A recent court ruling means the amount of water the Mohawk Valley Water Authority can draw from Hinckley Reservoir is still up for legal debate.
In May 2009, state Supreme Court Justice Samuel Hester ruled that the Water Authority could take up to 35 cubic feet per second from the reservoir – or about 23 million gallons per day.
That amount is more than the about 17 million gallons per day the authority currently uses but less than the 48 million gallons per day authority officials believe they have the right to, said John Murad, an attorney from Hancock and Estabrook in Syracuse who is representing the Water Authority.
The Water Authority is looking at the recent ruling as an opportunity to prove that it has the right to the full amount, Murad said.
“We think it can only get better,” he said.
In April 2005, after negotiations stalled in the Water Authority’s attempts to extend its services in Oneida and Herkimer counties, the authority filed a lawsuit against the state, the state Canal Corp. and Erie Boulevard Hydropower. All entities involved filed appeals to Hester’s May 2009 decision.
On Friday, the state Supreme Court Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department modified Hester’s ruling – cancelling his decision about the amount of water that can be drawn.
The case will now go back to Hester to make a ruling based on issues related to whether the Water Authority is required to provide compensating flows for water it takes from Hinckley Reservoir, Murad said.
Still reviewing ruling
Friday’s Appellate Division decision also dismissed all claims made in the case by Erie Boulevard Hydropower, which relies on Hinckley Reservoir and West Canada Creek to produce electricity.
The power company is reviewing the decision but is pleased with aspects of the ruling relating to the agreements that govern the operation of the reservoir, according to an e-mailed statement from Julie Smith-Galvin, a spokeswoman for Brookfield Renewable Power Inc., which owns Erie Boulevard Hydropower.
Brookfield encourages the Water Authority to focus on installing low-level pumping and rebuilding the Gray Reservoir, which the Water Authority tore down in 2002, Smith-Galvin said.
An e-mailed statement from Canal Corp. Director of Canals Carmella Mantello also brought up the pumping and the need for a second reservoir.
“In the long term, construction of a new dam and reservoir is necessary for economic development in the Mohawk Valley region, regional water supplies and the production of clean, renewable hydropower,” Mantello said.
A second reservoir?
The Canal Corp. is continuing to push for federal funding for the construction of a new $50-million, 6-billion gallon reservoir to be located near where the Gray Reservoir was, Mantello said Monday.
Canal officials have been talking with local and federal officials and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but the plan would need unified support – including from the private sector, she said.
Water Authority Executive Director Patrick Becher, who referred questions Monday to Murad, has said a new reservoir is not necessary and that low-level pumping has been looked into and would be expensive on a permanent basis.
Becher also has said the Gray Reservoir was only used once for a test and would have made little or no difference in situations of low water levels such as 2007, when the reservoir dropped to within a few feet of potentially affecting the local water supply.
The Appellate Division ruling indicates that Hester’s decision on water access hinges on issues related to Gray Reservoir and whether the Water Authority is required to provide compensating flows in its absence.
