One Opinion: Yes, Connecticut Will Have to Agree to Broadwater's Use of Connecticut's Sound Waters

Leah Schmalz, of Save the Sound, answered the question I asked in my previous post, about Broadwater and the amount of Long Island Sound that would be off-limits to those of us who own it, if the LNG terminal is built.

The question:

I hadn’t thought of this before, but with the Broadwater terminal proposed for a part of the Sound that is in New York waters but very close to the Connecticut border, won’t some of the so-called exclusion zone in the Sound be in Connecticut? If that’s the case, won’t Connecticut have to sign off on the private/corporate use of publicly-owned resources?

The answer:

Yes and they are trying. The state has asserted (through a number of conversations and letters) that in addition to the NY Coastal Consistency Declaration, Broadwater must obtain a separate and distinct Coastal Consistency Declaration from CT. The hard to refute rationale being that the safety/security exclusion zones from the LNG tankers will be in CT waters and as such it has direct jurisdiction.

For the FSRU, CT has say under the CZMA as an affected state and should be included in all discussions over exclusion zones and right-to-use issues on the FSRU-- thus far that role has been quite limited. Should the exclusion zone for that FSRU expand into CT waters due to safety concerns, I would imagine that CT would also fight for direct CZMA jurisdiction over the facility.

[Editor's note: The FSRU is the LNG terminal itself -- FSRU stands for Floating Something-or-other Regassification Unit; I mention it here to show off my expertise in technical jargon]