The future of Rochester’s reservoirs

In the 1950s, the Genesee Brewery came up with a catchy slogan trumpeting Genny Cream Ale and beer as brewed with pure Hemlock Lake water. The beer ads did not lie. Strategically unstated was that the brewery’s water comes from Rochester’s municipal water system.

The water source for the city’s more than 200,000 residents is indeed Hemlock Lake, a seven-mile-long Finger Lake located mostly in Livingston County. Ontario County’s Canadice Lake—three miles long and the smallest of the 11 Finger Lakes, also contributes to the daily average of 37 million gallons of water that flows through a $45 million filtration plant into three reservoirs.

The ultimate result is the same for Rochester homeowners, renters and the brewery. Open the tap and city water—a past winner in an annual state Department of Health tasting competition—flows freely.

The well-designed system that serves the city now has been in place for 148 years. Once water is pumped into to the filtration plant, gravity does the work of carrying it to three reservoirs and from there to residents’ faucets.

The southernmost of the three Rochester reservoirs is located in Rush. The other two, in Highland Park and atop Cobbs Hill, are within Rochester city limits, where both form attractive water features long enjoyed by strollers, joggers and residents.

To meet federal Environmental Protection Agency standards, however, the Highland Park and Cobbs Hill reservoirs are in the midst of planning for extensive upgrades that could radically change their look and configuration.

The EPA and the city first inked an agreement in 2006 to bring the Rochester reservoirs in compliance with agency regulations called the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. A key feature of the LT2 rule calls for reservoirs like Rush, Highland Park and Cobbs Hill to be covered.

The Rush Reservoir was brought into LT2 compliance in 2012 with the installation of a synthetic rubber cover. The Highland and Cobbs Hill reservoirs have yet to comply.  

“I wasn’t there at the time,” says David Rowley, city Bureau of Water manager of production, who joined the bureau in 2014. “But I think when the city first entered into the agreement, it didn’t fully grasp the gravity of the scale or magnitude of what it’s going to take to comply with LT2, not only from the sheer size of the construction project but from the costs and the potential impacts that it will have on both Highland and Cobbs Hill parks.”

Since 2006, the city’s LT2 pact has been modified at the city’s request and to allow for new deadlines as the EPA altered LT2 regulations and water bureau engineers digested the impact of the changes. The most recent deadline extension would have the project finalized in 2029.

Outlook for Highland Reservoir

The city is looking first at the Highland Reservoir. While there is no current estimate of the project’s cost, the city in 2018 estimated $12.4 million. A review and cost estimates of the Cobbs Hill project will be provided later.

The LT2 compliance-plan deadline was supposed to have fallen this year. The city prepared to meet it, seeking public input and drawing up plans. But new EPA regulations, calling for the removal of lead in drinking water, threw a monkey wrench into the city’s plans.

Why does that matter?

Rowley explains: “In order for us to be in compliance with that regulation, we were going to have to modify our treatment process. The only likely solution was to add a chemical called orthophosphate, which does a fantastic job of controlling lead in drinking water. However, orthophosphate is also known as a fertilizer.”

Fertilizers leaching into water supplies create what is known as nutrient pollution, making affected bodies of water super breeding grounds for algae. Hemlock and Canadice lakes are largely free of such contaminants. Adding the chemical to the city water supply would create a problem.

While city residents, if given a choice, might prefer to leave the reservoirs as attractive uncovered water features in the heavily used Highland and Cobbs Hill parks, the city needed to determine how possible that might be.

“So,” says Rowley, “we petitioned the (state Department of Environmental Conservation)  to say that we want to make sure that we’re making the right decisions for LT2 compliance for both of our uncovered reservoirs, and in order to do that, we need to know whether or not we need to add orthophosphate to our water. What we didn’t want to do was to leave the reservoirs uncovered and then find out that we were mandated to put orthophosphate in the water.”

A study to make that determination began in 2021 and is ongoing. In a parallel lead-abatement project, the city has been replacing lead service lines. In the meantime, the EPA further tightened regulations for lead in drinking water.

“My biggest fear,” says Rowley, “was that we would spend millions of dollars to leave the Highland Reservoir uncovered. I think the estimate at the time was between $12 million and $14 million.”

Rowley worries that if the project were to go ahead with an uncovered option and then learn that it would have to add orthophosphate, water quality would suffer. Rowley expects to have “some pretty solid answers” to the orthophosphate question in late 2025, in time to meet the new 2029 deadline.

Current options under consideration include:

■ leaving the Highland Reservoir uncovered and adding a new treatment building;

■ covering part of the existing reservoir and walling off a section to leave as a water feature;

■ adding a new buried concrete tank for water system storage and retaining the reservoir as a water feature; and

■ taking the Highland Reservoir out of the system, leaving it as a water feature and a second storage facility.

However, Rowley warns, taking the Highland Reservoir offline would create new issues.

“Decommissioning the reservoir presents its own set of problems,” he explains. “The biggest challenge is that reservoir will not look like it does now. If you go there now, that water is crystal clear. It’s lovely to look at and the reason that water stays like it is because we turn the volume of that water over.

“Every day, we take six to eight million gallons out to send to our customers, and we put another six to eight million in. There’s about 20 to 25 million gallons in there on any given day. So, we keep the water very fresh.”

That turnover, says Rowley, “is one of the most powerful tools we have to manage water quality. Without that tool, that reservoir will not look like that. The concern is that over time, leaves and other things will accumulate in there. Water quality will deteriorate pretty rapidly without some treatment that will be costly.”

Currently, adds Rowley, the Highland Reservoir is classified by the state as a high-hazard dam, which makes the city responsible for its maintenance. Taking the reservoir out of the water supply system would raise questions as to who would be responsible for the upkeep of a beloved feature in the middle of one of the city’s most visited parks.

Weighing the options

At a well-attended public session held in October, residents made it clear that maintaining Highland Park’s current aesthetic as much as possible is a top concern. But, says Rowley, they also understood that changes are inevitable.

Rowley says he and the water bureau staff feel much the same.

“We love Highland Park as much as anybody else in the community and we love Highland Reservoir,” he says. “It’s a very important landmark and it’s a very important aspect of our water supply system. It’s very important for us to work with the public to make sure that they do have a say and that we have the same concerns they have.”

The city plans to seek input on its options for the reservoir at a public meeting in the spring. Rowley expects to have renderings illustrating the options in time for that session.

Still, he cautions: “Whatever option we choose, the aesthetic of the park is going to change. There is no way we can avoid that.”

Will Astor is Rochester Beacon senior writer. The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing  [email protected]. 

Our Nonprofit Newsroom Needs Your Support

The Rochester Beacon’s journalists are dedicated to bringing you high-quality local news and analysis. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit news outlet, we rely on donations from the community to stay paywall-free. Make a tax-deductible contribution today to support our hardworking journalists—and NewsMatch will double your donation.