The state legislature Commerce Committee’s recent decision to advance a proposed bill that regulates stream flow has caused a flood of concern among environmentalists.

SB 1020 means different things to different stakeholders. Some environmentalists argue it will undo five years of collaboration by business and environmental groups and would leave the state’s rivers and streams unprotected. Some businesses argue the proposed legislation "holds water," because so far regulations have cost them millions.

According to the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters the proposed bill would allow water companies to make a fortune by controlling the faucet.

These companies, “which profit by selling us water, want to keep reservoir levels up by preventing the release of water downstream,” according to CLCV. “Problem is, fish and other aquatic life don’t survive when streams dry out or run low, impacting the rivers they feed into – as well as the tourism and recreational sectors that rely on water.”

If passed, the Department of Environmental Protection will have to adopt river and stream flow regulations no later than December 2012.

The bill would also prohibit any regulations requiring water companies to reduce their reserves “to levels insufficient for public health, safety, agriculture, and economic development needs.” The bill also enables the Department of Public Utility Control to establish a ratemaking mechanism allowing water companies to recover costs of compliance.

State Rep. Fred Camillo a Republican who represents Greenwich in the 151st House District, said he ultimately voted in favor of the bill going forward in spite of initial reservations.

“I tended to lean toward opposing it. A natural resource is a natural resource. I’m not saying companies are wrong but I think we should err on the side of caution,” said Camillo, who sits on both the Commerce and the Environment committees.

State Rep. John Shaban, a Republican who represents Easton, Redding and Weston in the 135th House District, couldn't be reached for comment. Shaban sits on the Environment Committee.

Others expressed concern about the bill’s language which right now imposes flow regulations that “shall apply to all river and stream systems within this state.”

It’s the “all” that sticks in state Rep. Tony Hwang’s craw. “It’s far too onerous because the language is literally every stream and river. That phrasing literally makes me pause,” said Hwang, a Republican who represents portions of Fairfield and Trumbull in the 134th House District. “You can’t create a one size fits all regulation.”

However, Hwang described the bill as “a laudable effort” to examine stream flow and analyze how public water supplies determine stream and river levels. 

The bill also calls for stream flow “to be based, to the maximum extent practicable, on natural variation of flows and water levels while providing for the needs and requirements of public health, flood control, industry, public utilities, water supply, public safety, agriculture and other lawful uses of such waters.”

Environmental groups are outraged.

In effect, the bill means water companies wouldn’t need to upgrade their systems to release more water in times of drought, said Lori Brown, executive director of CLCV.

“Water companies are holding water, hoarding it and then selling it,” Brown said. “Particularly in drought years won’t release water and that affects streams and river beds which will dry up –they want to require water companies to use best management practices.”

Brown said the water companies simply don’t want to pay for infrastructure upgrades.

Before voting in favor of the bill, state Rep. Chris Perone, a Democrat representing Norwalk in the 137th House District, called the proposed bill an “odd duck.”

That’s not so, according to Aquarion, Connecticut’s largest water company. Serving about 580,000 people in 39 cities and towns, Aquarion operates more than 20 reservoirs.

Aquarion “takes pride in our stewardship of the environment and take our responsibility for conservation and natural resource management very seriously,” George Logan, Aquarion’s director of capital and planning, said in testimony before the Commerce Committee. “We recognize that the reservoirs that we use to meet the public’s water supply needs impact the quantity and variability of flow in the state’s streams and that these impacts may affect the stream’s ecology.”

Changing the regulations is a good thing, Logan said because current statutes reduce public water supply.

“In Aquarion’s case more than nine million gallons per day of reservoir supply have been lost, approximately 10 percent of our total reservoir supply,” he said.

To comply with current regulations Aquarion would need to invest about $100 million, or three years of total capital spending.

In her testimony, Margaret Miner, executive director for Rivers Alliance of Connecticut, said, “Utilities have signaled that they would be more willing to allocate some portion of water for nature and aquatic life if Connecticut would pay for it. Environmental advocates have signaled that, if it is really a question of money, that can be discussed. But should the public have to buy back its own water?”

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection agrees. In testimony Amey Marrella, a DEP commissioner, said it “prematurely ends the five-year ongoing public adoption process for minimum stream flow regulations.”

But in the end, the bill, as it goes forward, must balance environmental and business concerns, Hwang said. “Water is such an integral part to our quality of life. For us it’s a respect about the quality of life and it has a health impact,” he said. “But we have to address the fact that the needs and uses for water vary across the state.”