Here Are Unasked Questions The Murphy DEP Must Respond To About The Drought And Drinking Water Safety

Drinking Water Quality Institute's Expertise Must Inform DEP Managers

NJ DEP Commissioner LaTourette's recent Administrative Order No. 2024 - 15 that issued a drought warning explicitly requires that DEP decisions consider risks and impacts on water quality. Specifically, see paragraphs #5 and #6 (emphasis mine):

5. These reductions to reservoir releases and passing flows and any further modification thereto are subject to evaluation of downstream conditions, and maintenance of associated passing flows and water quality.

6. These modified reservoir releases and passing flows shall remain in place until otherwise revised by any future order or directive. The Director of the DEP Division of Water Supply and Geoscience (Director) and/or her designee(s) shall coordinate with water providers to assess the potential for water quality degradation associated with any reductions or transfers of water hereby ordered.

Despite these concerns about impacts on water quality and the safety of drinking water, those concerns have been ignored completely by the media.

DEP water managers are geologists, engineers, and technicians that lack training and expertise in public health issues (toxicology, risk assessment, water quality, etc). They are professionally biased (that is not a criticism).

Furthermore, DEP's primary focus and over-riding objective during a drought is water quantity - making sure there is sufficient water supply to meet demand.

There is a direct conflict between the objective of maximizing water quantity (supply) and protecting water quality. (see the letter below and my prior posts that explain those conflicts).

Given this conflict, and DEP's policy emphasis on water quantity (supply), and the professional bias and lack of expertise in the water quality and public health related aspects of drought, it is critically important to expand the scope of expertise and management objectives to assure protection of public health and water quality during drought management decision-making at DEP.

To provide this balance and expanded scope, I petitioned DEP Commissioner LaTourette to involve the Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) - here's my request:

Dear Commissioner LaTourette and the DWQI - Please accept these more specific additional public comments for the December 10 meeting:

1. According to Commissioner LaTourette's ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2024-15 (emphases mine): https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/drought/ao2024-15.pdf

"5. These reductions to reservoir releases and passing flows and any further modification thereto are subject to evaluation of downstream conditions, and maintenance of associated passing flows and water quality."

According to law:

"The DWQI is responsible for developing Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) or standards for hazardous contaminants in drinking water and for recommending those standards as well as recommendations for the implementation of the drinking water quality program to the Commissioner of the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)"

The drought driven current flow conditions and ambient water quality in source waters raises concerns about unacceptable risks from regulated and unregulated contaminants. DWQI responsibilities are accordingly implicated and triggered.

These drought driven low flows also may conflict with the technical assumptions and conditions of DEP issued NJPDES permits, the derivation of surface water quality standards, and the methodologies for DWQI and DEP conduct of risk assessments.

The DWQI clearly has a role and responsibility to assess these risks, given current low flow conditions, significant potential public health risks, and conflicts with regulatory frameworks.

The DWQI must be involved in the analyses required by paragraph #5 of Administrative Order NO. 2024-15 regarding "evaluation of downstream conditions, and maintenance of associated passing flows and water quality."

Accordingly, please provide a public briefing on the DWQI role in the aforementioned "evaluations", and describe how the public can access the data and assessments of the risks implicit in these "evaluations".

2. According to Commissioner LaTourette's ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2024-15 (emphases mine):

"6. These modified reservoir releases and passing flows shall remain in place until otherwise revised by any future order or directive. The Director of the DEP Division of Water Supply and Geoscience (Director) and/or her designee(s) shall coordinate with water providers to assess the potential for water quality degradation associated with any reductions or transfers of water hereby ordered."

The recently adopted Statewide Water Supply Plan has adopted findings and policies that are directly relevant to the "potential for water quality degradation associated with any reductions or transfers of water" set forth in paragraph #6.

Specifically, the Water Supply Plan revealed disturbing conditions during the 2016-2017 drought. Specifically, at page 204 – 205 of Chapter 7

as part of the 2016 Drought Warning, water transfers were ordered between several systems in order to preserve storage for those systems at highest risk. As a result, an estimated 1.8 billion gallons of water was preserved in critical reservoirs as a result of water transfers ordered between 2016 and 2017.

However, one finding from the 2016-2017 drought was reluctance from many water suppliers to make the complete transfers as ordered due to concerns around water chemistry. Following the 2015 re-emphasis within DWSG on the implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule, many water suppliers became more aware of the potential for chemical interactions between different treated waters and how that could impact corrosion of lead in domestic plumbing or lead service lines. Since then, water suppliers, particularly in the Northeast region have improved their understanding of the chemical interactions of their waters. However, the concern of water quality impacts as a consequence of transferring water in ways beyond typical flows remains. Reversing flows at interconnections or distribution and transmission mains can disturb biofilms and mineral deposits within distribution infrastructure and can create poor water quality conditions for customers.While in acute emergency conditions transient water quality issues like this may be overlooked by some customers, it may still have overall damaging effects on public trust in the quality of their tap water. Regular maintenance and proactive efforts to enhance distribution water quality remain essential to minimize these disturbances when they do occur.

Given these disturbing findings, what assurance does the public have that risks associated with "concerns around water chemistry" and the "potential for chemical interactions between different treated waters and how that could impact corrosion of lead in domestic plumbing or lead service lines" are fully understood, managed, and controlled?

The Department also found that "Reversing flows at interconnections or distribution and transmission mains can disturb biofilms and mineral deposits within distribution infrastructure and can create poor water quality conditions for customers."

Where are the studies that analyze these risks and conclude that they are acceptable?

The Department found that "the concern of water quality impacts as a consequence of transferring water in ways beyond typical flows remains."

The Department found that there are "damaging effects on public trust in the quality of their tap water."

How are these risks and concerns being managed under the subject Order?

How can the Department and DWQI establish public trust in the absence of information and full transparency?

I appreciate your timely response.

Bill Wolfe