DEP Response To Public Records Request Reveals A Total Blank
“This information is not telling you want (sic) to do.” (DEP State Geologist Steve Domber memo to water purveyors, 11/20/24
heron doesn’t have a lot of water to wade in. Alexauken Creek, West Amwell (July 11, 2010). Stream flow is even lower today. (photo: Bill Wolfe)
We’ve been here before.
During a drought, there is less water in the river – and less water is released from the reservoirs to maintain the flow of the river – which means less dilution available for pollution, which means the concentrations of pollutants are higher.
This means that everything that lives in the water (“aquatic life”, particularly sensitive species like trout) and relies on water (wetlands, stream buffer lands) is impacted negatively, including the drinking water systems that take that water from the river and treat it and send it to your home.
With respect to impacts on trout, Trout Unlimited is very concerned about impacts on Delaware Watershed trout fro reduced releases from NY City Catskill reservoirs. TU warned:
As many anglers and other river watchers have noted, significant reductions in releases occurred during the brown and brook trout spawning season. There’s no sugarcoating it; this is a painful situation for everybody. FUDR and TU are working with NYC and NYS looking for a path forward that will prevent further damage to the river and the fishery.
NJ has similar problems, including releases from Newark Watershed reservoirs to the Pequonnock River.
This means that during a drought, all the technical assumptions that DEP relies upon to set water quality standards and pollution discharge limits and treatment technology and risk assessment and minimum passing flows and reservoir releases are not valid. Keep in mind that there are hundreds (over 500) chemicals that DEP has been detected in NJ drinking water supplies that are NOT REGULATED. Their concentrations are increasing too.
The DEP Commissioner’s Administrative Order on the drought explicitly directs DEP to consider impacts on water quality (see paragraphs #5 and #6).
This is a big deal and a serious problem you would think DEP would be concerned about.
You would be wrong.
Over the last weeks, I’ve tried multiple times in multiple ways to get relevant information from DEP on the drought’s impacts on water quality and resultant risks to drinking water.
I’ve written to ask the DEP Commissioner. I’ve testified before and asked questions of the Drinking Water Quality Institute and the Water Supply Advisory Council and gotten stonewalled.
Last week, I filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for specific data on water quality above drinking water intakes, including documents and studies, based on DEP’s own Plans and documents, including DEP’s experience with the DEP’s 2016-2017 drought Order. For example, here is one of 3 OPRA requests I filed:
I request the following public records regarding the implementation and enforcement of Commissioner LaTourette’s ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2024-15, specifically with respect to paragraphs #5 and #6 and the “potential for water quality degradation associated with any reductions or transfers of water” set forth in paragraph #6. https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/drought/ao2024-15.pdf
1. Technical Reports and data regarding “concerns around water chemistry” and the “potential for chemical interactions between different treated waters and how that could impact corrosion of lead in domestic plumbing or lead service lines” (quoted language is from DEP Statewide Water Supply Plan, see Chapter 7, pages 204-205)
2. Technical Reports and data regarding the potential to “disturb biofilms and mineral deposits within distribution infrastructure and can create poor water quality conditions for customers.” (quoted language is from DEP Statewide Water Supply Plan, see Chapter 7, pages 204-205)
3. Technical Reports and data regarding “the concern of water quality impacts as a consequence of transferring water in ways beyond typical flows remains” (Water Supply Plan, see Chapter 7, pages 204-205)
4. Correspondence between the Department and permitted water purveyors regarding #1 – #3
Yesterday, I received DEP’s reply.
There are no monitoring data on water quality above intakes to understand the drought or levels of unregulated and regulated pollutants, or the ability of drinking water systems to treat this water.
There are no technical Report by DEP or water purveyors regarding impacts of transferring water and water chemistry leaching lead (the Flint, Michigan disaster).
All DEP provided were about 150 pages of emails regarding a single November 14, 2024 meeting with the water purveyors. The DEP meeting agenda did not even include water quality – here it is, no mention of water quality, or ecological or fisheries impacts either:
Particularly, the Department would like to discuss the following:
-
System demands
-
Passing Flow/Reservoir Release Modifications
-
Reservoir operations updates
-
Bulk Transfer Considerations
-
NJDEP Reservoir Model Forecasting capabilities
-
Recurring meetings
The only water quality issue raised in those emails was the risk of salt water intrusion on the Metedeconk River and risks to the Brick Municipal Utilities Authority system.
Worse, DEP went out of their way to highlight the fact that DEP was merely providing information and not requiring the water purveyor to do anything. Check this out for how lame DEP regulators have become – this email involved a model DEP created to optimize the releases from Split Rock Reservoir to augment Boonton Reservoir:
Please be aware that NJGWS is providing this information to help inform your thinking in regard to the best use of SplitRock. This information is not telling you want (sic) to do.
It is DEP’s legal responsibility to tell regulated water companies what to do!
Last year, I filed a petition for rulemaking to force DEP to monitor and mandate treatment to remove unregulated chemicals DEP knows are present in drinking water sources.
In the DEP denial document, they emphasized and touted their leadership
Monitoring and Disclosure of Unregulated Contaminants
The petitioner requests Department rulemaking to establish requirements for the monitoring of unregulated contaminants and the disclosure of any past and future occurrence of unregulated contaminants. As described in brief below, the Department’s many existing research initiatives, monitoring programs, intergovernmental collaborations, and regulatory efforts to address unregulated contaminants make clear the longstanding policy and practice of the Department to monitor unregulated contaminants and share occurrence data with the public. The petition is denied, insofar as it misunderstands or ignores Department policy and programs that already serve the requested ends, therefore rendering the petition moot.
I guess I’ve exposed that bullshit, specifically THIS DEP whopper:
the longstanding policy and practice of the Department to monitor unregulated contaminants and share occurrence data with the public.