Kingston Mayor Shayne Gallo, who appoints water commissioners and serves as a voting member of the board, has expressed support for the proposal and sought to allay residents’ concerns. Gallo said that the deal would significantly boost the water department’s $4.1 million annual budget. That boost, in turn, would help fund replacement of underground pipes — some of which date to the early 20th century — without raising rates for city residents. Currently the department is undertaking $5 million worth of repairs and upgrades. Another $16 million in repairs, Hansen said, are planned over the next few years. Most of the funding for the projects comes from municipal bonds issued by the department.
“[The Niagara deal] will allow them to stabilize water user fees and at the same time reduce the need to bond for repairs,” said Gallo.
Gallo said he’s asked Hansen to provide a copy of the analysis that is the basis for the “will share” letter and other information to the city’s Conservation Advisory Council. Gallo added that any deal with Niagara would require current customers to receive priority over the bottling concern in the event of a drought or other water emergency.
Flow can be restricted
Current protocols already allow the department to restrict water use by commercial customers in drought situations; Gallo said that any deal with Niagara would include provisions to ensure that existing residents and businesses receive priority for service.
“Taxpayers, residents and businesses would have priority over any contract to sell city water,” said Gallo. “We are not going to be drained of a precious water source.”
That’s unlikely to satisfy some residents who have expressed attitudes ranging from concern to outrage following media reports of the proposal which first emerged last month. Those concerns are expected to be aired at a Tuesday, October 7 meeting of the Kingston Common Council and a water commission meeting the next day. The proposal has stirred concern both in Kingston and Woodstock over everything from the environmental soundness of the bottled water industry to the potential impact of climate change on Cooper Lake watershed. Community activist and Kingstoncitizens.org founder Rebecca Martin said that she was especially concerned that the public was just now learning of the proposal and had not had a chance to weigh in earlier. Martin, who’s posted her running analysis of the proposal and her criticisms of the same on Kingstoncitizens.org, said she’s concerned officials had not taken into account long-term factors like the growth of the proposed Hudson Landing housing development or the findings of a city-sponsored study on climate change.
“This has come up so quickly,” said Martin. “No one really understands quite how the water department has come to the conclusion or has the confidence to say to Niagara, ‘We can meet your needs.’”
Niagara still needs site plan approval from the Town of Ulster to build the bottling plant. That will include at least one round of public comment as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act; the town board has declared itself lead agency for the SEQRA review. The company must also reach an agreement with the Kingston Water Department on the sale. Martin said that she wants to see the Common Council involved in the process, but it is unclear how much influence city lawmakers have over the deal.
It’s own thing, mostly
The city’s water department, like others in New York State was designed to operate autonomously. The department sets its own budget, establishes rates for service and issues its own bonds. The city charter also gives the department the exclusive right to enter into deals for the sale of municipal water. The department’s independence is by design — Kingston’s water system was built at the turn of the 20th century around the same time as the Ashokan Reservoir, and the first progressive reform movement.
Fearing manipulation or outright plunder by corrupt politicians, reform advocates pushed for the creation of independent bodies to oversee the construction and operation of large, expensive and complex public works.
A century later, the setup leaves elected officials — with the exception of the mayor, who appoints commissioners and holds a vote on the board — largely out of the loop on water department operations.
Strong opposition to the Niagara deal, if it persists, could put that hands-off tradition to the test. Common Council Majority Leader Matt Dunn (D-Ward 1) said that he had already examined portions of the charter relating to the Water Department and concluded that the department’s exclusive authority over sales only extended to residents, not commercial concerns.
“I think the council should have oversight in this case,” said Dunn. “But I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”
“Fearing manipulation or outright plunder by corrupt politicians.” My concerns in a nutshell. And as a resident of Lake Hill where Cooper Lake is located, I’m deeply concerned about the effect this will have on the community’s water table during drought season. We already experience low water pressure and sediment from our wells in summer months. I have real doubts whether our needs will be ‘given priority’ during drought season. This has to be addressed in the SEQR review.
NO WAY! Water is a resource not a commodity to sell off for profit,