Search Results

< Back Tony Judge Trustee Tony grew up on the Connecticut River in South Hadley Falls. For many years, he’s worked as a broadcasting executive and radio, television and film producer. He served as board vice-chair for the National Wildlife Refuge Association. Now returned from the Midwest to the Valley and its great river, Tony’s eager to help the Connecticut River Conservancy in its vital, exciting work.

< Back Tim Lewis Trustee, Secretary Tim retired from a long career in manufacturing, working at three different companies, each one smaller than the one before. The last was a family-owned business with 10 employees that made OEM Babbitt Bearings. It was a relationship made in heaven, and he managed it for 24 years. He served as Chairman of the Board of Education in Rocky Hill, CT, where he grew up and still lives. An avid paddler, and a former whitewater canoe racer, Tim enjoys multi-day canoe camping trips, preferably off the grid, and has paddled the Connecticut River source to sea. He is President of Great Meadows Conservation Trust, protecting and preserving vital flood plain wetlands and farmland along the Connecticut River in Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, and Glastonbury. Tim also works to protect and promote the river he knows and loves so well. CRC@ctriver.org

< Back Stephen Gephard Trustee, Vice Chair ! Widget Didn’t Load Check your internet and refresh this page. If that doesn’t work, contact us. CRC@ctriver.org

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing has triggered a rapid expansion of data centers across the United States. According to the industry database, Data Center Map, there are at least 4,000 data centers across the U.S., with already 126 in New England states.² These facilities “use or [are] able to use twenty megawatts or more of power and [are] engaged in providing data processing, hosting, and related services as described under code 518210 of the 2022 North American Industry Classification System.”⁵ They are also often framed as engines of economic growth. However, a largely overlooked cost is the strain on our water systems, especially rivers and local watersheds. Data centers run twenty-four hours a day, generating enormous heat that must be constantly managed.⁴ Most facilities rely on water-intensive cooling systems, consuming anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 gallons per day.⁴ The largest “hyperscale” centers can use up to five million gallons daily, roughly equivalent to the water consumption of a small city such as Concord, NH.³ This water is often drawn from the same public supplies that serve residents, farmers, and local ecosystems, many of which are directly connected to nearby rivers and watersheds.⁴ In many cases, it is not returned to the watershed, as much of it evaporates during the cooling process.³ The impact does not stop there. A report from Ceres found that indirect water use, primarily from power generation to meet massive energy needs, has an even greater impact than data centers’ direct on-site water use.¹ Power plants (especially those fueled by coal, gas, or nuclear energy) require vast quantities of water for cooling and steam generation.⁴ In 2022 alone, 40% of total U.S. water withdrawals, or about 48.5 trillion gallons, were made by coal and gas power plants.⁴ As demand for data centers continues to surge, so too will the hidden water footprint tied to their electricity consumption. Equally concerning is water quality. Data centers often use chemical treatments such as biocides and corrosion inhibitors in their cooling systems.⁴ These substances, along with trace heavy metals, can enter water systems.⁴ Evaporative cooling can also release salt particles into the air, which eventually settle into nearby soils and waterways.⁴ This increases salinity and harms aquatic life. Impacts like these compound existing environmental stressors and threaten long-term ecosystem health. Ceres states, “[d]ata center growth could increase water stress in already strained basins by up to 17% annually, with even higher spikes in peak seasons.”¹ Some prominent bills regarding data centers have been introduced in a few New England states: In Connecticut, SB245 is an act that would eliminate certain tax incentives for data centers. Currently, Connecticut has in place a Data Center Tax Incentive Program that allows the State to provide tax exemptions to eligible data centers within the state and make a minimum investment.⁷ In New Hampshire, SB439 was passed by the Senate and would authorize municipalities to regulate data centers in commercial and industrial zones. In Maine, LD 307 is an act “to establish the Maine Data Center Coordination Council and place a temporary limitation on certain data centers.” This bill places a moratorium on data centers with a load of twenty megawatts or more. LD 307 passed in both the House and Senate. Maine has officially become the first state with a data center ban.⁶ In Massachusetts, H83 would establish a special legislative commission to investigate and study the increasing electricity load caused by AI and data centers. In Vermont, H.727 is an act relating to sustainable data center deployment. The purpose of the bill is “to establish a regulatory framework that ensures responsible growth of an emerging industry in a manner that protects existing electric ratepayers from unwarranted costs and promotes sustainable climate, environmental, community, and equity outcomes consistent with State policies.”⁵ States across the Connecticut River region and beyond must adopt policies to reduce dire impacts to our waterways and environment. Without thoughtful planning and regulation, data center expansion risks quietly draining the very resources communities rely on most. Water is finite, local, and essential. As states compete to attract data centers, they must ensure that short-term economic gains do not come at the long-term expense of rivers, ecosystems, and public trust. ¹Ceres; ²Data Center Map; ³Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; ⁴Nature Forward; ⁵VT H.727 ⁶Maine Morning Star ⁷CT.gov

Cyanobacteria bloom at Nashawannuck Pond in July 2025 Program Overview Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) began monitoring cyanobacteria in Hampshire County, Massachusetts in 2023 and has since increased the number of sample sites and sampling frequency. This program was started due to concern from community members about potential cyanobacteria blooms at existing aquatic invasive species removal sites. Monitoring as of June 2025 includes 13 sample locations at eight water bodies, and each site is monitored on a biweekly basis from May through October. All results are emailed to interested stakeholders following sampling events. Additionally, town health departments are notified if a public water body tests positive for a bloom. CRC is not responsible for any cyanobacteria-related signage at water bodies and does not have the authority to enforce regulations regarding water usage. Please consult with local town governments for issuing or lifting advisories related to cyanobacteria blooms and water usage. What is Cyanobacteria? Cyanobacteria is a phylum of photosynthetic bacteria that produce chlorophyll as well as another pigment called phycocyanin. Some cyanobacteria also produce cyanotoxins. Cyanotoxins can have a wide range of health effects on humans and animals dependent on species and concentration. A ‘bloom’ is said to occur when the ratio of chlorophyll to phycocyanin reaches a certain threshold. Anthropogenic climate change may increase the frequency and duration of blooms, and this may lead to increased health risks. The presence of a bloom does not necessarily indicate the presence of cyanotoxins, and additional testing is needed to determine the presence of toxins and the species of cyanobacteria present. Different species may emit different toxins that are harmful at different concentrations and have different health impacts. Additionally, a cyanobacteria bloom does not always have a particular appearance, smell, or other indicator. As a result of these varied possibilities, it is best practice to avoid a water body with a confirmed or suspected cyanobacteria bloom. Monitoring Results This cyanobacteria monitoring project is still in its early phases, so the results presented below are not definitive. We now have data from two complete monitoring seasons, 2024 and 2025. Both years were hot and dry, with drought conditions observed late in the season. Collecting data for complete seasons under a variety of conditions will help to build a more complete picture about each individual water body as well as any impacts that land use or mitigation strategies have on cyanobacteria blooms. A total of 356 data observations were made across the three years and the various water bodies sampled: 2023 had 48 observations, 2024 had 143 observations, and 2025 had 165 observations. Based on the information collected, this program has grown substantially since the first year of data collection. Data from these three years at the sites do not show any clear trends. This is a small-scale study in a limited geographic region and may not be representative of larger data trends. Temperature, eutrophication, and other factors impact the likelihood and frequency of blooms seen in recent years (WHOI 2019). Additionally, increasing reports may be indicative of increased bloom occurrence, increased awareness of cyanobacteria blooms, and/or increased reporting capacity. Blooms Detected by Site and Year In 2023, blooms were only detected in Swimming Pond and Kayak Pond. In 2024, blooms were detected in Swimming Pond, Kayak Pond, Lower Great Pond, Triangle Pond, Rubber Thread Pond, and at Pine Island Lake (sampling location 1). In 2025, blooms were detected at Swimming Pond, Kayak Pond, and at all three sampling locations on Nashawannuck Pond. In the figures below, blooms by sampling site are shown in green (bloom detected) vs. blue (bloom not detected). Blooms Detected by Month and Year In 2023, blooms were only detected in July and August. In 2024, blooms were detected in July, September, and October. In 2025, blooms were detected in June, July, and August. In the figures below, blooms by month are shown in green (bloom detected) vs. blue (bloom not detected). Data by Site Group and Land Use Hockanum Road Ponds The Hockanum Road Ponds group is comprised of two small ponds on private property in Hadley called Kayak Pond and Swimming Pond (named by the landowner). This is the smallest watershed in the project at 0.11 square miles. Due to its small size, the entirety of the watershed is considered forested by the National Land Cover Database (NLCD). At a finer resolution than we can calculate, there is some development (housing) and open green space (lawn) within the watershed. Lake Warner Lake Warner is an impoundment near the mouth of the Mill River in Hadley. It is the largest watershed in this project at 31.7 square miles. The Mill River watershed has a large variety of land uses. In addition to a significant amount of forest, primarily in the headwaters, it also includes significant agricultural use, and most of the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. Lake Warner is preserved by the nonprofit Friends of Lake Warner and the Mill River. Great Pond Great Pond, located in Hatfield, is divided into two sections which we informally call “Upper Great Pond” and “Lower Great Pond.” Water flows out of lower Great Pond into Cow Bridge Brook and then into the Connecticut River. The 2.91 square mile watershed is primarily agricultural land use followed by wetlands and forests. Northampton Ponds Triangle Pond and Magnolia Pond are two hydrologically connected ponds just off the Oxbow and the Connecticut River within the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge in Northampton. They are frequented by paddlers and anglers. This is a small watershed at 0.22 square miles that is split nearly equally between open water, wetland, and agricultural use. Nashawannuck Pond Nashawannuck Pond is in the center of Easthampton. It has a 10.2 square mile watershed which includes Rubber Thread Pond, and it is part of the Manhan River watershed. The watershed is about half forested and a little over a quarter developed. It is preserved by the Nashawannuck Pond Steering Committee, an all-volunteer group of Easthampton residents. Rubber Thread Pond Rubber Thread Pond is a small pond located to the west of Nashawannuck Pond in Easthampton. Its watershed is a 1.25 square mile subsection of the Nashawannuck Pond watershed. This portion of the watershed is nearly half developed and only about one-quarter forested. Compared to Nashawannuck Pond, Rubber Thread Pond is more immediately affected by urban runoff. Pine Island Lake Pine Island Lake is located in Westhampton, as part of the Manhan River watershed. It is within and has a small, mostly forested 0.72 square mile watershed. It is also within the Manhan River watershed. It is privately owned and preserved by the Pine Island Lake Association and has strict controls in place to prevent the introduction of invasive aquatic species. Discussion Factors impacting blooms include temperature, nutrient abundance (particularly phosphorus in freshwater systems), wind and weather, past and present land use, and more. Anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change exacerbates risk factors for cyanobacteria blooms. In particular, higher temperatures and increased nutrient inputs may contribute to trends in blooms. Land uses that contribute to higher nutrient inputs may generally pose greater risks for blooms; however, this does not appear to be the case at the locations tested. A group of concerned community members organize barley straw deployment to help manage cyanobacteria blooms. Barley straw is being studied as a cyanobacteria bloom mitigation strategy that may reduce the time for which a bloom is present. As it decomposes, barley straw slowly releases a low dose of compounds (the exact chemical pathway is not entirely clear) that interrupt the reproductive cycle of the cyanobacteria. For this reason, barley straw is considered a bacteriostat as it does not kill the cyanobacteria. Barley straw has been deployed in Nashawannuck Pond, Pine Island Lake, Hadley Swimming Pond, and Hadley Kayak Pond. The volume of barley straw deployed at each site has differed depending on the monitoring year but is generally calculated based on the surface area of the water body. Overall, land use and barley straw presence do not show clear impacts on the presence of blooms. Hadley Kayak and Hadley Swimming Ponds have had blooms in each monitoring year, but the presence of blooms at other sites has differed year to year. More data is needed to better understand the factors contributing to blooms at these sites. Cyanobacteria bloom at Hockanum Road Ponds in July 2025 Data use and next steps CRC submitted all 2025 observations to the Environmental Protection Agency’s water quality database (WQX) in December 2025. This data is now available to the public through the EPA’s water quality portal. These data are preapproved by the EPA due to CRC’s Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) designed for this monitoring project. CRC plans to continue cyanobacteria monitoring at the same sites from May-October 2026 and, as of March 2026, has received funding from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for the 2026 season to continue this work. A note from Melissa (Water Quality Program Manager) and Jodie (Water Quality Monitoring Assistant) We had a blast this year out on the water! We spotted whirligig beetles, water striders, great blue herons, double-crested cormorants, kingfishers, a green heron, dozens of painted turtles and red eared sliders, eastern newts, frogs, grackles, ducks, bald eagles, dragonflies and damselflies (including a dragonfly larva clinging to a twig!), aquatic snails, and more! We both saw our first beaver paddling on Magnolia Pond, lots of bryozoan (a colonial invertebrate reminiscent of coral) that we were able to look at under a microscope, and a new-to-us insect called a woolly alder aphid. We are so grateful to everyone involved in this program and everyone who supports CRC. Most of all, we are grateful for our stunning watershed and the many creatures and treasures within it. Putting our feet up in the middle of a busy monitoring day at Triangle Pond Support the Water Quality Monitoring Program

Aquatic invasive plants are reshaping our rivers and waterbodies across the region. In this Live Stream webinar, we explore the Connecticut River’s aquatic invasive plants with a focused look at water chestnut and hydrilla. We discuss how to recognize them, mechanisms that result in their spreading, and the short- and long-term impacts they have on our native ecosystems. We also cover practical ways you can get involved, from adding intention to your own recreational equipment management practices to hand pulling opportunities throughout the watershed. Our lead speaker is Kelly Beerman, the Connecticut River Conservancy’s (CRC) Aquatic Invasive Species Program Manager. Kelly is responsible for directing, coordinating, and executing CRC’s work regarding hydrilla, water chestnut, and all aquatic invasives throughout the Connecticut River watershed. This includes current community education & outreach initiatives as well as designing and implementing future projects. We were also joined by Toni Stewart and Jim Straub from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Lakes and Ponds Program . Recorded on 04/15/2026 _____________________ About Live Stream : CRC brings your rivers to you! Join CRC staff and partners for a series of live lunchtime presentations, on select Wednesdays from Noon-1pm. You get to learn more about the rivers you love, ask questions, and interact with a river-loving community all from the comfort and safety of your home (or wherever you may be). LiveStream will be hosted via Zoom. Please register for each presentation to receive meeting information.