Legislative History for Connecticut Act
PA 16-61 SB300 Senate 1457-1460, 1700-1701 6 Public Health 2169-2177, 2205-2207, 143 2222-2225, 2245-2253, 2256-2267, 2362-2466, 2945 House Transcripts have not been received. They are available 149 on CGA website, but are not the Official copy. Contact House Clerk for assistance (860) 240-0400
Transcripts from the Joint Standing Committee Public Hearing(s) and/or Senate and House of Representatives Proceedings
Connecticut State Library Compiled 2017 S - 695
CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE
PROCEEDINGS 2016
VOL. 59 PART 5 1368 – 1703
001457 kbk 90 SENATE April 28, 2016 c THE CLERK:
On Page 41, Calendar 349, substitute for S.B. No. 300, AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND, and there are amendments.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH):
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR: 0 Please proceed. SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH):
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO No. 5095. If he would please call that and I be allowed to summarize.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk, please.
THE CLERK:
LCO No. 5095, Senate "A", offered by Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH):
0 001458 kbk 91 SENATE April 28, 2016
0 Thank you. I move adoption.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator Gerratana. Please proceed.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH):
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. This bill is -- I should say, this amendment is a strike-all amendment.
The bill that was before us in the Public Health Committee, of course, had a hearing, and it was clear from the hearing that many of the people who participated from the community of New Britain, Southington and also Plainville, suggested that perhaps we should do an environmental study before proceeding with any further legislation.
0 So, this bill before us actually does that. It is particular to the city of New Britain, of whom -- or of which they shall commission an environmental study. It has the criteria for that study, and also sets in place some overview, as well as a timeline, including a public hearing in the city of New Britain. There's also two repealers of statutes that will no longer be necessary regarding this issue.
Again, I move adoption and urge the Chamber's support. Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator Gerratana. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Senator Witkos.
0 ...... ------. 001459 kbk 92 SENATE April 28, 2016
0 SENATOR WITKOS (8TH):
Thank you, Mr. President. I'd ask that the Chamber stand at ease at this time.
THE CHAIR:
The Chamber will stand at ease.
(Pause in proceeding)
The Senate will come back to order.
As the Chamber will remember, we are now -- S.B. No. 300 is before us. There's an amendment on -- on before us also.
At this point in time, any further comment on the amendment before the Chamber? Seeing no other further comment, I'll try the Chamber's mind on the 0 amendment before us.
All in favor -- all in favor signify by saying Aye.
SENATORS:
Aye.
THE CHAIR:
Opposed? Ayes have it. We have the bill before us, as amended. Any further comment as the bill before us? Senator Gerratana -- oh, sorry. Senator Markley.
SENATOR MARKLEY (16TH) :
0 001460 kbk 93 SENATE April 28, 2016
0 Thank you, Mr. President. But pardon me, Senator Gerratana, I just wan~ed to rise to say I think that this is a good solution for what could be an interesting situation.
This is a proposal that there's a lot of support for, both in terms of a large employer in the area that is eager to be able to continue with their operations efficiently, and the surrounding towns, which are supportive.
We've had to balance that against the environmental concerns in going into a watershed area, and I think that what the Committee has come up with is exactly the right solution, and I would urge the circle to support it. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator Markley. Any further comment on 0 the bill, as amended? Any further comment? Senator Gerratana.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH):
Thank you, Mr. President. If there's no objection, I would like to move this item to our Consent Calendar.
THE CHAIR:
Any objection to placing this bill on the Consent Calendar? Seeing none, the bill is moved to the Consent Calendar.
The Chamber will stand at ease for the moment.
The Chamber will come back -- come back to order. 0 001700 kbk 333 SENATE April 28, 2016
0 186, S.B. No. 262; Page 36, Calendar 203, ~ No. 240; Page 36, Calendar 222, S.B. No. 301; Page 36, Calendar 226, S.B. No. 179; on Page 37, Calendar 249, S.B. No. 122; Page 38, Calendar 257, S.B. No. 139; on Page 40, Calendar 333, S.B. No. 289; and on Page 41, Calendar 349, S.B. No. 300.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk, will you call for a roll call vote on Consent Calendar 1. The machine is open.
THE CLERK:
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate on the Consent Calendar for today. Immediate roll call in the Senate.
THE CHAIR:
0 Senator Gomes; Consent Calendar. Senator Hartley; thank you.
All members have voted. All members have voted. The machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk, will you call the tally, please?
THE CLERK:
On today's Consent Calendar
Total Number of Voting 36
Those Voting Yea 36
Those Voting Nay 0
Absent and Not Voting 0 0 001701 kbk 334 SENATE April 28, 2016 0 THE CHAIR:
The Consent Calendar passes. (Gavel)
Are there any points of personal privilege? Senator Leone. Senator Leone?
SENATOR LEONE (27TH):
Yes. Yes, Madam President, just for a purpose of an announcement?
THE CHAIR:
Please proceed, sir.
SENATOR LEONE (27TH):
For just-- for the General Law Committee, we'll 0 have a meeting for a referral 15 minutes prior to the start of the first session tomorrow. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you; so noted. Senator Winfield.
SENATOR WINFIELD (lOTH):
Yes, thank you, Madam President. The Housing Committee will be meeting at 10:30 outside the House Chamber.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Coleman.
SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : 0
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEALTH PART 5 2075 – 2593
2016
002169 71 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING ELLIE NICOLE: Thank you.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Thank you very much for your testimony. I don't see Senator Looney, when he comes; Mayor Stewart welcome and then Heather Wagner will wrap up 354. Mayor nice to see you.
MAYOR STEWART: Very nice to see you, thank you for having me here. Three minutes, I'll be as quick as possible so there is time for all the questions. Thank you very much Senator Gerratana and members of the Public Health Committee.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today in support of SENATE BILL 300, which is a piece of legislation that has the ability to make extraordinary quality of life changes for the betterment of our community in New Britain for not c just now but for hundreds of years to come. We held a town hall meeting on February 17th to discuss the creation of this new water source and many community leaders and I heard from residents about the dire need to relocate the blasting at Hill Pond Quarry. The further away from the homes the better because right now [indiscernible 54:56] and the blasting comes within 300 feet of some people's homes. This practice will continue for another 30 years unless this legislation is allowed to move forward. With this project, blasting would be moved farther away from homes up to 3000 feet away from day one.
While allowing the city of New Britain to lease 131.4 acres of water company property to Tilcon we would fulfill the wish of our residents and secure a new clean water reservoir that would benefit New c ------····-···· 002170 72 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
Britain and long term for the entire region. Our 0 city's founding fathers, The Stanley's, and some of you might know who they are from Stanley Works, had tremendous foresight to develop the water supply system that we have today and there hasn't been a new reservoir that created in Connecticut in the last 40 years. This proposed reservoir will provide fresh drinking water on a daily basis to thousands of residents and potentially for hundreds of thousands in the region during an emergency.
Think of the cooperation this water source could provide in help to keep local rivers and streams flowing. Wildlife would be able to spawn where dried brooks like the copper mine in Bethel are becoming a concern. The New Britain Water Company has been in existence for more than 150 years and we hold our drinking water standards and our responsibilities to the surrounding community very high. With the addition of this new reservoir the 0 New Britain Water Company's current water capacity will increase from 2.9 billion gallons to 7.6 billion gallons, that's an increase of 162%. The construction of this reservoir would increase our margin of safety insuring that we have an adequate supply of water and can help surrounding communities like Bristol, Berlin, Plainville, Southington, and any one downstream.
Additionally, the amount of class I watershed land, which we understand is very precious land, will increase from less than 10 acres right now to over 240 when the new reservoir is completed. That protected class I watershed is very important to the environment and I understand that disturbing it is not ideal. But, when we have the opportunity to go 002171 73 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING c from less than 10 acres of class I to more than 240 I believe the risk is worth the reward.
The amount of protected open space will also grow, Tilcon will be giving a total of 275 acres to the towns of New Britain, Plainville, and Southington. This is land Tilcon currently owns that will be giving up the rights if this reservoir is created. As a city of only 13.2 square miles New Britain closely guards its valuable assets. This project is consistent with the principals of being good stewards for our resources and responsibly preparing for our needs in the future. It is identified as a potential new source of drinking water in the city's approved water supply plan.
The environment, economic, financial, and residential value of this proposal for the greater New Britain region is tremendous and I urge you to c support this legislation. I want to thank you again for this opportunity to speak in support of this proposal. My Director of Water, Gil Bligh, is in attendance to my right here should you have any specific questions that I just may not be an expert on.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Mayor thank you very much. Did you want to say anything, or just -
GIL BLIGH: I will speak later.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Okay. Why don't you- you can speak now, it's fine if you're up here.
MAYOR STEWART: Go ahead. c 002172 74 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
REP. RITTER (1ST): I mean I know you love the 0 Committee and stay with us all night, but I would take the opportunity, that's right, yeah.
GIL BLIGH: Good afternoon Senator Gerratana and Representative Ritter and other members of the Public Health Committee.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Senate Bill 300, a bill that could change the amount of fresh drinking water available in central Connecticut for generations to come. Some will tell you this bill has revised an old argument allowing the city to lease its land to [indiscernible 58:15] will somehow threaten the state's high level of protection of land and drinking water around drinking water reservoirs. I will tell you that the only threat existing is if we do nothing. If communities need more drinking water how will they get it? 0
The way the law is written any changes to the land around drinking water reservoirs requires approval by the Department of Health. Such approval traditionally is only granted to small activities related to good management of public water. This, however, was not the case in New Britain when the filtration plant, the new filtration plant, was constructed between 2000 and 2004, which I was involved in.
The Connecticut Department of Health issued water company land permits for construction of the new filter plant and demolition of the old filter plant. Both permits were for change of use in class I and class II water company land. The activities included not only the blasting and removal of land 002173 75 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING c on class I watershed but also the crushing onsite of the blasted trap rock and the use of the crushed stone under the foundation of the new filter plant. So, there is precedence for allowing this type of change.
That project also involved the relocation of a class I water course that emptied directly into the [indiscernible 59:30] reservoir which was kept online during the whole process and when it was time for demolition on class I and II watershed lands all precautions were taken, and the project most importantly was reviewed and site audited many times by officials from both the federal EPA, the Connecticut Department of Ground Water Protection and the Connecticut State Health Department.
Some may argue rock mining ruins the natural landscape, natural vegetation, and should not be c approved in these special areas. While New Britain's [indiscernible 59:59] reservoir which is out second main distribution reservoir was built in the 1960's by blasting trap rock in what would now be class I land and using the blasted edge to build a dam on that same class I land. Removal of ledge is necessary function in construction. Are earth materials valuable? Sure. But, clean fresh drinking water supply is priceless.
Some may say there is no urgency for this reservoir, but good water supply engineering and planning requires this type of 40 year planning, it takes time. The placement of a 4.74 billion gallon reservoir adjacent to New Britain, Plainville, Berlin, and Southington, Bristol and Kensington is needed to secure the availability and reliability of class A drinking was for this region. If you allow c 002174 76 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
this legislation to move forward there will be 240 0 acres of beautiful water and open space. There'll be no roads or road salt to worry about, no industrial, commercial, or residential activities will be in the watershed.
The new reservoir will fill by both naturally occurring rainfall, through the dam, through existing upland supplies that are already state approved drinking water sources and when there's a need to fill drought stricken brooks and rivers the water from this reservoir could be shared to fill in. Thank you all to benefit the region [laughter] as this will be safe for generations to come. I thank you for your time and consideration.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Thank you very much for your testimony. I know there are some questions. My Co Chair, Senator?
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you and welcome of course back to our LOB Mayor Stewart and good to see you Gil.
You know, we've had discussion, I attended the meeting also with the neighborhood. There were many people there who had questions about this proposal, of course, there are no details in the contract. And, of course, it was brought up at that meeting that this was legislation that was passed in 2007 and then immediately repealed in 2008 mainly because of the environmental concerns and if you look at the testimony you'll see there are many many people who have testified both from New Britain and outside New Britain particularly about the environmental concerns because class I watershed, of course, is where we get out drinking water. So, having said 0 002175 77 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING c all that we also, at that meeting, talked about and I think the idea of coming up with a study to look at all aspects of this proposal in a very thoughtful way.
Certainly I got that message from people in the neighborhood who, of course, are concerned with Tilcon in general because of the blasting. I know my house rattles too when they do their blasting far away, but not that far away and as I said it seemed as though there was a consensus, and Mayor Stewart I know you sent me a letter also saying that, and your lobbyist that you just recently hired who represents Tilcon also sent me a letter saying we should really look at this and do a study. So, the bottom line here is, you know, after reading through some of the testimony and I understand the goal, the worthy goal, that the community has is, I would be looking for language that you might have to look at this c legislation and change it into, ah, looking for a study.
Now, whether the town or the city does that with the help of Tilcon that might be an appropriate approach. I have questions for Tilcon when they testify a little later on. But, you know, given all that to go there was a lot of people who commented about the fact that the city was going to sell water, not very long time ago. So, I think we have time to do a study over the next year or so before we go forward with a full blown proposal. I just wanted to make that clear. If you have any comments please feel free.
MAYOR STEWART: I think it's important to make sure that the process continues to move forward and I think that's what's most important here, is insuring c 002176 78 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
that, you know, the bill and whatever it does come out to look like insures that we are going to continue to move this process forward, that we're going to do those studies, we're going to see the feasibility of doing this project because I think is well worth it for the city, neighbors, Tilcon, everyone.
One thing in section 64 of special sessions Public Act 07-5 required and it's actually in Department of Public Health testimony that they submitted on this bill. It required the department to commission and supervise with an available appropriations and environmental evaluation of the potential effects including the effects of the listed above when this was passed once before. It was never conducted or completed. I'm not quite sure why, but that's certainly something that we would look at doing again. 0 GIL BLIGH: I just want to add that legislation didn't enable the city to do that study. If it had we would have gone forward with it.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Thank you. Senator Kane any questions?
SENATOR KANE (32ND): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon Mayor. The Mayor was my former legislative aid in the building, so it's good see you today.
MAYOR STEWART: It's good to be back. [laughter]
SENATOR KANE (32ND) : And a successful mayor of one of our bigger cities, so it's a pleasure to see you 0 002177 79 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING again today. I, I know that the, the Department of Public Health had some concerns and they listed a number of them. I just want to know that you feel that you can address those concerns or already have addressed those concerns so it makes this committee feel comfortable moving forward.
MAYOR STEWART: Yeah, and I think, to suggest, thank you Senator. You know, a lot of the concerns that they have would have been addressed before if that study did move forward and all of the items listed in their testimony that they provided are things that we would absolutely be able to address, if we had the proper information and proper study that was done.
SENATOR KANE (32ND): Right, thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you Mr. c Chairman. REP. RITTER (1ST): Yeah, thank you Senator. Any more questions? Seeing none. We appreciate your time today. Thank you Mayor, great to see you.
MAYOR STEWART: Thank you very much.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Ok, to wrap up on 354, Heather Wagner and then Senator Looney, yep we see the Senator present and he will be next.
HEATHER WAGNER: Good afternoon Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter and esteemed members of the Public Health Committee.
My name is Heather Wagner, I live in Burlington, Connecticut. I'm a board certified music therapist. I've been in practice for about 18 years. I c 002205 107 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING c ROBERT LEE: Same here. Thank you very much. Good afternoon Senator Gerratana, Representative Matthew Ritter, and members of the Public Health Committee.
My name is Robert Lee. I'm the General Manager for the town on Plainville, a position that I've held for over 12 years.
I'm here today to testify in support of SENATE BILL 300 which would allow Tilcon to expand their quarry operation in the town of Plainville, property owned by the New Britain Water Company. This legislation, if approved, would benefit three communities namely New Britain, Southington, and Plainville. The benefits to the three communities would include Tilcon transferring a total of 275 acres for permanent open space designation. This acreage would be forever protected from any future developments. In Plainville alone the open space c would total 157 acres. In addition Tilcon currently has authorization to conduct their quarry operation within 300 feet of existing homes. Under the proposed plan Tilcon would forego this area for future quarry operations and move it further away from the existing homes. The buffer created would be more than three times the distance that is currently allowed, namely, a minimum of 1000 feet.
Finally, when quarrying has been completed a new clean water reservoir will be created which will benefit the city of New Britain and the surrounding communities as well. In the end, all of the land and water would revert back to class I and class II designation. In conclusion, the quarry has been in operation in Plainville for almost 100 years. Tilcon is the second largest tax payer in the town of Plainville and employees almost 300 people at c 002206 108 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
that location. In addition to being an economic drive in our community, Tilcon has been a good corporate citizen as well as donating to many local charities and charitable causes. The bottom line is that SENATE BILL 300, I believe, is a win-win for the economy, the future water sources of the region, and the town of Plainville and the surrounding neighborhoods. I urge your support of this legislation and I think you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you Mr. Lee. Could you tell me how this benefits Plainville exactly?
ROBERT LEE: Part of it is the donation of the open space, 157 acres, which could otherwise be developed for housing, you know, in town. In addition it moves the blasting further away from the existing homes, gives a lot more buffer space, it allows Tilcon to stay in our community for many, for additional years beyond what their current operation would allow which will continue to maintain and pay taxes in our community as well as provide, you know, jobs for the community for years further on. And, and finally it would provide a safety valve for the town of Plainville if somewhere down, 30 - 40 years down the road we, we, need a source of water as well we can work with the New Britain Water Company to supply that as well.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH) : Thank you. So there's no monetary value to this. There's nothing that the town of Plainville would get in terms of any payment or anything along that line. It's just a benefit to the town in terms of a water resource.
ROBERT LEE: That's correct. 02207 109 March 7, 2016° kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): I see. Ok, well thank you so much for giving your testimony. There's nothing that I see online. If you haven't submitted it, please do so to our Public Health
ROBERT LEE: I apologize for that --
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH) : Either email or ok, thank you. Thank you for coming today. Next is Mary Jane Foster followed by Representative Hennessy.
MARY JANE FOSTER: Good afternoon Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter, members of the Public Health Committee. My name is Mary Jane Foster. I am Vice President of University Relations at the University of Bridgeport. I am a Bridgeport resident. I am a lawyer who has practiced in that city and I am a developer who's created businesses and jobs in the c city.
I want to thank you first of all for this public hearing and the opportunity for me to testify in support of H.B. 5534, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRACTICE OF NATUROPATHY. Obviously I wear several hats I offer this testimony. But, on behalf of the University of Bridgeport I can tell you that the passage of this bill and the very limited increase scope of practice it will afford naturopathy doctors in Connecticut is critical to the success and perhaps even the survival of our College of Naturopathic Medicine.
We have had the luxury of being the only naturopathic school in the northeast. In 2017 we will no longer have that luxury. A naturopathic medicine school is scheduled to open in Maryland at c 002222 124 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
I think it's Murphy-Setzko.
Doctor, how are you today?
DR. MARTIN DINEP: Thank you. We're on, I assume? Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue today, after an eight-year hiatus. I hope I don't have to come back and haunt this Committee some day in the future because some -- in 2007 --
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Dr. Dinep, could you please identify yourself
DR. MARTIN DINEP: Oh, Martin
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): -- because we need that for the record.
DR. MARTIN DINEP: Yes. I'm a citizen in New Britain, Connecticut. 0
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): And your name?
DR. MARTIN DINEP: Martin Dinep
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you.
DR. MARTIN DINEP: -- M.D.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you.
DR. MARTIN DINEP: We went through the same procedure eight years ago, and in 2007 Tilcon, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CRH Group, which has a dominant position in North American markets, proposed to extend activities into 131 acres of the Shuttle Meadow watershed. 0 002223 125 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Despite some local support at that time, with the aid of hundreds of citizens of New Britain and from around the state, we accomplished what the citizens of Flint, Michigan couldn't; and that is, we defeated that effort.
Persistence is one of the virtues of this firm, and as is long-range planning. The present plan is essentially the same plan as that of 2007 with some more sugarcoating, and presented very nicely. I have to congratulate whoever wrote up the original proposal.
A reservoir of land grants for open space and money that will, unfortunately, decrease in value with inflation over time, and I do not plan to discuss those but would be happy to answer questions, if there are questions, about all the gifts that are c coming to the communities involved.
Towns and cities always need money, as Tilcon is well aware, and they are trying to avoid moving their activities either across the highway to the north side, or to some other area, and this is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to CRH, and I can't blame them for that.
Every day the quarry operates, the flow into the Shuttle Meadow water system is diminished; but that was a battle that we lost many years ago, and they have every right to continue what they're doing. Now we have laws and regulations to protect our rare, natural water sources; streams, ponds and forests.
And as Mayor Stewart, in her report on water quality c 002224 126 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
in 2013 states, we enjoy an abundant water supply from eight sources; Shuttle Meadow, Wassel, Whigville, Wolcott, White Bridge, Hart Ponds and Nepaugh Reservoirs. Combined they hold about 3 billion gallons of water. They also have two wellfields. The department leases the Patton Bridge wellfield to the Town of Southington.
This system was designed when New Britain had about 15 percent more people than it does now, and also Stanley Works, Fafnir Bearings, Emhart, North and Judd, and numerous other factories which needed water.
In the end, the reality is --
REP. RITTER (1ST): Doctor, I'm sorry, do you mind just summarizing your testimony, please?
DR. MARTIN DINEP: Excuse me? 0
REP. RITTER (1ST): Do you mind summarizing your testimony, please?
DR. MARTIN DINEP: Okay.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Thank you very much, sir.
DR. MARTIN DINEP: Yes. The issue here is about water and weakening the environmental law impacts on the whole state and beyond, as lines in maps do not limit.
This, if it went through, is about the worst possible thing you could do on a watershed, and would set an example where you could not deny almost any kind of uses if there's somebody who was 002225 127 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING c interested in exploiting our watershed. And we believe it would be a crime to approve this switch.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Thank you very much. And please be sure, if possible, to submit your testimony online or we can give it to one of the clerks.
DR. MARTIN DINEP: If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Yep. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony, sir, we appreciate it.
DR. MARTIN DINEP: Thank you.
REP. RITTER (1ST): Jenn and then Dr. Murphy-Setzko will be next. Hi Jenn, how are you? c JENNIFER MACIEROWSKI: Good, how are you? Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter, Senator Markley and distinguished Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano. My name is Jennifer Macierowski, and I am Chief Counsel to the Senate Minority Leader. Len could not be here today and he appreciates your indulgence in allowing me to present this testimony.
We also want to take a minute to thank each and every one of you for your hard work last year, and your assistance on S.B. No. 811. Together we passed groundbreaking legislation that has become a model around the country. At that time, both Senator Looney and Senator Fasano said that S.B. No. 811 was not a panacea, and was not the last word in our efforts to break down barriers to competition in our c 002245 147 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING c body that allows M.D.-licensed anesthesiologists to provide services to patients in dental offices, it must include the exact equivalent requirements for emergency medications, emergency equipment and on-site evaluations of the provider, and the anesthesia team, that we currently have in place. H.B. No. 5538, as currently written, does not include these provisions.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you, sir. Thank you for your testimony.
DR. MICHAEL SAFIAN: Thank you for having me.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you. Next to testify is Rachel Gaudio followed by Margaret Miner.
RACHEL GAVDIO: Good afternoon Honorable Co-Chairs and esteemed members of the Public Health Committee. c My name is Rachel Gavdio and I am the legal fellow for Connecticut Fund for the Environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on bill ~ AN ACT CONCERNING WATER COMPANY LANDS. Connecticut Funds for the Environment opposes this bill as it sets dangerous precedent for the protection of drinking water wetlands, and watersheds.
Further, we request that the General Assembly consider placing a moritorium on major water use and development projects until a new state water plan is complete.
First, this bill seems to attempt to bypass The Department of Public Health power over water company lands as quantified in Connecticut General Statute c 002246 148 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
section 25-32, which states that the Commissioner of 0 Public Health must grant permits for the sale, lease, and change of class I land. That is the type of land involved in this proposed sale.
Furthermore, the lands currently owned by (indiscernible) Water Company are of the type the legislator has expressly intended to protect under general statute section 7-131(d), which cedes that class I and II lands shall be preserved in purportuity, predominately a more natural and scenic, and more open condition for the protection of natural resources.
Allowing Tilcon to mine this land and later convert it to a reservoir is not only contrary to state law, but is not necessary for the protection and provision of totable water. Mining these lands would destroy the natural resources currently on the land. 0
Finally, this bill should be rejected because it sets dangerous precedents for open lands and nature. Specifically, the bill undermines existing protection of other class I and II lands, and the bill language will not be able to stop other water companies in the future from exploiting their class I and II lands in order to take advantage of the high market value of earth materials found therein.
This bill will create a slippery slope allowing water companies to use protective lands for industrial use in the future. Based on data presented thus far, there is no pressing need for a reservoir at New Brittain given the proposed lease will last 40 years, there is no reason why such a project cannot be postponed until it can be 0
I I l 002247 149 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING c implemented within the compresshensive state wide water plan currently being developed.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this important matter.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it.
RACHEL GAVDIO: Thank you.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Next is Margaret Miner followed by Gary Wall.
MARGARET MINER: Hello gentleman, Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter. I am Margaret Miner with Rivers Alliance of Connecticut. I am here to testify on two bills, S.B. 300, which involves the New Brittain project, and 5540, which is an ACT c CONCERNING WATER PLANNING COUNCIL. I've submitted testimony on both bills. The case - the question of need and whether it will be of benefit to New Brittain is extremely difficult to calculate, but to take into account the 100 acres of class I and class II land that are now scheduled to be turned into a rock quarry, so that more water can be stored in a reservoir; those 100 acres do store water right now. They store it in the land and it's vegetated. The store and they clean it, and that is why for some 40 years we've had these class I and class II protections on these lands, which are the highest priority in all state open space goals, and DPH - I don't think it would be possible for this project to meet DPH standards and we do not feel the standards should be broken. In terms of the blasting, I just want to mention since New Brittain is here, some of that blasting will be within 200 feet of a natural c 002248 150 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
gas pipeline, and I would strongly recommend that if it does go forward, and not go that close to the natural gas pipeline. rif>~~qD The bill for the water planning - the water plan - the state water plan; our testimony outlines some of the problems and what we think the fix is. This is a multi-stakeholder bill that was created by the Waterworks Association, environmental groups, agriculture groups, many different stakeholders contributed; we are just trying to fix a simple problem which you will well understand. The way the bill - there are a couple - problems.
The way the bill is written now, will all work - water product council work for two to three years, bring it to the legislature. The legislature, committees and (indiscernible) can change the bill in any way that they feel is appropriate, and then it goes straight up for a floor vote. 0
It never goes back to the water planning council or to the stakeholders who worked on it, so we've put in a 60-day turnaround, which is pretty quick; at least let the water party council have the opportunity to respond to legislators concerns. That is (indiscernible).
We have a couple of other aspects that we think improve it, but the most obvious thing is that right now that people are already lining up, including me, to come to you people and say "We want this and we want that in the water plan", and at this point it would be good to keep it an even field. None of us know what is in it, so let's get the approval process fixed now. 002249 151 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING So, that is my testimony on those two bills, except to say that a lot of critical habitat bird pools and so forth are in this class I, class II land that is scheduled to become a rock quarry.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Okay, okay, thank you so much for your testimony. I couldn't tell for House Bill 5540, are you saying that was a workgroup that came together and everyone agrees on this or?
MARGARET MINER: Actually, individually. The Water Planning Council Advisory group discussed this last year, and this year we vetted the language, we consulted with each other.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Gottcha.
MARGARET MINER: - stakeholder group. Our recommendations to the Water Planning Council did c not make them very happy, but we felt strongly enough that individually we have moved forward on the legislation.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Okay, thank you so much.
MARGARET MINER: You're welcome.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thanks for testifying. Next is Gary Wall followed by Jamie Geontonio.
GARY WALL: Good afternoon Senator Gerratana, and distinguished members of the Public Health Committee. My name is Gary Wall. I am the president of Tilcon Connecticut. I am here today to respectfully urge your support of S.B. 300, an ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITTAIN WATER COMPANY LAND. c 002250 152 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
Tilcon has been a leading supplier of crushed stone 0 (indiscernible) concrete, paving, and construction services for almost 100 years. Our quarry at the Plainville-New Brittain headquarters is one of our largest. We have 41 facilities in the state. In our Plainville-New Brittain quarry we have about half of our employees work out of that operation.
At Tilcon we pride ourselves not only on the quality of our products and work, but on being environmentally conscious, and being a valuable economic contributor to the community. The legislation would allow us to build a reservoir in the city of New Brittain, and provide an environmental community and economics benefits. It would be a win for all parties.
The project would expand the watershed land and protect open space, increase the regions supply of drinking water, move mining and blasting operations 0 a greater distance away from neighbors, retain hundreds of jobs locally, and extend the life of the operation.
In exchange for the mineral rights of the 131 acres owned by the city within the town of Plainville, Tilcon would donate up to 327 acres of land; 275 currently owned and one parcel that we would purchase with the agreement.
In the end, it is a three in one exchange of open space. New Brittain would receive 95 acres, Plainville 157 acres, and Starlington 175 acres.
The proposal would enhance the regions resource for future generations by allowing us to develop a new deep water reservoir. Creating the reservoir would 0 002251 153 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING c transform acreage currently zoned heavy industry and reclass it into watershed land.
In the end, the net increase would be 240 acres of total watershed property. The project would benefit the quarry's neighbors by initiating a longterm shift in mining operations away from the neighborhoods in both Plainville and New Brittain. Immediately we would minimize the impact of blasting as encouraged by creating a one thousand foot buffer on both sides (the east and west sides), which is Plainville and New Brittain.
The project would not result in any change in the public view of our site. I did submit mapping and the overall plan to the Committee.
Finally, extending the quarry operations of Plainville and New Brittain for another 40 years c would maintain one of the regions most significant tacked resources, seeing annual investment of up to $40 million. The project would be a win-win.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you and thank you for summarizing. Thank you Mr. Wall for coming here today. Urn, of course, you know, I've heard a lot of testimony, and one of the concerns I think the environment, and many of the environmental organizations have come out and they are opposed to doing anything with the property right now. Would you - would Tilcon be opposed an environmental quality study in the area?
GARY WALL: No, not at all.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Okay. c 002252 154 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
GARY WALL: We would want that. 0
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Okay and one other thing that crossed my mind, and certainly I hope it doesn't happen with Tilcon, is that sometimes businesses do go out of business unfortunately, and they leave projects that they promised on the table. Would you be opposed to an escrow account of some kind, putting money in there to assure that the reservoir project would be completed?
GARY WALL: I have no problem with that.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you, thank you very much.
Senator Markley has a question.
SENATOR MARKLEY (16TH): Thank you Senator. An interesting question Mr. Wall, the new issue for me 0 anyways, urn, it was brought up before that the Department of Public Health was authorized to do a review or under normal circumstances would do a review of such a project. Is that your understanding, and is there any hesitation about bringing it before the Department of Public Health?
GARY WALL: We met with the Department of Public Health already.
SENATOR MARKLEY (16TH): And they have given you the go ahead for the project?
GARY WALL: No they did not. They recommended we come here.
SENATOR MARKLEY (16TH): Okay, thank you very much. 002253 155 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you. Thank you very much for coming today and giving your testimony. We appreciate it.
GARY WALL: Thank you.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Next is Jamey Giotonio followed by Homer White.
I don't see Jamey here. Homer White. Oh Carolyn, is Carolyn here? Oh Carolyn, yes please come up and give testimony. I didn't see you there. And, carolyn will be followed by Pat Dorsey.
Welcome.
CAROLYN TRISS: Thank you Senator Gerratana and Markley, Representative Ritter. I do appreciate the c Committee's indulgence this evening and allowing me to testify when I missed my turn. Urn, and I do thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Permanent Commission on the status of women and in support of Senate Bill 216, AN ACT WITHSTANDING THE SALES TAX EXEMPTION TO INCLUDE FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS AND DISPOSABLE OR REUSABLE DIAPERS. And for the record, my name is Carolyn Triss.
If you ask any woman in this room if she considers the purchase and use of feminine hygiene products to be a necessity, one for which there is not a suitable substitute, I can guarantee every single one will say "yes". If you ask them if they consider the purchase of such products to be a luxury, I can guarantee you they will say "no". c 002256 158 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
CAROLYN TRISS: Thanks for allowing me again to -
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Certainly. Next is Pat Dorsey followed by Gary Garewski. Pat Dorsey here? Gary you're up.
GARY GAREWSKI: Good afternoon everybody.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Good afternoon.
GARY GAREWSKI: My name is Gary Garewski and I am a resident of View Street in Plainville, and I am here about the Tilcon article 300 to tell what it has been like living in that area, and explain to you the truth of what we as residents see. What no one has told you at this hearing is that they are planning on blasting a state park. On a map - driving map or Google it, there is a nice little book about state park. It is called Boys Rock. It is also called Indian Head Rock because it has a 0 nice hike. I was up there yesterday. I would like to leave you guys this thing, urn, it has been a state park. The book - I didn't bring documents, I didn't bring an Apple computer.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Gary, what is the name of the state park?
GARY GAREWSKI: It was called Sunset Rock. It is also called Boys Rock, where Boy Scouts used to hike up to and camp out, and they still do. But, I would like to leave this stuff with you if I can?
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Sure.
GARY GAREWSKI: Except my book because it is a nice little book that I - 0 002257 159 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Okay.
GARY GAREWSKI: If you would like to look at it, it is still available online.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Good. So, are you in favor of the bill or opposed to it?
GARY GAREWSKI: Oh, totally opposed to it.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Oh okay.
GARY GAREWSKI: They - I've lived there 55 years.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Oh my.
GARY GAREWSKI: I hiked up there with my children. My brothers have lived in those woods. We know deal c with blasts from Tilcon where they call the residents on our street to tell them to get ready cause' take your valuables of the shelf and take your pictures off the wall cause' we are about ready to knock your socks off.
Instead of documents, pictures of the damages done to our neighborhood, walls falling down, ground water damage, urn and some of the other water runoff damage - left us in a 911 situation where there is no one to get ahold of.
I did take pictures yesterday too because words can't do it, of 500 feet behind these homes that they plan on a 1000 foot buffer to start blasting. Pictures of the quarry and the years of blasting. I want you to realize that these aren't thousands, these are tens of thousands - these are hundreds of c 002258 160 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
thousands of blasts that have occurred in this 0 quarry where the TNT and the nitroglycerin and the dynamite go into the atmosphere and into the drinking and into the water.
So-
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH) : Thank you. You can leave the materials with me.
GARY GAREWSKI: I will do that.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): And thank you for giving your testimony. And, I went online. It is a state park, what you are saying, Sunset Rock State Park. There we go. Ashley will take the material.
Thank you for giving your testimony today.
Next is Rebecca Hern followed by Juan Sanchez. 0
REBECCA KARABIN-AHERN: Good evening Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter, and distinguished members of the Public Health Committee.
My name is Rebecca Karabin-Ahern. I'm a third generation business owner of Acme-Monaco and a homeowner in Plainville that both border Tilcon's operations. We strongly object to bill 300. Disassembling class I and class II land is setting a very bad precedent for the state of Connecticut. I did attend both public hearings in Plainville and in New Britain in the last few weeks. I have to say in Plainville virtually every citizen there was against this bill 300 and in New Brittain, I know Senator Gerratana you were there, about 50% of the citizens were against this possible bill. 0 002259 161 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Residents of both communities are educated enough to realize the negative environmental impact, what happens to threatened species, vernal pools, critical habitats. No one has been able to answer this for us. Lastly, the Tilcon operation is about BOO feet from our facility, Acme-Monaco. We've put in significant investments in the last three years into our company including a $1 million clean room for medical assemblies. We have 120 employees in Connecticut and over 200 employees worldwide.
We're consistently being courted by other states and other cities to relocate. I have to say we've given it serious consideration with the levels of dust clogging our HEPA filters, 101 documented cracks in our foundation, and the collapsing of a masonry wall two years ago. It makes it difficult for us to ignore this. Please do not put this BILL 300 c forward. It's hurtful to our environment and only financially benefits the company that's headquartered, not in New Britain, not in Connecticut; but headquartered in Ireland. Thank you.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you Rebecca, thank you for your testimony, we do appreciate it. Thanks for being patient. Next is Juan Sanchez followed by Sigrun Gadwa, sorry.
JUAN SANCHEZ: [indiscernible 2:11] before you start timing me I understand I have 180 seconds. I just want to say that I have a new appreciation, I've been here since orie o'clock, of the time and effort being put into these hearings.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Why thank you. c 002260 162 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
JUAN SANCHEZ: And I think I'm developing a new appreciation for adult diapers as well [laugher] . At any rate my name is Juan Sanchez and I'm an [indiscernible 2:46] --
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you sir.
JUAN SANCHEZ: I'm also a member of the Connecticut Botanical Society. I currently live in [indiscernible 2:52], Connecticut, however I grew up in Plainville and graduated from Plainville High School 52 years ago, used to play on the ridges in that whole [indiscernible 3:00] region including what's now Tilcon, at one time was Tomasso, and then Tilcon-Tomasso. I never snuck onto Tilcon's land, but I did sneak onto Tomasso's land.
At first glance this looks like an agreement, this BILL 300 looks like a private agreement between the 0 city of New Brittain and Tilcon-Tomasso, but it's more complex than that. I am opposed to this bill for a number of reasons. I have some thoughts on it. To begin with the trap rock leech system in Connecticut is really very extensive and very unique. There are few systems like this, not only in the United States but in the world. This system goes virtually from the sound up through most of Massachusetts. It's a very unique system, very unique habitat. If you look it up on geological I monuments, trap rock monuments, it's listed as number three in the country. Its number three on I· the list, but it's actually more extensive and I larger than the Columbia River Gouge trap rock ridge j in Oregon or the one in Colorado. So, it's really a I pretty fascinating habitat. l j I 0 002261 163 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING On just a quic~ tour of that habitat, well actually you can go on Wikipedia with my short time and you can look it up and see what they say about this fault block mountain range, but what --
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): What is the name of the mountain range again?
JUAN SANCHEZ: Well, it's actually Metacomet Ridge. It's called the Metacomet
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Oh, the Metacomet Ridge, yep.
[Indiscernible 4:28 - talking over each other]
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you.
JUAN SANCHEZ: Metacomet Mountain, Metacomet Range. c But one of the things they do point out is that it's important recreational area located within ten miles of 1.5 million people. People use this, and use it on a regular basis. They also point that it's been the source of conservation efforts on state, local, and even national levels for a long time.
As a consequence of that working with the National Park Service, the New England Scenic Trail was put together starting in Branford, Connecticut, a section and then taking the trap rock ridge system, and going all the way through Massachusetts to, ah, to, ah whatever that state is, New Hampshire, yes that's what state it is.
So, I'm not going to go into anything. The speech is on micro-habitats, because I don't have time. But, I do have some questions for Tilcon. First c 002262 164 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
off, how much longer will Tilcon be.able to continue operations if they do not acquire mineral rights to this watershed land? And I know I don't want to see them developing the land they currently own, but they have a right to do that legally and by their previous agreements. The city of New Britain owns the land right now; they would end up with a severely degraded habitat, the proposal calls for creating a reservoir.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH) : Urn, can you summarize your testimony for us please?
JUAN SANCHEZ: Has a study been done saying that we need a reservoir? I think not. Have they taken into consideration new climate predictions that the northeast will get between 8 and 12% more precipitation in the next 30 to 40 years than we currently have. And finally, Steve Teller at Yale did studies on people in a natural environment and 0 biodiversity and there are current studies, that were 25 years ago, just recently this past year several articles appeared in Science Daily concerning the idea that biodiversity areas continues to both quality of life and longevity of life people in these habitats.
We have a wonderful recreational opportunity there, we also have enough endangered species, you can't see the map but there are endangered species circles including Bradley Mountain which
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): I have a question, did you, your map that you have, did you look at the presentation that Tilcon gave us -
JUAN SANCHEZ: Yes. 002263 165 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH) : Which included maps in the area.
JUAN SANCHEZ: I have their maps and they're going to move right into the Bradley Mountain area, while supposedly, where there are endangered species circles and state natural resources habitat base.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Ok. [Indiscernible 7:04 - talking over each other] Thank you for that.
JUAN SANCHEZ: They would do a project like this without number 1 studying for reservoir and number 2 have an environmental impact statement.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Right, they're not opposed to doing an environmental quality -- c JUAN SANCHEZ: I just heard that today.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Study, yep.
JUAN SANCHEZ: I have books here; this is above table, this is not a bribe [laughing], that we would like to send to you. They are put together by the_ botanical society about the trap rock ridge system, not directly related to the --
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Fascinating, thank you.
JUAN SANCHEZ: [indiscernible 7:34 - talking over each other] information and I will leave these with you.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Ashley is going to take them from you and we appreciate that. c 002264 166 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
JUAN SANCHEZ: Well, I think that is 15 actually, thank you for your time.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you so much, thank you for coming in. I can see you care deeply about the area. Thank you.
JUAN SANCHEZ: Thank you.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Let's see, next we have Robert Patricells, I'm sorry it's a handwriting I can't read; Dr. Cynthia Heller, oh I'm sorry.
SIGRUN GADWA: You said I was to follow Juan Sanchez. I'm Sigrun Gadwa.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Oh, I'm sorry. You're Sigrun.
SIGRUN GADWA: Oh yes.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): You're absolutely right, I'm terribly sorry. Thank you.
SIGRUN GADWA: Representative Ritter, Senator Markley, Senator Gerratana, and esteemed members of the Committee, urn, I am speaking today as the Chair of the Ecology and Education Committee, a statewide group, The Connecticut Botanical Society.
I've got written testimony with input from various other board members which I'll be leaving with you. I, urn, the Botanical Society authorized giving you those books because we feel that we have a tremendous resource here in the, with our trap rock 0 002265 167 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. c PUBLIC HEARING ridges, tremendous recreational resource, aesthetic resource which is really not well enough understood.
There's not enough, a lot of people are not aware that there are these absolutely beautiful trails and I wanted to say, urn, they're unique for several reasons. The, they have, rather than the dense underbrush, which is so characteristic of many Connecticut natural areas which turns off a great many people. They don't want to walk through thicket. There are these natural grass glades, it's actually Pennsylvania sage in the higher and drier areas, they're very park like and there are beautiful rock formations and lots of really lovely wildflowers. That's why the Connecticut Botanical Society is so passionate about the trap rock ridges.
And, also there are the most amazing productive huge vernal pools that are characteristic of every trap c rock ridge that I've ever studied and I have been, as a consulting [indiscernible 10:27], I graduated from, I got my Bachelor's from Brown and my Masters in [indiscernible 10:34] from UConn Storrs and I've been working both for non-profits and as a private consultant since 1988 and for the University of Connecticut.
Urn, we feel that there needs to be the whole nine yards of an environmental impact statement for this area and we also are very well aware that while many of the trap rock ridges are truly outstanding and beautiful other than severely degraded, mostly by invasive species. I want to wait until; I want to wait until you can hear me.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Oh I can hear you. c 1··11 002266 168 March 7, 2016 kbk/jh/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
SIGRUN GADWA: What I'm trying to say is very important. Urn, all trap rock habitats are not alike; there are a lot of areas that have the valuable rock under them that have been degraded by invasive species, urn, because the soil is very suited to barberry, burning bush, and a number of the worst invasive species. There needs to be, in our opinion, urn, careful study of which areas would result in the least harm to biodiversity.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Well thank you, can you give a summary of your testimony for us please?
SIGRUN GADWA: Yes. I will. The Committee needs to consider that all the open space areas that are to be protected are already forested. This will result in the loss of 131 acres of forest. Forest is extremely important for filtering air pollution. There are a lot of fine particulate air pollution from I-84 and 72 in this area as well as from the 0 Tilcon operation that is a public health consideration and urn needs to be analyzed. There are significant wetlands impacted, which should be reviewed by the Environmental Committee.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Right.
SIGRUN GADWA: And I will, I have figures showing the very obvious vernal pools you can see just by looking at an aerial photograph. Two pools may easily have endangered - -
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Would you like to leave that with us?
SIGRUN GADWA: Yes I would. 0 002267 169 March 7, 2016 kbk/jn/mc PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE 1:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING c SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Oh great, I'll ask, Ashley is going to collect it from you.
SIGRUN GADWA: Ok, I think have four sets of everything. So --
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Ok.
SIGRUN GADWA: And I'm going to sent --
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): We can make some copies. Thank you so much. Thank you for coming today.
SIGRUN GADWA: This is a letter that you already have electronically.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Thank you for coming today. c SIGRUN GADWA: You're welcome.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): All right, next is Robert Patricells followed by Dr. Cynthia Heller followed by Jim Iacobellis. Do we have any of those individuals here? Robert Patricells? I don't know, it's the printing. Are you Dr. Cynthia Heller?
DR. CYNTHIA HELLER: Yeah I am.
SENATOR GERRATANA (6TH): Ok. Welcome.
DR. CYNTHIA HELLER: Good afternoon Senator Gerratana and Representative Ritter and the members of the Public Health Committee.
My name is Cynthia Heller, I'm a practicing primary care physician in South Windsor for 25 years and I'm c 002362
CITY OF NEW BRITAIN 0
The Honorable Erin E. Stewart Mayor
Mayor Erin E. Stewart Testimony: Re: Senate Bill No. 300: An Acting Concerning New Britahl Water Company Land Public Health Committee Public Hearing March 7, 2016
Good afternoon Senator Gerratana and other members of the Public Health Committee.
I thank you for this opportunity to speak in suppmt of Senate Bill300-a piece oflegislation that has the ability to make extraordinary quality of life changes- for the better- in our community for generations to come.
During a Town Hall meeting on Febtuary 17'" to discuss the creation of a new water source, many community leaders and I heard from residents about the dire need to relocate the blasting at Tilcon quarry. The furthe~/ away from homes the better. Right now Tilcon can come with-in 200 feet ofsomeone's home. ./
This practice will continue for another 30 years unless this legislation is allowed to move forward. With this project, blasting would be moved farther away from homes-up to 3,000 feet away. <, c ' I By allowing the City ofNew Britain to lease 131.4 acres of water company property to Tjlcon, we will fulfill this wish of our residents AND secure a new clean water reservoir that will benefit New Brit~ and long term the entire region.
Our city's founding fathers, the Stanleys- yes from the famous Stanley Works, had tremendous foresight to develop the water supply system that we have today.
But as we have seen recently with issues surrounding clean drinking water supplies, and the on again off again water alerts- more commonly known as draughts - there is an urgent need for the region to have another water resource.
There hasn't been anew reservoir created in Connecticut in 40 years! This proposed reservoir will provide fresh drinking water on daily basis to thousands of residents and potentially for hundreds of thousands of in the region during an emergency. And think of the cooperation this water source could provide in helping to keep the local rivers and streams flowing. Wildlife would be able to spawn, where now dry brooks like the Copperrnine in Bristol are a major concern .
. 27 West Main Stteet, New Britain, Cf 06051 Td, 860.826.3303 Fax, 860.826.3308 www.newbtitainct.gov [email protected] 0 002363
The New Britain Water Company has been in existence for more than 150 years and we hold our drinking water c standards and our responsibility to the surrounding community very high. With the addition of this new reservoir, the New Britain Water Company's current water capacity will increase from 2.9 billion gallons to 7.6 billion gallons-an increase of 162 percent. That is half the size of the Nepaug Reservoir which is in Canton and supplies the MDC - Metropolitan District Commission.
The construction of this reservoir would increase our margin of safety, ensuring that we have an adequate supply of water and could help surrounding communities like Bristol, Berlin, Plainville, Southington and anyone downstream. If you have ever been without fresh water-think the October snow storm of2012-no power for days aod NO water. How would you survive? This new reservoir would ensure that would never happen.
Additionally, the amount of Class 1 watershed land-precious land - will increase from less than 10 acres to nearly 240 acres when the new reservoir is completed. This protected Class 1 watershed is very important to the environment and I understaod disturbing it is not ideal. But when we have the opportunity to go from less thao I 0 acres to more than 240 acres- I believe the risk is worth the reward. ·
The amount of protected open space will also grow. Tilcon will be giving a total of275 acres to the towns of New Britain, Plainville, and Southington. This is land Tilcon currently owns but will be giving up the rights to if this reservoir is created.
As a city of only 13.2 square miles, New Britain closely guards its valuable assets. This project is consistent with the principles of being good stewards of our resources aod responsibly preparing for our needs in the future aod it is identified as a potential new source of drinking water in the City's approved Water Supply Plao.
The environmental, economic, ftnaocial, and residential value of this proposal for the greater New Britain region is tremendous and I urge you to support this legislation.
0 Thank you again for this opportunity to speak in support of this proposal. My Director of Water, Gil Bligh, is in attendance, should you have any specific questions.
27 West Main Street, New Britain, CT 06051 Te~ 860.826.3303 Fax: 860. 826.3308 www.newbritainct.gov mayor@newbrit!lincr.sov 0 002364
0 To Members of the Public Health Committee:
I am opposed to SB 300 for the following reasons:
(1) The deal between Tilcon and the City of New Britain would set a bad precedent which would be surely used for other land swapping deals throughout the state. If passed, the bill would weaken essential protections for our drinking water supplies.
(2) It is premature to make major decisions about water supply before the statewide water plan is completed. Protection of our water supply is vital to our citizenry, economy, and other natural resources as well.
Sincerely,
Sylvia S. Schindler 16 Copper Beech Court Kensington, CT 06037 c
0 ' 002365
c Dear Representatives Markley, Ritter, Senators Kennedy & Gerratana,
I strongly object Bill300. Disassembling Class 1 and Class 2 watershed sets a bad precedent for Connecticut. Mining in this precious area will destroy endangered species. Please stop this bill from going forward. Destroying watershed property is devastating to everyone. Sincerely Tessa Mah Sent from my iPhone
c
0 002366
c Dear Public Health Committee members:
I am writing to express my concern over,SB 300 which is being considered by your committee on 3/07/16.
This proposal raises high a very red flag with regard to future watershed protection throughout our state. The area being considered is also unique ecosystem comprised of unique flora and fauna and should be conserved as such. It must not be forfeited as part of a business proposal from a private entity.
Respectfully yours,
Susan Robinson
CT Botanical Society Board
Redding Conservation Commission c
c 002367
c I wanted you to know that I am NOT in favor of any leasing of the reservoir to Tilcon. New Britain has a great water supply. The public welfare is at stake,for all the resident of New Britain now and in the future. Water is life.Please do not vote for this until a lot more research is done. This is very important to the people of New Britain. This seems like this profit over people. The reservoir of one of New Britain valuable resources. This sounds a lot like when Casco want to build on the Stanley golf course or when the Art museum wanted to expand in Walnut Hill Parle DO NOT let TILCON use OUR water supply for PROFIT!!! Also why is the hearing for the public at II :am on Monday when most people are workiog? Thank you for your service to the people of New Britain. Sincerely Susan Favreau 25 Emmons Place
c
0 002368
c Sirs/Mmes: I am very much against the proposed Tilcon quarrying proposal in Plainville. The environmental destruction of valuable wetlands and wildlife habitat is unacceptable. It is long past time to put the environment and its creatures ahead of near term human profit and pleasure.
Respectfully, Roger Emerick
c
0 002369
c I am opposed to SB 300. I think it is a bad idea to allow private companies access on land that drains to the public water supply. This weakens the protections for our drinking water. The effects of climate change over the long term are unknown. We should protect our water supply from possible degradation in the future. In addition the state is preparing a statewide water plan, we should wait for that before making any commitments to allow commercial use of this land.
Thank you,
Royal Graves 21 Prospect St. Wethersfield, CT 06109
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com c
c 002370
c Dear Representatives Ritter and Markley, Senator Kennedy and Senator Gerratana, Please do not put bill300 forward. This is bad policy to disassemble Class I and Class II lands. This is terrible for our environment and our endangered species. Thank you
Shannon Jones Inside Sales Manager ESJ' ~ ACME MONACO CORPORATION 75 Winchell Road New Britain, CT 06052 U.S.A. Phone (860)224-1349 ext. 2116 Fax (860)827-9982 http:/fwww.acmemonaco.com
The contents of tills communication and any fHes or attachments transmitted with It, contains information t11at is, unless otherwise Indicated, confldenUal and/or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This communication iS Intended solely fOI" the use of the Individual or entity for which it Is addressed. Any review, retransmission, reproduction, circulation, publication, dissemination or other use of ttl is Information by persons or entities other than the Intended recipient Is strictly prohibited. "you have received this·communication In error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this communicatloo and any attachments. Please note that any views or opinions presented In this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Fill ally, the recipient should Cheek this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. c
0 002371 c PLAINVILLE
ONE CENTRAL SQUARE, PLAINVILLE, CONNECTICUT 06062· 1955
Robert E. Lee Town Manager (860) 793-0221 x201 [email protected] Testimony of Robert E. Lee, Town Manager Town of Plainville Before Public Health Committee March 7, 2016
Good afternoon Senator Gerratana, Representative Matthew Ritter and members of the Public Health Committee.
I am here today to testify In support of Senate Bill300 which would allow Tilcon to expand their quarry operation in the Town of Plainville on property owned by the New Britain Water Company. This legislation, if approved, would benefit three communities -namely~ New Britain, Southington and Plainville.
The benefits to the three communities would Include Til con transferring a total of 275 acres for permanent open space designation. This acreage would be forever protected from any future development. In Plainville alone, the open space would total157 acres.
In addition, Til con currently has authorization to conduct their quarry activity Within 300 c feet of existing homes. Under the proposed plan, Til con would forgo this area forfuture quarry O)Jeratioh and moVe it further away from existing homes. The buffer created would be more than three times the distahce that Is currently allowed- namely. a minimum of 1,000 feet.
Finally, when the quarrying has been completed, a new clean water reservoir will be created which will benefit the City of New Britain and the surrounding communities as well. In the end all of the land would revert back to a Class I and Class II status.
In conclusion, the quarry has been in operation in Plainville foralmost 100 years. Til con is the second largest taxpayer in the Town of Plainville arid employs almost 300 people at this location. In addition to being an economic driver in our community, Til con has been a good corporate citizen as well donating to many local charitable causes.
The bottom line is that Senate Bill300 is a win-win for the economy, the future water sources of the region, the Town of Plainville, and the surrounding neighborhood. 1 urge yoli to support this legislation.
www.plainvi!lect com c 002372
c Dear RepJesentatives Ritter and Markley, Senator Kennedy & Senator Gerratana Please don not put Bill300 Forward. This is bad policy to disassemble Class I and Class II . lands. Not only is this bad policy we need to keep in mind our environment and animals homes that we are taking, where are they going to migrate to? Oh wait, I know, the streets, for which they will either get run over and killed, or cause an accident with possible injury or death to a human life. Not only are we removing the homes of the animals but there are endangered species on these lands for which this could be a cause for extension. Our wildlife deserves to have their homes saves as much as us humans do.
Please rethink this and do not put forward bill 300 to disassemble Class I and Class II lands.
Thank yo in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely Concerned Citizen Rita Fasci 281 Willis Street Bristol Ct 06010
If you need to reach me I can be contacted at Home after 5pm at 860-585-0150 Or on my cell 860-940-7395, if! miss your call please be sure to leave a message and I will call immediately after review. c
0 002373
c Good Day, We are writing to put on record our opposition to the planned expansion of the Tilcon quarry on City of New Britain watershed land.
Watershed must be preserved to ensure the quality of the existing water supply; we believe, due to the harm that will be inflicted by mining operations, and under Federal law, 16 U.S. Code Chapter 180-WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION, both the EPA and the State of Connecticut DEP must conduct a thorough and impartial evaluation of the proposal and the environmental impact. The EPA has noted, "As states and cities try to find new sources of uncontaminated drinking water, keeping watersheds healthy becomes increasingly vital."
This proposal, to the contrary, will harm, perhaps irreparably, the watershed. That is why an impartial environmental impact evaluation is necessary.
We believe expanding the size of the Tilcon quarry jeopardizes the integrity and quality of New Britain's existing water supply, with the potential not only of contaminants from organic matter from the devastation of surrounding vegetation, but also due to runoff from the operation and equipment used, from diesel fuel to various fluids and solvents used, in addition to the toxic byproducts of diesel combustion. To assert that a tailing pond made available forty years from now should Tilcon still be a viable entity-become a reservoir, in a toxic environment c without a viable watershed is completely unacceptable and patently ludicrous. We agree with the opposition of the Connecticut Botanical Society that the project will do great harm to local wildlife flora and fauna.
Furthermore, the existing asphalt plant should be subject to EPA and DEP air quality monitoring, especially during the early morning hours when it's operating and runoff should be analyzed to determine whether it is presently a source of contaminants to the existing supply.
Instead of selling mineral rights, which have not been appraised by an independent party, the City could pursue under the aforementioned federal statute funds to protect the existing watershed and insure the integrity and safety of the existing reservoir, which depends on a viable, healthy watershed ecosystem to provide uncontaminated drinking water.
The relevant excerpt of the Federal law below:
16 U.S. Code§ 1003 -Assistance to local organizations
0 002374 c In order to assist local organizations in preparing and carrying out plans for works of improvement, the Secretary is authorized, upon application of local organizations if such application has been submitted to, and not disapproved within 45 days by, the State agency having supervisory responsibility over programs provided for in this chapter, or by the Governor if there is no State agency having such responsibility-
(1) to conduct such investigations and surveys as may be necessary to prepare plans for works of improvement;
(2) to prepare plans and estimates required for adequate engineering evaluation;
(3) to make allocations of costs to the various purposes to show the basis of such allocations and to determine whether benefits exceed costs;
{4) to cooperate and enter into agreements with and to furnish financial and. other assistance to local organizations:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1003
Thank you,
Peter & Paul Perakos
84 Roslyn Drive, New Britain c
0 002375 c We are opposed to SB 300 The state of Connecticut is in the process of developing a State Water Plan; a moratorium on all agreements such as SB 300 is prudent until we determine the best way to protect our most precious resource, clean water. Allowing Tilcon access to 100 acres of Class I and II land sets bad precedent by weakening essential protections for drinking water lands.
As Bloomfield residents dealing with the proposed Niagara bottling plant, we unfortunately are learning first hand how tenuous state and municipal stewardship of our precious resources is. We are tired of private companies extracting public resources for their profit.
Paula Jones & Kevin Gough Bloomfield, CT [email protected]
c
c 002376
c TILCON
Please note that I am opposed to SB 300. Sincerely, Pamela Albertsen, 16 Pinnacle Mt Rd, Simsbury
Sent from my ASUS ZenFone 2E, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
c
0 002377
c Neil J. Foster
Testimony: Re: Senate Bill No. 300: An Acting Concerning New Britain Water Company Land Public Health Committee Public Hearing March 7, 2016
Dear Senator Gerratana and distinguished members of the Public Health Committee,
As a resident of New Britain who lives within 1,500 feet of the Tilcon quarry, I am writing in support of ~enate Bill 300. I am encouraged by the prospect of improving my quality of life by allowing Tilcon to move its quarry blasting operations farther away from my home, reduction of noise during the night and pre-dawn hour, lessening of airborne dust emanating from Tilcon operations.
I urge that a thorough environmental impact study of this project be conducted
I strongly urge you to support Senate Bill300.
Respectfully,
Neil J. Foster 199 Wooster St New Britain c 06052
c 002378 LOCAL 478· CONNECTICUT c
Testimony of Nate Brown
Referral Manager and COPE Director IUOE Local478
For the Public Health Committee
March 7, 2016
Good afternoon, Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter and distinguished members of the Public Health Committee. My name is Nate Brown and I am the Referral Manager and Political Director for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 478, a labor organization that represents over 3,000 members and their families in Connecticut.
I am here this afternoon to testifY in favor o(SB 300, an Act Concerning New Britain Water Company Lands.
SB 300 is an important issue which could impact hundreds ofLocal478's members and a major c Connecticut employer, Til con Connecticut, Inc. As you may know, Til con has recently proposed expanding their Plainville quarry operations. If approved, this expansion will not only allow the company to maintain their operations in this location, but will also extend the lifespan of the quarry, keeping much needed good paying jobs in central Connecticut. It goes without saying that these jobs are important, but they are particularly important to the 300 plus members ofLocal478 who are employed by Tilcon.
In addition to keeping high quality jobs available for hundreds of Local478's members Tilcon Connecticut has been a leading supplier of crushed stone, asphalt and concrete for aimost .a century here in CT and has played, and will continue to play, a vital role building and rebuilding the state's infrastructure. When examined as a whole, the proposal provides significant benefits to a number of communities and thepeople that live in them providing tremendous opportunities to work for a first in class organization. Tilcon Connecticut has always taken the steps to provide the utmost professional work environment. When examined as a whole, the legislation provides significant benefits to a number of commtmities, while building in a substantial public approval process. The fact that Tilcon is a major employer and contributor to central Connecticut's economy serves to reinforce the importance of this legislation and positive aspects of it for Connecticut and its communities. On behalf on the Operating Engineers and the members of Local 478 thank you for the opportunity to testifY in support ofSB 300.
Telephone: (203) 288-9261 .Fax: (203) 281-3749 www.local478.org 0 002379
c Please do not approve Bill #300 • AAC New Britain Water Company Land for 2 reasons: 1). The CT Water Plan is not complete and won't be finished until sometime in 2017. Nationally, situations have highlighted the importance of abundant, quality, drinking water. CT is blessed but spoiled to the extent we should have had aCT Water Plan in place long before now as it's not something that can be slapped together due to its comprehensiveness. It's extremely import to formulate a clear understanding on how to protect our water resource for our State and our citizens Passing this bill could have detrimental and irrevocable effects without a full understanding. There's a lot at stake given many unforeseen factors such as water sales and climate change. 2) It's nice that Tilcon wants to create a reservoir in the excavated space. However, speaking from experience having lived in VT, I can tell you when Rte 91 carne through disrupting the land north of Putney, it permanently changed the quality of the clear well water that had been enjoyed previous. No longer crystal clear, it was iron orange in color. It never cleared up. It stained fixtures, made spaghetti water froth orange, tubs and toilets looked disgusting, etc. It was tested and deemed drinkable by the State but given a choice I'm sure you'd rather drink the well water prior toRte 91 not after. While Tilcon's excavation "could" be used as a reservoir, one has to question do you really want to? I'm no geologist so I can't provide specifics as to what occurred in Putney regarding land disruption but there were unsatisfactory consequences regarding water quality.
Michele Vannelli c
c 002380
c As the CEO of Acme Monaco Corp a New Britain employer of 130 people I am opposed to any expansion of the Tilcon operation. I have lived and worked next to the operation for over 65 years. The current operation is far different from the time when the Tomasso family owned it. They cared about their impact on their neighbors. This company has damaged my factory and Mr Wall denied any responsibility. Besides the shock waves which are documented with the Plainville fire marshal the increase in dust is so bad our vehicles avoid Woodford A V on rainy days. As the proposed site is the headwater of the Quinnipiac River there is an impact now which will become much worse. During a severe drought in the 1950's a well on Woodford AV at the former Acme plant now owned by Tilcon supplied New Britain with 200000 gallons per day with no impact on the environment . No mention has been made of financial windfall estimated to be 1.6 billion dollars at the expense of countless vernal pools and wildlife habitant which will be forever lost for future generations . As for Acme Monaco we will be forced to move our sensitive machines to our Maine operation and the jobs they provide. Please vote to deny this application
Michael Karabin CEO Acme Monaco Corporation
Sent from my iPhone c
0 002381
c Tilcon's actions to change Jaws to allow its mining expansion into New Britain's protected watershed lands should be stopped dead in its tracks. Tilcon's intent is to destroy and denature the watershed forests which provide a naturally dynamic system for recharging and purifying the soil, aquifers, and air streams around our reservoir. This system takes hundreds of years to establish and to sustain itself to its highest effectiveness- and this is the living system New Britain and Plainville share now in the watershed forests surrounding the reservoir. Climate change, toxins generated by cars and industry along the highways and other sources of pollution already challenge this ecosystem. We have laws in force that somewhat protect this area from development and pollution, and changing them to reduce their effectiveness would be a mistake. This forest cannot be replaced by a stretch of trees planted in paltry recompense for the wider level of destruction that Tilcon's excavation will deliver to us.
We are not faulting Tilcon as a business, but believe that TIIcon should live and thrive as a citizen of the public within the laws that protect the natural lands we chare in common with the wildlife thriving now in the watershed.
The state statutes establishing protected watershed lands were created by government planners who recognized that a forested buffer surrounding the reservoir is essential to allowing the recharging and purification of the aquifers feeding into the drinking supply. Any proposal to strip away the authority of these laws and the vitality of these protections should elicit skepticism from everyone involved. But it seems that government leaders and those on the inside of this proposed deal instead have already begun selling the idea. They and all of us need to consult with environmental scientists and conservationists with expertise in hydrology and public water systems c and discuss what they report to us before allowing presentations by the corporation to convince this is a right thing to do.
In fact, the momentum of voices cheering the effort to accept this proposal is alarming and has the earmarks of a "bill of goods" being sold to unwary buyers. Even some of the news stories about it are skewed to promote the project. The New Britain Herald, for example, in its Saturday, March 5, 2016 edition published a story with the headline "Reservoir hearing Monday in Hartford". This is a deceptive headline. nlcon's central purpose is not to build a reservoir- it is to blast away at and cart away living trees, soil and ledge presently thriving as a natural system in our protected watershed areas in order for Tilcon to get what wants: the ore underneath the living forest soil.
New Britain possesses a large, purposefully-planned and well-managed reservoir that is more than adequate to our current and ongoing needs. We need to protect our watershed lands, not destroy them in the hope of accepting some token construct from a corporate entity in the business of completely stripping a land of its character before moving on to the next territory in its path. This project of Tilcon's threatens our reservoir lands - beginning with the effort to change the laws. Don't let corporate interests override
c 002382 c
lA\ CONNECTICUT LEAGUE OF ~ CONSERVATION VOTERS
March 7, 2016
TO: Sen. Terry B. Gerratana and Rep. Matthew Ritter, Chairmen; Honorary Members of the Public Health Committee
RE: Testimony for SB 300 AAC New Britain Water Company land
The Connecticut league of Conservation Voters strongly opposes SB 300 AAC NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND because of the unchecked environmental damage it would cause on sensitive habitat in highly protected watershed land.
When this project was first brought before legislators in 2007, CTlCV was also strongly opposed. A bill passed, but was repealed due to overwhelming public outcry about the damage this project would cause to our most highly protected watershed lands-and the lack of full public participation in reviewing the project. c One of the most important functions of Class I and II land is to store water for the water source, whether reservoir or wells. Storage and cleansing take place in undisturbed vegetated soil. So TIIcon project would totally remove 100 acres of groundwater storage to be replaced by a storage reservoir in the decades ahead. This not only violates current legal protections, it does tremendous damage on the ground. The proponents' claims that the benefits of this project will transform the quarried out area into a storage reservoir for drinking water is not the full information that should be considered.
We respectfully request that you do not allow this legislation to proceed until the state's Water Planning Council has completed the Comprehensive Statewide Water Plan. as required by the General Assembly in PA 14-163.
Class I and II are defined as land owned by a water company and that recharges a public drinking water source. In state law and policy, this land holds the highest priority for protection (CGS § 25-37c), closely followed by similar but privately owned source-water land.
0 002383
c Almost any sort of activity on Class I or II requires approval from the Department of Public Health (DPH) for a change of use. The proponents of this project are seeking to bypass this approval process by legislative means, putting our state's water and watershed lands in jeopardy mush the same as was proposed in 2017.
Please do not allow this legislation to proceed until it can be fully vetted in the context of the state's Water Planning process. We need a thoughtful and fact-based approach to major decision on all the state's waters. There is no immediate urgency to enable this project at this time, or cause the extensive destruction of vegetation and soil that this bill would permit.
Thank you for considering this testimony.
Lori Brown,_ Executive Director Connecticut League of Conservation Voters 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected] www.ctlcv.org c
0 002384
c I am opposed to].ajsed Bill 300 Linda S Alexander 155 Fieldstone Drive Windsor CT 06095
c
0 002385 c LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS® OF CONNECTICUT, INC. 1890 Dixwell Avenue, Suite 203 Hamden, CT 06514-3183 203-288-7996 Fax 203-288-7998 www.lwvct.org
CGA Public Health Committee
PUBLIC HEARING Monday, March 7, 2016
In Opposition of:
----. SB-300: AAC NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND
Submitted by Carolyn Bayne, Natural Resources Director, LWVCT
*************************************************************************************************
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut is a non-partisan statewide organization comprised of 1600 members in 27 local chapters who are committed to effective public policy and the active participation of citizens in their c government. The League supports state policies and programs which promote comprehensive long range planning for the conservation and development of land and water resources, including enforcement of regulations to maintain and improve water quality. Connecticut's 3.6 million residents enjoy some of the best drinking water in the country, and that is largely due to the state's long-standing, strict protection of drinking water lands.
The League therefore opposes Senate Bill 300, which would allow the City of New Britain to change the use of its water company-owned lands to permit a lease of up to forty years that would allow gravel mining on more than 130 acres of Class I and II lands.
This bill is in direct violation of the law from which it seeks an exemption. Because they are located closest to the water supply sources, and because land use and water quality have been deemed inextricably linked, Class I and II water company lands (private or public) are protected and preserved in order to safeguard the state's water resources. These high-priority, environmentally sensitive lands are typically kept as open space with only limited activity permitted, such as passive recreation.
0 002386
c The deleterious effects of gravel and rock mining in such a sensitive area, and its resultant impact on nearby drinking water, cannot be understated. The destruction of the natural landscape and removal of vegetative cover reduce soil retention; ground and surface water levels are lowered; and there is increased, potentially contaminated, runoff into surface supplies.
Another major threat posed by passage of this bill is the dangerous precedent that it would set for the more than 120,000 acres of water utility lands throughout the state. If one municipal water company is allowed an exemption for such commercial activity, other water companies will likely request similar exemptions, especially since there are companies looking to expand their operations and municipalities hoping to benefit from the revenues derived from such arrangements. Given that a comprehensive statewide water plan is currently under development, no single exemption affecting water company lands should be granted until it can be considered in the context of the entire state.
Senate Bill 300 threatens the protections on Connecticut's drinking water lands and adversely affects the high quality of water its residents have come to expect and enjoy. Please vote NO on Senate Bm 300.
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut appreciates the opportunity to offer our comments. c
0 002387 c Kenneth Marzi 65 Kent Road New Britain, CT 06052
March 4, 2016
Testimony: Re: Senate Bill No. goo: An Act Concerning New Britain Water Company Land Public Health Committee Public Hearing · March 7, 2016
Dear Senator Gerratana and distinguished members of the Public Health Committee,
As a resident of New Britain I am encouraged by the prospect of alleviating my fellow residents who live next to Tilcon's quarry from the constant stress they encounter from the blasting and associated noise, dust, and traffic. As the Superintendent of Water & Sewer for the City of New Britain, I am especially excited about the eventual creation of a multi-billion gallon reservoir. Your committee can ensure future generations have an exemplary water supply which most likely will benefit a regional water authority, not just New Britain. What a legacy. c I strongly urge you to support Senate Bill goo. Respe~yy (0 Kenneth ~arz1 -\ t) 6sKentRoad New Britain, CT 06052
0 002388
c >Dear Senator Gerratana and committee: >As a resident of New Britain who lives close to the Tilcon quarry, I am writing in strong opposition of 5enate em 30Q > >I am frustrated by the noises Tilcon trucks make at 1 a.m., 2 a.m., and on and on through the night, the banging of heavy metal tailgates after a load is dumped, the irritating, high-pitched "beeping" as the trucks back up. I am fearful of the pollutants and dust that require daily cleaning of my deck and outside furniture and the sickening stench of the asphalt plant. > > I would like Tilcon to move its quarry blasting operations away from my home, but above all, 1 fear that vital watershed land will be forever destroyed. I don't know the science and am concerned that business and profit might be blinding those behind this proposal. Until an independent, scientific study is conducted to investigate potential, irreversible environmental damage, I strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bill300. > >Respectfully, > >Janice Palmer > 90 Westwood Drive > New Britain, CT > c
0 002389
0 RE: Opposition to Raised S.B. No. 300, AAC NEW BRITAIN WATER CO. LAND
To Whom It May Concern,
I have real concern over this proposed law. This arrangement could harm our local water supplies in particular and the Quinnipiac and Mattabesset River watersheds in my hometown in general.
The essential buffer provided by our watershed lands shouldn't be subject to acquisition by extractive industries like mining interests. The New Britain water company is all too willing to diminish this protection to favor big business, yet they will rigorously bar recreational users of their lands. This inconsistent approach to our public trust is wrong.
Please don't allow our local water protection lands to be offered for strip mining.
Sincerely,
John Strillacci
Sent from my iPhone c
0 002390
c Dear Senator Gerratano- my husband and I are NB residents who live right near the reservoir. We are unable to make the meeting today, but very strongly oppose the proposal to lease 100+ acres to Tilcon and then build a new reservoir. New Britain has the best water anywhere I've ever been. Please don't let them disrupt.that. It was bad enough they put all of the solar panels over the entire grass area up there (I think the panels are an excellent efficient idea but the placement came as a surprise and ruined the view up there. I believe there were better options for placement). Please don•t let them ruin our reseJVoir too. There will be much noise and blasting, pollution run off and more traffic etc. Please don't Jet them put it through! Sincerely Joni &Joe Senk
c
c 002391
c Do not allow Til con to lease this property for stone mining in exchange for creating a new reservoir for New Britain. Changing a state law that was designed to protect the environment and public water supply from commercial interests would set a very dangerous precedent. I have read that protection of Class I and Class llland has been the cornerstone of Connecticut's high drinking water standards for 30 years. Let's not screw it up.
Julie Winkel
c
c 002392
c I am opposed to SB 300. For all of us in the state that have private wells, the affects with a project of this nature on surrounding private wells can only be classified as "unknown." The ramifications are impossible to ascertain, putting residential well water owners at risk who should have just as much right to clean water as commercial companies push to disturb underground eco-systems to commoditize natural resources.
The state of Connecticut is in the middle of setting up a water plan and I suggest a moratorium on agreements such as SB 300 be a prudent plan until we as a state decide the best way to protect our most precious resource, clean water.
Deciding in favor of SB 300 at this time we'll possibly greenlight other projects of this nature in the state before we have had an opportunity, as a whole, to make these important decisions. ·
Thank you,
J. Mark Saunders Bloomfield, CT c
c 002393
c Dear Representatives Ritter and Markley and Senators Kennedy and Gerratana, We ask that you please do not put forward Bill 300. This bill is considered a bad policy to disassemble Class I and Class II lands. ·
We trust that agree with us that this policy would be terrible for our environment and our endangered species that live on these lands and the people that live near by.
We greatly appreciate your consideration and ask that you act on behalf of us, greatly concerned citizens.
Thank you.
Hildegard and Robert DeMallie Windsor, CT Tel: 860-219-9433
Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App c
c 002394
0 Public Health Committee
Public Hearing March 7, 2016
Testimony Opposing Raised Bill No. 300
AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND
Dear Senator Gerratana, Senator Ritter, and Members of the Public Health Committee:
I am writing as a citizen of Connecticut, concerned about the future of our state's protected watershed land. In addition, 1was born and raised in New Britain, attended New Britain Public Schools grades K through 12, and still have many ties to my hometown.
I would like to comment on two aspects of this proposal:
1. In July 2015. Tilcon CT won a legal battle in Connecticut Supreme Court against the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEPI. This weakens the DEEP's ability to monitor the environmental impact of Tilcon's activities on surrounding land and water:
This recent case, which Tilcon won in CT Supreme Court after a 12-year process, is a concerning indicator that Tilcon is trying the DECREASE their environmental accountability to the state, and that they are succeeding.
Briefly, in 2003 Tilcon applied for five water diversion permits for quarries in Plainfield, Wallingford, Montville, Griswold, and North Branford. Water diversion permits are required c when one withdraws >50,000 gallons of surface or groundwater a day. (Further information can be found at the DEEP website: http:Uwww.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2709&g=324178&deepNav GID=165)
When granting a water diversion permit, the DEEP has to consider the permit's long-term effect on water resources, and ensure that the permit will not impair proper management of the water resources of the State, among other things.
Tilcon refused to give the DEEP the requested information on the environmental impact of their quarries on surrounding water and wetlands. Instead, Tilcon brought the DEEP (at that time the DEP) to court. Ten years after Til con first applied for the permits, in 2013, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled in favor of the DEEP, that the DEEP indeed is allowed to require more information on the environmental impact of Tilcon's quarries before granting the five water diversion permits, and they could withhold other permits until the issue was resolved.
In response, Tilcon returned to court. In July 2015. this time our Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tilcon. According to the Northeast Development Law Blog, that final Supreme Court decision in July of 2015 weakens the DEEP's authority, and is a decision 11that could have broad implications for all companies regulated by the DEEP."
0 002395
c Page 2/3
(The Northeast Development Law Slog's opinion can be found here: https://wwvv.northeastdevelopmentlaw.com/2015/08/connecticut-supreme-court-dials-back ct-deeps-authority-over-permit-applications/)
{The complete rulings from 2013 and 2015 can be found at these links: Decided May 20, 2013: Superior Court of Connecticut. Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1635051.html
Decided July 28, 2015: Supreme Court of Connecticut. Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-supreme-court/1708321.html)
2. The concect of Environmental Justice is relevant and helpful when considering this deal.
The US Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as:
"The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." [emphasis added}
On one side of this proposed water deal is Tilcon CT, part of the third largest buildings material corporation in the world, CRH (http://www.crh.com/our-group). CRH dominates the buildings c material markets in Europe and North America, and is now expanding into India and China. CRH describes itself to investors as having a "relentless focus on performance," with 26 billion dollars in revenue in 2015.
On the other side of the proposed deal is the city of New Britain. New Britain is a city of vibrant and industrious people, yet 23% of New Britain's population lives below the poverty line, with the per capita income of New Britain at $20,000, about half that of the state's per capita income.
Our laws were made to protect all of the public's health, not just the public health of those with the most money. Our environmental laws should not be for sale, particularly in those locations where people are most vulnerable to economic and environmental exploitation. We see the devastating consequences of environmental discrimination and negligence unfolding in Flint, Michig.an. When we make exceptions to environmental protection Jaws for lower income cities, what does that say about our state?
I have tremendous respect for Mayor Erin Stewart and her tireless efforts and achievements on behalf of the City of New Britain. With regard to the proposed Til con deal, however, she is on
0 002396
0 the wrong side of things. Mayor Stewart is working against New Britain's future in this case, and against the future water security of New Britain and the entire State of Connecticut.
In conclusion, Tilcon CT has seemingly unlimited financial resources to fight and circumvent our state laws and regulations, which is why it is doubly important for our leaders to protect the public health.
Already it is evident that Tilcon's mining has significantly reduced flow at the northern end of the canal feeding Shuttle Meadow Reservoir (West Canal, closest to their recent mining). Once Tilcon has gained permission to mine New Briatin's watershed land, will they again refuse to provide information to the DEEP? Who is going to stop Tilcon then, if no one can stop them now? The fact that Tilcon significantly weakened the power of the DEEP to regulate them in July of 2015 is a huge and very concerning issue.
This proposed deal is a travesty of environmental justice in the making. I hope the Public Health Committee with think of the public's health first and foremost, and shut this proposal down.
There is no need for further studies on the environmental impact of this proposal, especially in light of Tilcon's recent track record of noncompliance with the DEEP's requests for environmental impact information.
Hopefully the State of Connecticut, the fourth wealthiest state in the nation, will find other fruitful, legal, and just ways of helping New Britain's youth, their future, and the economic development of the city. This deal does not qualify as fruitful, legal, or just for New Britain, or for the State of Connecticut.
Thank you very much, Senator Gerratana, Senator Ritter, and members of the Public Health Committee, c !or your time and consideration. Sincerely,
Helena Dinep West Hartford, CT
Page 3/3
c 002397
c Letter Testimony of Garry Brumback, Town Manager Town of Southington for Public Health Committee March 7, 2016
Dear Members of the Public Health Committee,
I am submitting this letter to testify in support of Senate Bill 300 which would allow Tilcon to expand their quarry operation in the Town of Plainville on property owned by the New Britain Water Company. This legislation, if approved, would benefit three communities namely- New Britain, Southington and Plainville.
The benefits to the three communities would include Tilcon transferring a total of 275 acres for permanent open space designation. This acreage would be forever protected from any future development. In Southington the open space would significantly enhance our Crescent Lake Park with additional trails and open space.
In addition, Tilcon currently has authorization to conduct their quarry activity within 300 feet of existing homes. Under the proposed plan, Til con would forgo this area for future quarry operation and move it further away from existing homes. The buffer created would be more than three times the distance that is currently allowed- namely- a minimum of 1,000 feet.
Finally, when the quarrying has been completed, a new clean water reservoir will be created which will benefit the City of New Britain and the surrounding communities as well. In c the end all of the land would revert back to a Class 1 and Class II status.
In conclusion Senate Bill 300 is a win-win for the economy, the future water sources of the region, the Town of Southingtopn, and the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to support this legislation.
c 002398
Farmington River Watershed Association, Inc. 749 Hopmeadow Street,. Simsbury, Cf 06070 c • (860) 658-4442 Fax (860) 651·7519 www.frwa.org
March 7, 2016
Testimony from the Farmington River Watershed Association Opposing Bm 300, AAC New Britain Water Company Land
Dear Senator Gerratana, Representative, Ritter, and Members of the Public Health Committee,
The Farmington River Watershed Association is a private, non-profit citizens group dedicated to preserving, protecting, and restoring the Farmington River and its watershed through research, stewardship, education, and advocacy.
One of our concerns is to maintain the strong protection of Class I and Class II watershed lands that is provided by Connecticut statute and upheld by the Department of Public Health. Legislation that undermines protection of Class I and Class II watershed land anywhere in the state sets a dangerous precedent that could someday jeopardize the Farmington Watershed's abundant and high quality supplies of drinking water.
If the commercial possibilities of watershed land are allowed to trump existing state law with bills such as this one, then other water companies can request similar exceptions. Passing Bill 300 suggests that the companies charged with safeguarding our drinking water can also be allowed to profit from disrupting the very vegetation, soils, and hydrology that protect our clean water supplies. The existing statute states that Class I and II water supply lands be "preserved in perpetuity predominantly in their natural scenic and open condition for the protection of natural resources" and "allowing for improvements necessary for the protection or provision of potable c water." The exception in Bitt 300 flouts both ofthese provisions. Instead it sets up what is at the very least a conflict of interest and potentially a betrayal of public trust.
Recent events in Michigan underscore the ease with which genuine threats to water quality can be underestimated. Please do not erode Connecticut's exemplary protections for its drinking water. We encourage you to reject this bill.
Respectfully, /L-J-~ Eileen Fielding Executive Director
c 002399
c • I am opposed to SR 300 • This deal sets bad precedent that will surely be used to push for other land swaps around the state. It will weaken essential protections for our drinking water lands. • Making major decisions about water supply before the state water plan is completed is premature. The promised reservoir wouldn't be done for four decades; we can wait one more year to see the fmal state water plan.
Elkind, Raphe
c
c 002400
c Testimony regarding· SR 300 AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND Public Health Committee Public Hearing, March 7, 2016
Dear Co-Chairs Gerratana and Ritter and esteemed members of the Public Health Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition of raised bill SB 300.
I am lifelong resident of New Britain and remember when city leaders made the decision to tear down many buildings on Main Street to make way for redevelopment and the decision to have Route 9 cut through Main Street. These are decisions that city leaders are still struggling to remedy some 40 years later and they are decisions that the taxpayers are still paying for.
This proposal between the City of New Britain and Tilcon Connecticut Inc. has many similarities to these previous decisions. These similarities pale, however, in comparison to the potential threat to human health and to the watershed environment that SB 300 presents.
The city leaders are making a decision to enter into a lease agreement that spans 40 years. This is the equivalent of two human generations. The risk of introducing contaminates from the mining operation over the 40-year mining lease into the new reservoir and into the Shuttle Meadow Reservoir is a very serious threat. It is a threat to human health, the watershed environment and to the greater Mattasbassett watershed towns.
In addition, if approved, this lease agreement will destroy 131 acres of watershed property in exchange for 94 acres of open space. I am an advocate for open space, but I do not understand how destroying 131 acres of open space in exchange for 94 acres of open space is a good thing.
I am also concerned because this agreement has Tilcon Connecticut Inc. 'giving' the City of New Britain land that will become a part of a new reservoir. From our past experience with corporate land and property transfers that were formerly factories, this land transfer has the potential of costing the taxpayers millions of dollars for the clean-up of a potential (mining) brownfield. This is a cost that New Britain residents cannot afford. c Finally, I attended the information meeting about this proposal and was told that Tilcon Connecticut Inc. would 'build us a new reservoir'. They have not, however, provided any details about who will construct and pay for the infrastructure to collect the overflow water (from the city's other reservoirs) and pump this water into Shuttle Meadow Reservoir. Again, this has the potential to be another large bill paid for by New Britain residents.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to submit testimony in opposition of SB 300.
Sincerely, Elaine Lechowicz New Britain, CT 06052
c 002401
c Dear Members of the Public Health Committee,
I am writing in regard to SB 300 It is too soon to consider passing such a bill. The legislature should wait until it has all the facts before considering a matter of such consequence to the health and wellbeing of Connecticut residents. Specifically, the state water plan being prepared by the Water Planning Council with input from avariety of stakeholders would provide information crucial to any decision affecting the availability of high quality drinking water.
Furthermore, I find it deplorable that a proposal that could have a drastic impact on such a large area of pristine Connecticut forestland should even be considered without first commissioning an environmental impact study. Trap rock ridges like Bradley Mountain are the last remaining unspoiled habitat for a variety of rare and endangered species that cannot survive elsewhere. This plant and animal wildlife is of immeasurable value to the citizens of Connecticut and is irreplaceable.
I urge you to stop SB 300.
Sincerely,
Dr. David Yih 43 Dean St. Hartford, CT 06114
c
0 002402
c • I am opposed to SB 300. • This deal sets bad precedent that will surely be used to push for other land swaps around the state. It will weaken essential protections for our drinking water lands. • Making major decisions about water supply before the state water plan is completed is premature. The promised reservoir wouldn't be done for four decades; we can wait one more year to see the final state water plan
-Drew
c
0 002403
c I oppose SB 300 because it threatens our water supply and watershed protection policies. Water us a publisher c good and decisions about water should not be made for primarily ecifically reasons, especially for profit of multinational corporations. Wait until the state water plan is completed. ·
Donna Landerman 6 Runde lane Bloomfield
Sell! from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartplmne
c
c 002404 c Written Testimony Donald H. Crockett Resident of New Britain Monday, March 6, 2016
S.B. No. 300,AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND
I think a high bar should be met to permit development of New Britain's watershed land in S. B. 300. There should be strong evidence that New Britain's drinking water system will benefit and not suffer long~term. Municipal revenue and commercial interests shouldn't be the primary motivators or it will set a precedent that will jeopardize Connecticut residents' safe drinking water in the future.
Is there a demonstrated need for the reservoir? The New Britain Water Department said this proposal was resurrected because Shu!Ue Meadow Reservoir experienced a ureoccurring lnte!Val of going in and auf of water supply droughts" last year as in 2007. Two years ago the Water Department, justifying the sale of the Patton Brook Well in Southington, said the City has a more than ample water supply that meets the 100-year drought criteria. Is there a formal plan documenting the potential need for additional water in 40 years?
Where are more detailed plans for the reservoir? The only depiction of the reservoir presented so far is its surface area on one side of a much larger quarry. Where are the details of how this reservoir will be constructed? Will Tllcon's mining be planned to specifically construct a reservoir and watershed, or is Tilcon just extracting all the available traprock? If the reservoir is the primary justification of the quarrying, more detailed plans about the proposed reservoir should be made available, and incorporated in the contract so Tilcon c can be held accountable for their delivery. What are the costs In turning a potential reservoir into an actual reservoir? The phrase •potential reservoir" has been used a number of times in presenting the proposed reservoir. The proposed sale of the Patton Brook Well was justified In part because repair costs would exceed $1 million to bring it back to full capability. What are the associated costs that New Britain versus Tilcon will be responsible for in turning the Tilcon quarry into a viable reservoir? Will those costs be justifiable given alternatives?
What protection will there be for the reservoir from Tilcon's remaining quarry? Tilcon will retain ownership of the quarry that isn't deeded to New Britain for reservoir development. What will keep water from that surface area entering the proposed reservoir? What does Tilcon plan to do with this property after the 40 year lease expires? Reservoir plans would clarify how much of a concern this is. What contract arrangements need to be made If It is a concern? Promising that water won't leave the site until it has been tested is not enough.
When will New Britain residents be shown the 40 year mining plan? Tilcon's presentation to New Britain residents claimed there will be a "long term shift in mining location away from neighbors." The presentation showed the mining plans tor the first five years where the blasting activity will be on the other side of the quarry from New Britain. However, the
c 002405 c proposed reservoir necessitates blasting to return to New Britain's side to remove traprock to a depth of -150 feet along the 1000+ foot buffer. Tilcon claims the blasting buffer will be more than tripled from 300 feet to 1000 feet. Looking at a curre1nt satellite map of the quarry I don't see any New Britain residence that is closer than 1000 feet of recent blasting. Neighboring residents deserve transparency an the mining plans through the entire 40 year lease. When will these plans be made available?
Donald H. Crockett 195 Hartford Rd., New Britain, CT [email protected]
c
c 002406
c • It seems to me that SB 300 sets bad precedent that will weaken essential protections for our drinking water lands•. Acting now on major water supply decisions is premature. The promised reservoir wouldn't be done for four decades; we can wait one more year to see the final state water plan . •
Don Noel 141 Ridgefield St. Hartford CT 06112-1837 (860)713-9960 [email protected]
c
c 002407
c SB300
Please register my total disapproval of the proposed mine on watershed land .
Sent from my iPad [email protected] Diane B. Stoner 183 Maple St Litchfield, CT 06759-3103 Mobile. 860 806 2196 Home 860 567 5041 Fax 860 567 4143
c
c 002408 c CONNECTICUT ------~------Land Conservation Council
Teslimony Regarding Raised Senate Bill No. 300 Public Health Committee Submitted by Amy Blaymore Pate1~on, Esq., Executive Director Connecticut Land Conservation Council March 7, 2016
Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritler, and members of the Public Health Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the Connecticut Land Conservation Council (CLCC) In opposition to Raised Senate Bill No. 300, AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND. (SB300)
As the umbrella organization for the state's land conservation community, CLCC works with land trusts (now numbering over 137), other conservation.and advocacy organizations, government entities and landowners to increase the pace, quality, scale and permanency efland conservation In Connecticut while assuring the perpetual, high quality stewardship of conserved lands in !he state. Consistent with our mission, ensuring the permanent protection of lands valuable for conservation purposes is a priority for our organization.
CLCC opposes SB 300 because it would set a dangerous pmcedent for the protection of drinking water watershed lands. Pursuant to state water policy and law, Class I and II ~nds are protected and preserved to safeguard the quality of our state's water resources. The law provides that because these are lands located closest to water supply sources they require a state Department of Public Heallh permit to transfer or change their use.
SB 300 would allow New Britain to lease approximately 100 acres of !he city's water department's Class I and Uland in Plainville forthe purpose of rock mining. The lease also would Include about 30 acres of Class Ill land. The mining, c adjacent to an exisling quany, is expected to continue for up to 40 years.
Permitting the project to move forward will serve to undercut the strict protections on Class I and II lands currenlly . accorded under stale Jaw, not only posing a risk of adverse impacts to highly valuable water supplies, but also setting a dangerous precedent for further erosion of such laws and for requests for similar activities from others in the future.
We respectfully contend !hal evaluating the merits of a chang•' of use today ~ased on proposed outcomes over 40 years should require the utmost scrutiny •• particularly when the nature of the changed use poses significant risk of adverse Impacts to lands statutorily protected for the purpose of safeguarding the state's water resources. At a minimum, we request that a decision on this project be postponed until it can be evaluated and implemented pursuant to a comprehensive statewide water plan currently being deveioped by the Water Planning Council.
A bill supporting an almost identical project was proposed in 2007; it was ultimately repealed. CLCC respectfully requests that this bill and this project likewise be rejected.
Thank you for your consideration. We would be happy to provide additional infonmation or answer any questions you may have.
c 002409
c I am opposed to SB 300
0 o There a number of water related bills before the Legislature this session, many in response to development proposals that come at a time when we appear to be willing to opt for the short term benefit of economic development over the future of our critical water resources and environment. I am opposed to SB 300 for that reason, making this decision about our water supply before the state safe water plan is completed is premature and risky.
This deal sets bad precedent that will surely be used to push for other land swaps around the state. It will weaken essential protections for our drinking water lands.
0
o The effects of global climate change are already being felt in some parts of our country, where water resources are seriously threatened. We cannot move too slowly when it comes to making sure we get it right. Any mistake could be much more costly than delaying action!
David Mann - 1 Adams Road - Bloomfield, CT 06002 c
0 002410
CONNECnCUT LEAGUE OF c CONSERVATION VOTERS
March 7, 2016
TO: Sen. Terry B. Gerratana and Rep. Matthew Ritter, Chairmen; Honorary Members ofthe Public Health Committee
RE: Testimony for SB 300 AAC New Britain Water Company Land
The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters strongly opposes SB 300 AAC NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND because of the unchecked environmental damage It would cause on sensitive habitat In highly protected watershed land.
When this project was first brought before legislators in 2007, CTLCV was also strongly opposed. A bill passed, but was repealed due to overwhelming public outcry about the damage this project would cause to our most highly protectedwatershed lands-and the lack offull public participation in reviewing the project.
One of the most important functions of Class I and II land Is to store water for the water source, whether reservoir or wells. Storage and cleansing take place In undisturbed vegetated soil. So c Tilcon project would totally remove 100 acres of groundwater storage to be replaced by a storage reservoir in the decades ahead. This not only violates current legal protections, it does tremendous damage on the ground. The proponents' claims thatthe benefits ofthisproject will transform the quarried out area into a storage· reservoir for drinking water is not the full information that should be considered.
We respectfully request that you do not allow this legislation to proceed until the state's Water Planning Council has completed the Comprehensive Statewide Water Plan, as required by the General Assembly iri PA 14-163 .
.Class I and II are defined as land owned by a water company and that recharges a public drinking water source. In state law and policy, this land holds the highest priority for protection (CGS § 25·37c), closely followed by similar but privately owned source-water land.
Almost any sort of activity on Class I or II requires approval from the Department of Public Health (DPH) for a change of use. The proponents of this project are seeking to bypass this approval
(i 553 Farmington Avenue, Hartford, CT 06105 PHONE: 860.236.5442 EMAIL: [email protected] WEB: www.ctlcv.org c 002411
c process by legislative means, putting our state's water and watershed lands in jeopardy mush the· same as was proposed in 2017.
Please do not allow this legislation to proceed until it can be fully vetted in the context of the state's Water Planning process. We need a thoughtful and fact-based approach to major decision on all the state's waters. There is no immediate urgency to enable this project at this time, or cause the extensive destruction of vegetation and soil that this bill would permit.
Thank you for considering this testimony.
Lori Brown, Executive Director Connecticut League of Conservation Voters 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected] www.ctlcv.org c
0 002412 c CONNECTICUT Land Conservation Council
Testimony Regarding Raised Senate Bill No. 300 Public Health Committee Submitted by Amy Blaymore Paterson; Esq., Executive Director Connecticut Land Conservation Council March 7, 2016
Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter, and members of the Public Health Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behaij of the Connecticut Land Conservation Council (CLCC) in opposition to Raised Senate Bill No. 300. AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND. (SB300)
As the umbrella organization for the state's land conservation community, CLCC works with land trusts (now numbering over 137), other conservation and advocacy organizafions, government entities and landowners to increase the pace, quality, scale and permanency of land conservation in Connecticut while assuring the perpetual, high quality stewardship of conserved lands in the state. Consistent wfih our mission, ensuring the penmanent protection of lands valuable for conservation purposes is a priority for our organization.
CLCC opposes SB 300 because it would set a dangerous precedent for the protection of drinking water watershed lands. Pursuant to state water policy and law, Class I and II lands are protected and preserved to safeguard the quality of our state's water resources. The law provides that because these are lands located closest to water supply sources they require a state Department of Public Health penmit to transfer or change their use.
SB 300 would allow New Britain to lease approximately 100 acres of the city's water department's Class I and II land in Plainville for the purpose of rock mining. The lease also would include about 30 acres of Class Ill land. The mining, c adjacent to an existing quarry, is expected to continue for up to 40 years. Permitting the project to move forward will serve to undercut the strict protections on Class .I and II lands currently accorded under state law, not only posing a risk of adverse impacts to highly valuable water supplies, but also setting a dangerous precedent for further erosion of such laws and for requests for similar activities fromothers in the future.
We respectfully contend that evaluating the merits of a change of use today based on proposed outcomes over 40 years should require the utmost scrutiny-- particularly when the nature of the changed use poses significant risk of adverse impacts to lands statutorily protected for the purpose of safeguarding the state's water resources. At a minimum, we request that a decision on this project be postponed until it can be evaluated and implemented pursuant to a comprehensive statewide water plan currently being developed by the Water Planning Council.
A bill supporting an almost identical project was proposed in 2007; it was ultimately repealed. CLCC respectfully requests that this bill likewise be rejected.
Thank you for your consideration. We would be happy to provide eddfiional infonmation or answer any questions you may have.
~, ___ ------~-·----..______·~------~---~~~~..------·~ 16 .Mariden Road .. Rockfall, Connecticut o64fh-2961 ~ T S6o 68;-oyS; .. F 86o 347-7463 ' www.ctconservation.org c 002413
c To: Mr. Morton, Clerk of the CGA Public Health Committee Fr: Cheryl Dunson
Would you forward this email regarding RB 300 to the members of the committee? Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely, Cheryl Dunson
RE: Vote NO on RB 300 An Act Concerning New Britain Water Company Land
Dear Senator Gerrantana, Representative Ritter and Members of the Public Health Committee:
I am writing to urge your opposition to RB 300 An Act Concerning New Britain Water Company Land. This bill would provide an exemption to allow mining on New Britain Water Company lands.
Existing law wisely prohibits mining on reservoir lands due to its potential destructive effects including removing vegetative cover and thereby the benefits of flood control and soil retention; lowering c ground and surface water levels as result of quarry operations; and spoiling water quality due to blasting and quarry operations which increases runoff to surface supplies and can enable infiltration of contaminants into groundwater supplies.
Why does this Greenwich resident care about what the New Britain water company is proposing? If the legislature allows one municipal water company to sidestep our longstanding water protection regulations, then why wouldn't other water companies, either municipal or private, request similar exceptions? Across the state there are companies that want to expand their operations and municipalities that hope to benefit from increased revenues. c 002414
c This proposal sets a regulatory-busting precedent for the approximately 120,000 acres of other Class I&II reservoir lands in our state. Please vote NO on RB 300.
Sincerely, Cheryl Dunson Greenwich, CT
c
c 002415
c Public Health Committee members, I'm writing to oppose SB 300. This legislation will set a terrible precedent regarding Connecticut public water supplies and would allow future weakening of our drinking water supplies in Connecticut. Central Connecticut has some of the best drinking water in the nation due to our present safeguards. We should not weaken these for any private industry. Our public need for clean water should supersede any private commercial need.
Respectfully,
Bill Nygren
c
c 002416
0 Public Health Committee,
I am writing to express my vehement opposition to this bill, which represents a retreat from CT's long standing strong protection of public water supply watershed lands. Strong protection of Class I and II watershed lands is critical in a highly developed state such as CT.
Thank you,
Bill Moorhead Consulting Field Botanist
c
c 002417
c Pease infonn the Committee: I am writing to oppose this Bill that does not benefit the the citizens of Connecticut. Instead it will obviate all the strong water protections that have been put in place to protect the State's water resources.
Digging a vast hole n the earth and calling it a natural resource is disingenuous. The magnitude of the disturbance will not pass unnoticed by Mother Nature. The State should be concerned with protecting natural resources like drinking water. Finding weasel ways around protections for Class I and Class II lands to benefit a large mining company acting in concert with a tax-dependent municipality, is wrong. One does not need to dig deep to recognize the conflict. Please do not support Raised Bill 300.
Thank you for your consideration, the opportunity to comment and for your service to the State of Connecticut.
Barrett S. Robbins-Pianka Middletown, CT
c
0 002418
0 Dear Public Health Committee, Please! Didn't the mess around the Haddam land swap wake you up? Connecticut's drinking water is one of the best in the country - and there's a new state wide water plan being drafted to keep it that way. Why would you considered swapping land (Class I and II no less) and put water supplies under threat when the water plan isn't finished? Take a deep breath and put SB300 on the back burner for another year. Thank you, · Barbara Backman
Barbara Sterling Backman PO Box 1065 Canton, CT 06019-1065 860-693-2538 (h) 860-560-3263 (c)
c
0 002419
c I am NOT in favor of this Bill. SB300. Please vote NO on this Bill for the following reasons: 1. AII decisions on long term water issues should be considered together and be included in the STATE water planning Council, to be looked at as a whole, over time. 2. Water is a public commodity and should not be tinkered with for private gain. It is held in trust for all of us. 3. To allow a private company to promise something that is not necessarily needed (a reservoir) is almost a "bribe" and not a good precedent to set. Thank-you for "hearing" my testimony.
Barbara David 344 Joshuatown Road Lyme, CT. 06371 c
0 002420
c To Whom it may concern-
We are against having 131 acres mined so that Tilcon can use it for crushed stone. We live right next to Crescent Lake, and this would ruin the environment and the animal population would be forced to move. Southington enjoys hiking on Crescent Lake, and this would potentially disturb trail walkers and other residents that Jive near by. Further, if enacted, forest land and wildlife habitat will be irrevocably destroyed. In its wake will be left a gaping hole in the earth. This is bad for us, and for our children. Our families and their future generations deserve better. Your proposal to obliterate yet more of their ever shrinking world is an injustice and a crime, not just against humanity, but against our increasingly fragile environment.
Please consider this carefully before making your decision.
Best Regards,
Anneliese Dadras, Owner c
c Ill II 002421 c March 7, 2016 ATIN: PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITIEE
RE: PROPOSED BILL# 300 AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND
Dear Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter, and Public Health Committee Members; • In assessing proposed Bill #300 and its potential affects on water supply sources, I submit my opposition to Bill #300. As outlined Bill #300 would allow the Tilcon Company the right to 40 years of rock~mining on approximately 131 acres of Class I and Class II public water-supply company owned land by the city of New Britain and located in Plainville. It has been noted that of those 131 acres owned by New Britain's water utility; roughly 9 acres are considered Class 1, the most valuable and environmentally sensitive watershed property. Moreover, considering that the time span of 40 years is a decade short of one-half century of rock mining, this is a long term commitment with unforeseen consequences; in particular, that as a nation and a state we will be addressing water supply challenges. This does not take into account science-based predictions of climate extremes and the potential of major drought occurrences affecting our water as a vital resource .. The general perception is that by law, Class I and Class II water company land is protected and preserved to safeguard the state's water resources. It would seem that under current law there should be limits to transactions of this magnitude. We cannot wait 40 years to restore the designated landscape. Without any ill-will or malice toward Tilcon, I believe that such a complicated and long term project should be withheld, at least until a comprehensive water plan is developed by the c Water Planning Council and the numerous stakeholders affected by such proposals. Although I serve on sundry commissions and Boards, I submit this testimony as an individual citizen who believes that protecting watersheds and sources deserve serious oversight. Cordially, Ann Beaudin 1009 Poquonock Avenue Windsor, CT
0 002422
c Testimony regarding· sp 300 AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND. Public Health Committee Public Hearing, March 7, 2016 Amy Gagnon New Britain, CT resident
Dear Co-Chairs Gerratana and Ritter and esteemed members of the Public Health Committee. Thank you for this opportunity today to testify in opposition of.SB 300, AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAIN WATER COMPANY LAND.
I am a resident of New Britain and I love the city in which I live. I am deeply concerned about the city's desire to reclassify protected land for mining. If the state passed legislation to allow the lease to Tilcon Connecticut Inc., it would not only be detrimental for New Britain 1s future, it would likely set a precedent that one could easily reverse laws already in place that protect our natural resources.
From a preservation standpoint, I think it is reckless that the City of New Britain has little regard for it's natural environment and history. This is not the first time various administrations have tried to change/alter existing laws regarding our environmental resources, and it is not likely the last.
From a practical standpoint, we simply do not know the effects quarrying the watershed will have on the next 40 years. Permitting this legislation to pass will severely undercut the strict restrictions on the land currently accorded under state law. There are too many unknowns to simply go forward with this legislation without first gathering more information.
I understand the need for development, especially for a city that is economically depressed, however, I cannot support leasing legally protected land to do so. There is too great a risk for open space, wildlife, and quality of life for the city's residents. Other Connecticut towns and cities make efforts to protect their natural resources. 0 New Britain should follow suit. Thank you for your time and consideration,
Amy Gagnon New Britain, Connecticut
0 • fin.------002423
c BU I 300 Dear Senator Gerentana
Please vote no on this Bill. It only makes Tilcon bigger in area and will destroy the property values of the homes on the New Britain Side of the town line. It takes away a working reservoir for the city. How much "rent" can it bring. The city can not take care of the property it already has at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. As always thank you for your ear so to speak.
Adrien Lagassie [email protected]
c
0 ' 002424
• c CJ s:::
c s::: 0 CJ ·-1-
c •. () 0 0
TILCON About Tilcon Connecticut • Since 1923, a leading provider of quality crushed stone, hot mix asphalt, ready mix concrete, and paving and construction services.
• We have 41 facilities in Connecticut (5 quarries; 4 sand & gravel plants; 8 ready mix concrete plants; 18 asphalt plants, and 2 marine terminals (Buchanan Marine).
• Our projects include the Connecticut Convention Center, Mohegan Sun Casino, Bradley International Airport, Dollar Tree & Amazon distribution, Interstate's 91, 1- 84,1-691 ,Rt2,and 1-95.
• We employ over 600 employees in various communities 295 at the Plainville/New Britain headquarters.
• We support over 100 local charitable organizations including Hospital of Central CT, Habitat for Humanity, Klingberg Family Centers, Plainville Food Pantry, CT Breast Initiative's Race in the Park, New Britain Museum of American Art, Project Graduation for area high schools, the New. Britain YWCA, Boys and Girls Club of Hartford, CT Forest & Park Association, and National Resources Council of CT. 0 0 N ~ • We have made significant operational investments that are environmentally N friendly such as storm water filters, and energy efficient asphalt plants VI () () ()
TILCON
Tilcon Connecticut's - Proposal • Develop a plan that will create sustained economic, environmental and natural resource value for the reg1on.
• Tilcon could continue Plainville operations for an additional 40yrs. by acquiring mineral rights to 131 acres of adjacent land in Plainville owned by the city of New Britain.
• New Britain would retain ownership of the land.
• New Britain, would gain a water reservoir and Tilcon would sustain local economic activity, along with 0 0 retaining hundreds of jobs at Plainville/New Britain N ~ operations. N 0'\ () () 0
-- --...
TIL CON
Tilcon Connecticut's- Goal
An equitable transfer of assets among New Britain, Plainville, Southington, and Tilcon Connecticut Inc., which offers benefit for each of the parties and creates sustained economic, financial, and environmental value for the entire region.
0 0 N .:=... N "" () () ()
TILCON
Tilcon Connecticut's Future
Expanding our existing quarry with the adjacent water department property V\lill extend the viable life of our business and build a reservoir to plan for future water needs.
0 0 N ~ N 00 002429 c -cu tn c.0 ....0 c.. t- 0 c: 0 (.) c ·--t-
c 002430 c -ca tn 0 c. 0 s.. c.. 1- 0 c:: 0 (.) c ·-1--
c. 002431
I . c
c
c 002432 Q) c: c 0 N ...... en ca m- ,z0 Q) en a.0 c ....0 a..
c 002433 . ~ (.) c ca .c .... Q) Q) r::: tn 0 ...,NQ) . Q) ...... ,.._ caen tn- ;:m Q) 0 ·-> z -o:5 cn3:Q) ·- c.0 c e Q.
c 002434 c
j I c 35 c
z ·<( ,_J a. C) CD z ...- ! 0 ' -z N I ' -:it u ' w 0::: 0 c( w I >- (j) 10 z I 0 J: f- 1- Cl :::1 z 0 0 c en u w <.9 ...J ...J z f- -> (j) z >< -::5 w a. c
z <( ..Ja. (!) z ...J -z en -::iE ~ 0::: 0 <( 1'- w LO >- 0 It) 1- I a... J: w 1- 1- :J en c 0 I tJ) ....- w 0:::: ..J <( ..J w - >- >z -~ a.
c c
z < ..Ja. (!) z -z .....J - (/') :t ~ 0::: 0 1'- ~ I!) >- 0 It) 1- I a.. :I: w .... 1- :::l (/') 0 I c (/) N w 0:: ...1 -...1 ~ >z >- -< ...1a.
c c
z <( ..J ....J a. CJ) (!) z ~ 0 -z 1'- -:!! LO 0 0:: I- <( a.. w w >- 1- It) CJ) I I ,...... J: ....J 1- <( ~ c 0 1- U) 0::: w ~· ..J ...... J ('I) -> 0::: z <( -<( w ..J >- a.
c c
z :5a. (!) ...1 z (J) -z :2 0 -:E C\1 0::: LO 0 ~ r >- a.. It) w r I (f) J: r ...... I :::» r 0 z c en 0 w ()..__.. .J .J ('I') - 0::: > <( z w -
c 002440 c
z j a. (!) z -z -I -::2: en 0::: ~
c c
z c( ...Ia. (!) z z- - .....1 :e Cf) 0:: ~ 0 il'i N >- I!) IJ') 0 I 1- ::r: 0... 1- w ::::J 1- 0 Cf) c U) I w I!) ...J 0:::: ...J <( -> w -z >- ~ a.
c () () ()
TILCON
Key Benefits ' • Environmental Benefits • Community Benefits • Improved Water Resources • Economic Benefits
0 0 N ~ ~ N 0 () ()
TIL CON Environmental Benefits Open Space and Watershed Donations • Our proposal would generate an estimated 131 acres of additional Class I and Class II watershed property, while eliminating only 10 acres of currently designated Class I watershed. Net gain for the reservoir is 108 acres total 239 acres returns to Class 1 (154) and Class 2 (85).
• 3 for 1 exchange of open space: Every acre of mineral rights purchased by Tilcon = nearly three acres of open space donated to neighboring communities, more than 327 acres of company-owned land to be donated: - New Britain - 95 acres of open space land - Plainville- 157 acres of open space land - Southington - 75 acres of open space land
• Open space donations prevent future development while significantly 0 increasing protected Class I and Class II watershed acreage in the 0 N region. ~ ~ w 002444 i . c s:: 0 ...... ·-ca s:: 0 c (I) (.) ca c. c (/) s:: c.(I)
I ! 0 I '
c 002445 . c
·- J:...... ::::J 0 (1) en u c • ca .!c. =en >t: t: ·- (1) ~c. c..O
c () n ()
TILCON Improved Water Resources
Creation of a New Reservoir • Restore land currently zoned for heavy industry into Class I and Class II watershed land resulting in a potential new water storage reservoir. • This reservoir would increase the region's available supply of water, by capturing and storing rainfall that is currently lost. - Proposed reservoir will hold 4. 7 billion gallons of water, a 3.2 billion gallon increase over the Shuttle Meadow Reservoir - Increase New Britain's yield by 160,000 gallons per day - Could serve up to 2,000 people year round
0 0 N ~ ~
' . en 002447
L.. c ·- 0c: G) tn G) ~ L..· G) ,.., . ~ -c c G) tn c.0 0 L.. D. c () () ()
TILCON Improved Water Resources
Flood Protection • With additionalwater in a new reservoir, critical flood protection for New Britain residents living near the West Canal will be improved. • Additional reservoir capacity allows the city to safely capture and store water from storm events.
0 0 N ~ ~ 00 () () ()
TIL CON Addressing Neighborhood Concerns • Improved storm water management • Create1 000 ft. forested buffer around perimeter of proposed quarry • Manage impact of blasting • No water leaves site without DEEP testing • Long term shift in mining location away from neighbors • No change in public view of site 0 0 N .;:... .;:... ~ 002450 c
~ co E E ::s en ~ C) 0 -0 Q) C) co .a> 1.. c I () 0 0 Area A Hydrogeology - View Street TIL CON )z( ' 0 QOOD 0 N PRIVATE "NEU.S 22DFT 5XVERTICALEXAGGERATION ~ 15-25 GPM V1 j-1 0 () () Area B Hydrogeology - View Street TIL CON OF EXJSTINB EXCAVATION B' 0 BDOO 0 N PRN"AJE WELLS 220FT 5XVERTICALEXAGGERATION ,.J::o. 15-25GPM V1 N 0 () n Area C Hydrogeology - Ledge Road TILCON 0 ej:·>· .!·, ' .. ] 0 UllD 211DQ 5000 ~ -- N PRIVATE VIELLS ·11D- 3Dfi FT 5X VERTICAL EXAGGERATION ~ 1.5-2:5GPM VI w 0 () 0 TILCON Key Points to Remember Water Resource Benefits • Creation of new water reservoir .• Improved storm water management Environmental Benefits • 3 for 1 exchange of open space • Establishment of additional Class I and II watershed land • Long term mining plan away from Neighbors Economic Benefits • New revenues • Sustained employment for hundreds of families • Continued support of local charities 0 0 N ~ V1 ~ 0 () () TIL CON ·Your Feedback & Advice • Recommendations on additional organizations that Tilcon should brief • Recommendations of individuals to invite as members for the Tilcon Advisory Council • Forums/Opportunities for Tilcon to educate the public and address their concerns 0 0 N ~ V1 V1 0 0 0 TILCON Thank You for Your Time! Tilcon's Contact Information for: Gary Wall, President, . 860-224-6033 · [email protected] 0 0 N .:::.. V1 ~ 002457 c TO: Sen. Terry B. Gerratana and Rep. Matthew Ritter, Chairmen, And Honorary Members of the Public Health Committee Testimony from Rivers Alliance of Connecticut Public Hearing, March 7, 2016, on . RB 300 AAC New Britain Water Company Land Rivers Alliance of Connecticut is a statewide non-profit organization, founded in 1992, as a coalition of river organizations, other conservation non-profits, individuals, and businesses working to protect and enhance Connecticurs rivers, streams, aquifers, Jakes, and estuaries. We promote sound water policies and water stewardship through education and assistance at the local, regional, and state levels. We strongly oppose this bill because it would allow rock mining for some 40 years in highly protected public drinking-water land. This project was first proposed to legislators in 2007-08; a bill passed and was eventually repealed. This year, to the credit of Tilcon and New Britain, the proposal has been made in a timely manner so that there can be full public discussion. It is also slightly improved in some details, but the basic problem remains the same. c New Britain wishes to lease to Tilcon about 131 acres that is .owns in Plainville. Of this property, about 100 acres are Class I and Class Uland (with Class II accounting for about 90 percent of what's protected). Class I and II are defined as land owned by a water company and that recharges a public drinking water source. In state law and policy, this land holds the highest priority for protection (CGS § 25-37c), closely followed by similar but privately owned source-water land. {I have occasion to observe how seriously this protection is regarded through service on the state's review board for its open-space acquisition program and also service on the Water Planning Council's workgroup on watershed lands.) Almost any sort of activity on Class I or II requires approval from the Department of Public Health (DPH) for a change of use. Such approval is hard to come by. New Brit.ain and Tilcon are here today because DPH advised them that it could not grant such approval but that the legislature could. Rock mining essentially strips away the soil and natural vegetation is the quarry area. But the best protection for water quality is naturally vegetated open space. So how can it be argued that this project will benefit the publiC trust in source water? The response of the bill's proponents is that Tilcon will, under a binding agreement, transform the quarried out area into a storage reservoir for drinking water. They maintain that a new surface-water source is very likely to be needed in the future In the New Britain c 002458 c water company service region and beyond. This is an extremely complex issue. Is demand actually increasing? Is a surface-water source the best response? What about well fields and interconnections? What infrastructure changes are needed to implement this idea? This water is in trust for a// the public - will that be reflected in the benefits offered? Fortunately. in PA 14-163. the General Assembly directed the Water Planning Council to create a comprehensive plan for all the state's waters. This is exactly the kind of issue that should be addressed in the context of the state's water plan. There is no water ernergencv at this time that would justify the dramatic abandonment of precedent and extensive destruction of vegetation and soil that this bill would permit. Thank you for your attention. Margaret Miner, Executive Director Rivers Alliance of Connecticut, Litchfield CT c • c • 002459 c Public Health Committee .... · · Public Hearing March 7, 2016 Testimony Opposlng)!alsed Bill No. 300 .. ''· . .... :;, : . . ·. , AN ACT CONCERN~N~W~\11 BR!~AIN WATER COMPANY LAND Thank you for the opportunitY to speak on this issue today after an eight year hiatus. · . . ·· In 2007, Tilcon, a ~holly OVIfQed subsidiary ofthe CRH group with a dominant position in North American markets, proP,,qs~p tq .. extend activities into 130 acres of the Shuttle Meadow watershed. ' ' . ' ~ ' ' . Despite ~~!1-Je loc~l support of that, with the aid of hundreds of citizens of New Britain and from around the state" we accomplished what the citizens of Flint couldn't, c and it was defeated. Persistence is one of their virtues as a business, as is long -range' planning. , The present plan is essentially the same .· with more sugar~coating: A reservoir, land grants for open space, ·and money that will decrease in value with inflation over time. Towns and cities always need money, and trying to avoid a move and continuing in ,Plainville is worth hundred of millions to CRH. · , , · Every day the quarry operates, the flow into the Shuttle Meadow water system is diminished, but that was lost in a • different time. c 1111 002460 0 We have laws and regulations to protect our rare natural water sources, streams, ponds and forests. Mayor Stewart in her report on water quality in 2013 states " ... we enjoy an abundant water supply from 8 sources . . . . .Shuttle Meadow, Wassel, Whigville, Wolcott, White Bridge, Hart Ponds, and Nepaugh Reservoirs, combined they hold about 3 billion gallons of water. ... also two wellfields ... The department also leases the Patton bridge welllfield to the Town of Southington." This system was designed when New Britain had about 15% more people and Stanley Works, Fafnir Bearings, Emhart, North and Judd, and numerous other factories needing water. lri the end, it is always about money. The time is past 0 when we can sell off vital resources for temporary relief of budget problems. Weakening the environmental laws impacts the whole state and beyond, as lines on a map do not limit the horrendous permanent damage this will do. We wish Tilcon well, but the sooner they stop destroying our landscape the better, and extending and prolonging their destruction of the Shuttle Meadow and Crescent Lake watershed would be criminal. Martin Dinep, MD New Britain, CT 0 002461 c Gil Bligh, Director of Water Services City of New Britain Testimony: Re: ~enate Bm No. 300: An Acting Concerning New Britain Water Company Land Public Health Committee Public Hearing March 7, 2016 Good afternoon Senator Gerratana and other members of the Public Health Committee. I thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of Senate Bill 300-a bill that could change the amount of fresh drinking water available in Central Connecticut for generations to come. Some will tell you this bill revives an old argument that allowing the city to lease its land to Tilcon will somehow threaten the state's high-level protection oflands around drinking water reservoirs. I am here today to tell you the only threat existing- is if we do NOTHING. What if communities need more water, how do they get it? The way the law is written any change of use to the land around drinking water reservoirs requires approval by the Department of Public Health (DPH). Such approval traditionally is only granted to small activities related to good management of the (public's) water. This however, was not the case in New 0 Britain when the new filtration plant was constructed in 2000 to 2004. The Connecticut Department of Public Health issued water company land permits for both the construction of the new filtration plant and for the demolition of the old filtration plant. Both permits were for change of use in Class 1 and 2 Water Company lands. The activities included not only the blasting and removal of ledge on Class 1 watershed, but also the crushing on site of the blasted trap rock and the use of that crushed stone under the foundation of the new filtration plant. So there is precedent for allowing this type of change. That project also involved the relocation of a Class 1 water course that emptied directly into Shuttle Meadow Reservoir and when it was time for demolition on Class 1 and 2 watershed all precautions were taken. The project was reviewed and site audited by officials from the EPA, the CTDEP and the CTDPH. 0 002462 c Some may also argue rock mining ruins the natural landscape and natural vegetation and should not be approved in these special areas. Well, New Britain's Wasel Reservoir was made in the 196o's by blasting trap rock in what would now be Class 1land and using the blasted ledge to build the dam on that same Class 1 land. The removal of ledge is a necessary function in construction. Are earth materials valuable? Sure. But a clean fresh water drinking supply is priceless. Some may say there is no urgency for this new reservoir. But good water supply engineering and planning requires this type of 40 year planning. The placement of a 4·7 Billion gallon reservoir adjacent to New Britain, Plainville, Berlin, Southington and Bristol is needed to secure the availability and reliability of Class A drinking water for this region. If you allow this legislation to move forward- there will be 240 acres of beautiful water and open space. There will be no roads, or road salt to worry about, no industrial, commercial or residential activities will be in the watershed. The new reservoir would fill by both naturally occurring rainfall and through existing upland supplies that are State approved drinking water sources. And when there is a need to fill draught stricken brooks and rivers the water from the reservoir can be shared to fill them. c Think of ALL the benefit to the region and to the state for generations to come. I thank you for your time and your consideration. c 002463 c Good afternoon Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter & distinguished members of the Public Health committee. My name is Gary Wall, President of Til con Connecticut, and I am here today to respectfully urge your support for sa 30Q An Act Concerning New Britain Water Company Land. Tilcon has been a leading supplier of quality crushed stone, hot mix asphalt, ready mix concrete and paving and construction services since 1923. The quarry at our Plainville/New Britain Headquarters is the largest of our 41 facilities in the state, where we employ almost half of our more than 600 employees in Connecticut. At Tilcon, we pride ourselves not only on the quality of our products and work, but on being an environmentally-conscious good neighbor and a valuable economic contributor to the communities in which we operate. This legislation, which would allow us to build a reservoir for the City of New Britain, provides a number of benefits for the environment, the community and the economy, and should be considered "a win" for all parties involved. This project would expand both watershed land and protected open space, increase the region's supply of clean drinking water, move mining and blasting operations a greater distance away from neighborhoods and retain hundreds of local jobs by extending the viable life of Tilcon' s operations in Plainville and New Britain by several decades. In exchange for purchasing the mineral rights to 131 acres of land owned by the City of New Britain within the town of Plainville, Tilcon will donate 327 acres of company-owned land as open space. This 3-to-1 exchange of open space would preserve valuable natural resources by protecting this land and preventing any future development. New Britain would receive c approximately 95 acres, Plainville would receive approximately 157 acres and Southington would receive approximately 75 acres. This proposal would enhance the region's water resources for future generations by allowing the Tilcon to develop a new reservoir for the City of New Britain. This reservoir would be large enough to hold 4. 7 billion gallons of water, three times the capacity of the Shuttle Meadow Reservoir. By capturing and storing rainfall that is currently lost, enough water would be collected to increase New Britain's yield by 160,000 gallons per day and serve as many as 2,000 people year round. Creating this reservoir would transform acreage currently zoned for heavy industrial use, allowing it to be reclassified as watershed land and resulting in a net increase of 123 acres of Class I and Class II watershed property. The project would benefit the quarry's neighbors by initiating a long term shift in mining operations away from neighborhoods in both Plainville and New Britain. This would immediately minimize the impact of blasting, as an increased 1,000 foot forested buffer would be established around the perimeter of the quarry. The project would not result in any change to the public view of the site, nor would it lead to an increase in truck traffic. c 002464 c Finally, extending quarry operations in Plainville and New Britain by another 40 years would maintain one of the region's most significant source of tax revenue, sustain Tilcon's annual investment of $40 million in wages and operating supplies and preserve hundreds of jobs. It would also allow the company to maintain our longstanding support of more than 100 local charitable organizations. This project is a "win-win-win"-- with measurable long term benefits to the environment, the community and the economy. By providing a 3-to-1 exchange of open space and a net increase of 123 acres of Class I and Class II watershed property, it would protect and preserve valuable natural resources. It would create an expanded water supply while moving mining operations away from neighborhoods. And it would allow Tilcon to extend its operations in Plainville and New Britain for decades, maintaining a significant tax base, jobs and continued support for local charities. Please support SB 300 and allow this project to move forward in order to benefit this region environmentally and economically for generations to come. Thank you for your consideration. c 0 002465 c Connecticut Fund Save the Sound• for the Environment ·-·Connectialt Fund fer the fJ!Iliru'ment Testimony of Connecticut Fund for the Environment Before the Public Health Committee In opposition of Bill 300 AN ACT CONCERNING NEW BRITAm WATER COMPANY LAND. Submitted by Rachael Gaudio, Legal Fellow March 3, 2016 Connecticut Fund for the Erwironment (CFE) is a non-profit environmental organization with over 5,500 members statewide. The mission ofCFE, and its bi-state program Save the Sound, is to protect and improve the land, air, and water of Connecticut and Long Island Sound We use legal and scientific expertise and bring people together to achieve results that benefit our environment for current and.future generations. Dear Senator Gerratana, Representative Ritter, and members of the Public Health Committee: Connecticut Fund for the Environment, and its bi-state program Save the Sound (CFE/Save the Sound) expresses its opposition to SB 300. This bill would set dangerous precedent for the protection of drinking water watersheds. CFE/Save the Sound would also request that the general assembly consider placing a moratorium on major water-use and development projects until the c State Water Plan is complete. First, SB 300 seems to be an attempt to do what the Department ofPublil: Health will not allow under the !awl In essence, SB 300 is a law to permit breaking codified law. 1 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 25-32. ("(a) The Department of Public Health shall have jurisdiction over all matters concerning the purity and adequacy of any water supply source used by any municipality, public institution or water company for obtaining water, the safety of any distributing plant and system for public health purposes, the adequacy of methods used to assure water purity, and such other matters relating to the construction and operation of such distributing plant and system as may affect public health. (b) No water company shall sell, lease, assign or otherwise dispose of or change the use of any watershed lands, except as provided in section 25 -43c, without a written permit from the Commissioner of Public Health. The commissioner shall not grant: (1) A penn it for the sale of class I land, except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, (2) a pennit for the lease of class I land except as provided in subsection (p) of this section, or (3) a pennit for a change in use of class I land unless the applicant demonstrates that such change will not have a significant adverse impact upon the. present and future purity and adequacy of the public drinking water supply and is consistent with any water supply plan filed and approved pursuant to section 25-32d. The commissioner may reclassify class I land only upon determination that such land no longer meets the criteria established by subsection (a) of section 25-37c because of abandonment of a water supply source or a physical change in the watershed boundary. Not more than fifteen days before filing an application for a permit under this section, the applicant shall provide notice of such intent, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the chief executive officer and the chief elected official of each municipality in which the land is situated.") Connecticut Fund for the Environment and Save the Sound 142 Temple Street • New Haven, Connecticut 06510 • (203) 787..()646 www.ctenvironment.org • www.savethesound.org c 002466 c The lands proposed for re-assignment under SB 300 are currently owned by the New Britain water company and are classified as Class I and Class II lands. The legislature has set express intent to protect such lands. Connecticut General Statutes § 7-131 d( a) specifically states that "[a]llland acquired under [Conn. Gen. Stat. § 25-32a] shall be preserved in perpetuity predominantly in their natural scenic and open condition for the protection of natural resources while allowing for recreation consistent with such protection and, for lands acquired by water companies, allowing for the improvements necessary for the protection or provision of potable water." The changes suggested in SB 300 are not necessary for the protection or provision of potable water. Indeed, the mining of these lands would destroy the natural resources and scenic conditions currently present therein. This bill would allow New Britain to lease approximately 131 acres of water company-owned Class I and II land in Plainville to Tilcon for the purpose of rock mining for up to 40 years. At the end of the excavation, the theory is that the space could be transformed into a storage reservoir, and Til con would be required to grant minimum acreage areas of open space to the city of New Britain and the towns of Southington and Plainville. An almost identical project proposed in 2007 was ultimately defeated. The currently proposed project and SB 300 should be rejected because they threaten precious natural resources and set dangerous precedent for open lands in the future. Specifically, mining activities will destroy the natural landscape and vegetation, the bill as proposed will undermine existing protections on other Class I and II lands, and the bill as proposed could not stop other water companies in the state from exploiting their Class I and II lands in order to take advantage of the high market value of earth materials (rock and gravel) or other industrial uses on their land. Based on data presented thus far, there is no pressing need for a reservoir in New Britain. Given the fact that the proposed lease will last for 40 years, there is no reason why such a project c cannot be postponed until it can be implemented within the comprehensive statewide water plan currently being developed by the Water Planning Council. For these reasons, CFE/Save the Sound respectfully asks that SB 300 be rejected and a moratorium be placed on major water use and development projects until the State Water Plan is complete. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Rachael M. Gaudio 142 Temple Street, Suite 305 New Haven, CT 06510 203.787.0646 ext. 108 203.787.0246 fax [email protected] www.ctenvironment.org Connecticut Fund for the Environment and Save the Sound 142 Temple Street • New Haven, Connecticut 06510 • (203) 787-0646 www.ctenvironment.arg • www.savethesound.org 0 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS PUBLIC HEALTH PART 6 2594 – 2995 2016 002945 P.O. Box 271646 c West Hartford, Connecticut 06127 7 March2016 RE: Park Watershed comments: ·Public Health Committee [email protected] To Whom It May Concern: Park Watershed is a 501 c3 urban-suburban watetShed stewardship organization for Park River regional watershed, which stretches east of the Metacomet Ridge through MDC reservoir propetties to the Connecticut River. West Hartford, Hartford and Bloomfield as well as patts of Newington, New Britain, Farmington and Wethersfield are within the Park Rivet watershed. Our organizational goal is to improve the water quality and ecosystem health of water courses and water bodies that enhance neighborhood character even within high-density urban development. We recommend the Public Health Committee • Support- Raised Bill 5540, An Act Concerning The State Water Plan This Bill is needed to ensure the Water Planning Council will be able to adjust the plan with respect to future issues raised in legislative committees, prior to a final vote. • Oppose-. Raised Bill 300. An Act Concerning New Britain Water Company Land There are many details to the Tilcon proposal that have not yet been clarified. Although the arrangement could will eventually yield long term benefits, the Water Planning Council ought to be involved in any modification to Connecticut's excellent protection of c drinking-water lands. Increasingly municipalities are eager to negotiate significant public natural resources without adequate analysis of the short term impacts and long term consequences. Meanwhile, across the nation, municipalities and states that have not protected drinking water ate realizing the crippling costs of damaged water quality." Park Watershed agrees with testimony submitted by Rivers Alliance of Connecticut: the new quarry proposed by Tilcon on protected Class I and Class II public water-supply land, ought to be reviewed in the statewide, comprehensive water plan currently being developed by the Water Planning Council with input from a spectrum stakeholders. We appreciate the opportunity to comment upon these bills. Bests, ~,'-A' f'..l- Mary Rickel Pelletier Founding Director Park Watershed a 501 r3 Jlrban-mlmrban dtif!n stewardship o'l,anizaiU!n for the Ptlt'k River rtgiona/1VrJ!ershed Page 1 qf1 c