Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are considering a move to Chester area and one of the draws is the proximity to the river. We are thinking it would be great to have a small boat to tool around in. What is the river recreation like there? Mainly motor boats? any sailing on river, or do you motor to the sound? Can you anchor and swim? Is the current too strong for swimming? Is the water quality really poor, I mean would it make you sick? Thanks all.
Water quality in the CT river has improved dramatically over the last 30 years. For an objective analysis of water quality, currents etc on the lower river bio system I would contact the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection see; DEP: Air, Land and Water
As xyz has said the water quality has improved a lot. It's now I believe one step down from pottable (tap) water. You'll find people crabbing about how "gross" the river is, but they are honestly cluess and just spouting off.
There are two sources keeping the river from having 5 stars so to speak.
One is the wastewater treatment plants in Hartford, they are outdated and overtaxed and sometimes discharge a small amount into the river. However, the MDC is in the midst of a major overhaul of the system and that will fix the problem.
The second is upstream pollution in MA/VT/NH. Primarily the same issue in Springfield as Hartford and the paper mills in the North. The mills have all but stopped, and if I remember right we and the feds are putting huge pressure on MA to clean up their mess since the CT River was given federal recognition as a "historic" river.
There was a thread on here were I went into detail with DEP info etc I'm sure if you do a search you can find it.
Bottom line, the river is fine and people jet ski, swim and fish the river without issue. Eagels have returned to the lower river valley along with a lot of "river life" in regard to wildlife and people (Marinas etc)
Sailing the river would be tough simply due to the surrounding landscape which keeps air currents from flowing "upstream" consistently.
Most folks motor the river into the "chase" (Where the river meets the sound) or North to places like Harbor Park in Middletown (Restaurant on the river) or Hartford even.
This is a pic of the 4th of July in Hartford with many folks boating up the river to enjoy them.
One of the reasons I choose to live on the coast instead of the lower Connecticut River… was the slower flow of the Connecticut River allows more pollutants/containments a longer residence time. Unfortunately, the Connecticut River that runs from up in New England right down to Long Island, NY waters…and several nuke power stations send “treated” water discharge into the Connecticut from up river. Although I’m sure much is done to render this power plant discharge safe. Still, when you combine the up river discharges….. with the fact that there was some contamination at the Haddam Neck Nuke plant site in Haddam before it closed in the late 1990’s….I would advise against too much time “in the water” north of Saybrook.
I think you're a smart guy but do you have any information besides a "NY Times" artical from 1997 riddled with political posturing to back up "we should not be in the river"?
In fact that very article said this:
An expert in nuclear energy who was hired by the state...said that the contamination did not appear to pose an immediate health threat, but they were clearly outraged by the power company's behavior.
The CT River has gone from being a class D river to a class B river over the last few decades and keeps improving. There is an effort to restore Atlantic Salmon to the river as well.
There is significant studies and data that would suggest the complete opposite of your statement. The CRWC does water quality evaluations every two weeks.
I can understand how one might see a power plant (That has been out of commision for 13 years mind you) and get spooked, but I havn't seen any data to support that it has had a negative effect on the river...In fact the river has been going in the opposite direction and getting cleaner and cleaner every year.
Generally in the Northeast the trend has been to clean up these rivers and we've seen incredible results. With the Hudson in NY (the other big example of this) you can even swim in most parts and all but children and pregnant woman are OK to eat fish from it (in limited amounts). So I would probably agree with JViello's assessment on this one.
I can't speak for the CT river because I haven't spent much time in that part of the state, but I can say I'd never swim in the sound, the Housatonic or the Naugatuck Rivers. Too much went on in the early 1900's right up until the latter part of the century for me to consider it.
I'd really be interested to see the rates of cancer of people who live/work near these rivers, as compared to people who live further away. Not that I'm saying they are all polluted, but I'm skeptical.
I think you're a smart guy but do you have any information besides a "NY Times" artical from 1997 riddled with political posturing to back up "we should not be in the river"?
In fact that very article said this:
An expert in nuclear energy who was hired by the state...said that the contamination did not appear to pose an immediate health threat, but they were clearly outraged by the power company's behavior.
The CT River has gone from being a class D river to a class B river over the last few decades and keeps improving. There is an effort to restore Atlantic Salmon to the river as well.
There is significant studies and data that would suggest the complete opposite of your statement. The CRWC does water quality evaluations every two weeks.
I can understand how one might see a power plant (That has been out of commision for 13 years mind you) and get spooked, but I havn't seen any data to support that it has had a negative effect on the river...In fact the river has been going in the opposite direction and getting cleaner and cleaner every year.
Having a bit of a earth science background…and having been forced to read my fair share of environmental impact statements…when it comes to the health of my family…I take “nothing” for granted and trust know one. One must always consider the position of the ‘hired consultants” (and I say this both ways). The famous last words of many historic EIS (like Three Mile Island, Love Canal, PG&E, Savannah River…etc) had phrases like “the contamination did not appear to pose an immediate health threat”(lol).
Also, a decommissioned nuclear plant that has been closed for 13 years is “one second” of environment residency time for many environmental toxic elements. I know very little about atomic energy…and even less about it’s true effect on water quality. However, I do know that some “known toxic elements” produced and stored at former nuke sites have a residence breakdown time of 12,000 years. This is why many former nuclear sites bury the nuclear waste in a “tomb of concrete” several meters thick, and then drill wells to monitor for leaching. To tell you the truth, to this day… I don’t even know if there are spent fuel rods buried at Haddam Neck or they shipped them off site when it closed?
An educated “guess” I my part… is that a modest amount of air exposure in around the lower Connecticut River likely carries very little short term environment risks…however I would error on the side of caution… in repeated exposure in slow moving water bodies and watersheds near/around former nuclear power plants. In a humid, high rainfall climate like Connecticut, subject to none-stop leaching it seems wise. Just my “opinion” however.
Of course, such decisions are up to the individual…as to what they may or may not consider an environment risk.
PS Sorry about using a NYtimes article...next time I'll find one from a "imperialist Republican" source.
Thank you once again for voicing what I wish I had the knowledge and passion to do so myself.
Since I live a mere 7 blocks from the (former) World Trade Center, and was home that fateful day... and I knew in my bones that the air was unbreathable for many many days (and probably still is) after... and the EPA totally lied to everybody (thank you, Christine Whitman) just a few days after about it being "safer than safe" (not a direct quote, so nobody dig for it) ....
I completely mis-trust "experts" hired by "the state" -- because I know all about golf club parties and trips to the Islands. We were all told to "go shopping" whereas we should have been told to get as far away from town as possible for a long, long time.
If we don't have our hunches, best-construed knowledge, and life-long experience for basing "trust" on -- then there are certainly at least 2 different worlds we inhabit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
