The proposed facility, reported to be capable of producing 7.5 million gallons of drinking water a day, would draw raw water from the Hudson using a microfiltration/reverse osmosis process. This process is highly energy-intensive, using about ten times as much energy to purify the water as treated surface water. Water would be piped inland to a permanent treatment plant on a reclaimed portion of a former landfill then directly into Rockland’s distribution system.

United Water claims it has explored other options including an increase in water drawn from Lake DeForest, construction of a reservoir at Ambrey Pond, installation of surplus groundwater wells, recycling wastewater and the use of Suffern Quarry for a small reservoir before choosing a desalination plant on the Hudson River.

Lake DeForest also supplies Bergen County. According to Rockland Water Coalition, an organization composed of a number of the county’s environmental groups, Rockland’s water has been exported to New Jersey in excess of UWNY”s Lake DeForest operating permit. “When the construction of Lake DeForest reservoir was authorized, it was to be operated solely for the benefit of Rockland County citizens. The only benefit to United Water New Jersey and the people of New Jersey is the incidental benefit of a regulated flow in the Hackensack River. In 2007 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation fined United Water for excessive releases from Lake DeForest earlier that year.”

United Water New York’s current water supply comes entirely from sources within Rockland County. Ground water supplies 61% of the county’s drinking water according to CIESIN (The Center for International Earth Science Information Network) with surface water supplying 39%. Thirty seven percent of the total comes from Lake DeForest, 31% from sand and gravel well fields and 32% from bedrock wells.

Here are some concerns and comments voiced by scientists and conservation groups about this project. CIESIN reports that there are several large electricity generating stations nearby and that “the impact of additional water withdraws from the desalination plant might result in significant ecological impacts.” In addition to concerns about the water quality for human consumption as well as higher customer rates, Riverkeeper points out that Haverstraw Bay “is an important estuarine habitat and nursery area for many key Hudson River fish species. It has been designated by the NYS Department of State as a ‘significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat’ that warrants all possible protections.”

The Rockland Water Coalition states, The Haverstraw Water Supply Project is currently estimated to cost approximately $140 million when completed. This is significant and should be considered in relation to the overall customer cost upon to $300 per customer per year. “

Nicholas Christie-Blick, a geologist at Lamont Doherty, voices his concern about additional costs to Rockland residents from operation of the plant as well. “Water produced by desalination is more expensive than water obtained from freshwater sources because desalination is an energy-intensive process. In the case of the Haverstraw project, it must also be pumped from sea level.”

Christie-Blick notes that Rockland’s population has grown much faster than its water supply and worries that future development will bring severe water shortages, especially in times of drought. “Were we to experience conditions akin to those of the 1960s - a multi-year drought that typically occurs in the lower Hudson Valley about once per century - we would be in serious trouble,” he relates.

Much of the county’s growth is in Ramapo, Rockland’s largest town, which grew at a rate of 16.2% over the last decade compared to the remainder of Rockland, which grew at 4.1%. Christie-Blick says, “I propose dividing responsibility between communities according to the rate of residential development in each community. For example, if Ramapo continues to grow at four times the rate of the remainder of the county, the cost of water in Ramapo might reasonably be increased at four times the rate of the rest of the county.”

The Coalition reports that an assessment of Rockland County’s groundwater supply was conducted by the US Geological Survey to quantify the county’s groundwater resources. Released in February 2011, it indicates that ground water resources are more abundant than thought in 2006 and that the year-to-year recharge rate of Rockland’s aquifer is sufficient to replenish United Water’s wells drawn down during peek demand months. However, Christie-Blick relates, “Our problem isn’t a year-to-year drawdown. It is that we have virtually no flexibility in riding out even modest droughts of more than a few months, which occur every several years. We are utterly unprepared for a major multi-year drought.”

If approved by NY State of Environmental Concern as well as several other agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers and NY State Department of State Coastal Resources Management, construction is scheduled to start late 2013 and be completed in 2015. United Water will be releasing an environmental impact statement to the public shortly. This will be followed by a public hearing and a period of at least 30 days for public comment.

United Water Resources was founded in 1869 as the Hackensack Water Company using water from the Hackensack River. After numerous mergers throughout the years, it was acquired in 2000 by French conglomerate Suez Environnement, a global company headquartered in Paris that is now one of the U.S.’s largest water services.

For more information, see The Rockland Water Coalition website sustainablerockland.org, email the Coalition at pkurtz9@gmail.com or check out superfund.ceisin.columbia.edu