The Shepaug River
| Home | What's New | Index | Search | History | Legal Issues | Get Involved | Related Links |

Legal Issues

Task Force Report

SHEPAUG RIVER TASK FORCE REPORT

Pursuant to State of Connecticut 1996 Public Act 245, Section 23

January 1, 1997

FINDINGS

  1. THE DIVERSION OF WATER

    1. During the summer months, the City of Waterbury releases a minimum of 1.5 million gallons of water per day into the Shepaug River.

    2. The summertime effect of the diversion is to reduce the streamflow.

    3. The lack of streamflow produces an environment that is not healthy for aquatic life, and limits water available to riparian land owners.

    4. It appears possible that the City of Waterbury could operate its water system in a manner that would allow for a smaller diversion and greater streamflow. There are a range of operating practices which could be explored.

    5. The most direct way to restore streamflow is to increase the release of water into the Shepaug River.

  2. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT

    1. The Town of Washington and the City of Waterbury do not agree about certain aspects of the 1921 contract Exhibit B

    2. The Town of Washington construes the contract as broadly remedial, in that the City is to use the Shepaug River as a secondary and not a primary source of water. Also, the Town of Washington holds the position that Waterbury has been or is continuing to operate in a manner not in conformance with every one of the requirements of the agreement.

    3. The City of Waterbury construes the contract narrowly, taking the position that it need only comply with each separate paragraph of the contract.

    4. Seventy-five years have passed since the contract was made and many circumstances have changed including the construction of additional reservoirs and a filtration plant by the City.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. The City of Waterbury should evaluate its potential to increase water releases to the Shepaug River during the summer months.

  2. That duly authorized representatives of the Chief Executive of the Town of Washington and the City of Waterbury meet and carefully review the contract for the purpose of achieving a common understanding of the purpose and requirements of the contract. If the representatives cannot come to an understanding, they should negotiate a resolution.

  3. The meetings and discussion should commence immediately, and conclude by April 30, 1997.

  4. The State of Connecticut Department of Public Health and Department of Environmental Protection should be allowed to participate as necessary during the discussions between Washington and Waterbury.

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT A: 1996 Public Act 245, Section 23
EXHIBIT B: List of Members of Task Force
EXHIBIT C: 1921 Contractual Agreement
EXHIBIT D: Map of Waterbury Water Supply System