You are on page 1of 147

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ORANGE

NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS PART

VILLAGE OF SOUTH BLOOMING GROVE et al.,


Petitioners,

Index No. 7410/2015


Proceeding No. 1

For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil


Practice Law and Rules
AFFIDAVIT OF

THOMAS CUSACK

- against

VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL BOARD OF TRUSTEES et al.,

Hon. Francesca E. Connolly

Respondents,
EMANUEL LEONOROVITZ et al.,
Additional Respondents.

PRESERVE HUDSON VALLEY et al.,


Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

Index No.: 8118/2015


Proceeding No. 2

- against -

TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MONROE et al.,


Respondents/Defendants .

STATE OF NEW YORK

)
) ss.

COUNTY OF ORANGE

THOMAS CUSACK, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says:

1.

I am a Senior Vice President and Certified Professional Geologist (CPG) with

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., ("LBG"), located in Shelton, Connecticut. I have over 30

years of experience in various facets of Hydrogeology.

A copy of my resume is attached as

Exhibit A.
2.

I have been the Village's principal hydrogeologist for over 20 years. During that

time, I have been responsible for identifying and developing new water sources for the Village as
well as managing and maintaining existing sources.
3.

I submit this affidavit in support of the Village of Kiryas Joel's ( "Kiryas Joel")

response to the petitions in the above-captioned proceedings, Proceeding No. 1 ("Municipal


Petition") commenced by Petitioners Village of South Blooming Grove, et al. (collectively,

"Municipal Petitioners") and Proceeding No. 2 (the "PHV Petition") commenced Preserve
Hudson Valley, et al. (collectively, "PHV Petitioners") seeking to annul Kiryas Joel's State

Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")

findings and Kiryas Joel's resolution and

findings approving petitions for annexation of 507 acres and 164 acres from the Town of Monroe
to the Kiryas Joel, all dated September 6, 2015.
4.

In particular, I submit this affidavit in response to allegations concerning Kiryas

Joel's permit for construction of a groundwater well at site in the Town of Cornwall known as
the "Mountainville Well" and its ongoing municipal project to construct a pipeline connection to
the New York City Aqueduct system for municipal water supply, as well as in response to

allegations that the Village's SEQRA review of the annexation petitions did not sufficiently
consider water supply.
5.

As detailed below, the Village fully considered the potential impacts of the

annexations on water supply and relied on reasonable population and water usage projections in

determining that the Village will be able to meet the projected needs of the proposed annexation
territories into the foreseeable future.

6.

I make this affidavit based upon my personal knowledge of the facts and

circumstances stated herein, my review of the documents and reports that were prepared by LBG

for the Village with respect to the application to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") to construct the Mountainville Well, NYSDEC

documents related to the water supply permit for the Village's water supply, including the
Mountainville Well, and my review of documents prepared in connection with the Village's
SEQRA review of the annexation petitions.
7.

I note that this Court previously upheld the well-testing and analysis I made for

the Village in support of the Mountainville well permit. Town of Woodbury v. Village of Kiryas

Joel. No. 2877-2013 (Apr. 7, 2014) (Lefkowitz, J.).


8.

The Village water supply is sourced from a series of 16 bedrock groundwater

wells and two sand and gravel wells. The water supply wells are generally located in three well

fields. Ten of the wells are located within the Village boundaries [wells #1, 5, 6, 8 A, 9B, 13 A,
13B, 14A, 17, and 22 in the NYSDEC water supply permits].

Seven wells are located in the

Brenner well field, which is located on Larkin Road in the Town of Monroe [2 IB, 23, 24, 25, 26,

27 and 28], Well 28 is a high capacity sand and gravel well located near the Ramapo River in
the Village of Monroe.

One well, Mountainville Well 1, is located on the Mountainville well

field on Route 32 in the Town of Cornwall.


9.

The wells and the allowable amount of water withdrawn are presently permitted

by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (existing permit
WSA# 11,609 (consolidated permit ID 3-3399-00065/00001). The total present combined yield
capacity of these wells, including Mountainville Well 1 is approximately 2.91 million gallons per

day ("mgd").

The Village is currently permitted to withdraw up to 1.93 mgd from all of the

existing wells in the Village system, based upon existing permit conditions. Under special

condition 3 of WSA #1 1,609, the Village is authorized to withdraw up to 2.54 mgd temporarily
to meet peak water demands.
10.

The reason for the difference in these figures is that NYSDEC has imposed a cap

for certain higher yielding wells in the Village on the volume that can be regularly used, but
which higher amounts above the NYSDEC permitted taking are available for use on those

limited occasions when necessary to meet the Village's maximum peak water demand. In all of
2014, the Village's maximum daily demand exceeded 2 mgd on only four occasions.
11.

The Village currently has an average daily demand for water of 1.61 mgd, which

it is easily capable of accommodating, in contrast to Petitioners' claim that Kiryas Joel is


"straining" water resources. See Municipal Petition, at f 12.

Based on the projected water

demands provided in the Amended Final Environmental Impact Statement ("AFEIS") for the
Village's Aqueduct connection project and the anticipated connection to the Aqueduct in 2017,

the Village's demand will be approximately 1.76 mgd at that time, also within the capability of
the Village's existing total well yield capacity and permit limits.
12.

The Village of Kiryas Joel owns, operates and maintains its water supply

infrastructure, including: two pumping stations, five water storage tanks, three water treatment

plants and the distribution system. The five water storage tanks have a combined capacity of 4. 1

mgd which allow the Village to meet maximum daily demand, water demand fluctuations and to
provide fire protection service for the Village.
13.

As part

of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection

("NYCDEP") water supply agreement for the Village's Aqueduct connection, I will be required

to certify that the Village's water supply will be able to endure the shutdown of the Aqueduct for

extended periods of time. Based on the Village's current well inventory and storage capabilities,
I am able to certify that the Village will be able to endure the shutdown of the Aqueduct at the

time of the connection and for some time thereafter. In the future, however, it is likely that the
Village will be required to identify additional measures to support its ability to endure future
shutdowns.

These would include measures such as increased takings from existing wells;

additional groundwater and surface water sources; additional storage capabilities; demand side
controls and conservation measures.

This future scenario is no different than for any other

municipality with a connection to the Aqueduct.

It is unreasonable to expect any of these

municipalities to have identified, much less have obtained permits for all potential future sources

out into the distant future as was suggested in this case.

In fact, NYSDEC would not even

consider such permits without an identified current need, as was precisely the case when

NYSDEC suggested that the Village withdraw its permit application for the Star Mountain

wellfield at the time it was reviewing Mountainville.


14.

As detailed in the DGEIS Vol. 1 at pages 3.5-7 to 3.5-10, prepared for the

Village's SEQRA review of the annexation petitions, the Village has secured rights to several
existing or prospective wellfields in addition to the Mountainville Well, including the Star
Mountain wellfield and the Woodbury Heights Estates wellfield.

However, any new source of

groundwater for the Village from wells will likewise be subject to review and approval by
NYSDEC and New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH"), In addition to SEQRA

review, permit review includes technical assessment of the sustainable pumping rate of wells and
their potential impact to neighboring wells and nearby surface water features. Water supply

permits are subject to conditions to ensure public and environmental health and safety.

The Mountainville Well

15.

The Mountainville Well is intended to provide additional support for the Village's

water demands now and in the future.

In the intervening time before the Aqueduct connection,

the well will support the Village's maximum daily demand.

Once the Village connects to the

Aqueduct, this well will support the Village's demand in times of future Aqueduct shutdown.
16.

Contrary to the allegations in the Municipal Petition, the intended use of the

Mountainville Well has not changed since it was first proposed, see Municipal Petition, at

22,

but rather as the Village has always maintained, the Mountainville Well will be used to serve the
Village in the interim period until connection with the Aqueduct and thereafter as a backup
supply.

17.

The allegations concerning impacts on other municipal wells and on Woodbury

Creek, see Municipal Petition, at Tflf 12, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 27, were raised by many of these

same parties and rejected by NYSDEC during the SEQRA and permitting review of the
Mountainville Well project. In addition, the Municipal Petitioners raised these very same claims

in a prior Article 78 proceeding brought to challenge the SEQRA review of the Mountainville
well project, and this Court dismissed them. See Decision, Order and Judgment, Town of
Woodbury v. Village of Kirvas Joel. No. 2877-2013 (Apr. 7, 2014) (Lefkowitz, J.) attached
hereto as Exhibit B.

18.

Based on the application materials submitted, responses to agency comments and

after numerous discussions and meetings with NYSDEC water supply program staff from the
Department's Albany headquarters and Region 3, NYSDEC issued a Draft Permit (3-334000284/00001; WSA No. 1 1,609) on January 23, 2013.

19.

Thereafter, NYSDEC continued its comprehensive regulatory review of the Draft

Permit, including consideration of numerous comments from the public and potentially affected
municipalities, and including the same issues raised by Municipal Petitioners.
20.

The claims alleged in the Municipal Petition were identified, thoroughly analyzed,

considered and ultimately rejected by NYSDEC in the course of this environmental review of the
Mountainville Well site.
21.

The Village's extensive responses to comments submitted to NYSDEC that

addressed these issues during consideration of the Village's water supply permit application are
attached hereto as Exhibit C.

22.

NYSDEC 's own responsiveness summary is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

23.

After carefully considering these comments and responses and rejecting the very

same claims alleged in the Municipal Petition, NYSDEC issued Kiryas Joel a final water supply

permit that included the Mountainville Well on October 1, 2015,


Review of Water Supply In Connection With The Annexation Petitions
24.

In connection with the annexation petitions that the Village received, I assisted in

the Village's SEQRA review, led by Tim Miller Associates, of the Village's ability to meet the

water needs of the proposed annexation areas, based on reasonable population projections and
existing per capita daily water usage in the Village. See DGEIS Vol 1 3.5; FGEIS Vol. 1
3.5.7 and Vol. 2, Appdx. G.
25.

The annexation territory is not within the Village's current water service area.

However, at present the Village is providing public water supply service to portions of this
territory as outside users. This has required the establishment of a separate Town water district

and agreement for the provision of this service. With annexation, the annexation properties

would have a right of access to the Village water system, and it is assumed that all development
in the annexed territory would obtain water from the Village system.
26.

Population growth and estimated future water demand indicated a 2025 study area

population of 42,297 and an estimated daily water demand of 2.79 million mgd. Future water

demand for the Village was estimated using an established water use rate of 66.0 gallons per day,
per capita. The water use rate was based upon historic reported water usage in the Village.
27.

Because no specific development proposals were advanced in connection with the

annexation petitions, the Village's review of water impacts was based on the projected

population growth and existing usage rates described above.

It is my understanding that any

future, concrete development projects will be subject to Village review and approval and that

Village approval of any individual residential project cannot proceed without an adequate water
supply.
28.

When a new development project is applied for in the Village, I review the

calculated average and maximum daily water demands for the proposed development. Using the
most current average and peak water usage data available from the village and the current well
yield capacities, I determine whether adequate surplus capacity would be available in the
Village's water system to meet the water demands of the proposed development.
29.

The review of projected water supply impacts in the DGEIS and FGEIS

determined that the Village will be able to meet the future water needs of the proposed
annexation territories. Moreover, its ability to meet these water supply needs will be particularly
strengthened with the Village's anticipated connection to the New York City Aqueduct system,

which has the capacity to provide water to the Village beyond the study period for the FGEIS, as
Village population grows. See DGEIS Vol. 1 3.5.2.

Furthermore, as discussed in the DGEIS

Vol. 1 at pages 3.5-7 to 3:5-10, the Village has ownership interests in several other well fields,

including those at Star Mountain and Woodbury Heights that have the potential for development

in the future to serve the Village's future population.

30.

The NYCDEP Bureau of Water Supply has confirmed the Village's right to take a

water supply from the City's water system, pipeline construction for the connection has

proceeded, and final engineering plans for the connection to the NYC Aqueduct are now being
finalized by the Village and City engineering staff.

The NYCDEP requires that the Village

maintain 100 percent back-up for the volume of its water taking from the Aqueduct. As

discussed above, the Village has secured the rights to groundwater wells with tested water
capacity that exceeds the projected Village water demand well into the future after its connection
to the Aqueduct.
31.

The Village's review of potential water supply impacts from the annexation

included detailed consideration of mitigation measures.

32.

All of the Village's water supply sources are subject to regulatory control of the

NYSDEC and NYSDOH. The NYSDEC water supply permits regulating the Village's existing
water supply contain specific conditions including: established limits for water taking from

individual wells, water conservation measures and mandatory enforceable conditions to mitigate
impacts to other existing nearby supply wells.

33.

In addition, each NYSDEC Water Supply Permit was subject to review pursuant

to SEQRA, and as noted above, any new source of groundwater for the Village from wells will
likewise be subject to review and approval by NYSDEC and NYSDOH.
34.

Connection to the Catskill Aqueduct, which has already been subject to full

SEQRA review, will also mitigate potential water supply source impacts. Engineering plans for

this connection are subject to review and approval by the NYCDEP. The water supply agreement
between NYCDEP and the Village requires a City-approved water conservation plan as well as

state-of-the-art metering and other technologies to prevent waste and contamination of the water
source. In addition, the use of Aqueduct water is strictly limited to the territorial boundaries of
the Village, unless otherwise approved by NYCDEP, and the allowance volumes are likewise
strictly limited by a formula in the New York City Administrative Code based on U.S. Census
population figures and per capita usage in New York City.

35.

I have also reviewed the Affidavit of Jeffrey Frederick, CPG dated October 21,

2015, submitted by the Municipal Petitioners in support of their petition (the "Frederick

Affidavit"). .
36.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Frederick did not submit any of the comments

included in his litigation Affidavit during the review by the Village and NYSDEC of the
Mountainville Well project or the Village's SEQRA review of the annexation petitions.

37.

The issues raised in the Frederick Affidavit at Paragraphs 4 and 5 (f), (g), and (h)

relating to impacts from the Mountainville Well have been discussed above and were

comprehensively addressed in the full, completed SEQRA review of that project. Moreover, the
concerns all relate to the NYSDEC water supply permit, not these annexation petitions, which
proposed no change in the Village's permit as presently issued by NYSDEC.
38.

Similarly, the potential issues in Paragraph 5 (g) relating to the Catskill Aqueduct

project were fully evaluated in the context of the SEQRA review of that project,
39.

The issues raised in Paragraphs 5 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Frederick Affidavit

relate to the Village's use of a 10-year population projection for assessing potential water
demands in the annexation territory.

As discussed above, in the absence of concrete

10

development proposals, the 10-year population projection was a reasonable, non-speculative


method for estimating future water supply demand. The Frederick Affidavit's comparison of this
10-year projection with the 30-year period required by the New York Environmental Facilities
Corporation ("NYSEFC") confuses the Village's reasonable use of a shorter land use planning

scenario driven by population dynamics with the longer capital financing requirements of
NYSEFC tied to the 30-year term of the loan to finance the project.

40.

The comment in Paragraph 5 (e) of the Frederick Affidavit that the water supply

projections failed to consider the development of the annexation territories with private water

wells was not raised during the public comment on the Village's SEQRA review, and in any
event is misplaced, as potential development using private water wells in the annexation areas
was fully evaluated in DGEIS 3.5.2 (at 3.5-14 to 3.5-18).
41.

The comments in Frederick Affidavit Paragraphs 5 (f) (i) - (iv) related to inter-

basin impacts were fully evaluated in the context of the SEQRA review of the Mountainville

Well and responses to comments presented to and considered by NYSDEC. As these comments
relate to other Village-owned wellfields such as Star Mountain and Woodbury Heights Estates,
any evaluation of impacts at these fields at this time would be overly speculative.

42.

The comment in Frederick Affidavit Paragraph 5 (h) that the Village should have

analyzed the impacts of a blended use of groundwater and Aqueduct water again relates to
Aqueduct impacts and the Mountainville Well, not the annexation.

Moreover, the Village is

presently incurring tremendous expense to develop the Aqueduct connection, which it fully
intends to use.
43.

The comments in Frederick Affidavit Paragraph 5 (i) arguing for further

cumulative impacts study would require speculation in the absence of specific development

11

proposals for the annexation territory, and again will be more properly addressedto the extent
not already examinedin the context of specific development projects and NYSDEC water
supply applications, not in assessing the potential impacts from the annexation itself.
44.

Contrary to the Frederick Affidavit's assertions in Paragraph 6, the Village's

DGEIS and FGE1S fully considered potential mitigation of water supply impacts to the fullest

extent practicable in the absence of any specific development proposals for the annexation areas.
To the extent the Frederick Affidavit raised issues related to mitigation of impacts at specific

wellfields, these impacts and proposed mitigation measures relate to the Village's water supply

permits, which have been subjected to full SEQRA review or will be at the time the Village
makes such specific applications.

Moreover, these water supply sources are or will be under

continuing regulation by NYSDEC and NYSDOF1 and subject to applicable permit terms and
conditions.
45.

Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the Frederick Affidavit refer to speculative impacts that

could not be meaningfully examined in the context of the proposed annexations, but rather will
be the subject of review as necessary when specific development proposals and projects come
before the Village and/or other agencies.
46.

I have also reviewed the Affidavit of Thomas E. Dwyer, P.G. dated October 26,

2015, submitted by Petitioners Village of Cornwall on Hudson and the Town of Cornwall in
support of their petition (the "Dwyer Affidavit").
47.

The Dwyer Affidavit questioned whether the pumping test performed on the

Mountainville Well 1 was inadequate to assess the impact on these resources in times of heavy

draw or low recharge, and questioned the methodology of the pumping test and its adequacy in
assessing impacts on existing neighboring wells, including the Town and Village of Woodbury's

12

Trout Brook Road wellfield and the Town and Village Cornwall's Taylor Road wellfield. The
Dwyer Affidavit also expressed concern that the well would negatively impact nearby surface

waters, including Woodbury and Moodna Creek because of hydrologic connection to the aquifer,

and the Ramapo River.


48.

First, all of these issues were adequately addressed as part of the Mountainville

Well permit proceeding and NYSDEC has concurred with our analysis.
comments

about

impacts

on

the

aquifer,

comprehensive

standard

In

response

to

testing performed on

behalf of the Village of Kiryas Joel pursuant to State pumping test standards supports the
conclusion that no impacts to the principal aquifer will result from the Village's use of the
Mountainville Well 1. LBG completed a 72-hour pumping test on Well 1 located on the Village

of Kiryas Joel's Mountainville pump station and well field parcel on Route 32 in Cornwall, New
York in June 2011. The pumping test was conducted with strict adherence to the NYSDEC
pumping test standards ("Recommended Pump Test Procedures for Water Supply Application,"

TOGS 3.2.1, Appendix 10). The NYSDEC pumping test standards are designed to determine the
safe yield of proposed wells and potential impacts to neighboring wells and surface-water
features.

As Appendix 10 to TOGS states, the pump test procedures "have been designed to

produce the accurate and complete information that is vital to these determinations," Proper
methodologies for this test were also confirmed by NYSDEC Division of Water in Albany.

49.

Data from the pumping test were included in Exhibits II and III to the Village's

water supply permit dated November 17, 2011 and prepared by LBG.

Full responses to these

same comments were included in the Village's response to comments in Exhibit C.


50.

Using the methodology and standards in TOGS Section 10, there was no water-

level drawdown measured in the piezometers during the test, including no surface-water or

13

groundwater level drawdown in Woodbury Creek.

Three piezometer locations were monitored

during the 2011 pumping test. The first piezometer location was installed in the in the

intermittent stream north of Well 1.

The groundwater and surface water in this intermittent

stream were dry throughout the entire data collection period (pre-test and post-test), with the
exception of brief appearances of surface water following rain events. These data indicate this is
a temporary storm-water runoff channel and not a permanent stream.

LBG was doing due

diligence by attempting to monitor the stream as required by the TOGS. The second piezometer
location was installed in the wetland southwest of Well 1 .

Surface water on the exterior of the

piezometer went dry several days before the start of pumping because of high temperatures and

low precipitation.

Groundwater in the wetland piezometer was present throughout the data

collection period and showed no impact from pumping of Mountainville Well 1.

piezometer location was installed in Woodbury Creek, northwest of Well 1.

The third

Surface water and

groundwater were present at this piezometer location throughout the data collection period, and
no impact was measured in either the surface-water or groundwater level from pumping of
Mountainville Well 1 .
51.

Well logs were provided in LBG's August 2011 report.

The geologic log for

Well 1 was provided in Appendix I. The geology at this location was logged from 35 feet below
grade (ft bg) to 1 00 ft bg at five-foot intervals. Geologic logs for the two existing monitoring
wells MW-1 and MW-2 were provided in Appendix III of LBG's report.

The logs were

sufficiently detailed to document the upper 35 feet that was not logged in Well 1.

The

piezometers were hand driven into the shallow soil from the surface using a slide-hammer. This

method of piezometer installation does allow for soil sample collection.

14

52.

The results from the 72-hour pumping test showed no outstanding issues of

concern related to well stabilization, water-level recovery and water quality.

53 .

The results of the 72-hour pumping test demonstrated a stabilized yield and water-

level drawdown on Well 1 at a rate of 425 gpm (gallons per minute); rapid water-level recovery

following shutdown of the test (90% within one hour); adequate groundwater recharge (1.00 to
1.38 mgd) to support the taking of up to 425 gpm from Well 1. There was no water-level

drawdown measured

in the piezometers

during the test,

groundwater level drawdown in Woodbury Creek.

including no

surface-water or

Therefore, contrary to comments in the

affidavits, the data collected pursuant to State TOGS standards demonstrate that no additional
pumping tests, such as long-term testing, are required.
54.

In response to Dwyer Affidavit comments about impacts to neighboring wells,

particularly groundwater availability, pursuant to NYSDEC pumping test standards, water-level

measurements were collected from onsite and offsite observational wells located within 1,500
feet of the test well (TOGS section 7).

Most of the land within 1,500 feet of Well 1 is

undeveloped and subject to a conservation easement that limits future development. The portion
of the radius east and southeast of Well 1 encompasses a limited number of residences. All eight
offsite properties were solicited for permission to collect water-level data from their wells. Four

property owners granted permission to collect measurements from their wells. Two of the four
wells (250 and 280 Old Route 32) were located in well pits, and the wells could not be opened to
collect water-level measurements without creating a sanitary risk. The other two, 230 Old Route
32 and 1470 Old Route 32, were monitored as described below.
55.

There was no impact observed in the neighboring wells monitored during the

Mountainville Well 1 pumping test.

The stratification of the aquifer or partially penetrating

15

onsite monitoring wells would not affect the observed data in the offsite bedrock residential
wells.
56.

Water-level data, including water-level drawdown, were collected from two

additional onsite monitoring wells completed in the stratified-drift aquifer (MW-1 and MW-2)
that were drilled near Well 1.

The water-level data collected during the pumping test allow for

the calculation of aquifer parameters and the assessment of potential regional water-level impact
from pumping of the test well.

57.

The onsite Monitor Wells MW-1 and MW-2 were constructed 51 feet and 94 feet,

respectively, from Well 1, consistent with TOGS Section 7. Based on the data collected during
the pumping test, the drawdown in MW-1 and MW-2 at the end of the test was 9.26 feet and 0.42
foot, respectively. As expected, the drawdown data showed that pumping-related impact to

the shallow portion of the aquifer decreased with distance.

58.

Water-level data were collected from the two offsite residential wells located at

230 Old Route 32 and 1470 Old Route 2 at approximately 1,150 feet and 870 feet, respectively,
away from Well

1.

The water-level data from these wells showed no drawdown impact

attributed to the pumping of Well 1 on the Mountainville parcel.

Therefore, it was concluded

that these wells appear to be outside the area of influence of Well 1 .


59.

In response to the Dwyer Affidavit's comments that LBG and the Village of

Kiryas Joel neglected to consider the potential for impact on the Village of Woodbury's Trout
Brook wellfield when it assessed the Mountainville Well site, LBG was well aware of and
considered the potential for impacts by the Mountainville Well on offsite wells, including the
upgradient and distant Trout Brook well field.

16

The Mountainville Well is too far away and

down-gradient from the Trout Brook well field to have any direct impact on the Trout Brook
aquifer.
To

60.

further

support

the

conclusions

above,

LBG

completed

additional

analysis on the data derived from the June 201 1 aquifer test, attached hereto as Exhibit E. The

additional analysis was completed to assess the effect of potential aquifer boundary conditions
and determine if the distance drawdown effect from the pumping of Well 1 would potentially
affect the proposed Trout Brook Road wells. The transmissivity (T) (38,720 gpd/ft [gallons per
day per foot]) and the storage coefficient (S) (0.38) were calculated using drawdown versus time

data in the test well during the aquifer test.

The T was derived using the Theis match point

method. The drawdown data were corrected utilizing the corrections presented in Kruseman
and DeRidder, 1 990 so that the solution is applicable for unconfmed aquifers .
61.

The curve shown on the plot is a fitted type curve and the points represent the

measured drawdown in the well. The type curve was generated by adjusting the aquifer

parameters presented in the solution portion on the plot until there is a good match between the
type curve and the measured data (i.e., the aquifer parameters have been calculated).
62.

program

This process is expedited with the

called AQTESOLVE (Duffield, 2002).

aid of an aquifer parameter estimation


AQTESOLVE allows the user to use visual

curve matching or an automated method to minimize the difference between the type curve and
the observed data. In addition, AQTESOLVE allows boundary effects (such as the stratified drift
boundaries observed in the study area) to be incorporated into the analysis by automatically
generating image wells to simulated specified boundary conditions and locations.
63.

The calculated T and S were used along with AQTESOLVE to develop the

theoretical drawdown versus distance plot for Well 1. The theoretical drawdown versus distance

17

plot was developed assuming Mountainville Well 1 was pumping at a constant rate of 425 gpm
for approximately 22 days. As stated above, data from the June 2011 aquifer test of Well 1 show

that the water level in the well had reached a near stabilized level after three days of pumping.

Twenty two (22) days was used for the construction of the drawdown versus distance plot to be
conservative. The 22-day timeframe was necessary because the analytical equation used to
construct theoretical curve does not simulate the effects of leakage, river and/or wetland
recharges, which are the causes of stabilization. The stratified-drift boundaries were accounted
for in the development of the theoretical plot using boundary features in AQTESOLYE.

64.

The drawdown versus distance plot shows that the Village of Woodbury well field

is located beyond the expected area of influence of Well 1 (2,980 feet) even if the stratified drift
till boundaries are incorporated into the analysis. Note, for this analysis the area of influence of
Well 1 was conservatively defined as the area of land in which the water table or potentiometric
surface was lowered by 0.01 foot.
65.

Furthermore, in response to the Dwyer comments that LBG's standard testing was

somehow an inadequate basis alone for reaching the conclusion that there would be no influence
on wells as far away as the Trout Brook well, one need only consider the self-sustaining nature
of the Mountainville Well site to further refute this assertion. It is clear that, as a self-sustaining

well which is capable of fully recharging without any impact on the recharge potential of
Woodbury's well fields, the Mountainville Well will have no impact on Woodbury's wells.
66.

In regard to Cornwall's Taylor Road wellfield, which is approximately two miles

away from the Mountainville well field in the Moodna Creek aquifer, there is no potential for
pumping of Mountainville Well 1 to have a direct impact on the Moodna Creek/Taylor Road

18

aquifer because of the distance and separation of the aquifers as demonstrated in the above
analysis.

67.

The Dwyer Affidavit questioned the potential impacts of a 425 gpm interbasin

transfer removing water from the Woodbury Creek Tributary watershed and its downstream

Moodna Creek watershed as well as impacts to the Ramapo River, and questioned whether the
Village's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the County's Harriman WWTP could

handle increased sewer flow alleged to be caused by the well.

68.

Concerning impacts to Woodbury Creek, the pumping test on Mountainville Well

1 was conducted with strict adherence to the NYSDEC pumping test standards, which are also
designed to determine potential impacts to surface water.
69.

Extensive

hydrogeological testing

in

accordance

with NYSDEC

standards

indicated that there is no direct hydrologic connection with nearby surface water features,
including no direct impact on water levels in and below Woodbury Creek.
70.

To measure potential surface-water impact, water-level measurements were

collected from three piezometer locations.

Piezometers are regularly used during such tests to

measure water levels (see TOGS Section 10), and were installed near Well 1 for the pumping test

to assess potential surface-water interconnection with the test well under pumping conditions.
As described above, piezometers were installed in an on-site intermittent stream, in an on-site
wetland, and in and below Woodbury Creek to the northwest of the parcel.
71.

No water-level drawdown interference was discernible in the piezometers

monitored during the test period as a result of the pumping of Well l.This indicates that there

was no direct hydrologic connection with nearby surface-water features during the testing,
including no impact on water levels in and below Woodbury Creek.

19

72.

The Village acknowledges that a scenario might exist where prolonged drawdown

during times of extreme drought or other compromised natural condition could result in potential
indirect impact to the surface-water resource.

It is reasonably expected that under such

conditions, mitigation or other conservation measures could be required to minimize any such

impacts. Such measures might include source reduction; time limitations on withdrawals; and, in
severe circumstances, complete closure of the well until circumstances moderate. A stream
gaging program (measuring stream stage and flow) to continuously monitor and record stream
flows in Woodbury Creek was submitted and approved by the NYSDEC per special conditions 8

and 9 of WSA #11,609 which permits the use of Mountainville Well 1.

This monitoring

program will be used to determine what percentage, if any, impact on flow in Woodbury Creek

may occur from pumping of the Mountainville Well 1. Background flow conditions in
Woodbury Creek will be measured prior to placing the well into service as part of the monitoring
plan.
73.

Potential impacts to the Ramapo River and Interbasin Diversion impacts were

extensively discussed in the Village's response to comments attached hereto as Exhibit C.

In

addition, relevant to concerns about the Village's existing sand and gravel well #28, water-level
monitoring in the Ramapo River was conducted from 2007 through 2009 (23 months) per special
condition #8 for WSA #10,612 after Well 28 was placed into service.

Daily water-level

measurements were collected from locations in the Ramapo River upstream and downstream of

Well 28.

This monitoring program showed no direct impact from pumping of Well 28 on the

Ramapo River. The results of this monitoring program were submitted to the NYSDEC as part of
the permit special condition.

20

74.

In response to Dwyer Affidavit concerns about emergency response in times of

drought, LBG has drafted and submitted for agency comment an "Emergency Response Plan" to
the Orange County Department of Health. This plan (which incorporates a drought management
plan) is not yet approved, and LBG and the Village are presently engaged in responding to

comments provided by Orange County DOH.

It is anticipated that this plan will be in place by

This emergency response plan will address

the time the Mountainville Well is activated.

potential situations where one or more of the Village wells are subject to a yield restriction.
75.

In response to allegations that questioned the Village's assessment of water-

dependent natural resources, including aquatic life, flora, fauna, and recreational uses, the
pumping test confirmed that water levels in Woodbury Creek will not be affected by the safe
yield levels of withdrawal from the well. Provisions for implementing a stream gaging program

to continuously monitor and record stream have been incorporated as a condition in the permit
together

with

other

conservation

measures

during

times

of extreme

drought

or

other

compromised natural condition that could result in potential indirect impact to the surface-water
resource.

76.

In response to the Dwyer Affidavit's questions about the methodology of the

pumping test used by the Village's consultant, the resulting safe yield determination, potential

sites or effects not monitored, and whether the Village is understating its intended withdrawal
rate, these issues have been addressed above and extensively in Exhibit C.
77.

In response to the Dwyer Affidavit's comments questioning the numbers used for

the distance drawdown calculations, the numbers used for the distance drawdown in LBG's

report were provided in the report text and a graph in Appendix VII to the LBG report. This data
was used to calculate a transmissivity value (T) for the shallow aquifer in the report per TOGS

21

Section 13.

This T was not used in any subsequent analysis. The T used in the safe yield

analysis was calculated using the Jacob approximation (drawdown versus time) from the

pumping well during the test. The safe yield analysis in LBG's August 201 1 report was purely

theoretical. Any additional withdrawals beyond the permitted 425 gpm would require additional
testing and monitoring in accordance with NYSDEC guidelines.

78.

In addition, the withdrawal limits are not understated. The Village is permitted to

withdraw 425 gpm (610,560 gpd) from Mountainville Well 1.

LBG conducted a theoretical

evaluation of the sustainable yield if additional wells were completed at the Mountainville Well

Field.

The sustainable yield analysis of up to three wells indicated a theoretical yield of up to

1,212 gpm (1.7 mgd). However, the permit issued by the NYSDEC limits the taking of Well 1 to

425 gpm. Any action to increase the taking limits for the well field will require an amendment to
the water supply permit.
79.

In response to the Dwyer Affidavit's comments that the Mountainville Well

would diminish other municipalities' abilities to manage their own water resources, the
Mountainville Well pump test indicated it would have no effect on neighboring water supplies.
80.

years'

In summary, based on my 30 years of experience in Hydrogeology and over 20

experience as the Village's principal hydrogeologist, I conclude that the Village

thoroughly took a "hard look" at all potential water supply impacts from the proposed

annexations using reasonable projections of population and water usage, and fully considered all
reasonable mitigation measures that could be implemented when future development projects are

identified for the annexation territory in order to address any identified potential impacts.

22

THOMAS CUSACK, CPG

Sworn to before me this


21 day of January, 2016

( A.

y-i

Notary Public
1/

MARYACURRAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
My Commission Expires March 31, 2017

23
4RSR-47-1 ?i-n?!Rn v

EXHIBIT A

Thomas P. Cusack

Thomas Cusack is a hydrogeoiogist with over 25 years of experience in the water-supply

iBl

&
p.

development field specializing in large-scale groundwater exploration, groundwater


contamination issues, aquifer protection, well field management, impacts related to
development, and regulatory approvals and permitting. Experience includes conducting
groundwater exploration and feasibility studies, oversight responsibilities, data evaluation,
reporting, client/regulatory interaction and expert testimony.

experience includes supervision of drilling and well design/construction;


development/supervision of pumping test programs of water supply and recovery wells;
implementation of onsite/offsite well monitoring to determine potential water-level interference
effects in study region from pumping wells; conduct Groundwater Under the Influence
Studies; well redevelopment programs; groundwater contamination investigation studies;
implementation of small to large-scale groundwater sampling programs; conduct water

Technical

budget/recharge analysis to determine impact from site-specific development to build-out


Interpret and evaluate
analysis of large watersheds or within municipal boundaries.
investigation results relating to site/regional geology and hydrogeology; groundwater
contamination related issues; storage depletion of regional aquifers; regulatory compliance;
data quality control and reporting requirements. His experience includes the preparation and
submittal of a wide array of documents.

Reports;

Aquifer

Protection

Programs;

The documents include Groundwater Exploration

Water

Conservation

Programs/Water

Audits;

education literature for municipal water purveyors; Town-Wide Hydrogeologic Assessment


Reports;

Federal/State/Local permit applications and support documents; Contracts and

Master Service Agreements.

EDUCATION
B. S. in Geology, 1982, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York

REGISTRATION
Certified as Professional Geologist by the American Institute of Professional Geologists

TECHNICAL SOCIETIES
Association of Ground-Water Scientists and Engineers {National Ground Water Association)
American Institute of Professional Geologists

American Water Works Association

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.

Thomas P. Cusack (continued)

SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE


2009 to present

Senior Vice

President and Director of Leggette,

Brashears & Graham,

Inc.,

Shelton,

Connecticut

2006 to 2008

Vice President and Director of Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Sheiton, Connecticut
2002 to 2005:

Senior Associate with Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Trumbull, Connecticut
1995 to 2002:

Associate with Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Wilton and Trumbull, Connecticut
1994 to 1995:

Senior Project Manager at Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Fishkill, New York and
Wilton, Connecticut
1988 to 1994:

Senior Hydrogeologist at Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Fishkill, New York
1987 to 1988:

Hydrogeologist at Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Wilton, Connecticut


1985 to 1987:

Hydrogeologist and Assistant Project Manager at Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers.
Pearl River, New York

1984 to 1985:

Geologist at Catoh Environmental Companies, Inc., Weedsport, New York

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.

Thomas P. Cusack (continued)

SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE IN GROUNDWATER SUPPLY


Town of North Saiem - Croton Falls Water District
Principal investigator to determine the source of elevated sodium and chloride concentrations
at two proposed well fields for the District. Included the development of a well field with
implementation of a stormwater management plan to mitigate impacts from road salt
The study includes an ongoing waterapplication on roads upgradient from the weil field.

quality monitoring plan, well field management and well redevelopment program.
Orange County Water Authority
Lead consultant for the Orange County Water Authority (OCWA), New York (1994 to 2002).
Authored several significant studies including County-Wide Groundwater Resource Study: a
groundwater resource inventory and planning study completed for the OCWA. The study is
one of the most comprehensive county-wide groundwater planning studies in the State of
New York.

The study involved gathering existing groundwater information, an inventory of existing and
proposed groundwater supplies, estimates of present and future water demands to the year
2020 and an inventory of existing and potential groundwater contamination sites. Data from
the study has enabled local and county planners to set development guidelines to safeguard
existing groundwater supplies and protect favorable undeveloped areas for future
The study is presently being used to develop
development of groundwater supplies.
additional

groundwater

supply

sources;

county-wide

wellhead

and

aquifer

protection

programs.

Village of Chester

Conduct an assessment of two high-yield sand and gravel wells to increase the permitted
NYSDEC water taking. The weils were redeveloped prior to conducting additional pumping
A well field
tests to maximize their yield potential for the increase taking application.
management plan and long-term redevelopment program was developed for the well field.
Southeast Orange County

Represent a number of municipal entities requiring interface with developers and State
agencies; including dispute resolution of water-supply related and development issues; draft
special conditions to be included in water-taken permits (New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation).

Town of Fishkiil
Principal investigator to determine the source of elevated sodium and chloride concentrations
at the Snook Road well field. The study included the implementation of an extensive surface
and groundwater water-quality monitoring program including the installation of a monitoring
well network to determine the potential source(s) from road salt application and impacts. The
study recommended the dilution of the water supply to reduce sodium and chloride by
interconnection to the Village of Fishkill water supply. In addition, review the application of a
reverse osmosis treatment system. The study required significant interaction with Duchess
County Department of Health, New York State Department of Health, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Municipal officials and Town iegal counsel.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.

Thomas P. Cusack (continued)

SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE IN GROUNDWATER SUPPLY (continued)


Village of Montgomery
Conduct a hydrogeologic study of multiple well fields to address water-quality concerns and
biofouling resulting in significant loss in yields of high-yielding sand and grave! wells.

Developed and implemented of a long-term well redevelopment program.


Orange County Water Authority
The Model
Author of "Model Ground-Water Protection Plan", prepared for the OCWA.
for the
document
guideline
a
as
utilized
is
(GWPP)
Plan
Ground-Water Protection
York
New
southeastern
and
development of local GWPP's for water supplies in the County

State. The plan is utilized to implement aquifer protection plan for the education use.
Village of Kirvas Joel. New York

Services related to the development of regional water-supply sources for the Village of Kiryas
Joel, the fast-growing municipality in the State of New York. To date, LBG has completed
extensive regional hydrogeologic studies and groundwater exploration for the additional

development of 1.4 mgd from bedrock wells and 2.1 mgd from high-yielding sand and gravel
wells. The groundwater exploration program included extensive test well drilling; pumping
test and groundwater withdrawal impact evaluations; water-quality analysis; and permitting
and regulatory approval. Ongoing well field management and redevelopment programs.
Town ofWappinger. New York

LBG conducted drilling supervision and well design for the development of four new
high-yielding sand and gravel wells. The study included an extensive pumping test program
and water-quality analysis. Based on the results from the optimumization analysis, the well
field has a maximum sustainable yield of 1,655 gpm or 2.38 mgd. Conducted studies to
determine if the wells are under the direct influence of surface water as required under the
Surface Water Treatment Rule. In addition, development and implementation of a long-term
redevelopment program.

Snook Road Wed Field. Town of Ffshkill. New York


Developed a water-supply source for a new Water District for the Town which included two
high-yielding sand and gravel wells. Well yields are in excess of 1,000 gpm and a safe yield
estimate for the well field is 3.0 mgd. Additional work includes the development of an aquifer
protection program and ongoing study addressing the region application of road salt, its
impact on the regional sand and grave! aquifer, and mitigation alternatives.
obtaining regulatory approvals and permits for the well field.

LBG assisted in

Village of Wappinaers Falls. New York

Conducted a hydrogeologic study of existing well field to address water-quality concerns and
loss in well yields. Services included the development and execution of a well redevelopment
program and the siting and oversight of the installation of a new high-yielding sand and
grave! well.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.

Thomas P. Cusack (continued)

SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE IN GROUNDWATER SUPPLY (continued)


Parkwood Properties. Community Water-Supplv Development Mamakatinq.
Thompson and Fallsburq, New York
Completed

a hydrogeologic assessment of the 2.5 square

miie property to determine

Completed a groundwater
feasibility of community water-supply source development
of seven bedrock wells
consisting
supply
groundwater
a
developed
and
program
exploration
which were sited based on the initial hydrogeologic assessment. Completed a 72-hour
pumping test program on the wells for a combined safe yield of 430 gpm (gallons per
minute). Completed a water-quality and GWUDI (groundwater under the influence of surface
water) assessment of the wells.
Village of Wappinaers Falls, New York
Conducted a hydrogeologic study of existing well field to address water-quality concerns and
Services included the development and execution of a well
in well yields.
redevelopment program and the siting and oversight of the installation of a new high-yielding

loss

sand and gravel well.

Town of Monroe. Village of Harriman, Town of Fishkill


Prepared municipal Road Salt Management Guidelines

and

Recommended

Best

Management Practices which have been adopted by the respective municipal entities.

Town of North Castle Water District No. 2. North Castle New York
Completed oversight of installation and analysis of test borings in sand and gravel aquifer for

siting of replacement production well. Selected replacement well site and completed all
necessary permitting requirements with regulatory agencies prior to drilling and construction.
Prepared well specifications and bid documents. Oversight of construction of replacement
sand and gravel production well and completed a 72-hour pumping test. Filed water-supply
application permit with NYSDEC and water system design specifications with WCDOH.
Development and implementation of a long-term well redevelopment program.
Village of Harriman. New York

Project director and principal investigator for a regional hydrogeologic investigation focusing
on the potential groundwater yield from fractured rock and sand and gravel aquifers in the
franchise area of a municipality. Investigation findings ied to the development of additional
well water supplies and implementation of groundwater. Development and implementation of
a long-term well redevelopment program.

Village of Fishkill. New York


Project manager and principal investigator for a regional hydrogeologic investigation focusing
on the potential groundwater yield for one of the largest sand and gravel aquifers in New
Report reviewed existing water supply and made recommendations for
development of additional well water supplies. Recommendation on aquifer protection led to
the implementation of groundwater management policies. Development and implementation

York State.

of a long-term well redevelopment program.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, inc.

Thomas P. Cusack (continued)

SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE IN GROUNDWATER SUPPLY (continued)


Monroe. New York

Consulting services relating to the development of a large water supply from a gneiss
bedrock aquifer. The study included a 31-day pumping test and large-scale offsite well

monitoring program to determine long-term reliable yield of the aquifer and potential impact to
Required extensive testimony in support of
domestic wells in the surrounding area.
water-supply withdrawal.

Grossinaer's, Liberty. New York


Consulting services relating to the development of a large water supply from sand and grave!
aquifer for existing hotel and proposed 2,000-unit townhouse development. Report of the

investigation findings led to the issuing of a final operating permit for a new well.
Hurlevviile. New York
Project manager and principal investigator for hydrogeologic investigation of groundwater
resources in fractured siltstone and shales, development of well supply capable of meeting

Project involved use of test drilling,


demands of a proposed 650 townhouse project.
offsite well monitoring program.
including
test;
pumping
production well installation and
Goshen. New York

Project director and principal investigator for several residential developments. Consulting
services relating to hydrogeologic site assessments followed by drilling test wells and
production wells in fracture shale. The project involved pumping tests to determine the safe
yield of supply wells and conducting an offsite well monitoring program to determine offsite
impact as a result of pumping.
Chester. New York

Project manager and principal investigator for several small to large-scale commercial and
Hydrogeologic site assessment included the investigation of
residential developments.
fractured bedrock, and sand and gravel aquifer in the region. The projects involved use of
borehole geophysics, test drilling, production well installations and pumping test. The study
stressed long-term safe yield of well and investigation of offsite impact as a result of
pumping.

Southeast. New York

Consulting review relating to the development of large water supply from gneiss bedrock
The study included multiple well pumping, including a large-scale offsite well
aquifer.
monitoring program to determine if significant impact resulted from pumping onsite wells.
Required extensive regulatory contact and testimony in support of water-supply withdrawal.
Greenwich. Connecticut

Consulting services for a hydrogeologic analysis to determine the cause for groundwater
flooding of the basement of a public school. Design, supervision and testing of dewatering
system in glacial oufwash sediments.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.

Thomas P. Cusack (continued)

SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE IN GROUNDWATER SUPPLY (continued)


Vernon. New Jersey

Project manager and principal investigator in evaluating the sufficiency of groundwater supply
from fractured bedrock and sand and gravel aquifer for a large recreation and condominium

development. The project involved review for a major investor- owned water company. LBG

provided a long-term well field management and well redevelopment program.


Kent, New York

Project manager and principal investigator in the development of a small community water

The study included hydrogeologic site assessment,


followed by test drilling and multiple well pumping tests. The study stressed possible offsite
impacts as a result of pumping onsite wells. Required extensive testimony in support of

supply from gneiss bedrock aquifer.

water-supply withdrawal.
Town of Chester

Conducted a hydrogeologic study of multiple well fields for the Town to address water quality.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.

Thomas P. Cusack (continued)

PRESENTATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers - Environmental & Water Resources Institute.
World Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2014
Flow Dimensions -Key to Understanding Fractured Rock System

New York State Conference of Mayors & Municipal Officials Public Works School
Presentation on Mechanism of Well Plugging Microbiological Factors in Well Redevelopment
Orange County Citizen Foundation. Hudson Valiev Water Works Association
Presentation of Orange County Ground-Water Resource Study (LBG, 1995)
Hudson Valley Waterworks Association, Orange County Southeastern Municipal Task
Force
Presentation on Municipal Road Salt Managements Guidelines and Recommended Best
Management Practices

New York State Conference of Mayors & Municipal Officials


Presentation on Environmental Impacts from Road Salt/Municipal Road Salt Management
Guidelines

H:\Admin\RESUME - NEW FORMAT 2007\Shel!on, CTYTom Cusack - Well Redevelopment 2015.doc

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc.

EXHIBIT B

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK


COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS PART
-x

Application of

TOWN OF WOODBURY, VILLAGE OF WOODBURY,


and VILLAGE OF HARRIMAN,
Index No. 2877-2013

Petitioners,

DECISION, ORDER

For a judgment pursuant to CPLR Articles 30 and 78

& JUDGMENT
-against-

MM

VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL,


Respondent.

APR 0 7 201<i
X

LEFKOWITZ, J.

ORIGINAL FILED

The following papers numbered 1 though 128 were read on the motion by petitioners,
Town of Woodbury, Village of Woodbury, and Village of Harriman (collectively, "petitioners")

for an Order pursuant to CPLR 6301 enjoining the construction of a water pipeline along Orange
County Route 44 or New York State Route 32 and the motion by respondent, Village of Kiryas

Joel ("Kiryas Joel"), for an Order pursuant to CPLR 7804(f) and CPLR 321 1(a)(1), (3), (5), (7)
dismissing the amended verified petition and complaint (the "amended petition"):

Notice of Petition-Summons-Verified Petition and Complaint


Affirmation of David Gordon is 'Support of Petition and Complaint
Notice of Amended Petition and Complaint -

Amended Petition and Complaint


Affirmation of James Bacon in Support of
Amended Petition and Complaint - Exhibits A-E
Affidavit, of Dennis G. Lindsay, P.E.
Memorandum of Law in Support of Amended Petition
Notice of Motion to Dismiss
Affidavit of Robert S. Rosborough IV in
1

1-3
4
5-6
7-12
13
14
15

Support of Motion to Dismiss - Exhibits A-.G


Affidavit of Thomas Cusack in Support of Motion to Dismiss Exhibits A-D

16-22
23-27

Exhibits 1-12
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Affidavit of Stephen H. Welle in Response to Motion to Dismiss Exhibits A-J
Affidavit of Michael Queenan in Response to Motion to Dismiss Exhibits A-D
Affidavit of John P. Burke in Response to Motion to DismissExhibits A-B

28-40

Affidavit of Dennis G. Lindsay, P.E. in Response to Motion to Dismiss

61

Affidavit of Russell Urban-Mead in Response to Motion to DismissExhibits A-H


Memorandum of Law in Response to Motion to Dismiss.
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Affidavit of Robert S. Rosborough IV
in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss
Affidavit of Gary R. Stuart in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss
Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Affirmation of David Gordon in Support of Motion
for Preliminary Injunction - Exhibits A-T
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Affidavit of Michael G, Sterthous in Opposition to Motion
for Preliminary Injunction - Exhibits A-E
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioners' Motion
for a Preliminary Injunction

41
42-52

53-57

58-60

62-70
71
72

73
74
75

76-96
97
98-103
104

Affirmation of Gedalye Szegedin in Opposition to Motion


for Preliminary Injunction - Exhibits A-F

Reply Affirmation of David Gordon -Exhibits A-K, A-D


Reply Memorandum of Law

105-111
112-127
128

Upon the foregoing papers, the motions are decided as follows:


BACKGROUND
This matter relates to construction by respondent Village of Kiryas Joel ("Kiryas Joel"),

of a 1 3-mile water pipeline in Orange County, New York, to connect the water supply of Kiryas
Joel to the New York City Aqueduct (the "pipeline project") and the development of a well field
in the hamlet of Mountainville, in the Town of Cornwall (the "Mountainvi lie Well").

The pipeline project has been the subject of prior extensive litigation. In 2004, Kiryas

Joel declared itself the lead agency for the environmental review of the pipeline project under
article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (also known as the State Environmental Quality
Review Act ["SEQRA"]).

The size of the pipeline and location of a pumping station along the

pipeline route was part of the SEQRA review. The draft environmental impact statement
("DEIS") stated that the pipeline would be 24 inches in diameter as follows:

The proposed 24-inch pipeline diameter was chosen primarily because less
electrical energy would be required to pump 2 mgd of water through a 24-inch

pipeline than through a 12-inch or 1 8 inch pipeline. After implementation of the


Aqueduct connection, most pumping from Kiryas Joel's groundwater wells would
cease, and most energy consumption associate with the pumping would therefore
cease. This would partially offset the energy consumed by the proposed Aqueduct
connection.

In 2004, Kiryas Joel completed a final environmental impact statement ("FEIS") . The

County of Orange then commenced a special proceeding under CPLR article 78 challenging the

SEQRA review by Kiryas Joel (see Matter of County of Orange v Village ofKiryas Joel, Index
no, 7547/04, [Sup Ct, Orange County]). By decision and order dated October 20, 2005, the

Court (Rosenwasser, J.) annulled the determinations of Kiryas Joel and directed the preparation
of a supplemental environmental impact statement ("SEIS"). On appeal, the Second Department
affirmed in part and modified in part, directing Kiryas Joel to prepare an amended final

environmental impact statement ("AFEIS") rather than a SEIS (see County of Orange v Village
of Kiryas Joel 44 AD3d 765 [2d Dept 2007]). In that, decision, the Second Department stated as
follows:

Contrary to the County's contention, however, the DEIS and the FEIS were not

inadequate for failing to consider a reasonable number of feasible alternatives.


Where, an EIS identifies feasible alternatives to a proposed project,, analyzes the
impacts associated with those alternatives in comparison to the initial proposal,
and incorporates aspects of the alternatives in mitigation of the impacts associated

with the initial proposal, the lead agency has satisfied its obligations under

SEQRA (see ECL 8-0 109 [2] [d]; 6 NYCRR 61 7. 14[fj[5] ). The FEIS, in this
instance, considered three alternative pipeline routes, "no action," alternative pipe

dimensions, an alternate site for a filtration and pump station, and the potential
drilling of additional wells. The alternatives section of an FEIS need not identify
or discuss every conceivable alternative, including the particular alternatives
propounded by the County, and need not be exhaustive, particularly where the
various options lie along a continuum of possibilities (see Matter of Halperin v

City ofNew Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 777, 809 NYS2d 98). A rule of reason is
applicable to the discussion of alternatives in an FEIS (see Akj.?an v Koch, 75
NY2d at 570, 555 NYS2d 1 6, 554 NE2d 53). Where there has been such a
reasonable consideration of alternatives, the judicial inquiry is at an end (see
Matter of Town of Dryden v Tompkins County Bd. of Representatives, 78 NY2d

33 1 . 333-334, 574 NYS2d 930, 580 NE2d 402; Matter of Halperin v City ofNew
Rochelle, 24 AD3d at 777, 809 NYS2d 98)
(44 AD3d at 769).

Kiryas Joel completed the AFEIS for the pipeline project in 2009. The AFEIS stated as
follows:
Trench size, construction duration and potential adverse environmental impacts
would be the same for a 24-inch diameter pipeline as for any other size pipeline.

As noted previously, consumption of electricity would be about 10% less for the
24 inch pipeline. On the other hand, a smaller pipe would provide less capacity for
future demand. Nevertheless, due to concerns expressed by NYCDEP that the
pipe is oversized . a reduction in pipeline diameter to 18 inches would provide
sufficient capacity to meet Kiryas Joel 's objectives.

The County of Orange then commenced a second proceeding challenging the AFEIS (see
Matter of County of Orange v Village of Kiryas Joel, Index no. 85 1 3/2009 [Sup Ct, Orange
County]). In 2010, Kiryas Joel and the County of Orange settled the litigation involving the

pipeline project and the engineering design phase for the pipeline project commenced.

Thereafter. CDM Smith, the engineering consultant hired by Kiryas Joel for the pipeline

project, performed hydraulic evaluations. In May 201 1, CDM Smith issued an engineer's report.
In this report, CDM Smith concluded that an 18-inch, pipe would not permit the water withdrawn

from the New York City Aqueduct to flow by gravity for a portion of the 13-mile pipeline route,
and that therefore, a 24-inch pipe would need to be utilized. CDM Smith also determined that

constructing a pump station at the aqueduct connection location in the Town of New Windsor
was not feasible and that the pump station should be located at approximately the halfway point
between the aqueduct connection and Kiryas Joel, which would facilitate the flow of water by
gravity from the aqueduct along a portion of the route until pumping was required to lift the flow
for the remaining length of the pipeline to Kiryas Joel.

Kiryas Joel asserts that based upon this report, it determined that preparation of a SEIS

was not necessary because the DEIS for the pipeline had been prepared based on a 24-inch
pipeline design and intermediate pumping station. Kiryas Joel also concluded that, the AFEIS

had established that installation of the 24-inch pipeline would not create any additional
environmental impacts than would the 18-inch pipeline, nor would relocating the pump station
from the aqueduct connection to the Mountainville Well site create any additional environmental

impacts that had not been previously studied under the AFEIS. Consequently, a SEIS was not
prepared by Kiryas Joel.

In October 201 1 , Kiryas Joel submitted design plans and specifications for the pipeline
project, which included a 24-inch pipeline and intermediate pump station, for approval to the
New York State Department of Health ('sNYSDOH"), the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (';NYSDEC"), the New York State Department of Transportation


("NYSDOT')> the Orange County Department of Health ("OCDOH"), the Orange County

Department of Public Works ("OCDPW"), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers

("USAGOE"). In November 2011, Kiryas Joel submitted the plans to the New York State
Thruway Authority ("NYSTA") in connection with its application to construct the pipeline under
the New York State Thruway.

NYSDOH and OCDOH approved the pipeline design of 24-inches in diameter and the
intermediate pumping station. Each of the other agencies involved issued permits and approvals
based upon the plans which provided for a pipeline with a 24-inch diameter and an intermediate

pumping station. On February 22, 2012, CDM Smith made a presentation regarding the pipeline
project design to the Town and Village of Woodbury, which the Mayor of Harriman also

attended. Kiryas Joel contends that at this presentation, CDM Smith advised that the 24-inch
pipeline and intermediate pump station alternative had been chosen (see Stuart Affidavit in
Support of Motion to Dismiss). Petitioners do not refute this contention, but in response, submit
the affidavits of the Supervisor of the Town ofWoodbury, the Mayor of Kiryas Joel of

Woodbury and the Mayor of Kiryas Joel of Harriman in which they state that they do not recall a

discussion of the 24-inch pipeline {see Affidavits of John P. Burke, Michael Quunan and Stephen
H. Welle in Response to Motion to Dismiss).

In June 201 2, CDM Smith advised the Town of Woodbury that the design for the project
had been completed and provided the Town Woodbury with the project design drawings and

specifications. Kiryas Joel notes that the drawings and specifications referenced the 24-inch
pipeline and intermediate pump station.

In November 2012, CDM Smith submitted a storm

water pollution prevention plan ("SWPPP") to the Town and Village of Woodbury, seeking their
review of the storm water controls to be implemented during construction. Kiryas Joel notes that

"

the S WPPP identified the 24-inch pipeline and the plan for an intermediate pump station at the

Mountainville Well site. On March 1 1 , 201.3, Kiiyas Joel attended a meeting with the Town and
Village of Woodbury. On March 19, 2013, Kiryas Joel began construction of the pipeline.

Thereafter, Kiryas Joel acquired a 1 0-acre parcel of property in the Town of Cornwall to
site the intermediate pumping station. Kiryas Joel retained Leggette, Brashears & Graham* Inc.

("LBG"), a water supply hydro geologist firm, to study whether the Mountainville Well site
could support a viable supplemental water supply well for Kiiyas Joel. LBG performed a series

of well pump tests and determined that the Mountainville Well site was a suitable location for a
well to meet Kiiyas Joel's existing and future water demands. LBG's findings and conclusions
were contained in a groundwater supply development plan prepared in connection with Kiiyas

Joel's application for the well and water supply permits to the NYSD.EC and the N YSDOH and

as part of its SEQRA review. The Mountainville Well, when completed, would be connected to

the pipeline for transmission to Kiryas Joel without construction of a separate transmission
pipeline.

Kiryas Joel asserts that following its SEQRA review of the Mountainville Well, it
concluded that the Mountainville Well would not have any significant adverse environmental
impacts ancl that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. Kiryas

Joel also determined that construction of the proposed Mountainville Weil and its connection to
the pipeline did not require a supplement to the AFEIS for the pipeline project because the
development of the Mountainville Well project did not raise any significant adverse

environmental impacts that had not previously been considered in the prior SEQRA review. On
December 4, 2012, Kiryas Joel adopted a negative declaration with respect to the proposed

Mountainville Well.

On January 23, 20 1 3, NYSDEC issued a draft water supply permit to

Kiryas Joel with respect to the Mountainville Well.


On April 4, 2013, petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking judgment "vacating
and annulling, and in all respects voiding that purported negative declaration dated December 4,
2012 adopted by the Board of Trustees of respondent Village of Kiryas Joel relating to the

development of a well field and/or water supply in the hamlet of Mountainville, Town of

Cornwall, Orange County..." The original petition asserted two causes of action - the first
alleging that Kiryas Joel failed to take the required "hard look" at the environments impacts and
"potential interference" of the Mountainville Well project upon the Woodbury Village Trout
Brook Weil field, a well being developed to which is permitted to draw from the same aquifer
(verified petition and complaint, ffi|22-28). In their second cause of action in the original petition,
petitioners asserted that Kiryas Joel failed to take a hard look at other environmental. impacts of
the Mountainville Well, including a transfer of water from the basin for the Moodna Creek to the

Ramapo River, the loss of local resources to the communities surrounding the Woodbury and
Moodna Creeks, and the need for expanded sewage treatment at the Harriman Wastewater
Treatment Plant (verified petition and complaint ^29-35).

The original petition did not contain

a request for relief with respect to the pipeline.

Thereafter, petitioners moved by order to show cause dated April 12, 2013, for a

preliminary injunction to prevent Kiryas Joel from continuing construction of the pipeline. ByDecision and Order entered on July 16, 2013, the Court (Nicolai, J.), denied petitioners'

application for a preliminary injunction.

Noting that petitioners' preliminary injunction

application was based on the original petition, and that Kiryas Joel had "obtained ail local, county

and State work permits required" for the construction of the pipeline, the Court stated as
follows:

Because Petitioners' attempt to hait th[e] construction [of the pipeline], otherwise
authorized by Kiryas Joel Law and New York City Administrative Code, is not
:e<

validity of the backup Mountainvilie Well project and. not the laying of the

pipeline to the New York City Aqueduct, the injunctive relief sought on this
motion is "not related to the subject of the article 78 proceeding, and the
requirements of CPLR 6301 have not been met. In other words, even assuming
Petitioners' success in invalidating the negative declaration and halting the
Mountainvilie Well project based upon their SEQRA claims, the laying of
pipeline was not authorized by that negative declaration, and thus enjoining the
continued construction of the pipeline would not flow from such ultimate relief on
the original petition. Thus, the Court denies this application for a preliminary
injunction.

Petitioners then amended the petition to add claims challenging the construction of the
pipeline, seeking to enjoin its construction, and an order directing removal of the pipeline already
constructed. The first cause of action in the amended petition and complaint alleges that the
installation of a 24-inch pipeline rather than an 18-inch pipeline is in violation of the conditions
imposed in the March 3 1 , 2009 AFE1S. The second and third causes of action set forth in the

amended petition and complaint, were restatements of the first and second causes of action
contained in the original petition relating to the Mountainvilie Well. The' fourth cause of action in
the amended petition and complaint alleges that the construction of the Mountainvilie Pump

Station was never reviewed in the AFEIS or the Amended Findings Statement and adds to the
capacity of the pipeline in violation of SEQRA. The fifth cause of action in the amended petition

and complaint alleges that construction of the pipeline without having obtained a permit from

DEC to access water from the Mountainvilie Well or permission from DEP to connect to the

aqueduct is unauthorized and in contravention of Orange County Legislative Resolution 96 of

undersigned by Order dated November 27, 20 1 3 of the Administrative Judge of the Ninth

Judicial District, Hon. Alan D* Scheinkman.

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Kiryas Joel now moves to dismiss the amended verified petition and complaint on various
grounds. Kiryas Joel asserts that the proceedings are time-barred, barred by laches, that the
petitioners lack standing, the amended petition fails to state a cause of action for a permanent

injunction and that petitioners' claims are barred by documentary evidence.

As to timeliness, Kiryas Joel argues that it has been almost two years since Kiryas Joel
made a final determination to install a 24-inch pipeline with an intermediate pump station located
at the Mountainville site, and. over 1 5 months after petitioners learned that a 24-inch pipeline

would need to be used and the pumping station location moved. Kiryas Joel asserts, in the
alternative, that the limitations period began to run in October 201 1 when the finalized pipeline

design plans showing a 24-inch pipeline and relocation of the pump station to the Mountainville
Well site were submitted to NYSDOH for final approval.

In response, petitioners contend that with respect to the Mountainville Well, the time to
commence proceedings commenced on December 4, 201.2 with the issuance of the negative
declaration and that petitioners' causes of action with respect to the pipeline did not accrue until

Kiryas Joel began construction of the pipeline in March 2013. Petitioners state, in the
alternative, that in the absence of a formal determination by Kiryas Joel as to the changes to the

10

diameter of the pipeline or preparation of a supplemental EIS, the limitations period has not yet
begun.

It is clear that a CPLR Article 78 challenge against an administrative body or officer must
be commenced "within four- months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and
binding upon the petitioner" (see CPLR 2 1 7 [ I ] ) . With respect to challenges to SEQRA

determinations, the limitations period accrues when the SEQRA process concludes (see

Stop-The-Barge v Cahill, 1 NY3d 218 [2003]). The Court's inquiry therefore is to determine
when, in the 10-year process of planning the pipeline project, the SEQRA process concluded. If

petitioners' contention is correct that the limitations period has not yet accrued, it is conceivable
that the pipeline could be fully constructed with all necessary approvals and the SEQRA process
would still not have been finalized. Such a result is not supported by the case law or the statute,
and petitioners cite no authority for this contention.

It must be noted that SEQRA does not require the lead agency to hold a public hearing or

accept public comments on the decision not to prepare a supplemental EIS (see Matter of
Riverkeeper v Planning Bd. of Town ofSoutheast, 9 NY3d 219 [2007]). In Mailer of

Riverkeeper, the Court held that the lead agency did not have an obligation to notify or solicit
comments before determining that a second SEIS was not required (9 NY3d at 235). Further,

SEQRA does not require further public hearings when modifications do not have a significant
effect on the environment ( Matter ofJackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400
[1986]); see also Matter of Village of Pelham v City of Mount Vernon Indus. Dev. Agency, 302

AD2d 399 [2d Dept 2003], Iv denied 100 NY2d 505 [2003]).

Kiryas Joel relies on Stop-The-Barge v Cahill (1 NY3d 218 [2003]) for the contention

11

that the SEQRA process ended in May, 201 1 upon issuance of CDM Smith's Engineer's Report.

In Stop-The Barge , it was held that tire limitations period began to run when the agency reached
a definitive' position and DEP conducted no further SEQRA investigation. Whether Stop-The
Barge supports a finding that the SEQRA process ended in May, 201 1 when Kiiyas Joel reached

a definitive position regarding the pipe diameter and the location of the pumping station, it is
clear that the SEQRA process concluded at the latest in October, 201 1 when Kiryas Joel
submitted design plans and specifications for the pipeline project, detailing the 24-inch pipeline
and intermediate pump station, for approval to NYSDOH, NYSDEC, N YSDOT and other

agencies, and no further SEQRA investigation ensued {see Matter of Village ofPelham v City of
Mount Vernon Indus. Dev. Agency, 302 AD2d 399). Thus, the limitations period to challenge
Kiryas Joel's determination to use a 24-inch diameter pipeline had expired prior to the filing of
the original petition.

By reason of the. foregoing, the first and fourth causes of action of the amended petition
should be dismissed. Since petitioners commenced proceedings on the last day with respect to
the issuance by Kiryas Joel of the negative declaration as to the Mountainville Well, the second,

fourth and fifth causes of action were timely.


As to Kiryas Joel's assertion that laches bars petitioners' claims, the record demonstrates

that petitioners knew or should have known of the design plans to use a 24-inch pipeline and
relocate the pump station for a considerable time period but made no effort to seek judicial
intervention until April, 201 3. Even if this Court were to find that the claims regarding the

pipeline contained in the amended petition relate back to the time of the filing of the original

petition, petitioners waited to commence proceedings until after Kiryas Joel had obtained final

12

design approval for the 24-inch pipeline from N YSDOH, and had constructed over three miles of
the pipeline, at a cost of approximately $960,000. The work has included significant work
below the Woodbury Creek and the New York State Thruway.

Whether petitioners were aware

or failed to object to the final decision to use a 24-inch diameter pipeline rather than the 1 8-inch
pipeline and to relocate the pump station. Kiryas Joel has established it will be prejudiced by
further delay of construction of the pipeline (see Matter ofCitineighhors Coalition of Historic
Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 NY3d 727, 728-729 [2004]);
National Holding Corp. v Banks, 22 AD3d 471 [2d Dept 2005], Iv denied 6 NY3d 715 [2006]).
In Matter ofSave The Pine Bush v New York State Dept. ofEnvtl. Conservation (289
AD2d 636 [3d Dept 2001], Iv denied 97 NY2d 611 [2002]), delays in pursuing litigation,

including commencing proceeding on last day of the limitations period, warranted a finding of
laches. Similarly here. Kiryas Joel has demonstrated that petitioners' claims with respect to the
pipeline and the Mountainville Weil must fail due to their delay in commencing proceedings to
challenge the 24-inch pipeline and Mountainville Well, Therefore, the amended petition and
complaint should be dismissed.

Even assuming that petitioners' claims in the amended petition and complaint should not
be dismissed on the basis of untimeliness or laches, the first through fourth causes of action

! While an analysis of the parties' arguments with respect to petitioners' standing to bring
these proceedings is academic in light of this Court's findings with respect to timeliness and
laches, it should be noted that Kiryas Joel's argument that petitioners lack standing is without
merit. Petitioners have standing since they have a demonstrated interest in the potential
environmental impacts of the pipeline and Mountainville Well (see Town of Woodbury v County
of Orange, 1 14 AD3d 951 [2d Dept 2014]; see also. Matter of Village of Chestnut Ridge v Town
of Ramapo , 45 AD 3d 74 [2d Dept 2007], Iv dismissed 1 2 NY3d 793 [2009], 15 NY3d 817
[2010]).

13

contained in the amended petition would fail pursuant to CPLR 32 1 1 (a)(1) and 7804(f), since the
documentary evidence submitted in the record conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted
claims as a matter of law {Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88. [1994]).

It is clear that strict, not substantial, compliance with SEQRA is required {Matter of King
v Saratoga County Bd ofSupervisors, 89 NY2d 341 , 347 ( 1 996]; see also Matter of Baker
Village ofElmsford 70 AD3d 181, 1 89-1 90 [2d Dept 2009] [holding that "ITjiteral compliance

with both the letter and spirit of SEQRA ... is required "]). An action taken without strict
compliance with SEQRA must be annulled (see Mailer ofNew York City Coalition to End. Lead
Poisoning v Vallone. 100 NY2d 337, 348 [2003]; Matter of Yellow Lantern Kampground v
Cortlandville , 279 AD2d 6, 12 [3d Dept 2000]).
However, the Court's function in a proceeding to review whether an agency

determination satisfies SEQRA is limited to reviewing the record to determine whether the
agency identified and took a "hard look" at relevant areas of environmental concern, and made a

"reasoned elaboration" of the basis for its determination (Matter of Eadie v Town Bd. of Town of

N. Greenbush. 7 NY3d 306, 3 1 8 (2006); Matter ofJackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.,
67 NY2d 400, 417 [1986]). As articulated by the Second Department in Matter of City of Rye v

Korff(249 AD2d 47 0 (2d Dept 1998], Iv denied 92 NY2d 808 [1998]), w[n]othing in the law
requires an agency to reach a particular result on any issue, or permits the courts to second-guess
the agency's choice, which can be annulled only if arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by
substantial evidence" (249 AD2d at 472 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, "the mere
fact thai a project has changed does not necessarily give rise to the need for the preparation of a
supplemental EIS (SEiJS)" (see Matter of CVS 12th Ave. LLC v City of New York, 32 AD3d 1, 7

14

[1st Depl 2006]). Thus, while petitioners challenge the conclusion reached by Kiryas Joel as to

the use of a 24-inch pipeline or its decision that a SEIS was unnecessary, the record reflects that
the design, as approved by NYSDOH, was based upon extensive engineering analysis, was set
forth in a reasoned elaboration of basis for the design, and as such, was not arbitrary, capricious

or unsupported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Eadie, 7 NY3d 306). Moreover, the
record demonstrates that Kiryas Joel identified and took a "hard look" at relevant areas of

environmental concern with respect to the Mountainville Well, and made a "reasoned
elaboration" of the basis for its determination (Matter ofEadie v Town Bd. of Town ofN.
Greenbush , 7 N Y3d 306, 3 1 8 (2006); Matter ofJackson v New York Stale Urban Dev. Corp. , 67

NY2d 400, 417 [1986]). Indeed, as the Appellate Division noted, the FEIS considered "an
alternate site for a filtration and pump station, and the potential drilling of additional wells" (44
AD3d at 769 [2d Dept 2007]).
It must be noted that the contentions proffered by petitioners with respect to the

Mountainville Well were not supported by competent data sufficient to refute Kiryas Joel's
submissions (see Schuman v Town of Washington, 156 AD2d 660, 662 [2d Dept 1989]; Matter of

Village of Harriman v Town Bd of Town of Monroe, 153 AD2d 633, 635 [2d Dept 1989]). The
record reflects that LBG conducted well pumping tests to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed Mountainville Well on Woodbury Creek, the primary aquifer, and the
surrounding wells in the area. Kiryas Joel demonstrated that LBG was aware of the undeveloped

Trout Brook well and the Town of Woodbury's 2006 well permit when it concluded that the
Mountainville Well was self-sustaining and there would be no impact on wells in the area (see
Cusack Affid.. ffij 37-39). In response, petitioners did not submit data or studies sufficient to

15

demonstrate that the Town of Woodbury's planned Trout Brook well would be adversely

effected (see Schuman , 1 56 AD2d 66.0). The bare assertions by the Town of Woodbury's
engineer, Dennis Lindsay, that Kiryas Joel "did not identify nor consider potential impacts to the
Trout Brook well field, or consider the joint impact of both municipal wells operating

simultaneously" or the opinion'of petitioners' expert, William Canavan, that Kiryas Joel's
withdrawal from the Mountainville Well "could reduce the recharge available" for the Trout
Brook well are insufficient to annul the determination by Kiryas Joel and the negative

declaration. Indeed, the fact that the parties' experts may disagree is not dispositive (see
Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible South town Dev. v Roosevelt Is. Operating Corp., 291 AD2d
40, 55 [1st Dept 2001 ], Iv denied 97 NY2d 613 [2002], Iv denied 98 NY2d 608 [2002]; Matter of
Sciatic Concerned Citizens v Town Bd. of Town ofSciatic, 148 AD2d 130, 134 [3d Dept 1989],
Iv denied 15 NY2d 701 [1989]).
Additionally, insofar as the AFEIS for the -pipeline-project contained an analysis of the
wastewater impacts that would result due to water withdrawal from the wells, petitioners'
argument that Kiryas Joel did not take the required "hard look" at the Mountainville Well is
without merit. While petitioners may dispute Kiryas Joel's determination of nonsignificance, the
decision not to require a supplemental EIS must be upheld since it was not arbitrary or capricious
(see Matter ofEadie v Town Bd. of Town ofN. Greenbush, 1 NY3d 306, 318 [2006]); see also
Matter ofMolly, Inc. v County of Onondaga, 2 AD3d 1418, 1418 [4th Dept 2003], appeal
withdrawn, 2 NY3d 760 [2004]). Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the first through fourth

causes of action should be dismissed based upon documentary evidence.

Petitioners' fifth cause of action, seeking a permanent injunction against construction of

16

the pipeline on. the ground that Kiryas Joe! has not secured a water supply permit from NYSDEC
for the Mountainville Well or a connection to the New York City Aqueduct from NYCDEP must
also be dismissed based upon documentary evidence. On January 23, 2013, NYSDEC issued a

draft water supply permit. Further, Kiryas Joel has established that no permit from NYCDEP is
required. By letter dated November 13, 2009, the NYCDEP advised Kiryas Joel in part as
follows:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our mutual understanding that,
subject to satisfaction of the terms and conditions described below, the
Village of Kiryas Joel ("Kiryas Joel") has the legal right, pursuant to
Section 24-360 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York

("Code") to make a new connection to the New York City Water Supply

System ("City System") in order to receive a prescribed supply of New


York City water.

(Szegedin Affirmation. Exhibit A).


As the Court previously held in its Decision and Order entered on July 16,2013
(Nicolai, J.), Village Law 11-1110 provides that Kiryas Joel has the statutory right to lay water
pipes under a public highway in Orange County, or any adjoining county, for the purpose of
supplying water to Kiryas Joel . Village Law 11-1 1 10 states as follows:

"The board of water commissioners of a village may cause water


pipes to be laid, relaid or repaired under any public highway in a
county in which any part of such village is situated, or in an
adjoining county, for the purpose of introducing water into and
through Kiryas Joel ; and shall cause the surface of such highway

to be restored to its usual condition."


Village Law 1 1-1 126 provides that a "village is authorized and empowered to lay the necessary
mains and pipes to the source of supply, valves, hydrants, supply pipes, and other necessary

appurtenances for the use of said water, including its purification, without the consent of any

17

board, officer, bureau, or department of the state, or any subdivision thereof." These sections of

Kiryas Joel Law govern Kiryas Joel's authority to lay the pipeline to connect to the New York
City Aqueduct, under any public highway within Orange County, or any adjoining county (see
Village of Webster v Town of Webster, 270 AD2d 910, 91 1 [4th Dept 2000]).

In addition, the

City of New York is statutorily required to furnish quantities of water to. various municipalities
north of New York City {see Matter of Village ofScarsdak vJorling, 91 NY2d 507 [1998];

United Water New Rochelle v City of New York, 1 80 Misc 2d 241 [Sup Ct, Westchester County
1999], ajfd as mod. 275 AD2d 464 [2d Dept 2000]). The Administrative Code of the City of
New York, governs access to New York City's aqueduct and provides, in part as follows:

It shall be lawful for any of the municipal corporations or water districts in the
counties of Ulster, Greene, Delaware, Schoharie, Sullivan, Orange, Westchester
and Putnam, ... to take and receive from any of the reservoirs, aqueducts,
conduits, streams or pipes of the city a supply of water for the uses and purposes

of such municipal corporations or water districts or village and to that end such
municipal corporations or water districts are, and each of them is, and such village

also is, authorized and empowered to lay the necessary mains, pipes, valves,
hydrants, supply pipes and other necessary appurtenances for the use of such
water, without the consent of any board, officer, bureau, or department of the state
or any subdivision thereof'
(New York Cilv Administrative Code 24-360).
Indeed, the statutory language mandates that approval be given to Kiryas Joel to tap into
New York City's water supply (see e.g. Incorporated Vil. ofCornwall v Environmental

Protection Admin, of City ofN. Y. , 45 AD2d 297 [2d Dept 1974]; Matter of Village ofScarsdale v
Jorling, 229 AD2d. 101, 103 [2d Dept 1997]; United Water New Rochelle , 180 Misc 2d at 243).

Finally, petitioners' argument advanced in the fifth cause of action in the amended
petition that construction of the pipeline is in contravention of Orange County Legislative

18

Resolution 96 of 2013 is similarly without merit. Such resolution is the subject of yet another
action pending in Supreme Court. Orange County, Village of Kiryas Joel v Donnery, Index no.

3101/2013., in which Kiryas Joel seeks damages related to the passage of such resolution.
In the Decision and Order of the Court (Nicolai, J.) in the Donnery matter entered on

January 6, 2014, the Court noted that the County of Orange has conceded that it cannot impose
conditions on the pipeline by enacting the Resolution. The January 6, 2014 Decision and Order
reads in pertinent part as follows:

Plaintiff contends that the Resolution purports to condition all permission for
Kiryas Joel to excavate certain rights of way to construct its pipeline on the
Village's obtaining of permits from other governmental entities, including the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York City
Departmental Protection, which are not required for the subject construction.

According to the Village, Kiryas Joel has a statutory entitlement to construct the
pipeline in the County right of way under Village Law Article 1 1 and under the
existing and validly issued County DPW work permit... Defendant Legislature
concedes that it cannot, impose any conditions on Kiryas Joel 's valid County
DPW highway permit. It claims instead that the Resolution simply contained an
expression of Us will and thus is not actionable. ..The Legislature 's concession

that it has no authority to impose those conditions on the pipeline construction


adds strenth to Plaintiff's claims that, the Resolution is invalid
(emphasis added).

Therefore, the fifth cause of action cannot be maintained and should be dismissed. 2
In light of this Court's findings that the amended petition and complaint should be
dismissed as set forth herein, petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot.

-In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address that branch of the motion to dismiss
which alleges that petitioners' claims should be dismissed for failure to state acause of action.
19

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion by respondent to dismiss the amended

verified petition and complaint is granted, and the amended verified petition and complaint is

dismissed; and it is further


ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion by petitioners for an injunction is denied as
moot.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision, Order and Judgment of this Court.
Dated: White Plains. New York
April 7,2014

HON. JOAN B. LEFKO^ITZ, J.S.C.


!

3
To:
James Bacon, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioners
P.O. Box 575
New Paltz, New York 12561
Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP
Attorneys for Respondent
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, New York 12260

20

EXHIBIT C

Response to Public Comments


Village of Kiryas Joel Mountainville Well No. 1
Water Supply Application

NYSDEC Draft Permit No.: 3-3340-00284/00001

Project Location:

Route 32, Cornwall, NY

Applicant:

Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel


Municipal Building

51 Forest Road, P.O. Box 566


Monroe, NY 10949

Consultants:

Leggette, Brashears & Graham


4 Research Drive, Suite 301

Shelton, CT 06484

CDM Smith
1 1 British American Blvd., Suite 200
Latham, NY 12110

Legal Counsel:

Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP


One Commerce Plaza
Albany, NY 12260
(518) 487-7620

Project contacts:

Mr. Gedalye Szegedin

Mr. Tom Cusack

Village Clerk

Leggette, Brashears & Graham

P.O. Box 566

4 Research Drive, Suite 301

Monroe, NY 10950

Shelton, CT 06484

(845) 783-8300

(203) 944-5000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introductory Memorandum

Appendix A:

Comment Analysis and Coding by Topic

Appendix B:

Detailed Responses to Comments

Appendix C:

Written Comments April 2014

Appendix D:

Written Comments March 20 1 3

Appendix E:

Legislative Hearing Transcript (April 29, 2014)

Appendix F:

Commenter List

Appendix G:

Water Supply Permit Application

Appendix H:

NYSDEC Draft Permit (January 23, 201 3)

Appendix I:

Decision in Matter of Town of Woodbury v Village of Kirvas Joel. Sup Ct,


Orange County (Envtl. Claims Part), Apr. 7, 2014, Lefkowitz, J., Index. No.
2877/2013

Appendix J:

Negative Declaration for Mountainville Well Field (Dec. 4, 2012)

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP


Attorneys at Law
One Commerce Plaza
Albany, New York 12260

(518)487-7600
Fax (518)487-7777
WOH.COM

I.

Introduction

On November 17, 2011, the Village of Kiryas Joel ("Village" or "Kiryas Joel") filed an
application with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC")
seeking a new water supply permit for the construction of a groundwater well supply on property
owned by the Village in the Town of Cornwall ("Mountainville Well Field"). NYSDEC issued a
draft permit on January 23, 2013.

A Uniform Procedures Act ("UPA") legislative hearing was

conducted for the draft permit on April 29, 2014.

The following report is intended to further

support the Village's water supply permit application and respond to the public comments
received at the hearing and otherwise provided to the NYSDEC in writing. Appendix A contains
a table charting all comments received, the issues raised therein, and a reference to the response
for the specific issue. Each issue has been summarized and coded with a unique identifier. For
example, issues related to aquifer impacts have been coded as A.l.a.

Applicant's response to

each coded issue is contained in Appendix B. Thus, a response to aquifer impacts (coded A.l .a)
is discussed in Section A, subsection l.a (A.l.a) of Appendix B.

Appendix C contains all written comments submitted during the public hearing in April
2014.

Appendix D contains all written comments submitted in March 2013.

contains a transcript of the public hearing.

Appendix E

Written and oral comments were received on various elements of the water supply
permit. Three lists of commenters with assigned identification numbers is provided in Appendix

F. The comments in List A (A-xx) are written comments submitted during the April 29, 2014
legislative hearing. The comments in List B (B-xx) are written comments submitted in March
2013, in response to the submission of the application. The comments in List C (C-xx) are oral
comments made during the April 29, 2014 legislative hearing in the order presented. Each
specific comment is identified by a two-part number (example: A-5). The letter refers to
when/where the comment was made. The number refers to the person making the comment.

A copy of the application submission is attached here as Appendix G. On January 23,


2013, NYSDEC issued a notice of complete application and a draft water supply permit for

Mountainville Well Field, Well No.l, authorizing a total taking of 612,000 gallons per day
("gpd") or 425 gallons per minute ("gpm") (Appendix H).

Appendices I and J contain

additional reference materials supporting the comment responses.

A. Water Supply Permits

NYSDEC's Part 601 regulations guide issuance of water supply permits. As stated in 6
NYCRR 601.1: "The purpose of this Part is to regulate the use of the water resources of the
state pursuant to article 1 5 title 1 5 of the Environmental Conservation Law by implementing a

water withdrawal permitting, registration and reporting program for water withdrawals equaling
or exceeding a threshold volume." The Department considers the factors enumerated in Part
601.1 1 in its decision on all permits. Please see Section II, below, for detailed application of
these factors to the Village's water supply permit application.

NYSDEC's control over water supply permits reflects the statewide nature of the water
resource. As the Appellate Division, Second Department recently held, "provisions of the

Transportation Corporations Law and the Environmental Conservation Law . . . taken together,
clearly establish that the State Legislature intended to preempt local governments in regulating
both the withdrawal and transfer of water resources." (Woodbury Heights Estates Water Co. v.
Vill. of Woodbury. 1 1 1 A.D.3d 699, 701 [2d Dept 2013]). Accordingly, the issuance of water

supply permits rests exclusively within NYSDEC's authority, and should be issued where the
Part 601 factors are met.

B. Village Water Supply

The Village's present water supply is comprised of a series of groundwater wells located
within and outside of the Village boundary. Currently, the Village operates and maintains 14
production wells, all permitted by NYSDEC (Wells 1, 5, 6, 8A, 9B, 13 A, 13B, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26,
27 and 28). Nine of these wells are located within the Village and five are located on Villageowned property outside of the Village. The total present combined yield capacity of these wells
is approximately 2.28 million gallons per day ("mgd"). The current total permitted water taking

limit under existing NYSDEC water supply permits is a combined 1 .93 mgd. The reason for the
difference in these figures accounts for higher yielding wells within the Village (present yield
capacity = 1 .389 mgd) for which NYSDEC has imposed a 1 mgd cap on the volume that can be
regularly used, but which higher amounts above the NYSDEC permitted taking are available for
use on those limited occasions when necessary to meet the Village's maximum peak water
demand. In all of 2014, the Village's maximum daily demand exceeded 2 mgd on only five
occasions.

The Village currently has an average daily demand for water of 1.61 mgd, which it is
easily capable of accommodating.

Based on the projected water demands provided in the

Amended Final Environmental Impact Statement ("AFEIS") for the Village's Aqueduct
connection project and the anticipated connection to the Aqueduct in 2017, the Village's average

daily demand will be approximately 1.7 mgd, also within the capability of the Village's existing
total well yield capacity and permit limits.

In addition to its wells, the Village maintains five

storage tanks with a total capacity of 3.72 million gallons, which support the Village's ability to
meet maximum daily demands.

The yield capacity from the test production well (Well 1) located on the Mountainville

parcel is 612,000 gpd. This figure is identified on the draft permit now being considered. Under
the draft permit (WSA No. 1 1,609), the total average water taking permitted by the NYSDEC for
the Village would be limited to 1.93 mgd (1,928,800 gpd). The draft permit excludes the
Mountainville Well 1 in the total permitted yield capacity of the Village based on the redundancy
requirement (best well out of service) of the regulatory agencies. With the Mountainville Well 1
volumes removed from the Village inventory, the Village is unable to demonstrate adequate
capacity to meet its maximum peak daily demand

Acknowledging the ongoing effort by the

Village to connect to the NYC Aqueduct to accommodate this peak demand and future demands

of the Village, NYSDEC has provided a condition in the draft permit that would allow the
Village to temporarily take up to 2.54 mgd utilizing the Mountainville Well 1, provided the
Village can establish another redundant well at Mountainville or elsewhere within a reasonable
time period. This can be accomplished at the Mountainville site; however, it must be noted that
doing so will not increase the net taking permitted from this well field.

As part of the Village's pending water supply agreement with the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection ("NYCDEP") for the Village's Aqueduct connection,
the Village must certify that the Village's water supply will be able to sustain a shutdown of the
Aqueduct for extended periods of time. Based on the Village's current approved well inventory

and storage capabilities, the Village would currently be able to sustain a shutdown of the
Aqueduct.

In the future, however, it is likely that the Village will be required to implement

additional measures to support its ability to sustain future shutdowns.

These would include

measures such as increased takings from existing wells; development of additional wells on
existing well fields; additional groundwater and surface water sources; additional storage
capabilities; demand side controls; and conservation measures.

This future scenario is no

different than for any other municipality with a connection to the Aqueduct.

The Mountainville Well Field is intended to provide additional support for the Village's
water demands now and in the future. In the intervening time before the Aqueduct connection is
completed, Well No. 1 will support the Village's existing well network, especially at times of
maximum daily demand, which as noted occur only on a limited number of days per year. Once

the Village connects to the Aqueduct, this well will support the Village's demand at times of
future Aqueduct shutdowns. In order to meet NYSDOH requirements (Ten State Standards) that

a municipal water system demonstrate an ability to meet maximum daily demand with its
greatest producing well out of service, a redundant well (at or above the capacity of Well No. 1)
will be required whether at the Mountainville Well Field or elsewhere.

This was previously

discussed with NYSDEC and acknowledged in the draft permit in condition 1 .B. The redundant
well will not increase the overall withdrawal from the well field or the taking amount permitted
by the water supply permit.

In the absence of the Mountainville Well Field, the Village may be compelled to
implement additional measures to accommodate this maximum day demand and redundancy
requirement.

This could be done by any number of means, including through use and

management of the Village's existing wells and storage facilities. In the past, the Village has
even relied on the use of trucked in water on limited occasions to support its maximum demand,
which is an acceptable, albeit costly practice.

The Village has other viable alternatives to the Mountainville Well Field to meet the
Village's needs in the future, including the maximum daily demand and redundancy requirement.

For example, the Village owns additional wells on Taylor Road in the Village of Cornwall-onHudson (the "Star Mountain Well Field").

The Star Mountain Well Field consists of two

existing high-yielding sand and gravel wells with a reported yield of 1 .54 mgd. These wells had
previously been approved by NYSDEC and utilized to supply water to the former Star Mountain
facility and adjacent homes but were deactivated when the former owner ceased operations on
the property.

The Village filed an application to activate these wells in January 2010.

It was

while this permit application was pending with NYSDEC that the Mountainville Well Field
property was identified as a potential source of additional water (April 2011). Based on the
viability of the Mountainville Well Field and after discussions with NYSDEC, the Star Mountain
Well Field application was subsequently withdrawn by the Village while reserving the right to
resubmit it in the future if necessary.

C. Mountainville Well Field

The Mountainville Well Field property was acquired by the Village in November 2010 to
construct a pump station for the Aqueduct pipeline. At the time of its acquisition, there was no

initial thought for water supply exploration.

As described in more detail below, the initial

exploration program began in April 201 1 and was completed in July 201 1. The completed water
taking permit for the Mountainville Well Field was submitted to NYSDEC in November 2011,
while the Star Mountain application was pending.

During the course of permit discussions,

NYSDEC suggested that, with the combination of the Mountainville and Star Mountain well
fields, the Village's water supply would exceed its projected need.

Upon further consideration

and discussion with NYSDEC, the Village withdrew its Star Mountain Well Field application,
reserving the right to re-apply should the need be presented in the future.

The decision to

prioritize the Mountainville Well Field over the Star Mountain Well Field was made, in part, on
the closer proximity of the Mountainville site to the Aqueduct pipeline and the fact that the
anticipated production of this well would likely serve the Village's needs into the future once the
Aqueduct connection was completed.

The site of the Mountainville Well Field was originally identified by the Village's
engineering consultant, CDM Smith, as part of its engineering design of the pipeline for the

Village's Aqueduct connection. As part of that design, CDM Smith identified a need to locate a
pump station near the mid-point of the pipeline route in order to facilitate transmission of water

from the New York City Aqueduct connection in the Town of New Windsor along the 13-mile
pipeline to Kiryas Joel. This property is located approximately halfway between the Aqueduct
connection in New Windsor and the Village.

As the Village often does with properties in which it acquires an interest, Kiryas Joel
tasked Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., ("LBG"), to perform hydrogeological tests at the
pump station property to investigate the viability of developing a groundwater source for the
Village. LBG has proven credentials with NYSDEC on water supply projects, and has been the
7

Village's principal hydrogeologist for over 20 years.

During that time, LBG has been

responsible for identifying and developing new water sources for the Village as well as
managing and maintaining existing sources.

Given the site's proximity to a known "principal" aquifer, LBG initiated a groundwater
exploration program in April 2011 to determine the extent and potential yield of the stratified-

drift sand and gravel aquifer deposits which are mapped as underlying the Mountainville Well
Field site.

Principal Aquifers are defined in NYSDEC TOGS 2.1.3 as "aquifers known to be

highly productive or whose geology suggests abundant potential water supply, but which are not
intensively used as sources of water supply by major municipal systems at the present time."

A 72-hour pumping test on the proposed well was completed in June 201 1 in accordance

with NYSDEC standard pumping test guidelines ("Recommended Pump Test Procedures for
Water Supply Application" NYSDEC TOGS 3.2.1).

Use of the NYSDEC pumping test

guidelines is required by NYSDEC and New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH")
and is also typically used when conducting pumping tests that are designed and executed to meet
SEQRA requirements. To approve any such application, NYSDEC must determine that the
proposed well or wells will adequately meet the needs of the applicant without adversely
affecting others who may rely on the same aquifer. The requirements of these procedures have
been designed to produce the accurate and complete information that is vital to these
determinations. The pumping test is designed to not only determine the viability and production

value of a proposed well site, but also to determine whether the well could be developed without
any undue impacts on the aquifer, other existing wells, surface waters or wetland features in the
area. This is the standard test utilized for all NYSDEC water supply permits.

The 72-hour pumping test for the Mountainville Well Field included the demonstration of
stabilized yield and water-level drawdown in the test well (Well 1) for a minimum of six hours at
the end of the test period.

Water level data, including water level drawdown, were collected

from two additional on-site monitoring wells completed in the stratified-drift aquifer (MW-1 and
MW-2) that were drilled near Well 1.

The water-level data collected during the pumping test

allows for the calculation of aquifer parameters and the assessment of potential regional waterlevel impact from pumping of the test well.

The onsite monitor wells, MW-1 and MW-2, were

constructed 51 feet and 94 feet, respectively, from Well 1. A site plan depicting the location of
the monitoring wells is included in the application.

Based on the data collected during the

pumping test, the drawdown in MW-1 and MW 2 at the end of the test was 9.26 feet and 0.42
feet, respectively. As expected, the drawdown data showed that pumping-related impact to the
shallow portion of the aquifer decreased with distance.

A 180-day water level drawdown projection was completed for Well 1 using the water
level data collected during the pumping test and aquifer parameters were calculated.

The 72-

hour pumping test on Well 1 demonstrated stabilized yield and water-level drawdown at a
pumping rate of 425 gallons per minute ("gpm"). Water-level recovery in the well was rapid and

90% recovery was achieved within one hour of shut down of the well. The 180-day water level
drawdown projection showed the water level in the well was above the pump intake setting as
well as above the top of screen in the well. This projection demonstrates that the well can sustain

a rate of 425 gpm, with available water above the pump intake after a period of 180-days of
continuous pumping with no recharge.

Water level measurements were also collected from three piezometer locations.
location of the piezometers is also shown on the application site plan.
9

The

Consistent with the

NYSDEC guidance, piezometers are routinely used during such tests to measure surface water
levels and were installed near Well 1 for the pumping test to assess potential surface water
interconnection with the test well under pumping conditions. Piezometers were installed in an
on-site intermittent stream, in an on-site wetland, and in and below Woodbury Creek to the
northwest of the parcel.

No water-level drawdown interference was discernible in the

piezometers monitored during the test period as a result of the pumping of Well 1. This indicates
that there was no direct hydrologic connection with nearby surface water features during the
testing, including no impact on water levels in and below Woodbury Creek. In addition, shallow
groundwater was present in the on-site wetlands (PZ-2) and showed no impact from pumping, so

there would be no impact to the corresponding surface water for this feature.

Finally, the

microscopic particulate analysis (MPA) sample collected from Well 1 reported a low risk

potential for groundwater under the influence of surface water (GWUDI) for the well.

This

information was also presented to NYSDOH.

Water level measurements were also collected from off-site neighboring wells located
within 1,500 feet of the test well. The location of the off-site monitoring wells is also shown on
the application site plan.

Water-level data was collected from two offsite residential wells

located at 230 Old Route 32 and 1470 Old Route 32 at approximately 1,150 feet and 870 feet,
respectively, away from Well 1.

The water-level data from these wells showed no drawdown

impact attributed to the pumping of Well 1 on the Mountainville parcel. Moreover, based on the
hydrogeological setting and the results from the aquifer testing program at the Mountainville site,

LBG determined that the proposed Mountainville Well Field would not adversely affect the yield
of the Village of Woodbury's well fields. The Trout Brook well is located over a mile from the

10

Mountainville site. It is also located upgradient, which means that the Mountainville Well would
not affect the recharge potential of the Village of Woodbury's well fields.

Water quality samples for purposes of NYSDOH review were also collected from the
pumping test well near the end of the 72-hour test period. The water quality sampling results
demonstrated that the water meets all NYSDOH drinking water standards with the exception of
the presence of total coliform. The well will need to be disinfected and resampled prior to being
placed in service for potable use. In sum, the results from the 72-hour pumping test showed no
outstanding issues of concern related to safe yield of the well, water quality, surface-water
impact or drawdown in off-site neighboring wells.

A detailed report of well pump testing methodologies, data, analysis, and conclusions
was prepared in connection with the pumping test ("Groundwater Supply Development Plan").
This report was prepared by LBG and provided to the Village to assist its SEQRA determination,
and was submitted to NYSDEC and NYSDOH in support of the Mountainville Well permit
application.

Based on the application materials submitted, responses to agency comments and after

numerous discussions and meetings with NYSDEC water supply program staff from the
Department's Albany headquarters and Region 3, NYSDEC issued a Draft Permit (3-334000284/00001 ; WSA No. 1 1,609) on January 23, 2013. The NYSDEC Draft Permit is attached in
Appendix H.

11

D. Aqueduct Connection Project

The residents of the Village currently depend on groundwater wells for their entire supply
of potable water.

Due to the increased municipal competition for the limited groundwater

resources in the Town of Monroe watershed in the early 2000s, NYSDEC (Michael Merriman
and Caesar Manfredi) and the Village reached consensus that future water supply development
would be conducted outside of the watershed. Consistent with that understanding, the Village
began planning for a connection to the New York City Aqueduct to provide a more safe and
reliable water supply to its residents. Pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code (the
"Code"), as a municipality in Orange County, the Village is entitled to take a water supply from

the City's Aqueduct in an amount described in the statute. Contrary to comments received, the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection ("NYCDEP") has only nondiscretionary authority to approve the engineering plans for the actual connection and placement

of equipment on City land, but has no authority to deny the connection to the Aqueduct. The

Village has been working cooperatively with NYCDEP on this project for over a decade.
NYCDEP has repeatedly acknowledged the Village's entitlement to take water from the
Aqueduct and to construct the necessary appurtenant facilities to accomplish this.

Section 24-360(a) of the Code provides that "[i]t shall be lawful for any of the municipal
corporations or water districts in the counties of Ulster, Greene, Delaware, Schoharie, Sullivan,
Orange, Westchester and Putnam, and for the village of Deposit in the counties of Delaware and
Broome, to take and receive from any of the reservoirs, aqueducts, conduits, streams or pipes of
the city a supply of water for the uses and purposes of such municipal corporations or water

districts or village and to that end such municipal corporations or water districts are, and
each of them is, and such village also is, authorized and empowered to lay the necessary mains,
12

pipes, valves, hydrants, supply pipes and other necessary appurtenances for the use of such
water, without the consent of any board, officer, bureau, or

subdivision thereof."

department of the state or any

The Code further provides that "[t]he daily quantity of water which may

be taken and received by any municipal corporation or water district under the provisions of
this section shall not exceed the

quantity

calculated

by

multiplying

the number

of its

inhabitants as shown by the last preceding census of the United States or the last state or official
municipal census by the daily per capita consumption in the city of New York." NYCAC 24360(e).

The Village will connect to the Catskill Aqueduct near Riley Road in the Vails Gate
section of the Town of New Windsor. The Village intends to share an existing Aqueduct tap with
the Town of New Windsor pursuant to an inter-municipal agreement executed in January 2011.
Final adjustments to the engineering plans for the shared connection are currently being
reviewed by NYCDEP and the water supply agreement with the City likely will be executed later
in 2015.

Water from the Aqueduct will be transported via a 13-mile, 24-inch pipeline that will
follow State and County highway rights-of-way. The 24-inch pipeline was fully assessed during

the Village's SEQRA review of the pipeline project and was part of all plans reviewed and
approved by all of the regulatory agencies. A pump station will be located at the halfway point

in the route at the Mountainville Well Field property. Construction on phase I of the pipeline, an
1 The New York City Administrative Code was originally passed by the State Legislature, and the provisions related
to water supply, including Administrative Code 24-360, may not be altered except by the State Legislature. See
NYC Admin Code 1-111 ("All rights and powers to amend, modify, extend or supersede any provision or
provisions of sections . . . 24-354 through 24-365 of this code and any other provision or provisions of this code
relating to any lands now or hereafter acquired outside the corporate limits of the city for water supply purposes,
including highways, bridges and sewers, are hereby reserved to the legislature of the state of New York."). This
limitation demonstrates that the Legislature intended to protect the Village's unequivocal right to access the
Aqueduct that was afforded under the Water Supply Act of 1905 (L 1905, ch 724).
13

approximately 6.5 mile stretch between the Village and the Mountainville property, commenced
in March 2013 and is nearly complete. To date, the Village has installed over 25,000 linear feet
of pipeline and has expended over $13 million. Engineering plans for phase II, the remainder of
the line from Mountainville to New Windsor, have been completed and work permits are
pending with the relevant regulatory agencies.

As noted above, the Mountainville Well Field will be constructed on the same property
where the midway pump station for the pipeline will be located.

The convenience of this

location will enable the Village to provide an interim supply of water without the need for an

additional parallel pipeline to transport this resource to the Village.

The Mountainville well

water will serve the Village's potable water supply needs during times of Aqueduct shutdown

and will also provide an interim source while construction of the remainder of the pipeline is
completed. This portion of the Aqueduct Connection Project is called Phase IA and will include,
together with the Mountainville Well Field, an additional pump station, and water treatment

equipment. The Mountainville Well Field will enable the Village to meet its maximum daily
demand until the connection to the Aqueduct is completed.

The Village anticipates that the

pipeline will be available to transport water from the Mountainville Well No. 1 to the Village
shortly after these permit proceedings are completed.

The Aqueduct Connection Project is

behind schedule due in part to unexpected technical difficulties encountered during the

construction and also in part to relentless opposition by those who would prohibit the residents of
Kiryas Joel from obtaining a safe and reliable water supply, a fundamental right shared with
every other community in New York State. This delay has raised the importance of the interim
use of the Mountainville Well Field while the remainder of the pipeline is completed.
connection to the Aqueduct is now anticipated for 201 7.

14

The

E. SEORA Review

In 2004, the Village commenced the SEQRA review for the Aqueduct Connection

Project, including a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"), Final EIS and Findings
Statement.

In response to a legal challenge to the completeness of the SEQRA review, the

Village completed an Amended Final EIS in 2009. The Village resolved all remaining litigation
involving the SEQRA review for the Aqueduct Connection Project in 2010.

To support its applications to NYSDOH and NYSDEC for well and water supply permits,
respectively, for the Mountainville Well Field, the Village commenced another coordinated
SEQRA review for the proposed well field on or about November 8, 2012 with the preparation

of an expanded Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF").

The expanded EAF was distributed

to all involved agencies, including NYSDEC and NYSDOH.

Each of the involved agencies

consented to the Village serving as the SEQRA lead agency for this review.

In support of the expanded EAF and permit applications, the Village's consultants
completed the following studies: a 72-hour pumping test for the Mountainville Well Field; a

habitat suitability assessment; an archaeological investigation of the site; a review of


documentation on State and federal wetlands around the site; and development of a Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") to address the limited site construction.

The Village's

review also considered the 2009 Amended Final EIS for the construction of the Aqueduct
Connection Project; the 2010 Orange County Amended Final EIS for Harriman Waste Water
Treatment Plant ("WWTP"); Orange County Department of Public Works quarterly flow reports

for the Harriman WWTP; and Village of Kiryas Joel WWTP monthly flow reports.

15

The Village and its consultants had several discussions and meetings with NYSDEC and

NYSDOH regarding the application materials, including the SEQRA materials.

Following a

thorough environmental review of the development of the proposed Mountainville Well Field,
which included consideration of potential impacts on surrounding wells, archeology, wildlife,
wetlands, surface waters, wastewater, temporary construction impacts and other issues, the
Village concluded that the action would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts

and that the preparation of an EIS was not required. The Village adopted a negative declaration
on December 4, 2012. The Village distributed the negative declaration to each of the involved
agencies. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation issued an
opinion on December 5, 20 11 that the Mountainville Well Site and Pump Station would have No
Impact upon cultural resources. NYSDOH issued its Endorsement of the Village's October 2012
Supplement to Engineer's Report on December 13, 2012.

The Village also determined that construction of the proposed Mountainville Well Field
and its connection to the Aqueduct pipeline, in lieu of construction of a redundant transmission
pipeline, did not require a supplement to the Village's Amended Final EIS for the Aqueduct
Connection project because the development of the Mountainville Well Field did not raise any
significant adverse environmental impacts that had not previously been considered in that prior
SEQRA review.

Based on its review of the Village's application materials, including the SEQRA negative

declaration, and the several discussions and meetings noted above, NYSDEC issued the Notice

of Complete Application and Draft Water Supply Permit to the Village on January 23, 2013.

16

F.

Legal Challenge

On April 4, 2013, the Town and Village of Woodbury and the Village of Harriman
commenced a legal challenge to the Village's SEQRA review of the Mountainville Well Field
project. The suit initially asserted two causes of action, each alleging that the Village failed to
take a "hard look" at certain issues during its review. First, the suit alleged that the Village did
not take a hard look at the project's purported impact on the Town's Trout Brook well field.
Second, the suit alleged that the Village did not take a hard look at other unspecified
environmental impacts.

Specifically, the suit sought a judgment vacating and annulling the negative declaration
with respect to the Mountainville Well Field, and restraining the Village from undertaking any
activity that was authorized by the negative declaration. As originally filed, the litigation did not
allege any claims against the pipeline or seek any relief against its construction.

On April 12, 2013, the municipal petitioners filed a motion under cover of this litigation
seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Kiryas Joel from constructing the water supply pipeline
to connect to the New York City Aqueduct, pending resolution of the underlying and unrelated
CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Mountainville Well Field negative declaration. On
July 16, 2013, Supreme Court, Environmental Claims Part denied the motion for preliminary
injunction , ruling that the attempt to halt construction of the pipeline construction, "which was
otherwise authorized by Village Law and the NYC Administrative Code," was not related to the

relief sought in the underlying suit.

These same municipal petitioners thereafter filed an Amended Verified Petition and

Complaint (the "Amended Petition"), this time including a collateral attack on the Village's
17

construction of the pipeline. The municipal petitioners raised many of the same issues that have
again arisen in these comments: alleging impacts to the Village of Woodbury's Trout Brook well
field, Woodbury Creek, and other off-site wells; challenging the adequacy of the 72-hour
pumping test; challenging the 24-inch diameter pipe; and asserting impacts to wastewater
treatment capacity, among others. On April 7, 2014, Supreme Court, Environmental Claims Part
granted Kiryas Joel's motion to dismiss the Amended Petition, dismissing all of the claims
against the pipeline and Mountainville Well Field.

In its decision, the Court ruled that Kiryas

Joel fully complied with SEQRA, finding that the record demonstrates that the Village identified
and took a "hard look" at relevant areas of environmental concern with respect to the
Mountainville Well and made a "reasoned elaboration" of the basis for its negative declaration.
In reaching this decision, the Court found that the municipal challengers failed to refute the
Village's well pumping tests and the conclusions supported thereby that there would be no

adverse environmental impacts from the Mountainville Well on Woodbury Creek, the principal
aquifer and the surrounding wells in the area (including Woodbury's Trout Brook well field).

The Court also noted that the Amended Final EIS for the Aqueduct Connection Project contained
an adequate analysis of the potential wastewater impacts from the Village's water supply to
sustain the negative declaration for the Mountainville Well.

No appeal was taken from this

decision which is now final and binding. Accordingly, comments during the legislative hearing
directed at SEQRA issues have already been considered, litigated and upheld in State court, and
thus require no further re-consideration in this permit proceeding.

G. Draft Permit

The Village applied to NYSDEC for an ECL Article 1 5 water supply permit in November

201 1.

The application resulted in numerous meetings, discussions and correspondence between


18

the Village, its consultants, NYSDEC, and NYSDOH. These discussions addressed the need for
and adequacy of the supply, impacts on state historic and archeological resources, impacts to

wetlands, assessment of endangered species, design of the pumping test, assessment of impacts
to Woodbury Creek and the Ramapo River, and preparation of a SWPPP that was submitted and
revised in response to Division of Water and Village of Woodbury comments.

As discussed

above, the Village completed a coordinated SEQRA review with NYSDEC and NYSDOH, and
the Village Board adopted a resolution in December 2012 issuing a negative declaration.

On

January 23, 2013, NYSDEC issued a draft water supply permit.

Pursuant to ECL 15-1503, NYSDEC must consider eight factors in making its decision
to grant a permit or to grant a permit with conditions:

a.

The proposed water withdrawal takes proper consideration of other sources of


supply that are or may become available;

b.

The quantity of supply will be adequate for the proposed use;

c.

The project is just and equitable to all affected municipalities and their inhabitants

with regard to their present and future needs for sources of potable water supply;

d.

The needs for all or part of the proposed water withdrawal cannot be reasonably

avoided through the efficient use and conservation of existing water supplies;

e.

The proposed water withdrawal is limited to quantities that are considered

reasonable for the purposes for which the water use is proposed;

f.

The proposed water withdrawal will be implemented in a manner to ensure it will


result in no significant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the quantity
or quality of the water source and water dependent natural resources;
19

g-

The proposed water withdrawal

will

be

implemented

in

a manner that

incorporates environmentally sound and economically feasible water conservation


measures; and

h.

The proposed water withdrawal will be implemented in a manner that is


consistent with applicable municipal, state and federal laws as well as regional
interstate and international agreements.

ECL 1 5-1 503(4) also provides that NYSDEC shall make a reasonable effort to meet the

needs of the applicant. NYSDEC regulations in 6 NYCRR 601 provide further clarification of
the ECL factors. The Village's discussion of its compliance with the 601 factors is discussed in
Section

II below.

To ensure satisfactory compliance with the statutory and regulatory

provisions, the draft permit included numerous conditions and special conditions applicable to
the Mountainville Well Field. The draft permit limits the pumping rate to the levels approved.
The special conditions prohibit the Village from developing or increasing pumping rates for
existing sources above permitted levels without another permit from NYSDEC. The draft permit
requires conservation measures including metering, periodic calibration of small service
connection meters, recordkeeping and audit requirements, and a leak detection and repair
program. To address any potential concerns with impacts to off-site wells, the permit requires
that the Village make provisions to supply water to any residents whose private well-water
systems are diminished or rendered non-productive by the Village's use of the Mountainville
Well Field.

The draft permit also requires a redundancy plan to address the Village's peak daily
demand with the Mountainville Well 1 out of service.

20

The Village intends to develop a

redundant well at the Mountainville site to satisfy this condition. This redundant well will not
increase the total volume of taking beyond the level permitted for the site.

In support of issuing a draft permit, it is presumed that NYSDEC examined information

developed during SEQRA review, the lengthy back-forth-discussions with the applicant over the
draft permit, and results of the NYSDEC standard 72-hour pumping test that showed no adverse
effects on surrounding wells or surface waters.

Following issuance of the permit, NYSDEC

convened a legislative hearing on the permit application, at which it received written and oral
comments and additional submissions from municipalities and concerned citizens.

II.

Project Justification -6 NYCRR Part 601

As provided in 6 NYCRR 601.11(c), NYSDEC "shall determine" whether a water


supply permit application meets the factors enumerated in that regulation. These factors meet
the purposes of Part 601, which are "to regulate the use of the water resources of the state
pursuant to article 15 title 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law by implementing a water
withdrawal permitting, registration and reporting program for water withdrawals equaling or
exceeding a threshold volume." (6 NYCRR 601 .1). Each factor's application to the Village's
water supply permit application is discussed below.

1) Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated alternatives.

The proposed project includes the consolidation of the Village of Kiryas Joel's existing
water supply permits and the permitting of the new water-supply well, Well 1, on the
Mountainville Pump Station parcel. Two feasible alternative sources evaluated during the time

that Mountainville Well

was drilled and yield tested included developing additional

21

groundwater sources within the Village of Kiryas Joel and reactivation of the existing Star
Mountain Wells 3 and 4 which are located on Taylor Road in Cornwall.

The Village also

considered the "no-action" alternative, but rejected this alternative because the Village currently

needs the Mountainville Well Field to meet its maximum peak daily demand.

The proposed Mountainville Well Field was pursued over the other alternatives
considered because of the drawbacks associated with the other two alternatives.

In regard to

developing an additional groundwater source in the Village, the existing NYSDEC water taking
permits impose a daily limit on the combined withdrawal from production wells sited within the

Village boundaries to 1.0 mgd.

Any additional well developed within the Village would be

subject to this combined withdrawal limit and therefore not a viable alternative to increase the
water taking to meet the peak and future water demands of the Village. The Brenner Well Field
likewise has been developed to its maximum water supply potential, subsequently there is no
potential to develop surplus water from this well field.

Further, in 2000 during review of the

limits on the Village wells, at the urging of NYSDEC, consensus was reached between the
Village and NYSDEC staff members Michael Merriman and Caesar Manfredi that future
groundwater exploration and water-supply development would be conducted outside of the

Village's and Town of Monroe's watersheds due to municipal competition for the limited
groundwater resources in these areas. Accordingly, the Village investigated locations outside of
the region including Star Mountain and Mountainville. The Village also drilled a well at the New
Windsor pump station location which did not prove feasible.

The second alternative, connection to the Star Mountain Wells 3 and 4, was rejected due
to

their greater distance

from

the Aqueduct pipeline

and

the

corresponding

increased

construction needed for the additional transmission pipeline. These factors would also increase
22

the cost of the project and the time needed for completion. At the time the Mountainville Well
Field application was filed, the Department had already received and was reviewing the permit
application for the Star Mountain Well Field, which was initially filed in January 2010. The Star

Mountain Well Field consists of two existing, high-yielding sand and gravel wells with a
reported yield of 1.54 mgd. These wells had previously been approved by NYSDEC and used to
supply water to the former Star Mountain facility and adjacent homes. However, they had been
deactivated when the former owner ceased operations on the property.

Based on discussions

with NYSDEC regarding the lack of current need for both sources, it was determined that the
Mountainville Well Field was a preferable location that could also accommodate the current and
future needs of the Village.

A fourth alternative considered was connection to the New York City Aqueduct. This
alternative is currently being implemented with the construction of the pipeline between the
Village and the Aqueduct connection location in the Town of New Windsor. Construction of the
first 6.5 miles of pipeline is nearly completed.

In September 2014, engineering plans for the

final 6.5 miles of transmission main between Mountainville and New Windsor were completed
and filed with New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH"), the Orange County

("OCDOH"), NYS Department of Transportation ("NYSDOT"), and the NYS Thruway


Authority ("NYSTA"). The Village has received comments from NYSDOH and NYSDOT, and
received an Occupancy Permit from NYSTA.

Engineering plans for the Aqueduct connection in

the Town of New Windsor have been filed with the Town and NYCDEP and final adjustments to

the plans are being coordinated with NYCDEP. Construction is anticipated to be completed in
2017.

23

Based on the foregoing, the Mountainville Well Field was judged to be the best and most
cost-effective feasible alternative available to meet the Village's interim and future water supply
needs that is also protective of the environment.

2) Why increased water conservation or efficiency measures cannot negate or reduce


the need for the proposed water withdrawals.

Initially, it is important to note that the Village's per capita water usage is well below the
average. The Village's per capita water usage has been reported at levels of 58 to 66 gpd. By
comparison, the USGS reports the national average at approximately 98 gpd. Indeed, per capita

water use in New York City is reported at approximately 127 gpd.

This is due in part to less

frequent use of water for activities such as lawn watering, car washes, and swimming pools.
Likewise, by comparison, a review of water supply permits indicates that the Village's 90 gpd
per person permitted water supply inventory volume is significantly smaller than the neighboring
Town/Village of Woodbury's 215 gpd per person.

The Village of Kiryas Joel has also implemented water conservation efforts and
efficiency measures to reduce water use. As described in the 2014 Water Withdrawal Reporting

Form submitted by the Village to the NYSDEC, information regarding household water savings
devices and ways to reduce water usage were distributed to residential customers, and steps have
been taken to reduce outdoor water use during drought conditions. The Village has also
improved its water storage facilities. In addition, at the urging by the Village, one of the main
private commercial users of Village water, the Kiryas Joel Poultry Plant, has implemented
significant plant improvements that have resulted in a 40% water usage reduction. The Village
has also undertaken regular measures aimed at improving the reliability and efficiency of its

24

existing well inventory. However, due to normal population growth and increased competition
for the limited groundwater resource in the vicinity of the Village, water conservation measures

alone have not been sufficient during periods of peak water system demand to reduce the need
for an additional source to meet the Village's maximum water demand requirements.

3) Why the proposed water withdrawal is reasonable for the proposed use.

The proposed use for the water withdrawal

is to meet the peak water demand

requirements of an existing municipal water-supply system. The proposed Mountainville Well


Field will be used to supplement the existing Village of Kiryas Joel water supply wells, to enable
the Village to meet its current maximum peak demand which occurs a few times per year

pending completion of the Aqueduct Connection Project when the well would be available to
support the Village water supply as backup when the Aqueduct is unavailable. During times of
peak demand the Village has had to implement extraordinary contingency measures, including

trucking in water from outside sources. The proposed withdrawal from Mountainville Well 1 is
reasonable because the Village will be able to utilize the completed pipeline between the well
field site and the Village without the need for construction of an additional transmission main.

In addition, use of the Mountainville Well Field will remove the current need to further develop
the Star Mountain well site. Accordingly, the use is reasonable because the proposed withdrawal

from the Mountainville Well Field is intended to provide additional support to meet the Village's
water demand now and in the future as well as to meet the NYCDEP redundancy requirement for
the Village's connection to the Aqueduct and without the need to construct additional
transmission mains.

25

The addition of the Mountainville Well Field will also allow the Village to continue to
complete needed well redevelopment/rehabilitation work on its existing wells.

This work

includes replacing well pumps and appurtenances, equipment maintenance and leak detection,
and mechanical and chemical well redevelopment. These measures are necessary to maintain the
viability and efficiency of the existing supply sources, further supporting the Village's water
conservation measures. To complete these activities, wells are sometimes taken out of service
for days or weeks.

Adding the Mountainville Well Field will allow the Village to continue to

conduct routine and needed well maintenance without overstressing the remaining in-service
wells.

4) Why the proposed water conservation measures are environmentally sound and
economically feasible.

The water conservation measures which have been implemented by the Village of Kiryas
Joel are discussed above. The measures include public education and voluntary implementation

of actions to reduce water usage and installation of water saving devices. This also includes
routine maintenance and upgrades to its existing well inventory. During drought conditions, the
Village further reduces outdoor water usage and publishes notices in the local newspaper.

These

measures are environmentally sound and economically feasible.

5) Whether the proposed water supply is adequate.

The current total permitted water withdrawal limit for the Village of Kiryas Joel is

1.93 mgd based on the Village's existing water supply permits. The 2014 peak water demand for
the Village of Kiryas Joel was 2.21 mgd as reported in the 2014 Water Withdrawal Reporting
Form submitted to the NYSDEC.
26

With the inclusion of Mountainville Well 1, the combined yield of the existing, permitted
Village of Kiryas Joel water system wells plus Mountainville Well 1 is 2.54 mgd which would

meet the current and future peak water demands of the system. This well would also enable the
Village to safely meet its redundancy requirements for the Aqueduct connection.

6) Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other municipalities and their
inhabitants in regard to present and future needs for sources of potable water.

During the 72-hour pumping test conducted on Mountainville Well 1, water-level data
was collected from existing wells located on neighboring properties. The data showed no effects
from pumping the 425 gpm allowed under the draft permit on the neighboring private and
municipal wells, including Woodbury's Trout Brook Road wells. The Village is unaware of any
other pending water supply permit applications, and in any event, has no reason to believe that its
withdrawal will directly impact any other user of the aquifer.

Moreover, at the suggestion of NYSDEC, the Village voluntarily withdrew its application

to reactivate the Star Mountain Well Field as it was concluded that the Mountainville Well field
could serve to meet the Village's current and future needs. In addition, this new well field is not
intended to replace any of the Village's existing wells, but rather is intended to supplement a
comprehensive well and storage inventory.

Ultimately, the Village seeks to connect to the

Aqueduct, relieving some of the daily pressure on the aquifer in Mountainville, in the Village,
and in the surrounding wells in the Town of Monroe. Indeed, the overall Aqueduct project, of
which the Mountainville Well Field is one part, will ultimately benefit the Village's neighbors

who remain reliant on state groundwater resources in the area.

27

Finally, the Village has great respect for the importance of the statewide water resource
as one to be shared by all NYS residents and municipalities. Unlike others, the Village has not
sought to challenge or obstruct other municipalities from acquiring new or supplemental water

supplies.

For example, Kiryas Joel recently voluntarily provided the Village of Cornwall-on-

Hudson access to Kiryas Joel's Star Mountain wells to assist the Village in completing certain
pumping tests of Cornwall's existing water supply wells. In addition, the Village previously
agreed to provide water to the State Police barracks and other residential developments in the
Town of Monroe outside of the Village, and also provides emergency access to the Monroe and
Woodbury Fire Departments for filling their trucks upon request.

7) Whether the withdrawal will result in no significant individual or cumulative


environmental impacts.

The Village completed environmental review of the project in coordination with


NYSDEC and NYSDOH that resulted in a negative declaration.

The negative declaration

considered both individual and cumulative environmental impacts. The negative declaration was
subsequently upheld by New York Supreme Court, Environmental Claims Part. The negative
declaration was based, in part, on the 72-hour pumping test conducted on Mountainville Well 1
in June 201 1 in accordance with the NYSDEC guidelines, as discussed above. The pumping test
was designed to demonstrate the yield of the new production well and supported a conclusion of

no impacts to nearby existing wells and surface-water features. Water-level data was also
collected from two wells on neighboring properties during the test. No water-level drawdown

was measured in these offsite wells which can be attributed to pumping in Mountainville Well 1.

28

The pumping test conducted on Mountainville Well 1 in June 201 1 showed no significant

impacts to the nearby surface-water features or offsite wells near the property from pumping of
Mountainville Well 1.

The Village's negative declaration was subsequently challenged in a CPLR Article 78

proceeding, as described above. The court dismissed the petition on the basis that the Village
had taken an adequate "hard Jook" at potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, and
petitioners' submissions had failed to demonstrate otherwise.

8) Whether the proposed withdrawal will be consistent with all applicable municipal,
state and federal laws as well as regional and interstate agreements.

The proposed withdrawal will be undertaken in full compliance with all applicable
municipal, state and federal laws.

The Village is unaware of any regional or interstate

agreements that would be affected by the proposed withdrawal.

III.

Response to Public Comments

The Village provides the following responses to the public comments, arranged as
Appendices to this Introductory Memorandum:

Appendix A:

Comment Analysis and Coding by Topic

Appendix B:

Detailed Responses to Comments

Appendix C:

Written Comments April 2014

29

Appendix D:

Written Comments March 2013

Appendix E:

Legislative Hearing Transcript (April 29, 2014)

Appendix F :

Commenter List

Appendix G:

Water Supply Permit Application

Appendix H:

NYSDEC Draft Permit

Appendix I:

Decision in Town of Woodbury v Village of Kirvas Joel (April 7, 201 4)

Appendix J:

Negative Declaration for Mountainville Welifield (Dec. 4, 2012)

30

Commenter No.

At

A2

Commenter
Mary Gross- Ferraro

Adrienne and Steve Watson

Forum

Comment / Issue

Response

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.la: impacts on aquifer;

A.la

Hearing

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.S.a

Written Comments received at Legislative

A, lb: Impacts on Neighboring weils;

Hearing

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;


A.9.c: Impacts on new municipal wells put into production after KJ
application complete;

Duplicate

A. lb
A.6.a

A.9.d: Economic Impact on community;

A.9.C

B.la: Sewer capacity;

A,9.d

B.4.a; SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.la

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

B.4,a

D.5: Whether the proposed water supply is adequate;

C.3.a

D.6: Whether the proposed project Is just and equitable to other

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;

D.5
D.6
D.8

D.8: Whether the proposed Withdrawal wiii be consistent with all


applicable municipal, stale and federal laws as welis as regional and
interstate agreements;

A3

A4

Lisa L Timm

Eugene Schreiner

Written Comments received at Legislative

A. lb: Impacts on Neighboring weils;

Hearing
Written Comments received at Legislative

D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated
alternatives;
D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated

Hearing

alternatives;

A.lb

D.1

86

OA

D.6

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.7.a

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.la
A. lb

Needs for sources of potable water;


A.7.a: Well Construction issues / storm water issues;

A.5.a

A.la: Impacts on aquifer;

A.He

A.lb: Impacts on Neighboring weils;


A.S.a: Drought management plan;

A.11.e: Compliance with permit conditions;


5

A5

Brad Keys

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.6

Needs for sources of potable water


6

A6

Nancy Fasano

D.6

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.11.f

Needs for sources of potable water;

C.3.a

A. lit Enforcement for non-Compiiance of permit conditions ;


C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Comciiance;
7

A7

John Schwartz

Written Comments received at Legislative

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

C.3,3

Hearing

A.S.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.8.3

A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

A.8.b

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water
8

A8

D.6

Greater Cornwall Chamber of

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

Commerce (Richard Massimt)

Hearing

A.9.a: Impact of KJ's combined 2.4MG/D Withdrawal on community ;


A.9.d: Economic impact on community;
B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

A.S.a

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.9.d
B,4.a
D.6

Needs for sources of potable water;

A9

Nancy C. Bryan

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.la: Impacts on aquifer;

A. la

Hearing

A.lb: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


A. 2. a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A. lb

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.8.a

A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

A.S.b

A.8.d: Neighboring weBs not monitored;

A.8.d

D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated

alternatives;

A.2.a

D.1
A.1lb

A.H.b: Compliance with ECL 15-1501 et seq./S NYCRR 601;

A.lb

A.lb: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

B.4.a

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies:

85; C12

ASS; A90

Notes

10

A10

Riddick Associates

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.8.a

Hearing

A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

A.8.b

A.8.c: Need for independent study;

A.8.C

A.8.d: Neighboring wells not monitored;

A.8.d

A.S.e: Neighboring stream not monitored;

A.8.e

A.B.f: Withdrawal Emits understated;

A.S.f

A.9.a: Impact of KJ's combined 2.4MG/D Withdrawal on community ;


A.9.c: Impacts on new municipal wells put into production after KJ

A.9.3

application complete;

0.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.9.C

B-30

D.6:
B.4.a

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;
B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

11

A11

Susan and Henry Christensen Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

0.6: Whether the proposed project Is just and equitable to other

0.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

0.4

Needs for sources of potable water;

D.4: Why the proposed water conservation measures are


environmentally sound and Economically feasible;
0,8: Whether the proposed Withdrawal will be consistent with ail

applicable municipal, state and federal laws as wells as regional and

0.8
A.8.a
A.1.b

A.11.a
8.2.a

interstate agreements;

A.8.d

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;


A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.a

A65

A11.a: no municipal approvals;


B.2.a: Growth inducement;
A,8,d: Neighboring wells not monitored;

A.1.a: impacts on aquifer;


0.1

12

A12

James Nibio

Written Comments received at Legislative

0.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated

Hearing

alternatives;

13

A13

M. Mulroy Robin /Thomas

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.i.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Rodeuser

Hearing

A,2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A6

Orange Environment (Micbeai

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;


B.4.a: SEGRA Procedural Deficiencies;

R. Edelstein)

Hearing

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

C.3.a
A.4.

"l4

A14

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion impacts;


A.4.b: impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;
15

16

A15

A16

Jim Duribson

Kerry K. Luba

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.1.a: Sewer capacity:


0.7: Whether the Withdrawal wiii result in no significant individual or

Hearing

cumulative environmental Impacts:

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.1.b: impacts on Neighboring wefis;

Hearing

0.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

A.i.a: Impacts on aquifer;


A.1.b: impacts on Neighboring wells;

Written Comments received at Legislative

0.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;

B.4.a

A72; B36

A4.b
B.l.a
0.7

A.1.b
0.6

Needs for sources of potable water;


17

18

A17

A18

Joeseph Palaggi

Michael Campo

A.1.3
A.1.b

OJ
A.f.b

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells:


19

A19

Mary Fredericks

A.8.c: Need for independent study;

A.8.C

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

Alb

Hearing

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A,2.a

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.3

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

20

A20

Jerry Gage

21

A21

Gary Roaila

Written Comments received at Legislative

22

A22

Valerie Hebe!

Hearing
Written Comments received at Legislative
Hearing

23

A23

Criag Eliick

Comment raises no substantive issues


A.4

A.4.: interbasin Diversion Impacts;


A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A,4.b

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

C.3,a

B.l.a: Sewer capacity;

B.l.a
0.6

Written Comments received at Legislative

0.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;

A,8.a

A.S.a: Pump test deficiency,

8.4, a

0.7

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or


cumulative environmental Impacts;
B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;
24

A24

Jacqueline Hernandex

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

Comment raises no substantive issues

C79

25

26

A25

A26

Ptinio Ayaia

Janet Riadow

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Hearing

A.f.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.l.b

A.9.a: Impact of KJ's combined 2.4MG/D Withdrawal on community ;

A.9.a

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.9.d: Economic impact on community;

A.9.

Hearing

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable toother

D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;
27

A27

Margaret and Chris Storms

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.f.b: Impacts on Neighboring welis;

A.l.b

Hearing

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.2.a

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.S.a

D.6
D.7

Needs for sources of potable water;

A.2.C

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or


cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.7.a

B.f.a

A.2.<r impact on Ramapo River,


B.1 .a: Sewer capacity;
A.7.a: Well Construction issues / storm water issues;

28

29

A28

A29

Sandra A. Dunlop

Bill Braine

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.1.a: impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Hearing

A.S.a: Pump test deficiency;


C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compfiance;

A.8.a

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

Hearing

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

Written Comments received at Legislative

Comment raises no substantive issues

C.3.a

30

A30

Ron Marczyk

31

A31

Leslie and paui Pontarelli

Written Comments received at Legislative

Hearing

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or


cumulative environmental Impacts:

32

A32

Janne C. Dinnebeil

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

Hearing

cumulative environmental Impacts;


B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

8.4,a

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.f.b: impacts on Neighboring weils;

A.l.b

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency,

A,8.a

Hearing

A.9.d: Economic Impact on community;

A.9.d

C39

Hearing

33

A33

Maggie Trainor

D7
D.7

Hearing
34

A34

Sheri Lisker

D.4: Why the proposed water conservation measures are

D.4

environmentally sound and Economically feasible;

D.6

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

D.7

municipalises and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;
D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

cumulative environmental Impacts;


35

36

37

A35

A36

A37

Dan Small

Barbara Smith

Toya Dubin

A.11.e

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.ff.e: Compliance with permit conditions;

Hearing

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency,

A.8.a

Hearing

A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

A.8.b

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.S.e: Neighboring stream not monitored;

A.8.e

Hearing

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.8.3

A.S.c: Need for independent study;

A.8.C

A.l.b: Impacts on Neighboring weils;

A.l.b

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;

A.9.d

A.9.d: Economic impact on community;

C.2.3

A.S.a; Drought management plan;

8.2. a

C.3.a

D.6
A64; C15; C51

A.5.a

C.2.a: Aqueduct Issues / Impact;


B.2.a: Growth Inducement;
38

A38

Marian Leeds

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

Comment raises no substantive issues

A62

39

A39

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B17

A,2.b; impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.$,a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;


A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.S.a

Rock Fish and Game, Simon


Gruber

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;

B.1.3
D.7

Black Rock Forest Consortium, Written Comments received at Legislative


OC Land Trust, Hudson
Highlands Land Trust, Black

Hearing

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

Black Roc* Forest Consortium,


OC Land Trust, Hudson
A40

40

Highlands Land Trust, Black

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

Rock Fish and Game, Simon


A41

Kathlen Mitchell

cumulative environmental Impacts;


A,8,a: Pump test deficiency;

A.8.3

A40; A57;

A.8.C

A69; B41; B2S

A.8.c: Need for independent study;


A.4.: interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.4,
A.4.a

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.b

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;


A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.Za

A,11,f: Enforcement for non-Compliance of permit conditions;

A.11.f
A.2.a

A39; AS7;

A.2.b

A69; B41; B25

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;
A, 1 1 .e: Compliance with permit conditions;

Gruber
41

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

Hearing

cumulative environmental impacts;

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;
A.8.a: Pump test deficiency.
42

A42

Harry Mitchell

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.l.a

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

A.11.6

w
D.6
A.8.a

B.4.a

Hearing
43

A43

Constance A. Dioszeghy

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.1 l.e: Compliance with permit conditions;

Hearing

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;


D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;
A.l.a: impacts on aquifer,

A.11.e
A.6.a

D.6
A.1.8
A.8.C
A.1.b

A.8.C: Need for independent study;


A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;
44

45

A44

A45

David Fitzgerald

Mary Fitzgerald

D.6

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;
B.2,a: Growth Inducement;

B.2.a

Written Comments received at Legislative

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

C.3.a

Hearing
46

47

48

A46

A47

A48

MaryAspin

Mary Aspin

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


A.11.e: Compliance with permit conditions;

TiT
A.11.e

A.9.c: Impacts on new municipal wells put into production after KJ

A.9.C

application complete;

A.11.1

A.11.f: Enforcement for non-Compliance of permit conditions;


A.8.et Neighboring stream not monitored;

A.8.6

Written Comments received at Legislative

A,1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

Hearing

A.11.e: Compliance with permit conditions;


A.9.c: Impacts on new municipal wells put into production after KJ

A.1.6
A.11.e

Village of Cornwall (J. McKay

Written Comments received at Legislative

Esq.. Catania Mahon PLIC)

Hearing

A.9.C

application complete;

A.ll.f

A, 1 1 .f: Enforcement for non-Compliance of permit conditions;

A.8.e

A.8.e: Neighboring stream not monitored:


A.11 .a; no municipal approvals;
A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;
B,4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal wii! result in no significant individual or

A47

A46

A.11.6
A.l.a
B.4.a
0.7

cumulative environmental Impacts:

D.8

D.8: Whether the proposed Withdrawal will be consistent with ail


applicable municipal, state and federal laws as weils as regional and

D.6:

A.11.b

interstate agreements;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;

A.11.D: Compliance with ECL 15-1501 et seq./B NYCRR 601;


49

A49

Orange County Water

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.4.

Authority

Hearing

A.4,b: impacts on Passaic-Newark {Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4,b

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.11.c: Orange County Water plan;

A.4.3
A.H.c;

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.3

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;


A.S.e: Neighboring stream not monitored;
A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek:

A.l.a
A.S.e
A.2.b

8-40

50

51

A50

A51

Thomas and Chrstine Corette

Merl G. Hutto

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

Hearing

A.11.e: Compliance with permit conditions;

A.tt.e

A.11.f; Enforcement for non-Compliance of permit conditions;

A.11.f

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.l.a

A.1.b: impacts on Neighboring weiis;

A.1.b

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.t.b: impacts on Neighboring weils;

Hearing

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.1.b
D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.1.a

B,4,a

Needs for sources of potabie water;

A102; C13

A.l.a; impacts on aquifer;


52

A52

Peter Russei (Councilman)

Written Comments received a! Legislative

A.9.a: impact of KJ's combined 2.4MG/D Withdrawal on community;

A.S.a

Hearing

A.e.a: Pump test deficiency;


A.S.b: Safe yield determination;

A.8.a

A.S.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.t.a

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.8.b

D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.4.

Needs for sources of potable water;

B.1.3

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion impacts;

B,2.a

C4;C44

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;


B.2.a: Growth inducement;

53

A53

Peter and Nancy Lewit

Written Comments received at Legislative

54

A54

Robert J. Maltoy

Written Comments received at Legisiaiive


Hearing

Comment raises no substantive issues

A75

Hearing
A.s.c: Need for independent study;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potabie water;

A.8.C
D.6
A.t.a

A.1.b

A.l.a; impacts on aquifer;

A.t.b; impacts on Neighboring weiis;


55

A55

Cornwall Baptist Church

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.t.b: impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.t.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.3

Hearing
56

A56

Ralph E. Ogden Foundation,

Written Comments received at Legislative

Inc. (Beatrice Stem)

Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water

A.6.a; Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;


A.4.: Interbasin Diversion imparts;

D.6
A.6.3
A.4.

A.2,b

A107

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;


57

A57

Biack Rock Forest Consortium, Written Comments received at Legislative

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B,4.a

Open Space institute, OC Land Hearing

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4,b

Trust, PaOsades Interstate

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Pare Commission, Storm King

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potabie water;

Art Center

B. 1 .a: Sewer capacity;

D.6

B.1.a
A.2.b
A.4.

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.t.a

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.t.b

A.t.a: impacts on aquifer;


A.t.b; Impacts on Neighboring weiis;
58

AS8

Chazen Companies (on behalf Written Comments received at Legislative


of 56)

Hearing

A.t.a: imparts on aquifer;


D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

A.t.a

D.7

cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.4.

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.8.a

A.S.a: Pump test deficiency;


A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

A.8.b

A.8.e: Neighboring stream not monitored;

A. 2. a

A.2.a: Imparts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.b

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.8.e

A39; A40;

A69; B25; B41

59

A59

Nancy C. Bryan

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

A.1,a: Impacts on aquifer;


A.1.b: impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.3

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbufy Creek;

A.2.b

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A,8,a: Pump test deficiency;

A.S.a

A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

A.8.b

A.8.d: Neighboring wells not monitored;

A.S.d

D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated
alternatives;

60

A60

Meghan Vanderpool

A.1.b

D.1

A.11.b

A.lt.b: Compliance with ECU 15-1501 et seq./6 NYCRR 601;

A.1.b

A.1.b; Impacts on Neighboring wells;

B.4.a

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies:


D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

85; A9;

C12; A90

D.6
A.1.b

Needs for sources of potable water;

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


61

A61

William K. Fredericks

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.6

Needs for sources of potable water;

62

A62

Marian Leeds

Written Comments received at Legislative

Comment raises no substantive issues

A38

Hearing
63

A63

Andrew Buck

Written Comments received at Legislative

Comment raises no substantive issues;

A64

Toya Dubin

Hearing
Written Comments received at Legislative

(email references attached pdf, but not included)

64

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

b3T

Hearing

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.1.b

A67

0.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A37; C15; C51

Needs for sources of potable water;


65

A65

Susan and Henry .Christensen Written Comments received at Legislative

Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

as

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.4
D.8

Needs for sources of potable water;


D.4: Why the proposed water conservation measures are

A.8.3

environmentally sound and Economically feasible;

A.1.b

D.8: Whether the proposed Withdrawal will be consistent with all


applicable municipal, state and federal laws as wells as regional and
interstate agreements;
A.S.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.11.a

8.2.a
A.S.d

A11

A.1.a

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.11.a: no municipal approvals;


B.2.a: Growth Inducement;
A.8.d: Neighboring weSs not monitored;

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer:


66

A66

67

A67

NYC DEP (Michael Rosenberg Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing
Andrew Buck
Written Comments received at Legislative

Comment raises no substantive issues


Comment raises no substantive issues

A63

Hearing
68

69

A68

A69

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.l.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.l.b

Hearing

A.9.a: impact of KJ's combined 2.4MG/D Withdrawal on community;

A.9.a

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Black Rock Forest Consortium, Written Comments received at Legislative

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

lAa"

Open Space institute, OC Land Hearing

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

Trust, Palisades Interstate

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;

B.1.a

Donald Devaney

Pare Commission, Storm King


Art Center (Dominic Cordisco)

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;

D.6
A.2.b
A.4.

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.l.a

A.4.; Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.l.b

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;


A.l.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;
70

A70

Mike Bushey

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.l.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A,1.b

Hearing

A.2.a: impacts on Moodna Creek;


B.1.a: Sewer capacity;

A.2.3

A.11.e: Compliance with permit conditions;

A.4.; Interbasin Diversion Impacts;


A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

837; C14

B.i.a
A.11.e
A.4.

A.2.b

A39; A40;
A57; B41

B25

71

A71

Theresa Trella

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.1.a; Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Hearing

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;


A.6.a: Imparl on Water Dependent natural resources;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.2.b

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.2.a

A.6.a

0.6

Needs for sources of potable water;

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


72

73

A72

A73

Orange Environment (Micheal

Written Comments received at legislative

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.4.a

R. Edeistein)

Hearing

C.3,a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;


A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

C.3.a

A.4,b: impacts on Passaio-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.l.a: Sewer capacity;


D.7: Whether the Withdrawal wiB result in no significant individual or

BJra

Hearing

cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.4.a

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.1.b

John Fiedler

A.4.

A14; B36

D.7

A.t.b; impacts on Neighboring wells;


74

A74

Dee and David Mathies

Written Comments received at Legislative

Comment raises no substantive issues

Hearing
75

A75

Nancy and Peter leWit

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

Comment raises no substantive issues

76

A76

Leslie M. McGiil

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;

A53

0.6
B.2.a
8.4,a

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;


6,4,a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;
77

78

A77

A78

Daria Capone

Arteen Bologna

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

79

A79

Cody Bologna

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

80

A80

Anne and Stephen Capone

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

D.6

Needs for sources of potable water;


D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

DJ

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.6

Needs for sources of potable water:

81

A81

Village of Comwail-on-Hudson |Written Comments received at Legislative


(Dominic Cordisco)

Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;
A,11.d: Town (Cornwall) water study;
A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

as
A,11.d
A.4.a
A.9.C
A,2,a

A.9.C Impacts on new municipal wells put into production after Kj


application complete;
A.2,a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;
82

A82

Lisa Shrem

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

Needs for sources of potable water;


D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

A.2.a
A.6.a

D.6
D.7
A.2.b

cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;


83

A83

Anthony Incanno

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.l.a: Sewer capacity;

Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

B.l.a

D.6
D.7

Needs for sources of potable water;

A,1.a

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

A.6.a

cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.4.a

A. 1 .a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.2,a

A.6.a: impact on Water Dependent natural resources;


A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.2.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;


84

A84

Ellen Santorelli

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.6

Needs for sources of potable water;


85

A85

Hudson Highlands Nature

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Museum (Jacqueline L. Grant)

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water

D.6

A86; C74

86

A86

Anthony Incanno

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.ta: Sewer capacity;

Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

H7
D.6
D.7

Needs for sources of potabie water;


D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

A.1.a

cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.4.3

A.t.a; Impacts on aquifer;

A.2.3

A.6,a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.2.b

A.6.a

A83; C74

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

Comment raises no substantive issues

87

A87

Lorraine and Christopher Salvo Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

88

A88

Robert Fromaget

Written Comments received at Legislative


Hearing

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;


B.2.a; Growth Inducement;
Comment raises no substantive issues

B.l.a

89

A89

Lisa Biackman

Written Comments received at Legislative

90

A90

Nancy C. Bryan

Written Comments received at Legislative

A,1,a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Hearing

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A.S.a; Pump test deficiency;

A.8.a

A.S.b: Safe yield determination;

A.8.b

A.8.d: Neighboring weSs not monitored;

A.8.d

B22

Hearing

D.1; Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated

alternatives;
A.11.b: Compliance with ECL 15-1501 et seq./S NYCRR 601;
A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

B5; A9;

C12; A59

D.1
A.11.b
A,1.b
BAa

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies:


91

A91

92

A92

Comwati Alliance (Michael

Written Comments received at Legislative

A,9.d: Economic Impact on community;

A.9.d

Summerfiekl)

Hearing

Moodna Creek Watershed


Intermunicipal Council (Neal

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.1.a: impacts on aquifer;

A.1,a

Hearing

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

Hailoran)

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

93

A93

Neal Hailoran

A.4.

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

A.4.a: impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.a

A.6.3! Imcsc! on Wstsr Doosndsnt nsturs! Rssourcss*

B-43

6 a

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their Inhabitants In regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;
A.2.a: impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.6.a

.6

A.4.

A.9.b

C59

A.S.b: restrictions on growth for surrounding communities;


A,6, a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;
94

A94

Village of Comwall-on-Hudson

Written Comments received at Legislative

(Brendan G. Coyne)

Hearing

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


BAa: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;
D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.1.b
8.4.3
D.6
D.7

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;

A.8.b

D.7; Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

A.9.C

cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.8.a

A.9.b: restrictions on growth for surrounding communities;


A.9.c: Impacts on new municipal wells put into production after KJ
application complete;

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;


95

95

97

A95

A96

A97

A.5.a: Drought management plan;

A.1.b
A.2.b
A,5.a

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural Resources;

A.6.a
B.2,a

Kevin W. Hines (OC

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

Legislature)

Hearing

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

Town of Cornwall (Randy

Written Comments received at Legislative

8.2. a: Growth inducement;


B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;
C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-CompIiance;

Clark)

Hearing

A.11.e: Compliance with permit conditions;

A.H.e

A.11.t Enforcement fornon-Comptence of permit conditions;

A.11.f

Environmental Fadlites Corp

Written Comments received at Legislative

(Joel Mertz)

Hearing

Comment raises no substantive issues

BAa

C.3.a

B-10; C48

98

99

A98

A99

Maser Consulting {on behalf of Written Comments received at Legislative

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Village and Town of Cornwall)

A.S.d: Neighboring weSs not monitored;

A.S.d

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.3

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.8.a

A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

A.8.b

A.8.c: Need for independent study;

A.8.C

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

B.2.a

Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Sheila Conroy

Hearing

A.2.b

D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;

A.8.a

A, 8, a: Pump test deficiency;

A.4.a

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

B.t.a

A.2.b

B29; A101;

C70

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;


B.t.a: Sewer capacity;

100

A100

Timothy Egan

Written Comments received at Legislative

D.6: Whether the proposed project is Just and equitable to other

Hearing

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.6

C40

Needs for sources of potable water,


101

A101

Sheiia Conroy

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;

B.1.a

Hearing

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;


C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

C.3.a

8.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.4.a

A.8,t Withdrawal limits understated;

A,8,f

D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from the evaluated

5.2.3

D.1

alternatives;

C.1.8

C. 1 .a;
A.l.a:
A.2.b:
A.2.c:
A.4.a:

A.l.a

KJ Water treatment plant;


Impacts on aquifer;
Impacts on Woodbury Creek;
Impact on Ramapo River;
Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.2.b

A.2.C

829;A99
C70

A.4.a
A.i.b

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.S.c

A.9.c: Impacts on new municipal wells put into production after KJ

A.11.f

application complete;

A. 1 1 .t Enforcement for non-Compliance of permit conditions;


102

A102

Meri G. Hutto

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.i.b: Impacts on Neighboring weiis;

Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.i.b
D.6
A.l.a

A51; C13

Needs for sources of potable water;


A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer
103

A103

Jackie McBride Gaillard

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

bIJ

Hearing

A.9.d: Economic impact on community;


D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A,9,d

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A,9,b

D.6

Needs for sources of potable water;


A.9.b: restrictions on growth for surrounding communities;
104

105

A104

A105

Patrick Conroy

ClandriorC. Freund

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

Hearing

B.2.a: Growth inducement;

BAl
B.2.a

B.t.a: Sewer capacity;

B.1.a

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.8.a

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;


A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.2.b

A.11.f: Enforcement for non-Compliance of permit conditions;

A.11.f

Written Comments received at Legislative

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

Hearing

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

C52

A.4.a

B.2.a
D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.9.b

Needs for sources of potable water;

A.8.C

A.9.b: restrictions on growth for surrounding communities;


A.8.c: Need for independent study;
106

A106

Debbie Jersey

Written Comments received at Legislative

Comment raises no substantive issues

Hearing
107

A107

Ralph E. Ogden Foundation,

Written Comments received at Legislative

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

Inc. {Beatrice Stem)

Hearing

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.6.a

Needs for sources of potable water;


A.6,a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion impacts;


A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek:

D.6
A.4.

A.2.b

A56

103

B1

Adam Schreiner

Written Comments received March 2013

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

A.9.d: Economic impact on community;

A.9.d

8.2.a: Growth Inducement;

B.2.a

0.3: Whether proposed water Withdrawal is reasonable for the

D.3

proposed use;

D.5

D-5: Whether the proposed water supply is adequate


109

B2

Linda Reutershan

Written Comments received March 2013

A.l.a: impacts on aquifer;

A,1.a

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

B.2.a

D.3: Whether proposed water Withdrawal is reasonable for the

D.3

proposed use;

D.5

B3

0.5; Whether the proposed water supply is adequate


110

B3

Linda Reutershan

Written Comments received March 2013

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.l.a

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;


D.3: Whether proposed water Withdrawal is reasonable for foe

B.2.a

proposed use;

D.3

82

D.5

D.5: Whether the proposed water supply is adequate


111

84

Sandra I. van Herrden

Written Comments received March 2013

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A, 1.3

112

85

Nancy Bryan

Written Comments received March 2013

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.3

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural Resources;
A.7.a: Well Construction issues / storm water issues;

A.1.b
A.6.a

A.7.a

113

86

Lisa L Timm

Written Comments received March 2013

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

114

B7

Town of Cornwall (Kevin

Written Comments received March 2013

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

115

88

Written Commenls received March 2013

A,5,b: Water conservation plan;

A.5.b

C12; A9;

A59; A90

A3

Qulgley, Sup.)

NYC DEP {Paul Aggarwal)

D.5; Whether the proposed water supply is adequate;


A.11.g: Need DEP approval;

D.8; Whether the proposed Withdrawal will be consistent with all


applicable municipal, state and federal laws as 'wells as regional and

D.5
A.11.g
D.8
C.2.a

interstate agreements;

C.2.a: Aqueduct issues / Impact;


116

117

89

810

Michael and Sally Mattausch

Kevin W. Nines (OC

Written Comments received March 2013

Written Comments received March 2013

Legislature)

118

811

Beatrice Stem

Written Comments received March 2013

119

B12

Patrick Carella

Written Comments received March 2013

120

813

Storm King (John P. Stem)

Written Comments received March 2013

121

B14

Linda Suorez

Written Commenls received March 2013

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

8.2.3

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring welts;

A.1.b

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.5.a: Drought management plan;

A.5.a

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural Resources;

A.6.a

B.2.a; Growth Inducement;


B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.2.a

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;


A.l.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.a

A.S.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural Resources;

A.6.a

A.7.a: Well Construction issues / storm water issues;

A.7.a

A.l.a; Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

A.l.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells:

A.

122

815

Written Comments received March 2013

Assembly)

1231

816

Orange County DEP (Peter S.


Hammond)

Written Comments received March 2013

A.l.b

JA

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.2.a: impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.6,a: Impact on Water Dependent natural Resources;

A.6.a

A.l.b: Impacts on Neighboring weils;

A.l.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.7.a: Well Construction issues /storm water issues;

A.2.3

B.l.a: Sewer capacity;

B.l.a

A.7.a
B.2.a

A.l.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

Txb

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

B.l.a: Sewer capacity;

B.l.a
B.4,a

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;


D.8: Whether the proposed Withdrawal will be consistent with all
applicable municipal, state and federal laws as wells as regional and
interstate agreements;

A-95; C48

B.4.a

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;


James Skoufis (NYS

A.1.b

B.2.a: Growth inducement;

0.8

C45

124

125

817

B18

Lorraine McNeill

Town of Blooming Grove

Written Comments received March 2013

Written Comments received March 2013

A.1.a: Imparts on aquifer;

A.1.a

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.2.a: Imparts on Moodna Creek;


A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.2.a

A.4.b: Imparts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.a

A.6,a: Impact on Water Depenant Resources;

A.5.a

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

8.4.a

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Imparts;

A. 4.
820; CS8

A.4.

(Frank Fomario, Sup); V.

A.4.b: imparts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

South Blooming Grove (Robert

A.4.a: Imparts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.a

Jeroloman, Mayor)

B.1,a: Sewer capacity;


B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

B.l.a

B.4.a
D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;
126

B19

Town of Cornwall (Kevin

Written Comments received March 2013

Quigiey, Sup.)

127

B20

Lorraine McNeill

Written Comments received March 2013

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


8.2.a: Growth Inducement;

A.1.b

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.0

A.1.b: imparts on Neighboring wells;

A.t.b

A.2.b: Imparts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A,2.a

A.4.: interbasin Diversion Imparts;

B.2.a

A.4.

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A,4.b

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.3

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural Resources;


B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

A.6.3

B.4.a

128

821

xxx

Written Comments received March 2013

129

B22

RobertA. Fromaget

Written Comments received March 2013

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;


B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

B.1.a

130

B23

Annmarie Desilva

Written Comments received March 2013

A.1.a: Imparts on aquifer;


A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Imparts;

A. 1.a

A,4,b; imparts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

A.4.a: Imparts on Lower Hudson River Basin;


B.4,a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

A.4.a

A.7.a: Well Construction issues / storm water issues;

A7J

B.l.a: Sewer capacity;

B.l.a

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

S.2.a

131

B24

Clifford M. Ader

Written Comments received March 2013

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

817; C58

B.2.3

A88

A.4.

8.4.a

D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

Needs for sources of potable water;


132

B25

Black Rock Forest Consortium, Written Comments received March 2013

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Open Space institute, OC Land

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

Trust, Palisades Interstate

A,2.b: Imparts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

Pare Commission, Storm King

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Imparts;

Art Center (Dominic Cordisco)

A.4.b: Imparts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.
A.4,b

A.4.a: Imparts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.3

A.5.b: Water conservation plan;

A.11.b: Compliance with ECL 15-1501 et seq./6 NYCRR 601;


B.4,a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

D.8: Whether the proposed Withdrawal will be consistent with all


applicable municipal, state and federal laws as wells as regional and

A.5.b
A-11-b
B.4.3
D.8
B.1.3

interstate agreements;
B.l.a: Sewer capacity;
133

134

826

B27

Village of Comwall-On-Hudson

Patricia O'Dwyer

Written Comments received March 2013

Written Comments received March 2013

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A,1.b

B.4.3: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.4.a

A.1.a: Imparts on aquifer;

A.1.a

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.1.b

A.4.; Interbasin Diversion Impacts;


A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.2.b
A.4.

A,4.a
D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

8.1.a

Needs for sources of potable water;

C.2.3

B.l.a; Sewer capacity;

B.4.a

C.2.a: Aqueduct issues / Impart;

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

A39; A40;
A57;A69; B41

135

136

137

828

829

B30

Robin Crouse

Sheila A. Conroy

Riddick Associates (T. and V.

Wrttten Comments received March 2013

Written Comments received March 2013

Written Comments received March 2013

of Woodbury, V. of Haniman)

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.4.: interbasin Diversion Imparts;
A.4.b; Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.2.a

A.S.d: Neighboring weds not monitored;

A.S.d

B,1.a: Sewer capacity;

B.1.a

A.4.
A.4.b

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.4.a

A.t.b: impacts on Neighboring wells;


A.2.b; impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.1.b

A.2.b
A.4.

A.4.: interbasin Diversion Impacts;


A.4.b: impacts on Passaic-Newark {Ramapo River) Basin;
A.4.a; impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.b

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;

8.1.a

C.1.a: KJ Water treatment plant;


B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

C.1.a

A.S.a: Pump test deficiency;


A.8.b: Safe yield determination;
A.8.c: Need for independent study;

A.S.a

A,8,f; Withdrawal limits understated;


A.9.a: impact of KJ's combined 2.4MG/D Withdrawal on community ;

A.4.a

B.4.a

A.8.b
A.8.C
A.8.f

A.9.a

A.9.c: Imparts on new municipal wells put into production after KJ

A.9.C

application complete;
A.9.d: Economic Impact on community;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.9.d

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;

A99; A101;C70

D.6

A-10

B.4.a
D.7

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or


cumulative environmental Imparts;
138

B31

T. and V. of Woodbury, V, of
Harriman (David K. Gordon,

Written Comments received March 2013

A.S.c: Impacts on new municipal welts put into production after KJ


application complete;
D.5: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

Esq.)

A.9.C
D.6
8.1. a
B39

Needs for sources of potable water,

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;


139

140

141

142

632

633

B34

B35

Dee Movius

Christopher Fryer

Thomas Munterich

Roland Larkin

Written Comments received March 2013

Written Comments received March 2013

Written Comments received March 2013

Written Comments received March 2013

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.2.a: impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;


A.4,a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.8

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;


A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

Orange Environment (Michael

Written Comments received March 2013

R. Edelstein)

A.2.a
A.4.
A.4.a

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A,2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.6.a: impact on Water Dependent natural Resources;

A.6.a

A.2.b: imparts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.2.a: impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;


B36

A.2.b

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion imparts;


A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion impacts;

143

A.4.

A.4.; Interbasin Diversion imparts;

A.4.

A.4.

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;

B.1.a

144

B37

Donald Oevaney

Written Comments received March 2013

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2,b

145

B38

Angeio Ferraro

Written Comments received March 2013

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural Resources;

A.6.a

146

839

A.8.a; Pump test deficiency,;

A,8.a

Harriman (David K. Gordon,

A.9.c: Impacts on new municipal wells put into production after KJ

A.9.C

Esq.)

application complete;

T. and V. of Woodbury, V. of

Written Comments received March 2013

C67

A.4.a

A14; A72

A68; C14

D.6
831

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalises and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

Needs for sources of potable water;


Orange County Water

147
B40

Authority (David E. Church)

Written Comments received March 2013

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;


A.4.b: impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;
A.4.a; impacts on Lowef Hudson River Basin

A.4.

A.4.b
A.4.a

A-49

148

B41

A.4.

Black Rock Forest Consortium, Written Comments received March 2013

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

OC Land Trust, Hudson


Highlands Land Trust, Black

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark {Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.a

150

151

B42

843

C1

Ggiber

___________________

KeHy Robinson-Finn

Written Comments received March 2013

A, La; impacts on aquifer;

A.La

A.Lb: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

8.2.a

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Intermunicipal Council (Neal

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

Halloran)

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.2.a

A.4,b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A,4.b

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A,4.a

Moodna Creek Watershed

Randy Clark (Cornwall, Sup.)

A57;
A69; B2S

Rock Fish and Game. Simon


149

A39; A40;

Written Comments received March 2013

A, 4.

A,6, a: impact on Water Dependent natural Resources;

A.S.a

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.Lb: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.Lb

(Afternoon Session)

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.4.a

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalises and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;
B. 1 .a: Sewer capacity;

A-92

D.6
8.1.3
C.3.a

C78

C.3.a; Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;


152

153

154

C2

C3

C4

Robert Fromaget (Blooming


Grove, Sup.)

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;


B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.2.a

(Afternoon Session)

Michael Sweelon (Town of

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

Warwick, Sup.)

(Afternoon Session)

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A,4.a

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

B. 1 .a; Sewer capacity;

B.La

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;


A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A.Lb: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.Lb

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;


A.6.a: Pump test deficiency,

A.8.a

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A.9.b: restrictions on growth for surrounding communities;


A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.9.b

Peter Russell (Cornwall Town

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

Board)

(Afternoon Session)

D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

8.4, a

A.4,

a57

A.4.

D.6
D.7

A52; C44

Needs for sources of potable water;

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal wis result in no significant individual or


cumulative environmental Impacts;
155

C5

Rich Cocchiara (Town of


Hamptonburgh)

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Afternoon Session)

A.La: impacts on aquifer;


D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.La
D.6
C47

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;
156

C6

157

C7

158

159

C8

C9

Jim Mcgee (on behalf of Sen.

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

D.7; Whelher the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

D.7

Larkinj

(Afternoon Session)

Mike Anagnostakis (OC

cumulative environmental Impacts:


D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

D.6

Legislature)

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Afternoon Session)

Robert Darrigo (Caterbury Fire

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

District)

(Afternoon Session)

Andrew Barone

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Afternoon Session)

A.tO.a: cross connection issues with municipal water source;


B.La: Sewer capacity;
A.S.a: Impact of KJ's combined 2.4MG/D Withdrawal on community;

160

C10

C41

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

Needs for sources of potable water;


A.1.a; Impacts on aquifer;
A.Lb: impacts on Neighboring wells;

Dominick Cordisco, Esq.

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

(Black Rock, OSI, CCLT,


Storm Kinh, Palisades)

(Afternoon Session)

A.1 Le: CompSance with permit conditions;


A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;
A.La: Impacts on aquifer;
A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

C76

A.1.3
A.Lb
A.IO.a
B.La
A,9.a

A.4.a
A.11.e
A.S.a
A.La
A.8.a

A.8,b: Safe yield determination;

A.8.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

C42

161

162

C11

C12

Russell Urban-Mead (Chazan

Oral Comments from legislative Hearing

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Sasin;

A.4.a

Co. Hydrologist)

(Afternoon Session)

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;


A.S.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.t.a

A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

A.S.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A,2.a

A.2.b; Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2,b

Nancy Bryan

Oral Comments from legislative Hearing

D.1: Why the proposed project was selected from die evaluated

(Afternoon Session)

alternatives;
A.11.b: Compliance with ECl 15-1501 et seq./6 NYCRR 601;

A.8.a

D.1

A.ll.b

A.t.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b
8.4.a

B.4.a; SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;


A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.b

A,2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.S.a

A.S.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A,8.a

A.2.a

AS.a: Pump test deficiency;

D.6

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

D.7

B5; A3;
A59; A90

municipaSties and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;
D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individuai or

cumulative environmental Impacts;


163

C13

Merl Hutto

Oral Comments from legislative Hearing


(Afternoon Session)

164

165

C14

C15

Donald Devaney

Toya Dubin

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.1.b

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.1.3

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

Needs for sources of potable water;


A.t.a; Impacts on aquifer;
A.t.a: Impacts on aquifer;

(Afternoon Session)

A.11.e: Compliance with permit conditions;

Oral Comments from legislative Hearing


(Afternoon Session)

D.6

A.1.3

A.11.e

A.t.b: Impacts on Neighboring weils;

A.t.b

A.8.e: Neighboring stream not monitored;


A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.8.e

A.B.c: Need for independent study;

A.8.0

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitabie to other

A.1.b
D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.9.d

167

168

C16

C17

C18

Tom Corette

Needs for sources of potable water;

A.5,a

A.9.d: Economic impact on community;

C.2.a

A.5.a: Drought management plan;

B.2.a

Roberta Sloockbower

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A. 1 1 .e: Compliance with permit conditions;

(Afternoon Session)

A.t.a: impacts on aquifer;

A.11.e
A.1.a

A.t.b: Impacts on Neighboring weils;

A.1.b

Oral Comments from legislative Hearing

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4,b

(Afternoon Session)

B.i.a: Sewer capacity;

B.i.a

A.2.C: Impact on Ramapo River;

A.2.C

A.1.3: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

Eileen Hartman (Cornwall

Oral Comments from legistaUve Hearing

Chamber of Commerce)

(Afternoon Session)

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;


D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

B.4.3

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.9.d

Needs for sources of potable water;

A.S.b

A.9.d: Economic Impact on community;

A.1.b

D.6

A.9.b: restrictions on growth for surrounding communities;

A.t.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


169

C19

Kelly Dobbins (OC Planning

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.1 1 .c; Orange County Water plan;

Department)

(Afternoon Session)

A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;


A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

170

C20

StephenRacite (Cornwall

Oral Comments from legislative Hearing

Baolist Church)

(Afternoon Session)

ASS; 837

A.8.a

C.2.a: Aqueduct issues I Impact;


B.2.a: Growth inducement:
166

A52; A102

A.11.C
A.4.b
A.S.a
A.S.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.t.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

A37; A64; C51

171

C21

Bob Zeltey (Maser Consulting,

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.8.a

T&Vof Cornwall)

{Afternoon Session)

A.8.b: Safe yiefd determination;

A.8.b

A,8.d; Neighboring wells not monitored;

A.8.d

A.8.e: Neighboring stream not monitored;

A.8.e

A,8.c: Need for independent study;

A.8.C

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.4.

A.1.a: impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2,a

A,2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.11.ft Enforcement fornon-Compfianceof permit conditions;

A-11-f

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.i.b

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

5.2.3

(Afternoon Session)

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;

B.1.3

172

C22

Erika Abraham

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

173

C23

Robert Scott

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

(Afternoon Session)
(Afternoon Session)
174

C24

Gordon Shehah

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.6

Needs for sources of potable water;


175

176

177

C25

C26

C27

"EH

Michael Edelstein {Orange

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.4,a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

Environment Inc.)

(Afternoon Session)

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or


cumulative environmental Impacts;

8.2.3

B.2.a: Growlh Inducement;

B.1.3

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;


A,4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;
A.2.c: impact on Ramapo River;

A.4.b

D.7

A.2.C

Jim Mcgee (on behalf of Black

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.2.a; Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

Rock Fish and Game Club)

{Afternoon Session)

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.6,a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

Robert Ketcham

D.6

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

(Afternoon Session)

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.6.3

Needs for sources of potable water;


A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.i.b

A.i.b; impacls on Neighboring welis;


A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.b

A.2.a

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek


178

C28

Terry Hughes

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.4.a

(Afternoon Session)

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;


A.2.c: Impact on Ramapo River;

A.2.b

A.i.b; impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.i.b

A.2.C

179

C29

Heather Lynch

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

180

C30

Jackie McBride Taylor

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

S.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

8.4.a

(Afternoon Session)

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;


D.6; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

B.2.a

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.9.d

Needs for sources of potable water;

A.9.b

(Afternoon Session)

D.6

A.9.d: Economic Impact on community;

A.9.b: restrictions on growth for surrounding communities;


181

182

C31

C32

John Molitoris

Rich Randazz

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Afternoon Session)

A.i.b: impacts on Neighboring wells;


A.9.d: Economic Impact on community;

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

(Afternoon Session)

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;


A. 11.a: no municipal approvals;

A.i.b
A.9.d

A.l.a
A.2.b
A.ll.a

8.1. a: Sewer capacity;

B.1.a

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;


D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

C.3.a

Needs for sources of potable water;

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;


D.8: Whether the proposed Withdrawal will be consistent with all
applicable municipal, state and federal laws as wells as regional and

B.4.a
D.6

D.8
A.6.a

interstate agreements;
A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;
183

C33

Mary Ferraro

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Afternoon Session)

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A-2-b

C49

184

185

C34

C35

Claudia Ciucci Freund

Valerie Prunty

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

(Afternoon Session)

D.S; Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;

B.2.a

D.S

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B,4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

8.4.a

(Afternoon Session)

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.S

Needs for sources of potable water;


186

C36

Roger Gray

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A,1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

(Afternoon Session)

A.S.c: Impacts on new municipal wells put into production after KJ

A.9.C

application complete;
187

188

C37

C38

Simon Grube;

Eugene Schreiner

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

(Afternoon Session)

A.4,a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.a

A.S.a; Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A.9,d: Economic impact on community;

A.9.d

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.9,e: no local support for the project;


D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or
cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.9.e

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

(Afternoon Session)

189

C39

Bill Weber

Timothy Egan (V. Woodbuty)

190

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

D.7

A.11.e

(Afternoon Session)

A.11.e: Compliance with permit conditions;


B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.S.a

(Evening Session)

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;

A.l.a

C40

B.2.a

A29

D.S

A.i.b

A100

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.b: impacts on Neighboring wells;


191

C41

Mike Anagnostakis (OC


Legislature)

192

C42

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Evening Session)

Dominlck Cordisco, Esq. (T. of Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


Cornwall; V. of Conwall-on(Evening Session)
Hudson)

193

C43

D.S: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water
A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;
A.11.e: Compliance with permit conditions;

D.S
C7

A.4.a
A.11.e

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;


A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.S.a

A.S.a: Pump test deficiency;


A.8.b: Safe yield determination;

A.S.a

A.l.a

C10

A.8.b

A.2.a

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A,2.b; impacts on Woodbury Creek:

MS

Brendan Coyne (CornwalPon-

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.l.a

Hudson, Mayor)

(Evening Session)

A.i.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;


B.4.a; SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

A.1.b

A.9.b: restrictions on growth for surrounding communities;


D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

A.9.b

B.4.a
D.7

cumulative environmental Impacts;


194

195

C44

C45

Peter Russell (Cornwall Town

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

B.2.a

Board)

(Evening Session)

A.S.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.S.a

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.S.a

A.9.b: restrictions on growth for surrounding communities;

A,9.b

James Skoufis (NYS


Assembly)

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Evening Session)

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;


D.S: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.4.

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.7

Needs for sources of potable water,


D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or
cumulative environmental Impacts:
C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior nan-Compliance;

D.S

C.3.3

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.4.a

A.S.c: Need for independent study;


D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant Individual or

A.8.C
D.7

cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.i.b

A.i.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.l.a

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer

A52; C4

815

196

C46

D.6

David Gordon, Esq. (T. & V.

Orai Comments from Legislative Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

Woodbury, V. of Harriman)

(Evening Session)

municipaPlies and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;

A.1.a

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;


A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;
C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

C.3.a

A.2.b

B.4.a

C7?

B.1.a

B,4,a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;


B. 1 .a: Sewer capacity;
197

198

199

C47

C48

C49

Rich Cocchiara (Town of

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

Hamptonburgh)

(Evening Session)

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

Kevin Hines (OC Legislature)

Bob Zelley (Maser Consulting,


T&Vof Cornwall)

200

C50

Michael Mattausch

A.1.a
D.6

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

Needs for sources of potable water;


B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

BAa

(Evening Session)

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A-2-b

A.8.c Need for independent study;


A.1.b: impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

A.8,a: Pump test deficiency;

a*J

A.8.b: Safe yield detennination;

A.8.b

A.8.d: Neighboring weBs not monitored;


A.S.e: Neighboring stream not monitored;

A.8.d

A.S.c: Need for independent study;


A.4.: Interbasin Divefsion impacts;

A.8.C

A.l.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.l.a

A.t.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Evening Session)

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Evening Session)

A.8.C

C5

ASS; B10

A,8.e
A.4.

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek:

M!>

A.1.b; Impacts on Neighboring wells;


A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.1.b

A.11,fc Enforcement fornon-CompIiance of permit conditions;


C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

A.11.f

C21

A.S.a
C.3.a

D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;
201

C51

Toya Dubin

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.8.e: Neighboring stream not monitored;

A.8.e

(Evening Session)

A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

A.S.a

A,8.c: Need for independent study;

A.8.C
A.1.b

A,1,b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

D.6

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.S.d

Needs for sources of potable water;

A. 5. a

A.S.d: Economic Impact on community;

C.2.a

A.5.a: Drought management plan;


C.2.a: Aqueduct issues / Impact;

B.2.3

A37; A64; C15

B.2.a: Growth Inducement:


202

C52

Patrick Conroy

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Evening Session)

203

204

205

206

C53

C54

C55

C56

Bonnie Mangiardara

Carolyn Curran

Henri Ponti

Rose Vieme Neil

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies:


B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

8.4.a
B.2.a
8.1.a

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;


A.S.a: Pump test deficiency;
A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.S.a

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.4.a

A.2.b

A.tl.f: Enforcement for non-Compliance of permit conditions;

A.11.f

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A,6.a

(Evening Session)

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;


A.t.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.2.b

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

C.3,a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

C.3.a

(Evening Session)

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;


B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

B.1.a

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

(Evening Session)

B.1 .a: Sewer capacity;

B.1.a

A.9.d: Economic impact on community;

A.9,d

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.t.b

B.2,a
B.4.a

Comment raises no substantive issues

(Evening Session)
207

C57

Ken Dawley

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Evening Session)

A.tO.b: reduce size of connect from well to transmission pipe;

XlOb

A104

208

209

CS8

C59

Lorraine McNeill

Neil Hallaran (Goshen ZEO)

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.9.a: Impact of KJs combined 2.4MG/D Withdrawal on communis;

A.9.a

(Evening Session)

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;


A.2.a; impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

B.4.3

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;


A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A.2.b

A.2.c: Impart on Ramapo River;

A.2.C

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;


A.4.b: Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin;

A.4.b

A.4.a
A.4.

B.i.a: Sewer capacity;


B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

B.1.a

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.4.: Interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.4.

(Evening Session)

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future
Needs for sources of potable water;
A.9.d: Economic Impart on community;

817; B20

8.2.3

D.6
A.9.d

A.4.a

A93

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;


210

C60

Anthony Lauren Zano

211

C61

Mary Beth Greene Krafft

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1.b

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.2.a: impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

(Evening Session)

A.2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.b

A.S.a: impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.a

A.1.b: Imparts on Neighboring wells;

A.l.b

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Evening Session)

212

213

214

215

216

C62

C63

C64

C65

C66

Michael Summerfeild

Ralph Caruso

Eduardo Bianco

Bob Kiedaisch

Henry Christensen

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A. 11.a; no municipal approvals;

(Evening Session)

A.9.d: Economic Impact on community;

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;

(Evening Session)

A.11.a: no municipal approvals;


A.11.g: Need DEP approval;
A.2.C: impact on Ramapo River;

A.11.a
A,9.d

A.11.a
A,11.g
A.2.C

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;

8.1.a

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.l.b: impacts on Neighboring wells;

A-I.b

(Evening Session)

A.2.a: Imparts on Moodna Creek;


A.2.b: imparts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.a

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.2.c: Impact on Ramapo Riven

A.2.C

(Evening Session)

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;


B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.1.a

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.2.a: Growth inducement;

(Evening Session)

A. 11.a: no municipal approvals;


A,8.a; Pump test deficiency;

A.2.b

B.4,a

B.2.a
A11.a
A.S.a

A.8.d: Neighboring wells not monitored;

A.8.d

A.l.b: Impacts on Neighboring welts:

A.l.b

A.1.a: Imparts on aquifer;

A.1.a

D.8: Whether the proposed Withdrawal will be consistent with all


applicable municipal, state and federal laws as wels as regional and

D.8

interstate agreements;
D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other
municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

D.7

D.6

Needs for sources of potable water;

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or


cumulative environmental Impacts;

217

C67

Roland Larkin

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

8.2.a

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.2.c: Impact on Ramapo River;

A.2.C

(Evening Session)

C.1.a: KJ Watertreatment plant;

C.1.a

B.1.a: Sewer capacity;

B.1.a

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Evening Session)

218

219

220

C68

C69

C70

Jonathan Swiier

Carol Muliooly

Sheila Conroy

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.4.a

(Evening Session)

A.S.c: Need for independent study;

A.8.C

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

(Evening Session)

A.8.f: Withdrawal limits understated;

A.4.a
A.8.f

B.i.a; Sewer capacity;

B.i.a

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compliance;


A.8.a: Pump test deficiency;

C.3.a

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;

A.2.a

A,2.b: impacts on Woodbury Creek;


A.4.: interbasin Diversion Impacts;

A.2.b

B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

B.2.a

A.8.3

A.4.

B35

B29; A99; A101;

221

C71

Patrick Thompson

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

(Evening Session)

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future


Needs for sources of potable water;

D.6
A.9.e

A.S.e: no local support for the project;


222

223

C72

C73

Led Klosky

Anthony Fasano

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.1.a

(Evening Session)

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.6.3

A.2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

A.2.a

A.2.c: Impact on Ramapo River;

A.2.C

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other

(Evening Session)

municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.2.b

D.6
B.2.3

Needs for sources of potable water;


B.2.a: Growth Inducement;

224

C74

Anthony Incanno

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

B.t.a: Sewer capacity;

(Evening Session)

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

B.1.a

D.6
D.7

Needs for sources of potable water;

A.t.a

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal will result in no significant individual or

A.6.a

cumulative environmental Impacts;

A.4.a

A.1.a: Impacts on aquifer;

A.2.a

A.6.a: Impact on Water Dependent natural resources;

A.2.b

A83; A86

A.4.a: Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin;

A,2.a: Impacts on Moodna Creek;


A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;
225

C75

Mikey Jackson

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.9.e: no local support for the project;

A.9.e

(Evening Session)
226

C76

227

C77

dim McGee (on behalf of Sen. (Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

D.7: Whether the Withdrawal wiS result in no significant individual or

D.7

Larkin)

(Evening Session)

cumulative environmental Impacts:

David Gordon, Esq. (T. & V.

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

Woodbury, V. of Harriman)

(Evening Session)

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to other


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

A.i.a

Needs for sources of potable water;

A.2.b

A.i.a: Impacts on aquifer;

C.3.a

A.2.b: Impacts on Woodbury Creek;

B.4.a

C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-Compiiance;

8.1.a

C6

D.6

C46

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;


B.1.a: Sewer capacity:
228

229

C78

C79

Randy Clark {Cornwall, Sup.)

Jacqueline Hernandez

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing

A.1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.1,b

(Evening Session)

B.4.a: SEQRA Procedural Deficiencies;

B.4.a

D.6: Whether the proposed project is just and equitable to othar


municipalities and their inhabitants in regard to present and future

B.1.a

Needs for sources of potable water;

C.3.a

B.I. a: Sewer capacity;


C.3.a: Deny permit based on prior non-ComnPance:
A,1.b: Impacts on Neighboring wells;

A.i.b

Oral Comments from Legislative Hearing


(Evening Session)

230
231
232
233

D.6

C1

A24

APPENDIX B

DETAILED RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

A. WATER SUPPLY PERMIT ISSUES

1. Impact on Quantity or Quality of Water Source


Comments under this category relate to (a) aquifer impacts; (b) impacts on neighboring wells,

groundwater availability, and groundwater quality; (c) impact on nearby surface waters; (d)
impacts on Moodna Creek; (e) impacts on Woodbury Creek; and (f) impacts on Ramapo River.
Specifically, comments expressed concern that the pump test performed on the well was
inadequate to assess the impact on these resources in times of heavy draw or low recharge.
Comments questioned the methodology of the pump test and its adequacy in assessing impacts
on existing neighboring wells, including the Town and Village of Woodbury's Trout Brook Road
wellfield. Finally, comments expressed concern that the well would negatively impact nearby
surface waters, including Woodbury and Moodna Creek because of hydrologic connection to the
aquifer, and the Ramapo River.
a.

Aquifer Impacts

In response to comments about impacts on the aquifer, comprehensive standard testing


performed on behalf of the Village pursuant to State pumping test standards supports the

conclusion that no impacts to the principal aquifer will result from the Village's use of the
Mountainville well field.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. (LBG) completed a 72-hour

pumping test on Well 1 located on the Village of Kiryas Joel 's Mountainville pump station and
well field parcel on Route 32 in Cornwall, New York in June 2011.

conducted with strict adherence to

the New

The pumping test was

York State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) pumping test standards ("Recommended Pump Test Procedures for

Water Supply Application, " TOGS 3.2.1, Appendix 10). The NYSDEC pumping test standards
are designed to determine the safe yield ofproposed wells and potential impacts to neighboring
wells and surface-water features.

As Appendix 10 to TOGS states, the pump test procedures

"have been designed to produce the accurate and complete information that is vital to these

determinations. " Proper methodologiesfor this test were also confirmed by NYSDEC Division of
Water in Albany.

Data from the pumping test were included in Exhibits II and III to the

Village 's water supply permit dated November 17, 2011 andprepared by LBG.

The

72-hour pumping test included a demonstration of stabilized yield and water-level

drawdown in Well 1 for a minimum of six hours at the end of the lest period as required by the

TOGS section 3.1 Water-level data were collectedfrom onsite monitoring wells completed in the
1 Citations to "TOGS Section

" refer to the specific sections of TOGS 3.2.1 Appendix 10 (2011).


1

stratijied-drift aquifer.

Water-level measurements were

collected from

three piezometer

locations, one in the onsite intermittent stream, one in the onsite wetland and one in nearby
Woodbury Creek (TOGS section 10).

Water-level measurements were also collectedfrom offsite

neighboring observation wells located within 2,000 feet of the pumping well (TOGS section 7).
Water-quality samples were collected from the pumping well near the end of the 72-hour test

period (TOGS section 12). A 180-day water-level drawdown projection was completedfor Well
1 using the water-level data collected during the pumping test and aquifer parameters were
calculated (TOGS section 13). No legitimate basis has been suggestedfor extending the length of

this test nor are any identified by TOGS, which expressly provides for a 72-hour test
"[rjegardless of the type of aquifer" (TOGS Section 3). Likewise, no legitimate basis has been
suggested for limiting the length of the permitted withdrawal to 72 hours to match the test

Stabilization was not attributed to hydrogeological factors such as precipitation or


snowmelt recharge, a recharge boundary due to a minor surface water body or limited leakage
duration.

from overlying or underlyingformations (TOGS section 13[a]).


The results ofthe 72-hour pumping test using the methodology specified in TOGS Sections 3 and

8 demonstrated stabilized yield and water-level drawdown in Well 1 at a pumping rate of 425
gallons per minute (gpm). The 180-day water-level drawdown projection showed the water level
in the well was above the pump intake setting as well as above the top of screen in the well.
Water-level recovery in the well was rapid and 90-percent recovery was achieved within one
hour ofshutdown of the well. The data support the safe yield of 425 gpm.

Using the methodology and standards in TOGS Section 10, there was no water-level drawdown
measured in the piezometers during the test, including no surface-water or groundwater level
drawdown in Woodbury Creek.

The water-quality results collected and analyzed according to TOGS Section 11 meet all New

York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) drinking water standards with the exception of the
presence of total coliform.

The well will need to be disinfected and resampled prior to being

placed in service for potable use.

Additionally, the microscopic particulate analysis (MPA)

sample collectedfrom Well 1 reported a low-risk potential for groundwater under the influence
ofsurface water (GWUD1) for the well.

The results from the 72-hour pumping test showed no outstanding issues of concern related to
well stabilization, water-level recovery and water quality.
An assessment of the groundwater recharge to the stratified-drift aquifer underlying the
Mountainville parcel from the upgradient watershed area was completed.

The watershed area

located downgradient of the Town of Woodbury Trout Brook Road wellfield parcel and
upgradient of the Mountainville parcel is comprised of a total of 2.08 mi (square miles).

Within

this area, stratified-drift deposits underlie 0. 76 mi2 of the total watershed area and glacial till
2

underlies 1.32 mi .

To calculate the groundwater recharge to this watershed area, LBG used a recharge rale for

stratified drift of 0. 8 to 1.1 mgd/mi2 (million gallons per day per square mile) andfor glacial till
0.3 to 0.41 mgd/mi2. The calculated recharge for the upgradient watershed area to the aquifer
underlying the Mountainville parcel is provided in the table below:

Recharge

Watershed Area (mi2)

Rate

Recharge

Multiplier (mgd/mi2)

(mgd)

Stratified Drift

0.76

0.8-1.1

0.61-0.84

Glacial Till

1.32

0.3-0.41

0.40-0.54

Total

2.08

1.00-1.38

square mile

mi
2

mgd/mi

million gallons per day per square mile

mgd

million gallons per day

The recharge total for the watershed area located downgradient of the Town of Woodbury well
field and upgradient of the Mountainville parcel of 1.00 to 1.38 mgd exceeds the yield of
Mountainville Well 1 of425gpm (0.612 mgd).

The results of the 72-hour pumping test demonstrated a stabilized yield and water-level
drawdown on Well 1 at a rate of 425 gpm (gallons per minute); rapid water-level recovery
following shutdown of the test (90% within one hour); adequate groundwater recharge (1.00 to

1.38 mgd) to support the taking of up to 425 gpm from Well 1 and this withdrawal will have no

significant impacts on the aquifer.

There was no water-level drawdown measured in the

piezometers during the test, including no surface-water or groundwater level drawdown in


Woodbury Creek.

Therefore, contrary to comments, the data collected pursuant to State TOGS

standards demonstrate that no additional pumping tests, such as long-term testing, are required.
The Town of Woodbury challenged the adequacy of the Village 's SEQRA review, including the
pumping test and its resulting conclusion of no impact on wells in the area, in a CPLR Article 78
proceeding commenced in April 2013.

Justice Lefkowitz of the Ninth Judicial District's

Environmental Claims Part issued a decision on April 7, 2014 dismissing Woodbury's petition.

The judge held that the pumping test supported the Village 's negative declaration under SEQRA,
and that Woodbury had failed to submit data or studies sufficient to demonstrate that
Woodbury 's planned Trout Brook well would be adversely affected, or that the Village 's negative

declaration should otherwise be annulled. The court's decision is included in this submission as
Appendix I.

b. Impacts on Neighboring Wells

i.

Groundwater Availability

In response to comments about ground water availability, pursuant to NYSDEC pumping test

standards, water-level measurements were collectedfrom onsite and offsite observational wells
located within 1,500feet ofthe test well (TOGS section 7). Most ofthe land within 1,500feet of
Well 1 is undeveloped and subject to a conservation easement that limits future development.
The portion of the radius east and southeast of Well 1 encompasses a limited number of

residences. All eight offsite properties were solicitedfor permission to collect water-level data
from their wells. Four property owners granted permission to collect measurements from their
wells. Two of thefour wells (250 and 280 Old Route 32) were located in well pits, and the wells
could not be opened to collect water-level measurements without creating a sanitary risk. The
other two, 230 Old Route 32 and 1470 Old Route 32, were monitored as described below.

Water-level data, including water-level drawdown, were collected from two additional onsite
monitoring wells completed in the stratified-drift aquifer (MW-1 and MW-2) that were drilled
near Well 1. The water-level data collected during the pumping test allowsfor the calculation of
aquifer parameters and the assessment ofpotential regional water-level impactfrom pumping of
the test well. See site plan depicting the location ofthe monitoring wells in Appendix G.
The onsite Monitor Wells MW-1 and MW-2 were constructed 51 feet and 94 feet, respectively,

from Well 1, consistent with TOGS Section 7. Based on the data collected during the pumping
test, the drawdown in MW-1 and MW-2 at the end of the test was 9.26 feet and 0.42 foot,
respectively.

As expected, the drawdown data showed that pumping-related impact to the

shallow portion ofthe aquifer decreased with distance.

Water-level data were collectedfrom the two offsite residential wells located at 230 Old Route
32 and 1470 Old Route 2 at approximately 1,150 feet and 870 feet, respectively, away from Well
1. The water-level data from these wells showed no drawdown impact attributed to the pumping

of Well 1 on the Mountainville parcel. Therefore, it was concluded that these wells appear to be

outside the area of influence of Well 1.


Comments by the Town and Village of Woodbury that LBG and the Village of Kiryas Joel
neglected to consider the potential for impact on the Village of Woodbury 's Trout Brook well
field when it assessed the Mountainville Well site are inaccurate.

LBG was well aware of and

considered the potential for impacts by the Mountainville Well on offsite wells, including the up
gradient and distant Trout Brook well. The Mountainville Well is too far away and down
gradientfrom the Trout Brook wellfield to have any impact on it.

Based on the hydrogeological setting and the results from the aquifer testing program at the

MountainviUe site, LBG determined that the proposed Mountainville Well Field would not
adversely affect the yield of the Village of Woodbury 's well fields. The Trout Brook well is
located over a mile from the Mountainville site. It is also located upgradient, which means that

the Mountainville Well would not affect the recharge potential of the Village of Woodbury 's
wellfields.

As shown in the LBG report, the hydrogeologic testing and analysis of the Mountainville Well
data indicated that there was no discernible impact beyond 1,500 feet of the proposed
Thus, contrary to certain comments, additional testing to assess
Mountainville Well site.
potential pumping related impacts on wells beyond 1,500 feet,

including the

Village of

Woodbury's wellfields (over 5,600 feet away and upgradient of the Mountainville site), is not
necessary.

As noted above, groundwater recharges to the stratified drift and glacial till aquifer underlying
the Mountainville parcel.

The recharge values for the 2. 08 square mile watershed area located

downgradient of the Trout Brook parcel and upgradient of the Mountainville parcel is 1.00 to
1.38 mgd, which far exceeds the yield of the Mountainville Well of 425 gpm (0.612 mgd).

This

demonstrates that the Mountainville Well is a self-sustaining well and, thus, would not impact
the recharge potential ofthe Village of Woodbury 's wellfields.
To further support the conclusions above, LBG completed additional analysis on the data
derived from the June, 2011 aquifer test.

The additional analysis was completed to assess the

effect ofpotential aquifer boundary conditions and determine if the distance drawdown effect
from the pumping of Well 1 would potentially affect the proposed Trout Brook Road wells. The

transmissivity (T) (38, 720 gpd/fi (gallons per day perfoot)) and the storage coefficient (S) (0. 38)
were calculated using drawdown versus time data in the test well during the aquifer test. The T
was derived using the Theis match point method (Theis, 1935).

The drawdown data were

corrected utilizing the corrections presented in Kruseman and DeRidder, 1990 so that the
solution is applicable for unconfined aquifers (See Appendix G).
The curve shown on the plot is a fitted type curve and the points represent the measured
drawdown in the well.

The type curve was generated by adjusting the

aquifer parameters

presented in the solution portion on the plot until there is a good match between the type curve
and the measured data (i.e., the aquifer parameters have been calculated). This process is
expedited with the aid of an aquifer parameter estimation program called AQTESOLVE
(Duffield, 2002). AQTESOLVE allows the user to use visual curve matching or an automated
method to minimize the difference between the type curve and the observed data.

In addition,

AQTESOLVE allows boundary effects (such as the stratified drift boundaries observed in the
study area) to be incorporated in to the analysis by automatically generating image wells to
simulated specified boundary conditions and locations.
5

The calculated T and S were used along with AQTESOLVE to develop the theoretical drawdown
versus distance plot for Well 1.

The theoretical drawdown versus distance plot was developed

assuming PW-1 was pumping at a constant rate of 425 gpm for approximately 22 days.

As

stated above, data from the June 2011 aquifer test of Well 1 show that the water level in the well
had reached a near stabilized level after three days ofpumping. Twenty two (22) days was used
for the construction of the drawdown versus distance plot to be conservative.

The 22-day

timeframe was necessary because the analytical equation used to construct theoretical curve

does not simulate the effects of leakage, river and/or wetland recharges, which are the causes of
stabilization.

The stratified-drift boundaries were accounted for in the development of the

theoretical plot using boundaryfeatures in AQTESOLVE.

The drawdown versus distance plot shows that the Village of Woodbury well field is located
beyond the expected area of influence of Well 1 (2,980 feet) even if the stratified drift till
boundaries are incorporated into the analysis.

Note, for this analysis the area of influence of

Well 1 was conservatively defined as the area of land in which the water table or potentiometric
surface was lowered by 0. 01 foot.

Furthermore, in response to the Town and Village of Woodbury's comments that LBG's standard
testing was somehow an inadequate basis alone for reaching the conclusion that there would be

no influence on wells as far away as the Trout Brook well, one need only consider the selfsustaining nature of the Mountainville Well site to further support this fact. As such, it is clear
that, as a self-sustaining well which is capable offully recharging without any impact on the
recharge potential of Woodbury's well fields, the Mountainville Well will have no impact on
Woodbury's yet undeveloped wells.

As noted in the Introduction and above, the Town and Village of Woodbury raised these very

same issues in their unsuccessful Article 78 challenge to Kiryas Joel's SEQRA review for this
application.

Based, in large part, on these very same data and analyses, Supreme Court

(Environmental Claims Part) granted Kiryas Joel's motion to dismiss that proceeding, finding
that the testing provided a rational basis for the SEQRA determination and that the Town and
Village of Woodbury's expert's opinion regarding recharge for the Trout Brook well was

insufficient to annul Kiryas Joel's negative declaration.

There was no appeal of this decision

(See Appendix I).

ii.

Groundwater Quality

In response to comments regarding the potential for water quality impacts on neighboring wells
from the proposed groundwater withdrawals from Well 1, the following response is provided.
Historically, water-quality impacts rarely occur from groundwater supply withdrawals.

The

only instance in which potential pumping-related impacts would result in water-quality problems
6

in neighboring wells would be if significant water-level interference (drawdown) effects


occurred. Significant water-level interference effects can disturb water-bearing zones and/or the

bottom ofthe well and the disturbance may result in the circulation ofsediment in the discharged
water under pumping conditions. No significant water-level interference was observed in either

the on-site or offsite wells monitored during the 72-hour pumping test performed in strict
compliance with NYSDEC standards. Accordingly, the test and data support the conclusion that

no anticipated water-quality impacts are expected in neighboring wells in the region. In the
unlikely event any unanticipated impacts occur, Special Condition 14 of the draft permit will
require the Village to mitigate such impacts.

Finally, certain public comments claimed that there was well interference during the pump test.
These comments appear to have been misdirected. Review of the comments indicated that rather
than pertaining to the Mountainville Well Field site, these comments are related to potential
impacts to residential wells along Taylor Road.

It appears that these homeowners were

referring to the Star Mountain Well Field also located on Taylor Road.

wells are nearly 2.1 miles away from the Mountainville site.
Mountain Well Field was withdrawn by the Village.

This site and nearby

The application for the Star

It is clear that no impacts to wells along

Taylor Road occurred as a result of the pump-test at the Mountainville site.

2.

Impact on Nearby Surface Waters

Comments questioned the potential impacts of a 425 gpm inter-basin transfer removing water

from the Woodbury Creek Tributary watershed and its downstream Moodna Creek watershed.
More specifically, the comments related to the impact on stream flows in Woodbuiy Creek.
Other comments expressed concerns about impacts to the Ramapo River and questioned whether
the Village's Wastewater Treatment Plant and the County's Harriman Plant could handle
increased sewer flow alleged to be caused by the well.

In response, please see discussions by topic, below.


a.

Impacts on Moodna Creek

Please see Response A.2. b.

b.

Impacts on Woodbury Creek

In response to comments by Chazen and others concerning impacts to Woodbury Creek, the
pumping test was conducted with strict adherence to the NYSDEC pumping test standards, which

are also designed to determine potential impacts to surface water features as discussed in
Responses A.l.a (impacts on aquifer) and A.l.b (impacts on neighboring wells, groundwater
availability, and groundwater quality).

Extensive hydrogeological testing in accordance with NYSDEC standards indicated that there is
no direct hydrologic connection with nearby surface water features, including no direct impact
on water levels in and below Woodbury Creek.

A 72-hour pumping test on the proposed well was completed in June 2011 in accordance with
NYCDEC pumping test standards (TOGS 3.2. 1, Appendix 10) to determine the viability and

production value of the proposed well site, and also to determine whether the well could be
developed without any undue impacts on the aquifer, other existing wells and surface waters in
the area. Please see Responses A.l.a. and A.l.b for discussion of the pumping test and its
compliance with NYSDEC standards in Appendix 10 to TOGS 3.2.1.

To measure surface water impact, water level measurements were collected from three
piezometer locations. Piezometers are regularly used during such tests to measure water levels
(see TOGS Section 10), and were installed near Well 1 for the pumping test to assess potential
surface water interconnection with the test well under pumping conditions.

Piezometers were

installed in an on-site intermittent stream, in an on-site wetland, and in and below Woodbury
Creek to the northwest ofthe parcel.

No water-level drawdown interference was discernible in the piezometers monitored during the
test period as a result of the pumping of Well 1.

This indicates that there was no direct

hydrologic connection with nearby surface waterfeatures during the testing, including no impact

on water levels in and below Woodbury Creek.

The applicant acknowledges that a scenario

might exist where prolonged drawdown during times of extreme drought or other compromised
natural condition could result in potential indirect impact to the surface water resource.

It is

reasonably expected that under such conditions, mitigation or other conservation measures
could be required to minimize any such impacts. Such measures might include source reduction;
time limitations on withdrawals; and, in severe circumstances, complete closure of the well until
circumstances moderate. Such measures could reasonably be incorporated as conditions in the
permit. Moreover, it is also reasonable to implement a stream gauging program to continuously
monitor and record stream flows which would be useful for identifying any change to existing

conditions that might relate to use of the well field.

Again, provisions for such ongoing

monitoring could readily be incorporated as a condition in the permit.


c.

Impact on Ramapo River

In response to comments about wastewater, the quantity and quality of wastewater treatment
effluent discharged to New York watersheds is regulated by the State through State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permitting. Any additional wastewater generated

from the Village of Kiryas Joel will be treated at its own plant or at the County's Harriman
treatment plant and would be subject to each plant's respective permit limits. These limits serve

to reduce the impact on water quality based on the regulated uses ofa receiving water body. The
impact of wastewater effluent on area streams has been studied in the SPDES permit

applications for the development and expansion of the wastewater treatment plants to which

Kiryas Joel wastewater will be discharged. These limits are also regularly considered for the
needfor modification. No modifications to these permits are anticipated to directly result from
this project. Therefore, there are no additional significant adverse impacts anticipated from

treated wastewater effluent and no supplemental studies warranted.

(See Response A. 4,

Interbasin Diversion Impacts).

Even before the most recent Harriman WWTP 2.0 mgd expansion, it was evident that there was
adequate capacity between the Village WWTP and the Harriman WWTP to accommodate the
potential increase in wastewater generated by the New York City aqueduct connection project.
Subsequent to the completion of the FEIS and Findings Statement for the pipeline project, on
March 9, 2005, NYSDEC approved a new groundwater well (Well #27) that increased the

Village's water supply (and corresponding potential wastewater production) by 135,000 gpd
(125 gpm @ 18 hrs/day). In addition, on August 17, 2005, NYSDEC approved another new
groundwater well for the Village (ttrell #28) with an output of 486,000 gallons per day. In total,
both approvals by NYSDEC represented an addition of 621,000 gpd of new water supply to the
Village. As a result of the addition of these two wells, the Village currently has approval to draw

in excess of 1.9 mgdfrom its existing wells, with a corresponding potential volume ofwastewater
generated. Despite such an increase in the Village 's water supply and corresponding waste
water generation potential, NYSDEC expressly determined in its approvals that this new water

supply would have no adverse impact on the Harriman WWTP or the Ramapo River. In response
to public comments regarding the potential impact of this additional water supply on growth,
wastewater and the Ramapo River, NYSDEC stated:
In regards to the concern about growth impacts, particularly upon the sewage treatment

capacity in the Ramapo River Basin, this Department carefully reviewed its files in

regards to the capacity of both the Village' Sewage Treatment Plant and Orange
County's Harriman Sewage Treatment Plant to treat this additional wastewater. We
determined that there is sufficient excess capacity to treat this additional water, without
adverse impacts on the Ramapo River.

In addition,

Orange County engaged Camp Dresser & McKee in 2006 to complete the

"Harriman Wastewater Treatment Facility Membrane Bioreactor Pilot Study" pursuant to a

grant from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ("NYSERDA
Study"). The NYSERDA Study assessed the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost of implementing a
membrane bioreactor treatment system at the Harriman WWTP. The study concluded that

facility treatment capacity could be cost effectively increased by an additional 3.0 mgd, from 6.0
mgd to 9.0 mgd. Additionally, the study's results demonstrated that the anticipated discharge
permit standardsfor such an increase are readily achievable and technologicallyfeasible for the
Harriman WWTP and will also actually increase the quality of the effluent discharged to the
Ramapo River. The County has currently engaged another consultant to develop a final plan to

expand the County's sewage treatment capacity by an additional 3 mgd.


9

This plan and any

subsequent SPDES permit or amendment to the existing permit will include limits protective of
the receiving water body.
3.

Project Justification/Need

Comments questioned the need for additional water supply to the Village and whether the 601
factors justify it.

Please see the discussion ofthe 601 factors in the Introductory Memorandum.
4.

Interbasin Diversion Impacts

Comments questioned the assessment of NYSDEC Part 601 factors, especially considering the
interbasin transfer of water from the Lower Hudson Basin to the Ramapo Basin.
In response, 6 NYCRR Part 601 "Water Withdrawal Permitting, Reporting and Registration, "
subpart 601.18, requires that a diversion of water or wastewater over 1,000,000 gpd (gallons
per day) across New York State Major Drainage Basin watershed boundaries must be reported
to and approved by NYSDEC.

The interbasin transfer of water from the Mountainville Well 1

located in the Lower Hudson Basin of 425 gpm (gallons per minute) or 612,000 gpd to the
Ramapo River watershed does not exceed the threshold volume of 1,000,000 gpd. Accordingly,
the fact that the transfer is significantly below the regulatory threshold implies that it will not
result in a significant impact and is thus permissible. Please see the Introductory Memorandum
forfull discussion of the Part 601 factors.

The Ramapo watershed is afederally-designated, sole source aquifer. Thirty percent ofRockland
County and two million residents in New Jersey receive their drinking water from the Ramapo
Valley aquifer (source: DEIS Western Ramapo Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2002). As such,
the residents and users of the watershed place high importance on preserving their water

resources, including preserving both the quality and quantity of water in the River. Toward this
end, Rockland County through the auspices ofRockland County Sewer District No. constructed a
new advanced wastewater treatment plant to return high quality effluent to the Ramapo River
basin in lieu of utilizing existing infrastructure that would result in an out of basin discharge to
the Hudson River. Moreover, Rockland County has publicly expressed encouragement for Kiryas

Joel's Aqueduct Connection Project as it will result in a positive inter-basin transfer of water
into the Ramapo watershed.
a.

Impacts on Lower Hudson River Basin

Please see Response A.2.bImpacts to Woodbury Creek.

The interbasin transfer is projected at

less than 1 mgd, significantly below the NYSDEC threshold requiring NYSDEC approval in 6
NYCRR Part 601.18.

10

b.

Impacts on Passaic-Newark (Ramapo River) Basin

The water withdrawn from Mountainville Well 1 in the Lower Hudson Basin will ultimately be
discharged into the Ramapo River Basin through either the Village of Kiryas Joel Wastewater
Treatment Plant or the Harriman Wastewater Treatment Plant.

The water from the use of

Mountainville Well 1 will not cause either wastewater treatment plant to exceed their permitted
discharge capacity and, in fact, will ultimately increase the quantity of flow in the river;
consequently there will be no significant impacts to the Ramapo River.
5.

Water Conservation

a.

Water Conservation

A water conservation plan was included in the water supply permit application.

Please see

Appendix G.

b.

Drought Management

The Village 's consultant, LBG, has drafted and submittedfor comment an "Emergency Response
Plan" to the Orange County Department of Health.

This plan (which incorporates a drought

management plan) is not yet approved, and LBG and the Village are presently engaged in

responding to comments provided by Orange County DOH. It is anticipated that this plan will
be in place by the time the Mountainville Well is activated.

6.

Impact on Water-Dependent Natural Resources

Comments inquired about assessment of water-dependent natural resources, including (a) aquatic
life, (b) flora, (c) fauna, and (d) recreational uses.

In response to comments from Chazen that wildlife, including trout, will be impacted by falling
water levels, the lack of demonstrable direct impact on Woodbury Creek demonstrated by the

pumping test addresses these concerns.

The pumping test confirmed that water levels in

Woodbury Creek will not be affected by the safe yield levels of withdrawal from the well.

Provisions for implementing a stream gauging program to continuously monitor and record
stream flows could readily be incorporated as a condition in the permit together with other
conservation measures during times of extreme drought or other compromised natural condition

that could result in potential indirect impact to the surface water resource.

Please see the

response to comments on surface water impacts in Response A.2. above.


7.

Well construction impacts

Comments questioned whether the pipeline will pass over private property. Other comments
inquired whether the construction impacts for the wells will be similar to those from the pipeline

11

Similarly, one commenter expressed concern about

along Route 32, such as increased traffic.

environmental upheaval from construction that would impact wildlife in the area, including fish
in Woodbury Creek. One comment expressed concern that construction would proceed without
permits, or in violation of state and local laws.
a.
i.

Property Ownership, Construction Impacts, and Permit Concerns


Property ownership

The Village owns the well property. The line connecting the Mountainville Well HI to the
Village 's transmission main will not pass over private property.

The Aqueduct pipeline is being

constructed and installed in the public right-of-way in both County and State highways that pass
directly in front of the well field parcel. Authorityfor location of the pipeline in the public rightof-way is found in NY Village Law Article 11, the New York City Administrative Code, and New
York Highway Law sections 52 and 136.
ii.

Construction impacts

The SEQRA negative declaration for the well project considered noise and construction impacts
from the wells, finding they will be limited due to the nature of the site and the relatively small
scale of actual construction on the site.

The project will use an existing curb cut and gravel

access road off of New York State Route 32.

Construction at the well field will be temporary,

with only limited construction vehicles and negligible ongoing traffic from operation and
maintenance ofthe well andpump station. The onsite well construction will take place generally

during the daytime in an area of the site with limited visibility from the road.
private residences directly adjacent to the site.

There are no

Construction impacts related to the pipeline

project are beyond the scope of this permit application and have been extensively addressed in
the pipeline project DEIS, FE1S, andAFElS.
iii.

Permit Concerns

The Village will not commence construction of the Mountainville wells until all necessary
permits are secured. Indeed, the subject of the legislative hearing that yielded these comments
was the Village's application for such permits from the NYSDEC. The Village has proceeded
with construction of the main pipeline in accordance with all state and local laws, and will do so
when constructing the Mountainville wells and associated connecting pipeline.

8.

Deficiencies in Hvdrogeological Testing

Comments raised concerns about the methodology of the pump test used by the Village's
consultant, the resulting safe yield determination, and potential sites or effects not monitored.

Comments also questioned the independence of the Village's consultant and asked for an

12

independent study. Comments also questioned whether the Village is understating its intended
withdrawal rate.
a.

Pumping Test Deficiency

None of the comments identified specific deficiencies in the pumping test as compared to the

State guidelines. In response to comments about the pumping test, Leggette, Brashears &
Graham, Inc. (LBG) completed a 72~hour pumping test on Well 1 located on the Village of
Kiryas Joel's Mountainville Pump Station Parcel on Route 32 in Cornwall, New York in June
2011.

The pumping test was conducted in strict accordance with the NYSDEC pumping test

standards.

The NYSDEC pumping test standards are designed to determine the safe yield of

proposed wells and potential impacts to neighboring wells and surface-water features.

The

pumping test methodology was confirmed by NYSDEC Division of Water in Albany. Based on the
application materials submitted, responses to agency comments and after numerous discussions

and meetings with NYSDEC water supply program staff from the Department's Albany

headquarters and Region 3, NYSDEC issued a Draft Permit (3-3340-00284/0001 ; WSA No.
11,609) on January 23, 2013.

It is fair to assume that in issuing the draft permit, NYSDEC

concluded the test was conducted in accordance with NYSDEC pumping test standards.
b.

Safe Yield Determination

The 72-hour pumping test conducted by LBG included the demonstration of stabilized yield and
water-level drawdown in Well 1 for a minimum ofsix hours at the end of the test period.

Water-

level data were collected from onsite monitoring wells completed in the stratified drift aquifer.
Water-level measurements were collected from three piezometer locations, one in the onsite
intermittent stream, one in the onsite wetland and one in nearby Woodbury Creek.

Water-level

measurements were also collectedfrom offsite neighboring wells located within 2,000 feet of the
pumping well. Water-quality samples were collectedfrom the pumping well near the end of the
72-hour test period.

A 180-day water-level drawdown projection was completed for Well 1

using the water-level data collected during the pumping test and aquifer parameters were
calculated. Other than disagreement with the outcome of the test, no comments identified any
specific deficiency in the actual test or testing protocols.
c.

Need for Independent Study

No legitimate basis has been set forth for the need of an independent study other than what was
prepared by LBG.

LBG is one of the oldest firms in the country to provide consulting services in the specialized
field of Hydrogeology.

LBG was founded in 1944 by R.M. Leggette, one of the earliest

employees of the Groundwater Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS'). Early consulting

services focused on groundwater developmentfor public supply and industrial growth, as well as

13

mine dewatering. By the mid-1950's, prior to the existence ofmost environmental regulations in
place today, the firm had taken on itsfirst contamination projects.

For more than half a century, LBG has worked closely with public water suppliers and
authorities, private, industrial and commercial companies and government agencies to locate,
develop, monitor and protect groundwater resources, to investigate and remediate a variety of
soil and groundwater problems, and to address a wide range ofwater-related issues.
LBG also has extensive experience completing hydrogeologic investigations in Southeastern New
York State including large scale aquifer studies in Orange County.

The history and long

standing water-supply experience provides it with a unique understanding of the value of water
resources, as well as the expertise clients need to manage those resources.

Thomas Cusack is a Hydrogeologist with nearly 30 years of experience in the water-supply


development

field

specializing

in

large-scale

groundwater

exploration,

groundwater

contamination issues, aquifer protection, wellfield management, impacts related to development,

and regulatory approvals and permitting. His experience includes conducting groundwater
exploration and feasibility studies,

oversight responsibilities,

data evaluation,

reporting,

client/regulatory interaction and expert testimony. Mr. Cusack has successfully permitted over
30 mgd in the State ofNew York.

Likewise, NYSDEC technical staff responsible for review of the application materials is also
comprised of well-experienced engineers and hydrogeologists with expertise in reviewing such
materials.

No basis exists in the ECL or NYSDEC regulations for requiring an independent

study.

d. Neighboring Wells Not Monitored


See Response A. Lb - Impacts to Neighboring Wells
e.

Neighboring Stream Not Monitored

See Response A.2.b - Impacts to Woodbury Creek.


f.

Withdrawal Limits Understated

The withdrawal limits are not understated. The Village is requesting the taking of 425 gpm
(610,560 gpd). LBG evaluated the sustainable yield if additional wells were completed at the
Mountainville Well Field.

The sustainable yield analysis of up to three wells indicated a

theoretical yield of up to 1,212 gpm (1. 7 mgd).

The draft permit issued by the NYSDEC limits

the taking of Well 1 to 425 gpm. Any action to increase the taking limits for the well field will
require an amendment to the water supply permit. (See Draft Permit Condition #3).

14

9.

Impact on local community

Comments addressed the impacts of the well on other supplies and the potential of expanding the
need for other public infrastructure such as sewage treatment.

Other comments expressed

concern that the well would impact the Town of Cornwall's ability to manage its own water
resources and would infringe on its home rule authority. Several comments expressed concern

that the well would limit various communities' ability to grow and develop economically. Other
comments expressed concern that the well would impact other municipalities' wells that would
only begin producing after the Village's well was built.
a.

Impact of the Village's Combined 2.4 mgd Withdrawal on Community

The primary aquifer that the Mountainville Well Field will tap into is a viable underutilized
water supply. The Village 's peak demand is 2.4 mgd, which occurs infrequently during any year.

The Village 's average daily demand in 2014 was 1.9 mgd. The Mountainville Well Field draft
permit limits the Village 's withdrawal to only 612,000 gpd, an amount sought to assist in
meeting the maximum peak demand. The Village is not seeking sustained, long-term withdrawal

of2.54 million gpd, but rather authorization to provide for such capacity when maximum peak
demand situations require it. The Village can meet its average demand with its existing wells.
There has been no identified community impactfrom use ofthe Village 's existing wells. In any
event, the Village intends to reduce the impact of its water demand on the aquifer by
constructing the pipeline and aqueduct connection. This will result in a positive impact on the
groundwater resource and the community.

In response to comments about impacts to other water supplies and related concerns, safe yield
testing demonstrated that the proposed well can yield 425 gpm without endangering other
supplies.

Please see Responses A.8.a - f above.

The Village's allotment of water from the

Mountainville Well is not based on the land area of the actual well site, but rather the indicated
municipal need,

demonstrated safe yield,

and NYSDEC's approval.

In any event,

the

Mountainville Well is intended as a backup to surface water supplies that the Village will receive

from the New York City Aqueduct system.

Once the Aqueduct connection is completed, the

Village plans to pump from the Mountainville Well when the primary supply from the Aqueduct
is unavailable.

With the addition of the Mountainville Well Field, the Village is not seeking to immediately begin
using 612,000 gpd more water than it presently uses, but rather to provide for its long-term need
as its population expands. Expanded sewage treatment capacity will be required as population
and water usage increase, as in any growing area, and as in other neighboring communities. As
with the description of the maximum peak demand described above, operation under the permit
will not lead to a significant immediate increase in wastewater corresponding to the 2.54 mgd
permit limit. The Village is working with Orange County and its neighboring communities to

15

develop long-term solutions for sewage treatment, including expansion of the Harriman Sewage
Treatment Plant in accordance with all local, state andfederal laws and regulations.

Although several comments raised concern that the MountainviUe Well would diminish the Town
of Cornwall's ability to manage its own water resources, the MountainviUe Well pump test

indicated it would have no effect on the Town of Cornwall's water supplies.


State resource.

Water supply is a

State law provides for municipalities to acquire and expand water supplies,

subject to oversight and regulation by NYSDEC. The State water supply is not regulated by

individual local governments.

(See ECL 15-0103 [1]).

The Village has the same right to use

or acquire a water supply based on need as does any other local community in New York State,

subject to regulations andpermit conditions. No community has a reserved right in the waters of
the State or exclusive use ofwater that mayflow under its municipal boundaries. No community

has the right to prevent others from taking a water supply even if being removed from that
community. Indeed, the New York courts have recently struck down a law passed by the Village
of Woodbury seeking to prevent withdrawals ofwaterfrom the Village on the grounds that State
law preempts the field of water supplies.

(See Woodbury Heishts Estates Water Co. v. Vill of

Woodbury, 111 A.D.3d 699, 703 [2d Dept 2013]).

The Village has fully complied with its

obligations to seek NYSDEC approval and permitting for the MountainviUe Well, and has
completed all required SEQRA review.

In response to comments that the Well would infringe on the Town of Cornwall's home rule
authority by allowing "annexation" of municipal property by the Village, the Village has not
sought to annex the MountainviUe property to the Village.

Rather, the Village legitimately

purchased this parcel, as is the right ofany municipality or private individual. Here, the Village
acquired the MountainviUe parcel to serve as the site for the midway pump station for the
Only after it acquired this parcel did it identify the site as having the potential for a

pipeline.

viable water source.

Just as any other municipality is authorized to do under State law, the

Village has sought NYSDEC approval to establish its well and take a water supply.

State law

preempts any local authority here with regard to water supplies. Therefore, there is no intrusion
into any local home rule authority or any other property right of the Town.
b.

i.

Restrictions on Growth for Surrounding Communities

Several comments expressed concern that the MountainviUe Well will leave less water
available for the Town of Cornwall, Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson, and other communities,
potentially limiting their future development and growth and expansion of businesses such as
the Woodbury Commons Shopping Center. One comment noted that the Town of Cornwall
has

approximately

1000 acres

of undeveloped

MountainviUe Well would make

land

zoned

residential,

less water available on these parcels,

and

that the

changing the

economics of developing them. A related comment stated that either NYSDEC or the Village
had

insufficiently examined the water needs from future potential build-out of West

Cornwall, Cornwall-on-Hudson, and MountainviUe.


16

As noted above in Responses A.J and A.8, the pump testing report in the Village 's water supply
permit application demonstrated that the Mountainville Well will have no significant impact on

nearby private and municipal wells. There has been no demonstration that any residential
development or business expansion would be limited by any water limitation related to the
Mountainville Well. Moreover, at the suggestion of NYSDEC, the Village previously withdrew
its application for an additional water supply at the Village's Star Mountain well field as this
additional supply was determined not to be needed at the current time. The Village has

examined all non-speculative potential impacts to the surrounding community in the course of
its SEQRA review of this project, a process in which NYSDEC participated and which was
upheld in court.

By contrast, the Village is seeking to develop this water supply to meet the

legitimate immediate needs of its residentsfor a safe and reliable water source.

ii.

Several comments stated that Mountainville Well will interfere with the Town of Cornwall's

long-term plans to substantially expand provision of municipal water using local resources
such as wells, and therefore the Mountainville Well would force the Town of Cornwall to
begin using Aqueduct water.
The applicant is unaware of any permit applications for specific wells or takings for these
speculative future uses. As noted above, no community has the authority to reserve a water
supply source without approval ofNYSDEC.

In contrast, the Village ofKiryas Joel seeks to

drill the Mountainville Well to address demonstrated, concrete present and future needs for

an interim and backup supply once connected to the Aqueduct.


iii.

In response to comments about home rule, as discussed in Response A.9.a, above, the
provision of water resources is a matter ofState concern, subject to NYSDEC permitting and

regulation.

The Village's proposed Mountainville Well will not interfere with the Town of

Cornwall's land use authority.


c.

Impacts on New Municipal Wells Put into Production after Village's Application
Complete

Comments stated that the Village of Woodbury already has a permit to use a well or wells in the
vicinity (the Trout Brook Road Wells). Other comments stated that the LBG report did not
consider these wells and that New York City DEP was unaware of them.

Finally, comments

expressed concerns that the Village of Woodbury and a private investor or developer have
invested substantial sums (approximately $1.2 million) and several years of effort in developing
the Trout Brook Road wells.
See Response A.l.a.

- Impacts to Aquifer, and A.l.b - Impacts to Neighboring Wells.

The

pumping test demonstrated that the Mountainville Well Field can safely yield 425 gpm without
compromising aquifer recharge or affecting nearby private or municipal wells.

17

The Village is

unaware of any water supply permit applications submitted in connection with any additional
future wells, and thus speculative impacts to these hypothetical wells cannot be considered in
evaluating the Village 's water supply permit application.
d. Economic Impact on Community

i.

Several comments expressed concerns that Town of Cornwall residents might have to pay for
a clean-up if there is an "accident" at the well pump. The Cornwall Chamber of Commerce
expressed concern about the economic development impacts to local businesses, farmers, and
recreation businesses that rely on creeks, streams and waterfalls. Several comments stated
that private wells would be harmed and landowners would lose property value because of no
water, which would, in turn, lower the tax base of the Town of Cornwall or other
municipalities.

A related comment expressed concern that the Village would not provide

adequate financial assurance to remedy any damage to private wells.

The pump testing confirmed that the Mountainville Well could safely yield at 425 gpm

without significant impacts to surrounding wells.

There is no reason to believe that

surrounding properties will lose water and therefore decrease in value. Speculative impacts

to unspecifiedfuture development are simply not within the scope of inquiry for this permit.
In the unlikely event that surrounding wells are impacted, Special Condition 14 ofthe permit
requires the Village to mitigate impacts to nearby residential wells, a condition that will be
enforced by NYSDEC under the permit and State law.

ii.

Several comments stated that the water the Village will get from the Mountainville Well has
great value, and that the Village should therefore write the Town of Cornwall a large check,
or that the Well would transfer wealth from Cornwall to the Kiryas Joel.
The Village is not selling water for profit, but seeking to provide for its own residents ' needs.

As noted in Response 9.a.vii, ownership of water and provision of water to municipalities is


fundamentally a matter ofState concern.

iii.

One comment expressed concern that allowing the Village to tap into New York City's water
supply would threaten the City's future economic viability as a financial center.

This comment is primarily aimed at the Village's connection to the Aqueduct, not the
Mountainville Well.

In any event, Stale law provides for connection to the Aqueduct by

municipalities along its route to New York City, subject only to NYCDEP 's regulation of the
connection itself.

18

e.

No Local Support for the Project

Several comments noted the lack of local support for the project.

State law provides for connection to the New York City Aqueduct, and New York City DEP

requires back-up supplies, such as the Mountainville Well.

Likewise, State law provides for

municipalities of the State to obtain permits to secure a municipal water supply from the State 's
resource.

Certain local opposition to the Well is noted; however, the permit must be evaluated

primarily on the basis of its potential impacts to State water resources.


by the applicant is also an important factor.

The demonstrated need

Here, testing specified by NYSDEC has

demonstrated that the Well will not negatively impact this resource.

10. Design / Engineering

Comments expressed concerns about endangering the New York City water supply by
connecting to it.

Several comments also requested that the NYSDEC require the Village to

reduce the size of the pipe connecting from the well to the transmission pipeline.
a.

Cross Connection Issues with Municipal Water Source

The water in the transmission main will be either from the New York City Aqueduct or the
Mountainville Well, not both at the same time. The connection with the pipeline will have check

valves and electric-actuated isolation valves. In addition, NYCDEP will require installation of a
head tank at the tap that will break the siphon between the Aqueduct and the pipe and prevent
backflow. Moreover, pursuant to the water supply agreement with NYCDEP, cross connections
will be strictly prohibited

b. Reduce Size of Connection from Well to Transmission Pipe


The water main from the proposed Mountainville well to the Mountainville well pump station
clear well is 8 inches in diameter. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual of
Water Supply Practices "Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems" (AWWA M32)

states that water distribution systems are considered deficient if the head loss per 1, 000 feet of
pipe in pipes less than 16 inches is greater than 6 feet (per 1,000). At the well capacity of 425
gpm, the head loss per 1,000 in the 8-inch pipe is approximately 4 feet. The next standard size
smaller than an 8-inch pipe is a 6-inch pipe. The head loss per 1,000 in 6-inch pipe is

approximately 1 7feet, which is greater than the 6feet A WWA recommendation. Accordingly, the
proposed 8 inch line is appropriately sized per the standard engineering practices setforth in the
AWWA Manual.

19

11. Consistency with all Applicable Municipal* State and Federal Laws

Comments expressed concerns related to municipal approvals, compliance with NYSDEC


regulations, and several plans and studies.
a.

No Municipal Approvals

Comments expressed concern that the project had not received land use approvals from the Town

of Cornwall or its Planning Board. Several comments noted that the Well will be drilled in land
formerly subdivided with limits on each lot for water withdrawals.

Local land use restrictions are aimed primarily at regulating on-site development, not limiting
water withdrawals by a NYSDEC-permitted well. As noted above, local governing boards are

not authorized to regulate water withdrawals from the State resource; such authority is vested
entirely with NYSDEC. Moreover, providing water supply is considered an essential government
function for the Village, and New York courts have held that a municipality is immune from the
land use authority of another municipality when performing such essential governmental

functions.

In addition, the Village is constructing the Mountainville pumping station and well

field pursuant to its authority under New York City Administrative Code section 24-360, which is
incorporated under State law, and which makes local municipalities within counties hosting the
New York City Aqueduct "authorized and empowered to lay the necessary mains, pipes, valves,
hydrants, supply pipes and other necessary appurtenances for the use ofsuch water, without the
consent of any board, officer, bureau, or department of the state or any subdivision thereof. "
Finally, as has been done with the pipeline construction within state and county right-of-ways,
where the Village has obtained and managed construction consistent with State and County work
permits, the Village will secure a building permit for the on-site construction to ensure
compliance with the technical standards ofthe State Building Code.
b.

i.

Compliance with ECL 15-1501 et seq./6 NYCRR 601

One comment expressed concern that New York City DEP approval had not been obtained
and thus the requirements of 6 NYCRR 60 1 . 1 0 (k) (8) have not been met.
NYCDEP 's approval is limited to the actual physical connection to the Aqueduct.

NYCDEP

has previously acknowledged the Village 's entitlement to connect to the Aqueduct and that it
has no approval authority with regard to the Mountainville Well Field. NYCDEP requires a
backup supply for municipalities seeking an Aqueduct connection, and has indicated that the
Mountainville

Well as proposed would satisfy this requirement.

In fact, NYCDEP has

repeatedly acknowledged this fact in light of the misstated argument on the need for a City
permit to construct the pipeline, as well as the Village 's entitlement to an Aqueduct connection,
and these arguments have all been considered and rejected by State courts.

20

ii.

Several comments stated that the Village has not shown that the project is just and equitable
to all affected municipalities or that the Well is not a "reasonable use".

The Village is only seeking to fulfill its actual, indicated needs. The Village is not seeking the
Mountainville Well as a primary source of water, but instead only seeks to use it as an interim

supply while the pipeline construction continues and to ensure a backup supply once connected
when the Aqueduct is taken out of service. The doctrine of "reasonable use, " insofar as it

applies, only requires that one municipality not unfairly impair other municipalities' use of
shared resources. Pump testing ofthe well according to the NYSDEC guidelines demonstrated
no significant adverse impacts to the aquifer, surrounding wells, or water bodies from the safe

yield withdrawals of 425 gpm.

Consistent with these concepts, as noted above, at the

suggestion ofNYSDEC, the Village previously withdrew its application for an additional water
supply at the Village 's Star Mountain wellfield as this additional supply was determined not to
be needed at the current time. Thus, even operating at full safe yield, the Mountainville Well
will not impair other municipalities ' ability to use the aquifer. A more detailed summary of the

Part 601 considerationfactors is included in the Introductory Memorandum.

iii.

Several comments addressed compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 601, asserting that 601.8
would not allow consolidation of this permit with other of Kiryas Joel's permits because the
Mountainville Well would not be part of a water supply existing as of February 15, 2012.

The Village's water system existed prior to 2012, including various groundwater wells. The
Village is consolidating its water supply permits as a result of direction from NYSDEC
pursuant to the recently amended Part 601 regulations.

By consolidating all of its individual

water supply permits into one, the Village is ensuring consistency across its water supply

inventory which will serve to better protect the public health, safety and welfare and the
environment and ensure the proper management of the State water resource.

Related

comments questioned whether NYSDEC could determine that this project is "environmentally
sound" under Part 601.

The Village completed a coordinated SEQRA review, in which

NYSDEC participated as an involved agency, which fully considered potential impacts to all
relevant areas of environmental concern.

The

Village's SEQRA review was subsequently

challenged and upheld in State court. Accordingly, the Village's findings with regard to
potential environmental impacts are now complete and binding on the current permit review.

iv.

Comments expressed concern that wastewater impacts to the Ramapo River and decreased
water levels in Woodbury Creek would violate NYSDEC's anti-degradation policy in TOGS
1.3.9.

Wastewater impacts to the Ramapo River were extensively considered in Section 3 of the
Pipeline AFEIS and addressed in the Village's negative declaration for the well permit.

21

Wastewater from the Village is treated at Orange County 's Harriman Wastewater Treatment
Plant and at the Village 's own treatment facility, both of which ultimately discharge to the
Ramapo River. Bothfacilities are operated subject to NYSDEC permits, which insure that their

impacts to the Ramapo River are within safe limits.

The NYSDEC anti-degradation policy

notes at page 2 that the SPDES permitting system, pursuant to which both treatment plants
operate, is the means for implementation of the anti-degradation policy.

Any consideration

with regard to the identified TOGS would be more properly considered as part of any
discharge permit for either of these facilities, not as a consideration for the Village 's water

supply permit.

Impacts to Woodbury Creek were assessed as part of the pump test, which

confirmed the lack of impacts from the Mountainville Well to the Creek at the safe yield level of
withdrawal.

c.

i.

Orange County Water Plan

Comments expressed concern that allowing the Village to build the wells conflicts with the
Orange County Water Plan.

The Orange County Water Plan specifically recognizes that Kiryas Joel will have a water
supply deficit in the next few years and anticipates that additional supplies will be needed.
The Water Plan also calls for conservation measures and requires meeting certain standards
specified in the 2010 New York State Smart Growth criteria.

The Village meets these

standards by demonstrating an identified need, feasibility as demonstrated by the pump and


safe yield tests, and concentration of development in a priority growth area.
measures have been put in place in the Village.

Conservation

Measures include community education,

installation and replacement of water meters, a leak detection program, and the distribution

of water conservation kits. The resident per capita water consumption rate in the Village is
relatively low due to the Village's social practices, which do not include traditional high

demand uses such as outdoor swimming pools, lawn watering, and car washes. Ultimately,
through its connection to the Aqueduct, the Village will be reducing the competition between
surrounding Orange County communitiesfor water.

ii.

Several organizations submitted a memorandum produced by Russell Urban-Mead, a noted


hydrologist, expressing concern about the Moodna watershed.

Safe yield analysis of the Mountainville Well was performed, which demonstrated no

significant adverse impacts to the Moodna Watershed.

Moreover, in response to dire

predictions for the Moodna watershed, it is noteworthy that Mr. Urban-Mead has also

publicly stated that the Hudson Valley is poised to become the "Saudi Arabia ofwater, " with

22

substantial excess supplies available for export,

thereby appearing to contradict the


2

underlying premise ofMr. Urban-Mead's commentary.

d.

Town (Cornwall) Water Study

Several comments expressed concern that the Mountainville Wells would affect the Town of

Cornwall's ability to provide water needed for its own development and growth, as indicated in a
2002 water study.
The pump test indicated that the Mountainville Well will have no significant adverse impacts to
surrounding wells or water bodies.

The water requirements of unspecified future development

are simply too speculative to justify denial of a permit that is sought to fulfill an actual, present
demonstrated need.

As noted above, New York courts have rejected local municipalities'

attempts to stockpile or restrict export ofwater. Please see Response A.9.b.ii.


e.

i.

Compliance with Permit Conditions

Comments expressed concern that the Village will not comply with permit conditions

The NYSDEC water supply permit requires compliance with daily withdrawal limits, and
contains mechanisms for monitoring, record-keeping and enforcement by NYSDEC. As with all
of the Village 's existing water supply permits, the Village is required by law to comply with all
permit conditions and regulatory requirements in 6 NYCRR Part 601. No proof has been
presented to suggest that the Village has not reasonably complied with its existing water supply
permits. In response to comments questioning whether a larger pipe would allow the Village to
withdraw a greater volume than permitted, please see Response A.lO.b for explanation of the
pipe size.

ii.

Comments urged that NYSDEC should not permit the Village to connect its Well to the main
pipeline until the Village begins using Aqueduct water.

In addition to serving as a back-up resource when the Aqueduct is down for repair, the Well is
intended for immediate interim use to meet the Village's current maximum daily demand.
Using the pipeline to supply the Village with Mountainville water in the interim period will

2 See Scott Cuppett and Russell Urban-Mead, "Pludson Valley Water: Opportunities and
Challenges, " Center for Research Regional Education & Outreach, Discussion Brief U4 (Fall
2010), at 2,

available at http://www.newpaltz.edu/crreo/brief4_water_online_yersion.pdf

(accessed June 24, 2015).

23

provide a benefit because it will not require construction of another parallel line or any other
disturbance or impacts.

iii.

Several comments asked what will happen to the gallons per day allowed after March 31,
2015.

The NYSDEC draft permit requires a redundant well at the Mountainville site within a

specified time period (based on anticipated completion of the primary well). This redundant
well will support the Village 's ability to meet the anticipated maximum daily demand with the
greatest producing well out of service (Well 1), but is not intended to be an additional
producing well. As discussed in the Introductory Memorandum, the draft permit excludes the
Mountainville Well 1 in the total permitted yield capacity of the Village based on the
redundancy requirement (best well out of service) of the regulatory agencies.

With the

Mountainville Well I volumes removed from the Village inventory, the Village is unable to
demonstrate adequate capacity to meet its maximum peak daily demand which occurs on a few
occasions during the year. Acknowledging the on-going effort by the Village to connect to the
NYC Aqueduct to accommodate this peak demand andfuture demands of the Village, NYSDEC
has provided a condition in the draft permit that would allow the Village to temporarily take up

to 2.54 mgd utilizing the Mountainville Well 1 provided the Village can establish another
redundant well at Mountainville or elsewhere within a reasonable time period.

This can be

accomplished at the Mountainville site, however, it must be noted that doing so will not
increase the net taking permitted from these wells.

Any increased taking from the overall

Mountainville Well Field would require an amendment of the water supply permit in
accordance with Special Condition # 3.

f.
i.

Enforcement for Non-Compliance with Permit Conditions

Comments expressed concern over past compliance and enforcement issues related to the
Village's water supply.

The comments have not identified any administrative or judicial judgment finding the Village
in non-compliance with any of its water supply permits.

With respect to alleged violations

regarding other NYSDEC programs, any and all notices of violation have been addressed in
cooperation with NYSDEC. In accordance with the NYSDEC Record of Compliance Policy
(DEE- 16), none ofthese issues negatively reflect on the Village 's continued ability to manage

its water supply and comply with the terms of its permits. According to the terms of the water
supply permit, the Village will be required to comply with all permit limits and conditions
established by NYSDEC. NYSDEC will retain all of its enforcement authority to monitor this
compliance as it does with any other municipality with a State regulated water supply.

Nothing presented by the comments suggests any needfor different treatment here.

24

ii.

The increased diameter of the main pipeline from IB to 24 inches was raised in several
comments, which expressed concern over whether this was properly done.

This issue was comprehensively addressed in response to the legal challenge to the Village 's
SEQRA review for the well field. In its decision, the Court found that the Village had
presented and received State approval for a 24-inch pipeline, and that it had adequately
considered the same in its SEQRA review. (See Appendix I).

iii.

Comments questioned the measures or remedies available if the Village's withdrawal of


612,000 gpd causes private wells to lose quantity or quality.

As discussed above, the pump testing indicated that no degradation of surrounding wells will
result from pumping the Mountainville Well at safe yield. The draft permit contains standard

conditions requiring that the Village, as permitee, address any degradation of neighboring
wells (see Special condition #14). This will be an ongoing responsibility of the Village as
long as it operates under the permit.

g.

Need for NYCDEP Approval

Comments stated that NYCDEP approval was needed before NYSDEC could grant a permit.
NYCDEP approval is, in fact, neither a prerequisite nor a condition for approval of a State
water supply permit.

Further, as explained elsewhere in this response, NYCDEP has no

discretionary permit authority with respect to either the pipeline or the Mountainville Well.
Rather, NYCDEP is responsible for approval of the final engineering plans for the Aqueduct
connection and entering into a water supply agreement with the Village related to the terms and
costs of the withdrawal.

This issue too was fully addressed and dismissed in the litigation

pertaining to the Village 's SEQRA review for the Mountainville Well Field.

B. SEQRA (NON-PERMIT) ISSUES

1.

Wastewater

a.

Sewer Capacity

Comments expressed concern about the capacity of the Harriman WWTP and the Village's
WWTP to treat the increased volume of sewage that would result from the well withdrawals.
The issue of adequate sewage treatment capacity to accommodate water withdrawn from the
Mountainville well field was adequately addressed in the Village 's SEQRA review and negative
25

declaration. The adequacy of that review was subject ofa legal challenge that was dismissed by
State court.

Accordingly, as this review was deemed adequate, it is now controlling on any

further permit proceedings and thus no further consideration of this issue is warranted or
appropriate.

Further, the issue of adequate sewage treatment capacity was also adequately

addressed within the Village 's SEQRA review for the pipeline project. Finally, Orange County
is currently undertaking a comprehensive planning exercise directed at expansion of the Sewer
District 's treatment capacity by as much as an additional 3 mgd. As such, the Village, whose
residents are District members, has a reasonable expectation that adequate sewer capacity exists
now and into the future to accommodate its projected water supply under this permit.
2.

Growth Inducement

Comments expressed concern that water from the well would spur additional growth of the
Village population.

Kiryas Joel's population increased 13.5 percent per year from 1980 to 1990. From 1990-2000,
however, the Village 's growth steadied at 5. 9 percent per year and has remained consistent at or

near this figure since. Current growth in Kiryas Joel is primarily internal and results from two
principal factors: large family size and young women remaining in the Village to have families
of their own. Both of these growth factors are responses to the obligations of Hasidic religious
practice. The presence or lack of essential services, such as sewage treatment capacity or
drinking water, has not affected population growth in Kiryas Joel one way or the other; growth
figures demonstrate that such growth has remained consistent. Therefore, it is anticipated that
the proposed well connection would not create significant impetus to spur new growth.

The

Village reviewed growth inducement for the 2 mgd pipeline in Appendix 9 to the Aqueduct
Connection Project AFEIS, commissioning a study by AKRF that concluded that resources such
as available water supply or sewage treatment capacity, whether more or less, would not affect
growth, which is internal and natural and thus consistent regardless of outside influences such
as these utilities. There is no new information that would lead one to believe that this water
supply permit will have any different effect.

3.

Aqueduct/Pipeline

Various comments were directed at SEQRA review of the main pipeline and its connection to the
New York City Aqueduct.

Comments directed at the SEQRA review completed for the Aqueduct pipeline project are
beyond the scope of this permit review. Construction of the pipeline is now underway and is

nearly 50% completed. Due to the proximity of the Mountainville well field to the pipeline, its
completion will provide an added benefit enabling the Village to utilize this pipeline to transport

26

an interim water supply and back up water supply to the Village without the need for further
construction.

4.

SEORA Procedural issues

Various

comments

questioned

the procedure and substance of SEQRA review of the

Mountainville well.
These included comments related to the sufficiency of the Environmental Assessment Form

("EAF"), the negative declaration and segmentation.


The adequacy of the Village 's compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of
SEQRA for the Mountainville Well has already been considered by State court which upheld the
Village's negative declaration on both substantive and procedural grounds.

Accordingly, no

further consideration ofthese issues is warranted or appropriate here.

C. MISCELLANEOUS (NON-PERMIT) ISSUES

1.

Village Wastewater Treatment Plant

Comments expressed concern over the Village treatment plant's capacity for handling increased
flows. A related comment expressed concern over effluent flowing into the Ramapo River.
Issues related to adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity have been addressed in Responses
A.2.c, A.ll.b.iv, and B.l.a, above. Additionally, the Pipeline project Amended FEIS Section 3
addressed in great detail a number of wastewater issues relating to treatment of effluent and the
capacity of the Village and County's wastewater treatment plants to accommodate future

treatment demands after the completion of the pipeline and Aqueduct connection, as well as
potential impacts to the Ramapo River.

These issues were also sufficiently addressed in the

negative declaration for the Mountainville well field and presented to NYSDEC prior to its

issuance of the draft permit (See Appendix J).

In addition, downstream user Rockland County

has expressed support for the Village 's Aqueduct project since it will result in a net increase in
water to the Ramapo Basin.

Please see AFEIS 2-11 to 2-13 and Appendix G. Orange County

has also examined the impacts of a "full build-out" scenario on available wastewater treatment

capacity and concluded that even under the most aggressive assumptions, the OCSDU1 has
sufficient capacity to meet current requirements with obligations to increase capacity when flows
reach 85%, thus ensuring OCSD #1 will have the capacity to meet its future demands. In
addition, plans are currently being studied for expansion of the Sewer Districts' treatment
capacity by an additional 3 mgd.

27

2.

Aqueduct Issues / Impact


Comments expressed concern about the growth inducing impacts of the Well project. One
comment stated that the Village should not use water belonging to New York City and or the

Town of Cornwall and should not expand when there is ample housing stock reminiscent of
Brooklyn available in other communities.
Expansion of the Village is not an appropriate topic for consideration on this permit application
nor would it be appropriate for NYSDEC to consider or suggest where else future development
should occur or to utilize the State's water supply as a social engineering tool.

Further, with

respect to the Village 's entitlement to take a water supply from the NYC Aqueduct, State law
provides that local municipalities located within counties that are host to the NYC Aqueduct are
entitled by law to connect and take a water supply.

Similarly, the groundwater that will be

accessed by the Mountainville Well is a statewide resource for the benefit of all New York
residents, subject to State regulation and control. It does not belong exclusively to the Town of
Cornwall, the County of Orange, or any other local government. As referenced above, both the

Aqueduct pipeline and Mountainville well field SEQRA reviews adequately assessed the growth
inducing aspect ofthe Village 's water supply.
a.

Deny Permit Based on Prior Non-compliance

Comments expressed concern over past instances of alleged non-compliance with permits by the
Village, stating that DEC should deny this permit on that basis.
In response, as addressed elsewhere in this response, the draft permit includes strict limits and

conditions and provides for NYSDEC oversight and enforcement of these requirements.
Instances of alleged non-compliance with other, unrelated permits are not appropriate factors
for consideration ofthe permit presently being considered.

3.

Climate change

Several comments expressed concern that SEQRA review did not adequately consider climate
change impacts, including comments by Chazen's engineer that the Moodna basin was becoming
drier as a result of a changing climate.
The adequacy of the Village 's compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of

SEQRA for the Mountainville Well has already been considered by State court which upheld the
Village's negative declaration on both substantive and procedural grounds.

Accordingly, no

further consideration of these issues is warranted or appropriate here.


In New York State, climate change is expected to lead to an increase in temperature, increased

annual precipitation, and sea level rise.


changes.

These changes will likely result in other environmental

The increased temperature is expected to lead to an increase in evaporation rates and

a decrease in the fraction ofprecipitation falling as snow, which may lead to shifts in seasonal
28

stream flows.

The increased annual precipitation (possibly up to 3 to 6 inches per year) will

likely occur with more heavy rainfall events and possible short-term (one- to three-month)
droughts.

Indeed, as noted in Response A.lO.c.ii, Mr. Urban-Meade has also publically opined on global
warming by promoting the notion that the convergence of robust rainfall, access to the Hudson

River and climate change predictions all position eastern New York as a future global "Saudi
Arabia ofwater, " thus seeming to contradict the underlying premise ofhis comments.

D. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION UNDER 6 NYCRR 601.10(k)


Comments questioned whether the project met the justification factors enumerated in 6 NYCRR
Part 601.

Please see detailed discussion ofPari 601 factors included in the Introductory Memorandum.

3 See Stephen Shaw, Rebecca Schneider, Andrew McDonald, Susan Riha, Lee Tyrhorn, Robin
Leichenko, Peter Vancurra, Allan Frei, and Burrell Montz, "ClimAID - Responding to Climate
Change in New York

State," Chapter 4: Water Resources; see also"2014 New York State

Hazard Mitigation Plan," Section 3.4: Climate Change (January 4, 2014).

29

EXHIBIT D

Division of Environmental Permits, Region 3


21 South Putt Corners Road, New Poitz, NY 12561-1620

P-. (845) 256-3054 I F: (845) 255-4659


vAvw.clcc.ny.gov

Response to Public Comments Received


April 29, 2014 and Public Comment Period
Heating
Legislative
Kiryas Joel Proposed Mountainville Well No. I

DEC Application No. 3-3399-00065/00001 Article 15 Water Withdrawal Permit


The Department prepared this Response to Public Comments in order to respond to concerns
expressed by the public, municipal officials, and various organizations regarding the

Mountainville Well No. 1 project proposed by the Village of Kiryas Joel. Written comments
i

were

hearing held in two sessions (afternoon & evening) on April 29, 2014 (1 07 written comments
evening session), A list of names of all who commented on the project is appended as
Attachment A. The Department intends to send a copy of this Response to Public Comments to

all who provided complete contact information with their comment on the Mountainville Well
No. I permit application.

No. 1 , Water Supply Application." Due to the length of the document, it is not reproduced
herein. Rather, an electronic copy (multiple pdf files) of the Village's stand-alone written
response to comments is available on the DEC website at:
http://www.dcc.nv. gov/permits/103519.html.

Numerous comments were received from the public on a variety of topics related, and unrelated,
io:

comments received, comments were grouped into broad categories according to topic or issue
raised. Comments from the public can be categorized as noted briefly below:
impacts to the aquifer, withdrawal limits
well as supplemental source vs. redundancy requirements

groundwater availability, groundwater table and water quality, impacts to neighboring


wells

newyork

Department of

^ as?

Response to Public Comments - Notice of Complete Application & Legislative Hearing


Kiryas Joel Proposed Mountainville Well No. 1
October 2, 2015
Page 2
y.y

impacts to upland habitat & hunting


need for independent study & analysis
other communities, properly ownership, economic impacts, taxes

need & j ustification for the project (Part 60 1 requirements)


well construction impacts, potential spills, traffic impacts

water conservation, drought management

SEQR review, segmentation, climate change, sustainability, alternatives analysis, Taylor


Road wells (former Star Manufacturing site)

NYC Aqueduct connection pipeline

wastewater issues, WWTP capacity

permit concerns/conditions, withdrawal limits, required actions, compliance,

enforcement

consistency with local, State & federal laws, permits, local & regional plans

documents. These documents demonstrate to the Department's satisfaction that the aquifer is
adequately productive and will safely yield the proposed Mountainville Well No. 1 withdrawal
amount (612,000 gpd) without interference impacts on sources of other users.
In certain instances, DEC staff are not in complete agreement with the Village's Response to
Public Comments and provide the clarifying information below on these topics. Beyond those
responses provided below on specific concerns raised by the public, DEC hereby accepts and

1 6, 201 5), as being adequately responsive to remaining issues or concerns not discussed in this
document.

Many of the public comments received by the Department were directed at issues which do not
pertain to the Mountainville Well Permit Application, or which provide comment on issues
beyond DECs jurisdiction under Part 601 Water Withdrawal Permit regulations. The Department
*
. * . *" ""
"
.
i

Application, including SEQR environmental review of the action, applicable Part 601
regulations, and DEC jurisdiction over the proposal

Response to Public Comments - Notice of Complete Application & Legislative Hearing


Kiryas Joel Proposed Mountainviile Well No. 1
October 2,2015
Page 3

For certain comments on issues beyond the scope of the current Mountainviile Well Permit
Iv

opposition is not specified. In addition to the above, several requests to deny the permit were also
received. The Department's response to such requests for denial of the permit, and our final
decision on the Mountainviile Well Permit Application, is rendered below.

Comments which the Department does not respond to herein, either because these have been
determined irrelevant to the instant application or because these are adequately addressed in the

w,

local municipality or County authority.


For background, the following is a brief discussion of the proposed action:

Project Description

The Village of Kiryas Joel proposes to construct a new water supply well, Mountainviile Well
No. 1 , with 425 gallon per minute (612,000 gpd) capacity to supplement the Village of Kiryas
Joel potable water supply system. The project includes construction of approximately 620 linear
feet of new 8" diameter HDPE water main, 1 500 gallon storage tank, pump house, and

new

the well to its existing water supply infrastructure. The Mountainviile Well No. 1 permit will
also consolidate all prior Water Supply permit approvals issued to the Village into one
comprehensive permit and will increase approved water talcing from these three (3) existing

Village wells: Well No. 6 - increase to 250 gpm; Well No. 8A - increase to 160 gpm; and Well
No. 1 3 A - increase to 1 06 gpm. The total amount of permitted water withdrawal from all active

wells in the Village's water supply system is 1 .93 million gallons per day or MGD. The Village
also can temporarily withdraw 2.54 MGD to meet the Village's current maximum day demand.
Project Location

The new well, Mountainviile Well No.l, is located on the Mountainviile Pump Station Parcel on
NYS Route 32 in the Town of Cornwall, Orange County.

Public Notice and Comments

Notice of Complete Application was published in the NYS Environmental Notice Bulletin

(ENB) on February 20, 2013; the Notice of Complete Application was published by the applicant
in the News of the Highlands and Times Herald record on March 1, 2013. The Notice of Public

Response to Public Comments - Notice of Complete Application & Legislative Hearing


Kiryas Joel Proposed Mountainville WeJJ No. 1
October 2, 2015
Page 4
**

sessions on April 29, 201 3 in the Town of Cornwall to receive public comment on the proposal,
and that comments would be accepted until the close of the Hearing on April 29, 2013.
During the Notice of Complete Application comment period (closed March 8, 2013), a total of

43 written comments were received. During the Legislative Hearing (closed April 29, 2014), a
total of 107 written comments, and 118 oral comments, were received from the individuals,

municipal officials and organizations listed in Attachment A.


j p

to Public Comment on the Mountainville Well Permit Application:


Impacts to Surface Waters (Woodbury Creek, Moodna Creek & Ramapo River)
In response to comments about wastewater, the quantity and quality of wastewater treatment

effluent discharged to New York watersheds is regulated by the State through State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permitting. Any additional wastewater generated
from the Village of Kiryas Joel will be treated at its own wastewater treatment plant
( WWTF) or at Orange County's Harriman WWTP (OCSD#l) and would be subject to

each plant's respective permit effluent limits. These limits serve to reduce the impact on water
quality based on the regulated uses of a receiving water body. These limits are also regularly
considered for the need for modifications to the issued SPDBS permit. No modifications to these

current SPDES permits are anticipated to directly result from this project.
Impacts to Woodbury Creek were assessed as part of the pump test, which confirmed the
lack of impacts from the Mountainville Well to the Woodbury Creek at the safe yield level of

withdrawal. In order to address concerns about potential impacts, and due to its proximity to the
Mountainville Well,

Village to perform monitoring of nearby Woodbury Creek during the pumping of the
Mountainville Well. Per Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) provisions 6 NYCRJR 621.13, DEC may
initiate certain permitting actions, including modification, suspension or revocation of the permit,

should such monitoring reveal adverse impacts to Woodbury Creek which cannot be mitigated or
reduced through conservation or other measures.

Impact of the Village's Combined 2.4 mgd Withdrawal on local community

demand on the aquifer by construction of the aqueduct connection and to use Mountainville
Well when Catskill Aqueduct is not in service, this proposal is not considered during DEC'S

Response to Public Comments - Notice of Complete Application & Legislative Hearing


Kiryas Joel Proposed Mountainvilie Well No. 1
October 2, 2015
Page 5

demand. The Village is not seeking to immediately begin using 612,000 gpd more water in an
average basis than it presently uses with the addition of Mountainvilie Well No.l. Rather, the
well will facilitate the Village's ability to meet the maximum day demand, as well as to provide

for long-term needs as its population expands.

Although several comments raised concern that the Mountainvilie Well would diminish the
Town of Cornwall's ability to manage its own water resources, the Mountainvilie Well
pump test indicated it would have no effect on the Town of Cornwall's water supplies. In
response to comments that the well would infringe on the Town of Cornwall's home rule
authority by allowing "annexation" of municipal property by the Village, it is the
Department's understanding that the Village has not sought to annex the
Mountainvilie properly to the Village, Rather, the Village purchased the Mountainvilie
Well parcel. In this instance, DEC understands that the Village acquired the Mountainvilie
Well parcel initially to serve as the site for the midway pump station for the NYC

Aqueduct connection pipeline.

Wastewater & Sewer Capacity

Comments expressed concern about the capacity of the Harriman WWTP and the Village's
WWTP to treat the increased volume of sewage that would result from the well withdrawals. A
related comment expressed concern over effluent flowing into the Ramapo River.
As noted above, adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity and potential impacts to the Ramapo
River are addressed under the Department's SPDES permitting process. Kiryas Joel has a WWTP

with specific capacity and Orange County Sewer District#! (Harriman) has a WWTP with
specific capacity for discharges from its Sewer District users, which include the Village of
Kiryas Joel, as well as out of District users. Increased flow and the impact on the receiving water
will be addressed by the vSPDES permitting process if a SPDES permit modification is needed
for either of these WWTPs. Comments concerning effluent limitations and wastewater treatment

plant expansion due to the pipeline connection project are not relevant to this water withdrawal
application.

In addition, the Village, acting as SEQR lead agency, concluded its environmental review and
adopted a Negative Declaration for the Mountainvilie Well No. 1 on December 4, 2012. The
Village asserts in its Response to Public Comments that adequacy of that review was the
subject of a legal challenge that was dismissed by State court. Also as discussed in the

Village's Response to Public Comments, the issue of adequate sewage

Response to Public Comments - Notice of Complete Application & Legislative Hearing


Kiryas Joel Proposed Mountainville Weil No. 1
October 2, 2015
Page 6

treatment capacity was addressed within the Village's SEQRA review for the pipeline
project.

Enforcement

Comments expressed concern that wastewater impacts to the Ramapo River and decreased
water levels in Woodbury Creek would violate NYSDEC's anti-degradation policy in TOGS
1 .3.9. See also above response regarding impacts to surface waters.

Wastewater impacts to the Ramapo River were extensively considered in Section 3 of the
Pipeline AFE1S noted above and addressed in the Village's negative declaration for the
proposed Mountainville Well action. Also as noted above, wastewater from the Village is
treated at Orange County's Harriman WWTP (OCSD#l) and at the Village's own

treatment facility, both of which ultimately discharge to the Ramapo River. Both facilities are

subject to NYSDEC SPDES permits -which address their impacts to the Ramapo River. The
NYSDEC anti-degradation policy is implemented through the SPDES permitting process.
Therefore, any consideration with regard to anti-degradation would be addressed as part of the
SPDES permit for either of these two facilities, not as a consideration for the Mountainville Well
Permit Application. As indicated above, impacts to Woodbury Creek were assessed as part of

the pump test, which confirmed the lack of impacts from the Mountainville Well to the
Woodbury Creek at the safe yield level of withdrawal. Several comments were recei ved which

Village has reasonably complied with existing permit conditions", we note that the Village has
not met maximum daily demand on occasion and was issued a Notice of Violation. The Village
has submitted the Mountainville Well Permit Application in order to meet its maximum day
water demand.

Redundant vs. Supplemental Source

Several commentors indicated that the Village's intended use of the Mountainville Well No. 1 , as
either a primary source of supply or redundant source of supply (i.e., "backup supply"), was not
made clear. However, DECs review of the submitted application reveals no such contradiction,
initial and subsequent application materials submitted to DEC clearly indicate that Mountainville

Well No. 1 was intended as an additional source of supply to "meet the future water demand
requirements of the Village" (page 2 of Joint Application for Permit form dated 1 1/15/1 1 and

I The Kiryas Joel Board of Trustees issued Positive Declaration for the NYC Catskill Aqueduct Connection
project 8/6/02; the DEIS was deemed Complete 10/7/03; the Village Board of Trustees accepted the FEIS
5/4/04; Findings Statement was adopted 7/8/04; an Amended FE1S was deemed Complete 3/3/09; an
Amended Findings Statement in support of the project was adopted 3/3 1/09.

Response to Public Comments - Notice of Complete Application & Legislative Hearing


Kiryas Joei Proposed Mountainvilie Weil No. 1
October 2, 2015
Page 7

received 1 1/21/1 1). The Negative Declaration for the project (dated 12/4/12), indicates that the
and will assure an adequate backup supply as required for. the Village's CatskiU Aqueduct
Connection." [The CatskiU Aqueduct Connection project, over which the Department has no
jurisdiction, is a separate Village sponsored project to construct a 13+mile long pipeline to
connect the Village's water supply system to the NYC CatskiU Aqueduct] Water supply
regulations [see New York State Department of Health regulation, Title 10, Subpart 5-1 Public
Water Supplies, Appendix 5A, Recommended Standards for Water Works] require that all public

water supply systems be able to meet their maximum daily demand with the system's largest

source to meet the redundancy requirement.

NYCDEP CatskiU Aqueduct Connection Pipeline


The Village's CatskiU Aqueduct Connection project, over which the Department has no

jurisdiction, is a separate Village sponsored project to construct a 13+mile long pipeline to


connect the Village's water supply system to the NYC CatskiU Aqueduct. The Village provides
an adequate response and DEC offers no further comment.

Adequacy of Pump Test & Hydrogeological Studies, Need for Independent Review
The Department has no reason to doubt that the pumping test for the Mountainvilie Well No. 1
was conducted and reported in a scientifically rigorous manner which reflects die physical reality
of groundwater availability at this site. Nor do we doubt the validity of the report's conclusions.
The Village's Response to Public Comments is reasonable and complete on this subject.
Climate Change & Sustainability

insignificant emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during the construction phase of 'the project.
However, DEC has no regulatory authority over motor vehicles or mobile construction
equipment. Rather, vehicles and mobile construction equipment are regulated by theNYS
Division of Motors Vehicles (DMV) and must meet applicable requirements of NYS traffic law,
including routine inspections of exhaust and emission control systems. Regardless, the
construction phase will be temporary, and once complete, construction equipment emissions will
cease.

Although DEC has a policy which requires consideration of climate change in review of projects

programs, as appropriate], it is not clear how the construction and operation of the proposed well

Response to Public Comments - Notice of Complete Application & Legislative Hearing


Kiryas Joel Proposed Mountainville Well No. t

October 2, 2015
Page 8

______

(i.e.,

which would be more appropriate for consideration of emission reduction strategies).


Construction and operation of the well will not significantly add GHG emissions to the

atmosphere. Therefore, no climate change impacts are anticipated from the proposed action.
Further, the Village has indicated that the Mountainville Well was intended to provide additional
contains an enforceable limit on the approved water taking amount of 612,000 gallons per day

yield and proposed pumping rate of the Mountainville Well is sustainable over time as the
aquifer drawdown rate is more than compensated for by the aquifer recharge rate.

Upland impacts

Construction of the well, various appurtenances, and 8" diameter water line will be temporary.
Upon completion of construction, ground disturbance will be backfilled and revegetated. As

ground disturbance resulting from construction activities will be filled and revegetated, no
*

+T;.

such impacts are anticipated to be temporary in nature.

be affected. In order to address concerns about potential impacts, and due to its proximity to the
Mountainville Well, the WW? permit contains an enforceable permit condition which requires
the Village to perform monitoring of nearby Woodbury Creek during the pumping of the
Mountainville Well, and to take specified actions if certain parameters are met, Finally, per
Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) provisions 6 NYCRR 62 1 . 1 3, DEC may initiate certain
permitting actions, including modification, suspension or revocation of the permit, should such

monitoring reveal adverse impacts to Woodbury Creek which cannot be mitigated or reduced
through conservation or other measures.

SEQR

SEQR Review Process The Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel circulated
for lead agency for this Type 1 action November 9, 2012. DEC consented in writing to the
Village's assumption of lead agency status on November 21, 2012. On December 4,
2012, the Village Board of Trustees adopted and circulated a Negative Declaration for the
project (received by the Department December 13, 2012). NYSDEC, as an involved
agency, is bound by the SEQR determination made by the lead agency, the Board of

Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel. Provisions of the State Environmental Quality

Response to Public Comments - Notice of Complete Application & Legislative Hearing


Kiryas Joel Proposed Mountainville Well No. 1
October 2, 2015

Page 9
review
was concluded.

Induced Growth The Village of Kiryas Joel provides an adequate response in their
Response to Public Comments.

circulated for lead agency for this Type I action November 9, 201 2. Following the lead
agency circulation and assumption of lead agency status, the Board of Trustees adopted
and circulated a Negative Declaration for the project December 4, 2012. Provisions of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been satisfied
and environmental review was concluded. Further, it remains the Department's intention
to consolidate all prior water supply approvals issued to the Village into one

comprehensive Water Withdrawal Permit with issuance of the requested WWP for the
Mountainville Well. No. 1.

Alternatives The Village discussed its investigation of alternative sources of additional


(W

confused the two separate locations in their comments made on the application: the
Taylor Road wells are located approximately two miles north of the Mountainville Well

parcel,] The Village made application for Water Supply permit on December 1 0. 2009,
but subsequently withdrew this application on August 2, 2012. In addition, the Village

also seeks to increase production from existing wells at its Brenner well site in the Town
of Monroe, Orange County. The Village has presented evidence of its search for
alternative sources of supply.

Community Character Several commenters indicated the project would negatively


impact local community character. Issues regarding community character are primarily of
local importance and should be directed, as appropriate, to the respective local
municipality. However, it is unclear how the commentors arrived at the conclusion that
the proposed well and associated improvements to be constructed on the 9.7acre
Mountainville Well site (pump house, storage tank, piping, meters, valves, etc.) will
installed below grade (subsurface), and thus be not visible to the casual observer. Note

that the environmental review of this Type I action was concluded, as the Village of
Kiryas Joel Board of Trustees, as lead agency, issued a Negative Declaration on
December 4, 20 1 2, which is binding on all involved agencies.

Response to Public Comments - Notice of Complete Application & Legislative Hearing


Kiryas Joel Proposed Mountainville Well No. 1
October 2, 2015
Page 10

water withdrawal [for further discussion, see the Village's Response to Public Comments,
Introductory Memorandum, Section II, Project justification - 6 NYCRR Part 601]. We have
therefore issued a Water Withdrawal Permit (DEC No. 3-3399-00065/00001) to the Village of
Kiryas Joel for the Mountainville Well No. 1 project. The WWP permit (pdf file) is available on
the DEC website noted above.

Finally, we thank all who commented on the project for your concern in protecting the natural
environment and resources of New York State.

wmn

::

vV:

";

'-

r.

...

..

.A'y

V
...

:y y :

%
i.

Vv;-vyV-

V
...'

: ::

; .

' '

.V; " " x ;

I;:

'

y-

:
..

:
/

" '

;V.

VILLAGE OF KIRYAS JOEL


MOUNTAINVILLE ESTATES PARCEL
CORNWALL, NEW YORK

Drawdown-Distance Projection from Data Collected During 72-Hour Pumping Test of Well 1
Completed June 7, Through June 10, 201 1
0
I

Fit Line Equation


Y = -14.84139173 * ln(X) + 67.91544846
i

Slope Over One Log Cycle = 34.17


Q = 425 gpm

T = 6,600 gpd/ft or 880 ft2/day

20

40

8
;

"d

60

|
I

80

100

10

100

Distance (Feet)
K:\JobsYVillage of Kiiyas Joel\Mountaiiiviile Estates Parce\HydrographsVDistance DrawdowrfiKJM-DistanceDrawdcwn.grf

LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM,

INC.

You might also like