Government agencies have differeing opinions. For the EPA, they are only concerned with whether the water is filtered and not by its means. Local agencies, such as the NYCDEP want the most cost effective method for the safety for the water supply. For this reason, they are in favor of compromise that allows water flow unfiltered from upstate communities to avoid costly filtration.

Mayor Bloomberg seems to support the buffer zone. He says the acquiring land is important to ptotect the 19 reservoirs and three controlled lakes at the three watersheds. He also says by protecting these areas, it will also prevent hydrofracking in these areas that surround our water supplies. It seems like as years go by, thye feel like they can turn the land they have to have recreational puporses such as fishing, rowing, hiking, hunting, etc. There also programs whose goals were to “support and maintain well-managed family farms and working ofrests as beneficial land uses for water quality protection and riral economic vialbility” (pg. 4).

The government also is very concern about the amount of water usage. They provided many ways of tracking how much you use including a tracking system and will send messages electronically if they detect something is out of place with the amount of water being used.

Also the reason why there is no need to filter water is because the quality of the water shows there is no need to filter it. In 2011, according to the article, “DEP collected more than 33,000 samples from the city’s distribution system and performed more than 357,000 analyses, meeting all State and federal sampling requirements” (pg. 10)

Almost all of NYC water is lead free when it is delivered from the NYC’s upstate reservoir system but the water can asorb from solder, fixtures, and pipes found in the plumbing of some buildings or homes. NYDEP has a program to reduce the amount of lead absorption from service lines and internal plumbing. Under the federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), mandated at-the-tap lead monitoring is required and conducted at selected households located throughout New York City. In 2010, the results for the at-the-tap monitoring exceeded the lead Action Level (AL), which is 15 μg/L for the 90th percentile. The Action Level is a standard for the concen¬tration of a substance, which no more than 10 percent of the samples should exceed, and/or 90 percent of the results must be at or below said standard. As a result, DEP returned to semi-annual at-the-tap monitoring in 2011. The results of the 2011 monitoring indicated that lead levels returned to normal and were below the AL.

They also test for cryptosporidium and giardia. Cryp¬tosporidiosis and giardiasis are intestinal illnesses caused by microscopic pathogens, which can be waterborne. From January 1 to December 31, 2011, a total of 104 routine samples were collected and analyzed for Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts at the Kensico Reservoir effluents, and 52 routine samples were collected at the New Croton Reservoir effluent. Of the 104 routine Kensico Reservoir effluent samples, three were positive for Cryptosporidium (0 to 1 oocysts/50L), and 81 were positive for Giardia (0 to 6 cysts/50L). Of the 52 routine New Croton Res¬ervoir effluent samples, one was positive for Cryptosporidium (0 to 1 oocysts/50L), and 39 were positive for Giardia (0 to 12 cysts/50L). These levels are considered low and therefore action is not needed to take against it. Also outbreaks of these diseases in New York City have no evidence of being associated to drinking tap water.

“New York City 2011 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report.” Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. .

A major point of controversy that has arisen between the groups on opposite sides of the watershed development/ water filtration and land regulation battle is the principle of land ownership. The ability for New York City to claim eminent domain over watersheds physically outside of its boarders leads to expected backlash with good reason. Many of the residents of the watershed communities rely upon their land ownership for a living. Expanding upon business and housing for an overall increasing population is one of a few standing issues in this debate. At the same time, residents of upstate New York are not without concern for their water supply. Thus, a collaborative effort to compromise between the interests of both those who are directly and indirectly impacted by the watershed management poses the best mutually beneficial solution to the issue at hand.

It was the case that NYC held the bargaining card to acquire indirect property rights to the Catskills and Delaware watershed. Under the Filtration Avoidance Determination, the City sought to dodge the filtering requirement of the SWTR that would cost around $6 billion (145) and take control over watershed areas restricting them from land development. However, in order to go with the FAD, NYC would needed the compliance of the watershed communities, which owned around 75% of the land in question. With negotiation at a stalemate, collaboration was the only means of progression.

The Memorandum of Agreement (1997) was the cooperative agreement that sought both regulation and economic benefits with regards to all interested parties by establishing the Watershed Protection Partnership Council for program oversight. “The Collaboration”, as with any compromise had its benefits and trade-offs.  Such trade-offs include the required purchase of permits by businesses, which for the most part have been granted, as well as the acquisition of potential development lands by the city- lowering the opportunity for new investment (145).  Despite this, the watershed communities have benefited economically from this bargain as well. The City’s investment in the upstate land has pumped more money into the local economy after spending the better part of a $1.2 billion budget designated for watershed purchases (146).  Watershed communities also benefited through agreed upon compensation spending by NYC. An example of such was a program put in place to upgrade the wastewater treatment plants with costs totaling in the hundreds of millions. Under this program the City provided “$10 million to local governments to do as they saw fit” (146).

Overall “The Collaboration” ultimately benefitted those seeking to develop land in the watershed communities because the stimulated economy saw greater job expansion and growth. Acquiescing land to NYC for filtration improved water quality while strengthening the spread out and thin economy of the watershed communities leading to an advantage gain by both opposing parties.

Joan Hoffman, Watershed shift: Collaboration and employers in the New York City Catskill/Delaware Watershed from 1990–2003, Ecological Economics, Volume 68, Issues 1–2, 1 December 2008, Pages 141-161, ISSN 0921-8009, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.02.011.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800908001043)

Swaney, D., Santoro, R., Howarth, R., Hong, B., & Donaghy, K. 2012. Historical changes in the food and water supply systems of the New York City Metropolitan Area. Regional Environmental Change 12(2): 368-380. Doi:10.1007/s10113-011-0266-1

Water supply is among the most important factors that shape the development of a city. For centuries, the relatively rapid rate of development of New York City brought about growing pains when dealing with sourcing clean water. From the early use of unpolluted wells, springs and streams by European settlers, to today’s use of upstate watersheds, New York City’s water systems have undergone a series of changes to offset the pressures of urban society.

The concept of using watersheds has long been critical to supplying NYC with clean water. As seen in the figure below, watershed boundaries (in red) for the NYC reservoirs at various points in time have changed in order to accommodate growing demand.  The Catskill Mountain system, for example, was completed in 1927 and now supplies approximately 40% of the City’s demands for water. The Delaware and Croton watersheds supply water to the remaining populations.

Expansion of the NYC watershed (pale red) and water supply system over time.

In an attempt to maintain New York City’s reputably clean water supply, the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposition to construct a filtration facility has appealed to many. With an estimated initial cost of $6-$8 billion and an annual operating cost of $500 million thereafter, residents and business owners will be the ones to shoulder much of these undue expenses. There are other ways to combat NYC’s water supply issues.

New York City has continued to maintain and improve its infrastructure over the years. Major transport pipelines have been replaced, water mains throughout the city have been repaired, developing leak detection and metering programs have reduced loss, and the mandated addition of phosphorus to the city water supply has reduced pipeline corrosion. In addition, much attention has also turned towards the management of watersheds to maintain water quality and meet demands. New and creative approaches such as acknowledging the value of ecosystem services and the need for wetland protection have also been proposed.

As a result of such measures, water use has leveled off. While there is undoubtedly going to be increased pressure to provide quality water to New York City, there has been “increased public understanding of the linkage between the NYC’s water demand and the finite nature of its watershed.”

There is great motivation for NYC to abide by strict watershed rules and regulations to ensure high water quality so as to avoid the economic consequences of failing to guarantee adequate water supply. It is possible – and economical – to do so by continuing to approach our water systems innovatively rather than by constructing a filtration facility worth billions of dollars that can be better allocated elsewhere.

From the viewpoint of an environmentalist:

New York City’s water supply is primarily comprised of surface water, 19 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes, from a 2,000 square mile watershed in 8 upstate counties. The supply serves half of the population of New York State, 9 million people, and is regulated by the NYC Department of Environmental Protection.

The Marcellus Shale covers approximately 95,000 square miles, or 500tcf of gas reserves. The shale formation underlies the NYC WOH watershed in its entirety. New developments in natural gas mean tapping into these gas reservoirs locked within the Marcellus Shale beneath the NYC water supply. The process of hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, requires the injection of more than a million gallons of water, sand, and chemicals at a very high pressure down, across, and into a horizontally drilled well. This well may be as deep as 10,000 feet below the surface. The pressurized, toxic mixture causes the Marcellus Shale to crack. The fissures in the rock are held open by the sand particles, so as to allow the natural gas to flow up the well for harvesting. The chemicals within the mixture are said to represent only 1% of the hydrofrack fluid. The US Geological Survey, on the other hand, found that a typical 3 million gallon tap project produces 15,000 gallons of chemical waste—waste that threatens our water supply.

Back in January of 2009, the NYC Water Board hired a joint venture group to assess the possible impacts of gas drilling on the NYC water supply. The group measured the impacts to water quality, water quantity, and water supply infrastructure. The environment impacts found in association with hydrofracking include water consumption, wastewater disposal, toxic chemical use, air pollution, noise pollution, substantial truck traffic, and round-the-clock operations. Other impacts include potential groundwater and well water contamination, deforestation, spills, roadbuilding and surface water runoff from the large industrial sites. The overall impact of the project would be the complete transformation of once-rural communities into “fractured communities,” and most importantly the contamination and disruption of the NYC/NYS water supply. The water supply can be directly affected by any on-site spills, subsurface migration of contaminants, water withdrawals (which also impacts local aquatic habitats and biota), flowback water, and/or improper disposal and dilution of hydrofluid. Ultimately, there are far too many ways for natural gas drilling developments to negatively effect the NYC and NYS water supplies, the possible benefits may not necessarily outweigh the potential risks.

Garcia, Kathryn. “Natural Gas Development and the NYC Water Supply.” American Academy of Environmental Engineers. AAEE, 14 May 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://aaee.net/>.

“Natural Gas Drilling in Marcellus Shale – Overview.” Natural Gas Drilling in Marcellus Shale – Overview. The City of New York, 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nyc.gov/>.

This table has data from the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey regarding mice and rats in buildings for the year 2011. According to the table, only 22.8% of households reported having mice or rats in the building.  This means that one out of every four or five New York City household will have a mouse or a rat. The table also shows that the Bronx has the largest percentage of mice and rats reported while Staten Island has the smallest percentage of mice and rats reported. There is not enough data in the table to conclude why this is the case.

This graph shows the general poverty level of the neighborhoods that reported mice or rats in the building.  High poverty is overall decreasing and low poverty is overall increasing. Not surprisingly, the medium poverty had no significant changes. Still, the increase in low poverty and the decrease in high poverty indicate that neighborhoods in 2008 are less in poverty than neighborhoods in 1999.

This graph shows a positive linear correlation between cracks or holes in households and mice and rats in buildings.  As the percentage of cracks or holes in households increase, the percentage of mice and rats in buildings increase. This relationship does not necessarily mean that cracks or holes in households cause more mice and rats to enter households.

This chart shows the number of households that report having mice or rats. According to the chart, the number of households reporting to have mice or rats seems to be relatively the same throughout the years. The year 2005 had the lowest number of reported households with mice or rats, but the number went back up by 2011. The chart suggests that there was no long term change.

This map shows the percent of households reporting mice or rats by neighborhood. It shows that there are two particular areas where mice and rats dominate. The area located around the south end of Bronx and the north end of Manhattan has a large number of households reporting mice or rats. Similarly, the northeast section of Brooklyn has a large number of households reporting mice or rats. On the other hand, Staten Island has the smallest number of reports. The data on this map matches with the data shown in the table from the survey.

 (click on the image for a bigger view)

Looking at the number, Brooklyn has the highest number of high school students consuming alcohol among the five boroughs in 2009. By percentage, Staten Island has the highest number indicating that about 38% of all high school students in Staten Island had at least one alcoholic beverage in the 30days from when the survey was taken. But by number, 38% translates to only 5,000 because Staten Island is lowly populated.

I’m a bit surprised by these results. I thought heaving drinking in adults in high poverty neighborhoods would be the highest in all the years but my hypothesis was wrong. There seems to be a relatively little correlation between poverty and heavy drinking. In year 2003, percent of heavy drinking in neighborhood with high poverty was the highest (5%) but it was the lowest in year 2007 (3.8%). However, it does seem like the percentage of heavy drinking in medium poverty neighborhood is usually the lowest among the three poverty levels.

Observation from the scatterplot indicates that binge drinking in adults increase as access of alcohol in service outlets increased. Majority of binge drinking in adults remain at about 13% until about 200 service outlets available but from 1,000 to 1,200, percentage shoots up to about 36%.

This graph compares binge drinking in New York City by age. The percent of adults and high school students binge drinking throughout all years recorded in the graph (2003-2010) is similar, both remaining around 15%. From about 2005 to 2007, percentage of adult binge drinking was slightly higher than that of high school students. The graph also indicates that binge drinking did not decrease in all ages throughout New York City.

The red areas indicate the neighborhoods with the highest binge drinking percentage of 18%-3.5%. From the map, we can conclude that the binge drinking rates in Queens and parts of Long Island are relatively low. Astoria, Greenpoint, Fordam (Bronx),Union Square, Chelsea, as well as Upper East Side and Upper West Side show the highest adult binge drinking percentages. This makes sense because there is a greater access to alcohol in many of the areas mentioned above.