QUESTION 5:As I stated on WATR on Tuesday this particular question has a much smaller impact on the City of Waterbury than meets the eye. As mentioned in the explanatory text, this question arises out of a lawsuit that was filed against the city back in 2000 regarding the Shepaug River. As a result of the lawsuit, it was determined that the City of Waterbury can no longer use the term “surplus water” in its Charter language. As a result, one of the historical sections of the Charter, Section 11A-2(b), could no longer be enforced. Since Chapter 11 of the Waterbury Charter contains language that has been in place for decades, and almost all of this language is a result of Special Acts passed by the State Legislature in Hartford, the Charter Revision Commission was reluctant to alter that language.Shall the Charter be revised in order to reestablish the City’s ability to contract to develop electrical energy by water power from any water within the City’s municipal waterworks system?
This revision is a result of court decisions that redefined the term “surplus water”, as used in the Charter’s Special Acts and Historical Provisions, in a way that called in to question the City’s power to contract to develop electrical energy by water power from any water within the City’s municipal waterworks system. The proposed new §4-10 is meant to provide an alternative to the existing language thus preserving the City’s ability to enter into such an arrangement.
As a result, if this question is approved, the historical section will be superseded by a new section of the Charter, Section 4-10. The new section is almost identical to the historical provision, which was passed by Special Act in 1931. For comparison’s sake, the two sections are shown below. The underlined portions of the two sections show language that has been changed.
Section 11A-2(b)
The Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen, is empowered to contract and agree on behalf of the City, upon such terms as the Mayor and Board of Aldermen may deem advisable, with any electric power company, incorporated and doing business in this state, in such manner and form as will enable such power company to develop electrical energy by water power from any surplus waters which may exist in any present or future reservoir or reservoirs of said City. The term “surplus water”, as used herein, shall be construed to mean such water impounded in or escaping from such reservoir or reservoirs as is not actually needed by the City for the public use and convenience of the inhabitants. All water so used for the purpose of developing electrical energy shall be returned to the stream from which taken. The Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen of the City, is empowered to contract to lease any land owned by the City to such electrical power company for such length of time and on such terms as may be agreed upon for the location thereon of power houses, conduits and transmission lines and for such other purposes as may be necessary or convenient for the creation, development or transmission of electrical energy developed from such surplus water by the power company contracting for its use.
Section 4-10
In addition to or in the alternative to any and all powers conferred by federal and state law, constitutions, statutes and regulations, notwithstanding anything in this Charter to the contrary other than the requirements of Sec. 3A-2(d), the Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen, is empowered to contract and agree on behalf of the City, upon such terms as the Mayor and Board of Aldermen may deem advisable, with any electric power company, incorporated and doing business in this state, in such manner and form as will enable such power company to develop electrical energy by water power from any water within the City’s municipal waterworks system, so long as use of such water for electric power purposes does not materially impact upon the City’s ability to meet its water supply obligations. The Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen of the City, is empowered to contract to lease any land owned by the City to such electrical power company for such length of time and on such terms as may be agreed upon for the location thereon of power houses, conduits and transmission lines and for such other purposes as may be necessary or convenient for the creation, development or transmission of electrical energy developed from such surplus water by the power company contracting for its use.
As you can see the phrase in the historical section talking about “surplus waters which may exist in any present or future reservoir or reservoirs of said City” has be replaced in the new section with the phrase “water within the City’s municipal waterworks system, so long as use of such water for electric power purposes does not materially impact upon the City’s ability to meet its water supply obligations”. It is my opinion that these two phrases mean essentially the same thing. In both cases the power company cannot use so much water that the City of Waterbury suffers as a result. Beyond that definition, and the new introduction, the sections are identical.
Furthermore, the introduction in the new section actually adds a layer of protection to the residents of Waterbury. Section 3A-2(d) of the Charter includes a subsection that requires a referendum for any lease that totals over $5,000,000 in value.
If you were listening to WATR yesterday, you heard me get into an intense discussion with Alderman DePillo regarding this question. Alderman DePillo seems convinced that any such lease will wind up hurting the city, as he expressed no faith in anyone in the City accurately determining how much water can be used before it would “materially impact” the City’s obligations.
While I respect his concerns, I feel obligated to point out that this is contradictory to Alderman DePillo’s campaign claims, in his failed 2005 Mayoral bid, that he was going to bring in a water bottling plant to downtown Waterbury. During the campaign Alderman DePillo never revealed the name of the company that was considering moving to Waterbury, though yesterday he told us that it was the Nestle Corporation. He also mentioned that Nestle had been banned from several states due to the large impact that they had on the water supplies in those states. However, according to Alderman DePillo, in Waterbury Nestle would have only used “20% of the excess” water.
This claim by the Alderman begs the question of how he can be so confident that Nestle would only have used 20% of the City’s excess water to run a water bottling plant, but have no faith in a power plant being able to ever come in and not materially impacting the City’s water. Sometimes I wonder if the reason that Alderman DePillo is against this plan is because he didn’t introduce it.
Alderman DePillo also felt it was inappropriate for the City to lease land to a private company for a hydroelectric plant, preferring to have the City build and staff such a power plant using City funds to construct the plant, and City employees to run the plant.
This claim is especially confusing to me, as Alderman DePillo has built his reputation on fighting what he has seen as excessively high costs on City capital improvement plans, and the high pay of city employees. As Alderman DePillo has been so consistent on suggesting that City workers are overpaid, and City bonding projects are overpriced, why would he push for the construction of a power plant with City funds that would easily run to the millions of dollars, and advocate for the hiring of more City employees?
It seems clear to me that Alderman DePillo has changed his tune drastically on this issue, for reasons that are known only to him.
It is my opinion that this question should be approved. First, approval of this question only restores rights that the City of Waterbury has had since 1931. Second, if it is run properly, a hydroelectric plant would have less impact on our water supply than a water bottling facility. Finally, if a company comes in and leases City land, that would bring money to the City in rent, and jobs to the City.
As always, if you have any questions, let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment