|
Statement
of Fay Muir
286 Reservoir Place. Bronx, NY 10467 718-944-4668 Comments given at Lehman College, Bronx, before the New York City Water Board Rate Hearing April 25, 2007 Clean Water For The Bronx: NYC Water Board Rate Hearing April 25, 2007 by Fay Muir Clean Water for the Bronx is a grassroots organization concerned with clean and safe water at the source and in its delivery system. I am a 30-year resident of the Bronx and live in the Norwood community. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has announced that the contractor for the Van Cortlandt Park water treatment plant (WTP) has withdrawn and they face increased costs to get another contractor. It would seem reasonable, at this time, to rethink the decision to build a dissolved air flotation (DAF) facility. A filter screens out pollutants, a DAF filtration plant processes with harmful chemicals. Change to a more modern, more effective and cheaper method, a membrane filtration plant could be expected to be 1000 times more effective in removing such pathogens as Cryptosporidium. (6-7 log reduction compared to 3-4 log reduction with DAF). This result is confirmed by EPA. Pathogen removal is the single most important objective of a water system. The main threat to clean water is unwise real estate development of the land which naturally filters with millions of organisms that consume products harmful to humans. In addition, the impervious surfaces created by structures produce heat which contribute to global warming and prevent infiltration, for water filtration by natural means. The global warming issue is definitely a water issue because of the hydrologic cycle, i.e., evaporation from the oceans, cloud formation, rainfall on land, then runoff back to the oceans. As the climate changes we are guaranteed negative effects on water resources. Higher temperatures will affect snowfall; what does fall is going to melt earlier and faster bringing floods. More droughts will occur since the lessening amounts, run off sooner and disappear earlier. Since climate change brings about extremes, critical emergencies could occur because of storm frequency and intensity. Infrastructure has been the focus to deal with our water problems. This has brought high costs plus environmental damage as well as social and economic problems yet has not solved our water woes. In addition, we face aging systems and storm damage from climate change. Our Norwood neighborhood has been the recipient of this $1.5 billion (and rising) DAF WTP which has destroyed much of our precious parkland our quality of life. The traffic nightmare we experienced and the spike in asthma hospitalizations are only going to get worse when the site preparation ends and building construction begins. Also, with no backup electrical power for the DAF plant and climate change threatening severe storm activity, our community faces many other risks. A membrane plant will diminish the number and severity of the risks we will face both in the community and at the water source. These dire effects were pointed out years ago in community testimony at the public hearings, along with the risks of blasting into bedrock literally across the street from apartment buildings. Now cracks are appearing in foundations and, of course, nobody wants to accept responsibility. It is important that DEP decisions incorporate the least harmful methods to protect the public drinking water system as required by the City and State Environmental Quality Review Act. Therefore DEP should seriously consider using membrane filtration. In evaluating a membrane system, maintenance costs will be significantly lower since it uses a fraction of the chemicals compared to a DAF plant. The DAF electrical usage is triple the needs of a membrane plant. The membrane plant's footprint would be approximately one-third the size of the proposed DAF plant and half the present estimated cost. A new contractor will mean a higher estimated cost which the public has to bear. In light of the fact that DEP is requesting an 11.5% rate increase, we question their decisionmaking process to determine such a high figure. The disparity between what the decision has been for Van Cortlandt Park and what seems the logical choice for filtration brings into question other decisions which might affect rate increases. In addition, several promises has not materialized, which were made to the host communities for the WTP so we feel uncertain about the credibility and accountability of DEP. Furthermore, DEP has placed the Croton water source at serious risk by allowing double the permitting measurement levels for polluting development as compared with the Cat/Del water system. Rate increases do not guarantee good decisions are made to ensure the future viability of our water and wastewater systems. We hope that DEP will be discerning in their decisions in order for the public to have confidence that their dollars are wisely used and rate increases are justified. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. |