be included in the DEIS. This

should include a determination regarding the legality of the Water Power and Control Commission’s decisions to divert waters of the Mink Hollow stream (Beaver Kill) and Saw Kill.

Although the City of Kingston has asserted its “right” to use Mink Hollow stream water, legal opinion is required to determine if the City of Kingston owns and has the right to sell this water for private corporate profit.

Key issues are whether the Town of Woodstock and New York City have priority rights to a natural resource flowing within their watersheds vs. the City of Kingston.

Similarly, New York City may also wish to legally preserve their water rights should they require supplemental water during times of drought.

Potential sale to a private food processing company should proceed judiciously within the framework of SEQRA, assuming that the City of Kingston first establishes that there is sufficient SAFE YIELD in Cooper Lake to advance any large-scale water demand project. The discussion and maps provided in this report provide important background information specific to water rights.

3. The potential “growth reduction” impact with regard to the future water needs of new and expanding Kingston businesses requires rigorous evaluation in the context of SAFE YIELD.

If there is an existing comprehensive Kingston City plan, any determination to sell “surplus” water for use beyond that of normal residential and business purposes, it should be compared with the proposed Niagara Bottling proposal.


14

4. Reduced surface flow to the Saw Kill, should sufficient overflow water not be continuously released from Cooper Lake, could lead to adverse environmental impact of stream ecosystem health and the downstream fishery. Trout Unlimited may wish to weigh in on this. Also, an assessment of potential adverse impacts to Beaver Kill property owners stemming from significantly increased water demand should be conducted. In addition, adverse recreational and aesthetic impacts could result.

The current minimum daily flow release to the Beaver Kill (500,000 GPD) may not be sufficient to maintain continuous surface flow, ecosystem health, and the existing fishery. This long outdated value should be reevaluated in the context of modern knowledge of stream ecology. A rigorous reevaluation (86 years after the 1929 Water Power and Control Commission’s minimum flow decision) of minimum water quantity required to maintain a healthy ecosystem throughout the Beaver Kill should be included in a DEIS.

5. Increased water demands of Niagara Bottling’s 1.75 MGD requirement would necessitate

increased diversion of Mink Hollow stream water to Cooper Lake. This may then diminish the quantity of overflow to the Beaver Kill, albeit a minimum of 500,000 GPD (347 gpm) must be maintained in accordance with the 1929 decision of the Water Power and Control Commission. This may interfere with riparian rights of downstream water owners by unreasonably reducing the flow.

It should be noted that a flow of only 500,000 GPD for a large stream such as the Beaver Kill is a relatively small volume of water, perhaps not even enough to maintain a continuous flow from the Mink Hollow diversion to the confluence of the Beaver Kill with the Esopus Creek (i.e., due to water loss into permeable sediments along the Beaver Kill).

It is unlikely that this minimal water flow is sufficient to maintain a quality fishery and stream health in the Beaver Kill. Thus, this 86-year old water release value comprises an important issue that should be addressed in a DEIS in the context of stream and ecosystem health, as well as relative to aesthetic and recreational resource value. Trout Unlimited may wish to weigh in on this. This issue should be added to other identified scoping issues.

Rights of Neighboring Towns HydroQuest recommends broadening the Niagara DEIS scope to include all aspects of the planned bottling operation, inclusive of potential adverse environmental impacts related to ALL planned or contemplated water sources in other towns. SEQRA is set up to avoid segmentation of project components, thus Niagara’s DEIS should include characterization of all water sources and associated potential adverse environmental impacts. Specifically:

The Town of Red Hook (Dutchess County) should be fully involved in the SEQRA review of the Niagara Bottling application because it appears that Niagara seeks to also use significant quantities of water obtained from Cokertown Springs near Turkey Hill Road via either direct withdrawal or groundwater pumping.


15

The Town of Milan (Dutchess County) should be fully involved in the SEQRA review of the Niagara Bottling application because it appears that Niagara seeks to also use significant quantities of water obtained from Cokertown Springs whose source appears to be Warackamac Lake within the Town of Milan.

Increased extraction of groundwater from Cokertown Springs, if conducted, may unnaturally draw down or mine water from up-gradient Warackamac Lake, the likely source of the springs. Preliminary hydrogeologic characterization indicates that exploitation of rising spring water via pumping, should this be conducted, would be an exploitation of groundwater with induced and increased subsurface flow from Warackamac Lake. Pumping of the water source would increase the hydraulic gradient toward the pumped spring which may decrease natural subsurface groundwater travel time and increase the potential for adverse water quality impacts stemming from surfacing Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of surface water (GWUDI). The northernmost portion of Warackamac Lake lies within New York State DEC lands and appears to be within about 500 feet of Cokertown Springs. The remainder of lands underlying Warackamac Lake appear to be owned by Red Wing Properties, Inc. Thus, if groundwater extraction results in decreased lake levels and potential ecosystem alteration, Niagara may be unduly “taking” New York State and private resources. The groundwater relationship between Cokertown Springs and Warackamac Lake, as well as potential adverse environmental impacts (e.g., ecologic, threatened species, risk of dewatering during dry periods, traffic) should be addressed in the Niagara DEIS.

It would not be prudent to advance any Red Hook special use permit, variance, zoning modification or other similar modified land use applications independent of FIRST reviewing the whole planned Niagara bottling project within the full DEIS-based “hard look” contemplated by SEQRA.

Piecemeal Town of Red Hook approvals may legally be construed as segmentation of SEQRA, especially now that the type of project, its source water location, and a major commercial water distributor seek to advance portions of a commercial operation in Red Hook. Any Red Hook Cokertown Spring “land use variance” applications should be reviewed by an attorney specific to all its broader component parts that may include portions in the Towns of Woodstock, Ulster, Red Hook, and Milan, as well as the City of Kingston.

Large-Scale Project Water Permitting It should be noted that new proposed large-scale projects requiring FAR less water than the proposed Niagara Bottling facility’s water demand of up to 1.75 MGD (1,215 gallons per minute) are required by NYS to obtain water supply permits. This is a HUGE quantity of water. At a minimum, we should be equally as rigorous with a proposal as large as Niagara’s.


16

Thus, HydroQuest recommends that the City of Kingston coordinate with NYSDEC and NYSDOH to fulfill water supply requirements typically required to permit major new development and water supply projects. Because the Cooper Lake SAFE YIELD value currently in use by the City of Kingston is more than half a century out-of-date, the City of Kingston Water Department and Niagara Bottling should be required to rigorously document with empirical data that the proposed water source has a sufficient safe yield for present and future use. For comparative purposes, the large-scale Williams Lake resort and development project underwent full SEQRA review, as should the Niagara Bottling water use plan. The Williams Lake project has an expected daily water demand of 91,968 GPD (64 gpm). By comparison, the Niagara Bottling Company’s water demand is nineteen (19) times larger. The City of Kingston must be able to empirically document the safe yield of the Cooper Lake reservoir and demonstrate sufficient reserve capacity for the proposed Niagara Bottling use. This safe yield should be wholly independent of potential outside water sources. Until this can be demonstrated, all actions related to the Niagara Bottling plan should be placed on hold. Should a NYS water supply permit not be required by law, it would be prudent to fully involve NYS water supply regulators in keeping with standard water permitting practices. The magnitude of this proposed water use should be scrutinized by State regulatory agencies as would any other large-scale water use project, whether required by law or not. This would be in the best interests of the City of Kingston and should be transparent and fully reviewed by the public. In light of the overwhelming lack of evidence and certainty regarding the City of Kingston’s proposal to

significantly increase its daily yield from the Woodstock watershed FOR ANY REASON, HydroQuest

strongly recommends that the SEQRA and Niagara Bottling review processes be placed on hold,

effective immediately, pending completion and public review of a new, empirically-based, Cooper

Lake SAFE YIELD assessment.

Paul A. Rubin President, HydroQuest

HydroQuest report

Documents

Transcript of HydroQuest report