The December 11, 2002 Letter to the Editor entitled "Filtration Best Way
to Protect Water" by Nathaniel Parish is misleading in several respects,
none of which surprise those of us in the forefront of sensible and cost
effective watershed protection for the Croton. It is not news that an
engineer would support a complex and expensive technological solution
but, in this case simpler answers will give better results.

The engineer's proposal, the construction of a 12 acre, six story high
$1.4 billion filtration plant in the heart of Westchester County, will
cost close to one hundred millions dollars each year to operate, use
megawatts of precious electrical power at a time when we are facing the
loss of Indian Point's production and generate tons of sludge that will
need to be disposed of each day. This facility will also need to store
hundreds of thousands of gallons of materials to be used in the
filtration process that have been designated as hazardous by the EPA.

Additionally, once the water has passed through this massive facility it
will need further treatment via chlorine, chlorine dioxide or a UV
system like that being constructed for the Catskill water system to
remove pathogens and other organisms that will come from the inevitable
increased development in the watershed. That's some solution!

In a June 2002 flyer distributed by the NYC Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) to its customers, Commissioner Christopher Ward stated:
"Filtration of water from the Croton System is not necessary under
today's standards or those anticipated in the near future."

Filtering water that fulfills state and federal standards will not
improve water quality; on the contrary, it will degrade it. Filtration
legally undermines incentives to protect the watershed, and state law
specifically allows less protection for reservoirs that supply filtered
water as opposed to unfiltered water. This means that efforts to clean
up our Lake Communities and protect open space lands will fall by the
wayside as monies are re-directed towards the filtration plant.

The result will be that communities in the Croton Watershed will see
increased development and, ironically, will be paying more for water of
lesser quality! This is not good for the nine million New Yorkers in
seven counties who drink this water and it is especially bad for those
of us who live here and depend upon surface or groundwater to make our
homes habitable.

The very best defense for our drinking water supplies is the undeveloped
lands that surrounds them and to identify and manage the existing risks
to water quality within the watershed.

The preservation of additional lands, combined with intelligent planning
and environmentally sensitive development are the only proven, cost
effective and permanent methods of drinking water protection. Study
after study confirms this to be true. Additionally, the replacement of
failing septic systems and the remediation of polluted stormwater runoff
are also cost effective and directly improve our individual quality of
life.

These simple measures, which could be implemented for a total cost of
about one year's operating budget for the proposed filtration plant,
could permanently and effectively control the possibility of future
pollution in the watershed without recurring high costs.

The recent designation of the Croton Watershed as "Critical Resource
Waters" by Governor Pataki should provide significant extra and
affordable protection, but only if citizens pressure their municipal
boards to enforce these laws.

Additionally, Five years ago Westchester and Putnam counties agreed to
upgrade their wastewater treatment plants to tertiary levels with the
added protection of microfiltration. This process produces waters that
are cleaner than the waterways into which they are discharged. The
project is years behind schedule and it can be said that this obvious
foot- dragging appears to be designed to force the filtration solution.

It is not too late to recommit ourselves to sensible management of the
Croton watershed. By so doing, rate payers and local taxpayers will be
spared the expenditure of more than $1.4 billion (in capital costs) and
one hundred million dollars more each year in operational costs for an
engineering boondoggle. At the same time our uniquely beautiful area
will be preserved for
future generations at a price we can afford.

Dr. George Baum
Dr. William Buck
Denis Castelli
Drew Claxton
Richard Corradi
Bob Dumont
Jeff Green
Ken Harper
Edie Keasbey
Dr. Peter Rostenberg