Infrastructure protectionCounterterror laws hobble monitoring of water supplies
Laws designed to protect the U.S. water supply are making it difficult for communities to maintain proper oversight over water companies and their use of water; the DHS has evidence that al Qaeda was looking to disrupt or contaminate the U.S. water supply; environmentalists who are concerned over water shortages or resource usage are having difficulty obtaining any information; officials admit that the laws are clumsy and are currently reviewing a system to make more data publicly available while protecting sensitive information like the location of wells
Laws designed to protect the U.S. water supply are making it difficult for communities to maintain proper oversight over water companies and their use of water.
In an effort to secure U.S. critical infrastructure after 9/11, sensitive data regarding community water plans such as where wells are drilled have been tightly guarded.
According to Elizabeth Gara, the executive director of the Connecticut Water Works Association, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has evidence that al Qaeda was exploring methods to destroy water infrastructure or introduce chemicals into the water supply.
Environmentalists do not dispute that terrorists could be targeting the U.S. water supply, but are instead pushing for greater transparency to ensure adequate water supplies for their communities.
“Enemies poisoning each other’s water are a threat in times of conflict, but we may do serious harm by abandoning our watershed stewardship,” said Margaret Miner, executive director of the Rivers Alliance of Connecticut, an organization dedicated to responsibly managing the state’s waterways.
Miner and her organization want to make it easier to obtain basic data from water companies to foster debate and hold companies responsible for maintaining local water supplies.
According to Miner, “If the average citizen sees a problem on the river, he should be able to go to his town hall and research the issue,” Miner said.
The Rivers Alliance is currently filing complaints against the Wallingford Water Company for withholding information.
The Wallingford Water Company claims that it does not have the ability to comply with state Department of Environmental Protection regulations, citing an internal study that found that it would cost $10 million to comply with regulations.
The study is critical for controlling water consumption in rivers, preserving water supplies, and protecting ecosystems that depend on Connecticut’s rivers, yet the company has refused to allow residents to see it.
“I asked to see the study, and they said, no on security grounds,” Miner said.
In a similar case, The Rivers Alliance has not received its requested copies of United Water Company’s supply plans.
The company plans to expand its use of the Pootatuck Aquifer to supply the Brookfield residents with water. The aquifer is the neighboring city of Newton’s sole source of water and residents there are concerned that there is not enough water to supply both towns.
Miner says that that the laws meant to protect water infrastructure are “clumsy” and “arbitrary” with water companies taking several months to respond to requests for information, and the copies they supply are often heavily redacted.
Gara admits that the process to obtain information is “clunky” and that the Water Works Association is working to find a way to make more data publicly available while protecting sensitive information like the location of wells.
