Canal - FERC modifies Recreation Area

There are several subjects regarding the area of the Canal and it's historic locks located on Canal Street in downtown Shelton. This entry covers the recent modification of the recreation area at the location. I'll say upfront, that I am a layman and no expert, but to the best of my knowledge and information available - this is how I see a very complicated subject with multi-jurisdictional issues.

Much information, documents, links to online resources and such data are compiled on a webpage the Conservation Commission created covering the subjects being discussed for this area of the canal.

The dam blocks a navigable channel (the Housatonic River), and takes value from the public domain (water power, sometimes called riparian rights) into private hands (water's energy converted into the portable and marketable electric energy via a hydro-electric generating station). The agency that govern such activity is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). There are also environmental concerns such as fish spawning migration, watercourse impact (besides the obvious Housatonic River, the Captain Curtiss Brook empties into a man made watercourse in the form of the canal), in addition to land use issues. These can variously cause involvement by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), the Ct. Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Shelton Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) and the Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). All are regulatory agencies and are in addition to the Shelton Conservation Commission (CC) which I chair, but is purely advisory and can only comment to any or all of the above groups.

The owners of the dam and it's associated infrastructure are currently McCallum Enterprises, and they conduct their operations via a license issued by FERC in 1986/Mar/25, with the filing of final license documents occuring in April and August of 1987. A license of this nature typically has a 20yr period upon which it is reviewed. It is specifically referred to as "Derby Dam Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 6066 - CT". A component of the FERC license (Article 32) is a "Recreation and Public Safety Plan".

On 2008/Mar/14, McCallum sought to alter the Recreation and Public Safety Plan. You can read the submission via this link. The City became aware of this on 2008/Jul/8, as you can see on the scanned document at the top from it's fax date/time. The period for public comment had already closed on June 30th.

McCallum stated two reasons for wanting the change. Safety, and Convenience.

Of the request letter's three bullet items supporting the safety reason: the first will not occur for quite some time, but I agree is a valid concern. The second is so inaccurate that some might think it as deceptive. The third is no change from what has existed for over 20yrs and has caused no increase in hazard from the allowance of access which has occured over that entire period.

Of the request letter's two bullet items supporting the convenience reason: the first, while valid in terms of walking a few 100yds less than what existed, renders a more difficult portage locations, and much poorer fishing location given the attraction of the fish toward the more oxygen laden water in the vicinity of the dam. The second bullet refers to what exists aproximately 2 miles drive away, due to it being on the other side of the river.

The DEP sought intervenor status (basically puts them on a notification list for when things such as hearings or decisions are scheduled and noticed) and concurrently commented on the ammendment request in a non-supportive manner. The CC discussed this at their next meeting in August, and despite the fact that the public comment period had closed, they felt it important and wrote a letter expressing their objections. That letter as you can see, was courtesy copied to all local agents who could express similar objections.

On 2008/Sep/3, FERC approved the request, a new fence barrier and gate was soon installed, and the general public began to become aware of what was lost and voiced confusion and then displeasure when fully informed. (several calls reached the Conservation Agent and Planning & Zoning Dept in City Hall).

To my knowledge, the only other public municipal comments occurred when the PZC wrote a letter on 2008/Sep/10. However, due to the delay in our awareness over the filing (the public notice appeared in a Waterbury newspaper), the period when FERC allows public comment had already expired on 2008/Jun/30, and any effort including that of the CC would have had small affect.

The FERC approval did have an allowance of 30 days for requests of rehearing. The BOA approved filing an rehearing request on 2008/Oct/9 (see item 11.6 on p.16), six days after when such period of opportunity had already expired.

The lessons learned are:
1. Better communication must occur with City government agencies.
2. Better notification must occur between different levels of government.

If a reader of this account is dismayed, disapointed or mad that this was allowed to occur, I encourage you to WRITE to the following officials:
1. Mayor Mark Lauretti
2. Your respective Aldermen
3. CT. DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy
4. CT Representative Jason Perillo
5. CT Senator Dan Debicella
6. Congressional Representive Rosa Delora
7. Congressional Representive Jim Himes
8. Senator Joseph Lieberman
9. Senator Christopher Dodd
10. Your newspaper editor of choice.

There is currently no course of action available to remedy this matter as the regulatory agency (FERC) has issued it's ruling on the request. It is unknown at this time if an outside party (someone other than the license holder) can petition for a review and/or change of articles (The Recreation Plan) within a license.

If you have an interest in this matter, you can additionally comment publicly in this blog forum or contact me privately.