Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
If the water management system in the Delaware was based on human need,
how much water did New York City need, how much water did the down-basin states need,
without any regard for ecological flows: how much the river needed.
The city's interest at all times has been delivering enough supply
to meet the city's needs not only now but out into the future.
New York City derives about half of its water supply from the Delaware River
and the rest from the river systems associated in the same drainage -
in the adjoining drainage areas.
One of the things that is so valuable with a flexible flow management plan
that was based on the Columbia University work and the operational analysis
is the fact that you can have it all.
You can have a system that provides water supply for humans as well as
the ecological flows that are necessary for the river.
We heard stories about how people are getting flooded.
We heard stories about how the fishing is significantly impacted by the way
the reservoir system is being operated.
We heard stories about how water quality in the river is changing
over time because of the way water is released.
Central focal point in all this was the rules that were being used
to manage the reservoir system and release water, and these rules
don't seem to be matching up with these objectives.
There was a paper account of water that was set up at the beginning
of the season, and that water was allocated for the environment.
People had to decide when to allocate that water,
when to release that water - very difficult judgments to make.
And what happened very often is that small amount of water was released,
no more water was in the paper account.
There was plenty of water in the reservoir, the environment needed it,
and the rules didn't permit it to be released.
In the Supreme Court decree of 1954, it was totally based on human water supplies.
There were no conservation releases, nothing that really benefited the river.
So it was - it was quite clear that that program, as well-intentioned
as it was, wasn't working.
The interests in the different parties are different.
New York State is very interested in the trout fisheries downstream.
New Jersey has issues with an outer-basin transfer.
They're concerned about - Pennsylvania's concerned about the [unintelligible],
as is Delaware.
We're concerned, bottom line, is making sure that the city has access to water
during times of drought.
So I then worked on two fronts: one is to begin really serious
mathematical analysis of the problem and to lobby with the conservation organizations
to form a coalition whose purpose was to revise the operating rules
for the river and we had a window of opportunity in that the current
operating rules were set to expire in about a year and a half.
Through that, each one of the parties was able to understand clearly what
the risks were and what the benefits were to moving - to doing a complete change
in the way - the way the reservoirs are operated and releases are made.
People are realizing that it is - it is better.
Fisheries have improved.
There have been spill reductions, which helps the flood mitigation.
From what we hear from people who are using the river, we're seeing
great progress, and from New York City, we're seeing no appreciable risk.
The Columbia team came at the right time and with the right attitude
so that the decree parties could move forward.
You know, you see situations like down in Atlanta, GA
now with the water wars between Georgia and Alabama and Florida,
and, you know, that's sort of where we were heading.
But one of the differences in the Delaware Basin
is that we've learned that you can't set a line in the sand, and you've got
to be flexible as the science changes, as nature changes, and that's what
we've been able to do based on the work by Columbia University.