Low-Flow Rivers

We have tried recently to update the low-flow streams list that we started in 2002. One difficulty with tracking flow problems through the Clean Water Act (CWA) is that there is controversy as to what extent CWA addresses water quantity as opposed to water quality.  EPA, Rivers Alliance, and others have urged the CT DEP to add a flow criterion to their water quality standards, if only on the lines of:  “Flows sufficient to support designated uses.”  This has not happened.

Thus, flow impairment has always been a bit of an orphan category, treated somewhat haphazardly.  For example, when the Shepaug River began to flow low the late 1980s, there were a lot of complaints (it was really low) but no one sought to get it onto the list of impaired waters until about the mid-90s.  No sooner was it on than DEP decided to take it off (I assume at someone’s request).  Then they reversed that decision.  Subsequent to the trial but prior any court agreement, the Shepaug was dropped from the list.  When I protested, I was told that only streams for which there was incontrovertible evidence of flow impairment would be included.  I pointed out that there were several boxes of sworn court testimony, records, and photos on the impairment due to low flow.  So the river was put back on the list, where it still is, although I have noted in Rivers Alliance list that it should be dropped in the near future. 

According to Lee Dunbar, the only rivers that will now be categorized as flow impaired are rivers where the DEP has seen total drawdown to the river bed.  Obviously, this is late in the game.  With respect to the Fenton River at UConn, for example, there were recorded concerns going back into the1990s that UConn was going to dry up the river.  This is the point at which we would like to see flow protections.  However, nothing was done until UConn actually did dry up the river in 2005.  And one reason that happened was that no one had required UConn to maintain its backup system (taking water fro the Willimantic side), so when they tried to use it, they found pipes rusted, valves stuck, etc.  This is basic operational maintenance of infrastructure that should be required as part of a flow management plan. 

So, in compiling our attached list, we used the combined 303(d) lists of impaired rivers as a guide, knowing that many corrections are needed. We added citations so you can what we did.  I still call it a draft, so that if you have corrections, please send them along. 

Here is some relevant information from the DEP’s 2008 report:

2008 STATE OF CONNECTICUT INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY REPORT PURSUANT TO SEC. 305(B) AND 303(D) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT

For the current reporting cycle, any assessment based on data collected since the year 2002 was considered relevant even if no new data were collected between 2002 and 2007. Any past assessment indicating impairment of use was retained regardless of the age of the data pending new data indicating designated uses are supported. A summary of assessment results is provided in Table 1. [We have done somewhat the same thing in our list, assuming that flow-threatened streams from 2002 remain flow threatened unless there is data to the contrary.]

Table 1 shows that only about 50% (very rough calculation) of rivers have even been assessed for whether they meet standards for recreational use and/or aquatic life.  Thus, the data is incomplete.

In 2006, DEP made some changes:

They went to a probabilistic means of assessment (given the size of the unassessed waters).  They combined some categories, for example:

Starting with the 2006 reporting cycle, assessments are based solely on the designated uses specifically stated in the CT WQS (CT DEP 2002). This change mostly affects assessments of recreational use support, which was formerly assessed for both primary and secondary contact. Since CT WQS do not distinguish between waters that should provide primary or secondary contact recreation opportunities, all waters are now assessed simply for “recreation”.

They dropped the “threatened” category for low-flow rivers, instantly improving the flow status of CT rivers, but eliminating valuable information communities could use to know whether or not they have a river that needs some extra help. 

They moved some rivers into what I call the do-nothing category.  These are rivers with low flows, channelized flows, etc., officially described as follows:

c. Impairment is not caused by a pollutant, but by a stressor not directly related to water quality (e.g., habitat modification, hydraulic modification). These waters will be monitored in the future, in accordance with the ambient monitoring strategy adopted by the CT DEP.

We hope this information is helpful. Please call us if you have questions, we can be reached at 860.361.9349 or via email: rivers@riversalliance.org.