WATER

Not Worth Its Salt

How Rockland County Could End Up Paying for an
Unnecessary Desalination Plant
Fact Sheet • January 2010

U nited Water New York is presenting its proposal to build a desalination plant
on the Hudson River as Rockland County’s best long-term water supply
option.1 Yet community members and organizations in the Rockland Coalition
for Sustainable Water are concerned about the high costs, environmental
impacts and health concerns associated with the plant, and local towns have
passed resolutions opposing it.2

It is not surprising to see United Water at odds with the

community it serves. Both United Water and its parent
company, Suez Environnement, have a track record of
high-profile privatization failures.3 They are not the only
private companies to have such trouble. When private
companies own water systems, they have financial incen-
tives to make decisions that would increase their profits,
but may hurt the water system.4 It appears that United
Water’s proposal is following this trend.

New Infrastructure: A Source of

Profits
One way that companies can possibly profit at the expense
of sound water management is by investing in infrastruc-
ture — even if it is unnecessary. Expensive infrastructure
projects are regarded as an investment, and inflate the
financial value of a water system. New York state regulators
allow companies to earn a return on their equity invest-
ments by raising water rates — which means that local
ratepayers pay for the extra profits. But they might not be
paying for the best long-term water supply option avail-
able. This may be happening in Rockland County.

United Water Profits, Rockland Pays

A desalination plant in the Canary Islands. Photo by Irina Belousa/
iStockphoto.
United Water New York’s proposed desalination plant
would profit the company. The plant would generate ap-
proximately $5 million in annual profits for United Water.5
But the profits for the company would come out of rate-
payer pocketbooks, as the company will recover its costs
through a new surcharge called the New Water Supply
Source surcharge.6
Bear Mountain Bridge over the Hudson River. Photo by Eric Ortner.
The financial costs to Rockland would also come along
with potential threats to the local environment and public
health. The plant is energy-intensive — it would draw in
approximately the same amount of water as the Pough-
keepsies’ Joint Water Treatment facility, but use two to
three times as much electricity, and only produce three
quarters of the usable water.7 The increase in electricity
use would come at a time when the state is trying to cut
its emissions.8 In addition, the plant could harm local fish
habitats that are deemed sensitive. Haverstraw Bay, where
the plant will be located, is identified as an essential habi-
tat for fish.9 Pollution from the plant’s liquid waste products
could damage water quality in the Hudson River.10
In addition, the plant could contribute to flooding, a prob-
lem that has already been exacerbated by development.11
And, it could actually encourage increased development
that would further strain Rockland’s water resources. Al-
ready, neighborhood planners in Orangetown are assum-
ing that a new source of water will be available from the
desalination plant.12
Furthermore, water from the plant may not be safe to
drink, if the treatment process does not fully remove the
PCBs and radioactive chemicals that may be found in the
Hudson River water at the plant’s proposed location due
to a history of industrial pollution and its proximity to the
closed Haverstraw Landfill and Indian Point Nuclear Power
Plant.13
Rockland Has Better Options
Many local community members believe that the plant is
not necessary. Rockland County has plentiful natural water
resources—it is covered with rivers and lakes, draws water
from underground aquifers and estimates of rainfall range
from 40 to 50 inches a year.14 These resources have been
strained by increased population growth and develop-
ment, but Rockland County’s water needs could be met by
taking a watershed approach to water management, which
includes conservation, infrastructure improvements, better
land use planning, stormwater management, collection of
scientific data and other broader tools.
For example, conservation programs are almost always
more cost-effective than finding new sources of water.15
However, no comprehensive study of the potential for
conservation in Rockland has been conducted. Improving
existing infrastructure could also alleviate the need for a
new water supply: The company could recover 2 million
gallons a day (MGD) of water simply by fixing leaks in its
infrastructure — close to the 2.5 MGD the plant would
produce in its early phase.16
Water managers could examine the connection between
Rockland’s water system and United Water’s system in
New Jersey to better manage Rockland’s water. Rockland’s
Lake DeForest Reservoir releases water into the Hacken-
sack River, which flows into New Jersey.17 When the Lake
Tappan, Woodcliff Lake and Oradell reservoirs in New
Jersey drop below 50 percent capacity, United Water can
release more water from Lake DeForest than the 9.75 mil-
lion gallons a day specified by its permit.18 Between June
and November of 2007, the Oradell Reservoir in New
Jersey discharged 7.31 MGD more than the historical daily
median flow into the Atlantic Ocean — almost as much as
the 7.5 MGD that the plant could potentially produce.19
And, water management cannot be addressed without also
addressing land use planning. The county may need to
consider limiting development or developing in ways that
will not damage existing water resources. Green infra-
structure projects to better manage stormwater can help by
improving local groundwater recharge.20
Conflict of Interests: Corporation
Versus Community
When there are low-cost, low-impact alternatives avail-
able, it just does not make sense to many local residents
to build an expensive, energy-intensive, potentially pol-
luting plant. Yet United Water New York made its proposal
without adequately weighing such alternatives. The com-
pany presented two options that it considered viable — a
desalination plant and a reservoir, and chose the desalina-
tion plant as the better of those two options.21 Yet it chose
to pursue the desalination project without exploring the
potential of low-cost, low-impact alternatives such as con-
servation. United Water said it could not rely on conserva-
tion programs as a major source of new water because it
could not enforce limits on customers’ water use.22 It did
not wait for the results of a scientific study of Rockland’s
water, currently being done by the United States Geologi-
cal Survey, to make its decision based on sound water data
— although plans for the plant were announced in January,
2007, coalition members expected the results of the study
in December 2009.23

This is not surprising. The projects that the company pre-

sented as viable are large new infrastructure projects that
require capital investments, which can create profits for the
company. The types of projects that residents believe can
best supply water in the long term usually are not. Some of
them, such as large-scale conservation programs and land
use planning, are traditionally dealt with by the public sec-
tor, not the private one.24

How Did Rockland County’s Water

Come to Be Owned by a French
Multinational Corporation?
In 1893, the Spring Valley Water Works and
Supply Company was incorporated in New York
to provide water for the growing county.25 The
New Jersey-based Hackensack Water Company
acquired Spring Valley Water in 1900. Over the
years, the Hackensack Water Company expanded,
changed hands and acquired many water
systems throughout New York and New Jersey.26
By 1983, the once-small local enterprise had
grown into a major corporation and reorganized
under the name United Water Resources, Inc.27
United Water purchased the General Waterworks
Corporation in 1994.28 The new entity became the
second-largest investor-owned water utility in the
United States, serving customers in 14 states.29
Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, a French multinational
corporation, bought United Water in 2000.30
Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux later became Suez
Environnement.31
Conclusion
This situation is not just a problem for Rockland County.
The conflict between United Water New York and con-
cerned community members serves as an example of why
local control of water is important: because corporations
can have financial incentives to make decisions that are
not best for the local water system, but decisions about our
most essential resources should put the long term health of
the community and its water above the financial gain of a
corporation.
Learn more
For Food & Water Watch’s full report on United Water’s
desalination proposal in Rockland County, see Not Worth
Its Salt: How Rockland County Could End Up Paying for an
Unnecessary Desalination Plant at www.foodandwater
watch.org.
Endnotes
1 Pointing, Michael J. “Haverstraw water project best choice for Rock-
land’s future.” The Journal News (New York). July 11, 2009.
2 Rockland Coalition for Sustainable Water. [Press Release]. “Is Drink-
ing Hudson River Water the Answer to Rockland’s Water Needs?”
March 30, 2009; Town Board of the Town of Stony Point. “Resolu-
tion regarding desalination facility in the Town of Haverstraw, New
York.” November 10, 2009 at 7:00 pm; Town Board of the Town of
Ramapo. Resolution 2009-568. November 12, 2009.
3 See Food & Water Watch. “Not Worth Its Salt: How Rockland
County Could End Up Paying for an Unnecessary Desalination
Plant.” January 2010 at 2.
4 See Food & Water Watch. “Costly Returns.” June 2008.
5 Food & Water Watch. “Not Worth Its Salt: How Rockland County
Could End Up Paying for an Unnecessary Desalination Plant.” Janu-
ary 2010 at 12.
6 United Water New York. “Long Term Water Supply Project.” Pre-
pared in compliance with Commission order in Case No. 06-W-
0131 Issued and Effective December 14, 2006 by the New York State
Department of Public Service. January 2007 at 13.
7 Food & Water Watch. “Not Worth Its Salt: How Rockland County
Could End Up Paying for an Unnecessary Desalination Plant.” Janu-
ary 2010 at 6. Calculation based on email communication with Paul
Lill, Water Treatment Plant Administrator at Poughkeepsies’ Joint Wa-
ter Treatment Facility. Nov 5, 2009. On file at Food & Water Watch.
8 State Energy Planning Board. “2009 State Energy Plan DRAFT.” State
of New York. August 2009.
9 United Water New York. “Haverstraw Water Supply Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.” September 26, 2008 at 9-26.
10 Food & Water Watch. “Not Worth Its Salt: How Rockland County
Could End Up Paying for an Unnecessary Desalination Plant.” Janu-
ary 2010 at 6. 19 Dillon, Bob. Rockland County Coalition for Sustainable Water. Com-
11 Dillon, Bob. Rockland County Coalition for Sustainable Water. Com- ments on United Water-New York Proposed Desalination-Filtration
ments on United Water-New York Proposed Desalination-Filtration Plant on the Hudson River at Haverstraw Bay. Submitted to New York
Plant on the Hudson River at Haverstraw Bay. Submitted to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, June 25, 2009.
State Department of Environmental Conservation, June 25, 2009; 20 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Managing Wet
Incalcaterra, Laura. “Study will ID Rockland watersheds to address Weather with Green Infrastructure Action Strategy.” January 2008 at
drainage.” The Journal News. October 10, 2008. 6.
12 Town of Orangetown. (Rockland County, New York). Draft Generic 21 United Water New York. “Long Term Water Supply Project.” January
Environmental Impact Statement. “Zoning Map and Text Amend- 15, 2007.
ment and Preliminary Concept Plan for Four Seasons at Orangetown 22 United Water New York. “Haverstraw Water Supply Project Draft
Rockland Psychiatric Center.” April 2009 at IIIE-3. Environmental Impact Statement.” September 26, 2008 at 18-6.
13 Food & Water Watch. “Not Worth Its Salt: How Rockland County 23 Potanovic, George. President, Stony Point Action Committee for the
Could End Up Paying for an Unnecessary Desalination Plant.” Janu- Environment (SPACE). Rockland County Coalition for Sustainable
ary 2010 at 7. Sources used: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. Water. UWNY Scoping: Haverstraw Water Supply Project. Submitted
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Cleaning up Hud- to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, May
son River PCBs.”; Lieberman, Steve. “Landfill collection system a 22, 2009.
waste.” Rockland Journal-News. December 22, 1991; Hudson River 24 See Food & Water Watch. “Not Worth Its Salt: How Rockland
Sloop Clearwater. Rockland County Coalition for Sustainable Water. County Could End Up Paying for an Unnecessary Desalination
Comments on United Water-New York Proposed Desalination- Plant.” January 2010 at 11.
Filtration Plant on the Hudson River at Haverstraw Bay. Submitted to 25 Assembly of the State of New York. (1913). “Documents of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, June 25, Assembly of the State of New york One hundred and thirty-sixth ses-
2009. sion.” Vol. VI. No. 12. Part 2. Albany: J.B. Lyon Company at 250.
14 Food & Water Watch. “Not Worth Its Salt: How Rockland County 26 FundingUniverse. Company History Database. Available at http://
Could End Up Paying for an Unnecessary Desalination Plant.” www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/United-Water-Re-
January 2010 at 8. Sources: Lyon, Bradfield et al. “Water Shortages, sources-Inc-Company-History.html accessed Sept 22, 2009.
Development, and Drought in Rockland County, New York.” Journal 27 PR Newswire. Newark, N.J., July 8, 1983; PR Newswire. Newark,
of the American Water Resources Association, December 2005 at 1. N.J., March 7, 1983.
Wozniak, Peter. “Rockland doesn’t need Hudson plant.” The Journal 28 Prior, James. “Our World of Water.” New Jersey Business. Vol. 46.
News (New York). September 23, 2009. Rockland County Planning Iss. 8. August 1, 2000.
Department. [Map] “Official County Streams Rockland County.” 29 Prior, James. “Our World of Water.” New Jersey Business. Vol. 46.
September 2008. “Water resources in Rockland County.” NIEHS Iss. 8. August 1, 2000.
Superfund Basic Research Program. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observa- 30 PR Newswire. Financial News. July 27, 2000.
tory, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, 31 Suez Environnement. “Prospectus for the listing of the shares of Suez
Columbia University. Available at superfund.ciesin.columbia.edu/ Envionnement Company for trading on the Euronext Paris Exchange
Rocklandwater/supply_sources.html, accessed on Sept 24, 2009. as part of the distribution of Suez Environnement Company shares
15 “Water Conservation Standards.” The Commonwealth of Massachu- to Suez shareholders.” Translation of French prospectus visa number
setts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and Water Resources 08-127. June 13, 2008.
Commission. July 2006 at 4.
16 Food & Water Watch. “Not Worth Its Salt: How Rockland County
Could End Up Paying for an Unnecessary Desalination Plant.”
January 2010 at 9. Calculation based on United Water New York. For more information:
“Haverstraw Water Supply Project Draft Environmental Impact State- web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org
ment.” September 26, 2008 at 18-5.
17 United Water New York. “Haverstraw Water Supply Project Draft email: info@fwwatch.org
Environmental Impact Statement.” September 26, 2008 at 1-5. phone: (202) 683-2500 (DC) • (415) 293-9900 (CA)
18 Incalcaterra, Laura. “State says United Water released too much from
Lake DeForest.” The Journal News (New York). February 23, 2008. Copyright © January 2010 Food & Water Watch