DEC official updates Sullivan municipal leaders on hot issues

link to complete article is here:

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2009/February09/20/SCCG_Janeway-20Feb09.htm

MONTICELLO – There were more county legislators and officials than town supervisors on hand when a regional Department of Environmental Conservation official met with the Council of Governments this morning.

DEC Region 3 Director William Janeway touched on some of the hot issues, including prospecting for natural gas. He noted that one of the companies originally interested in possibly sinking wells in Sullivan now is not sure the Marcellus Shale reserves under the county are sufficient to make it worthwhile.

“We have essentially called a ‘time-out’ on the deep hydrofracking of the Marcellus Shale”, said Janeway. That, he says, gives them time to update the process of environmental review which will lead to sound guidelines that would apply to any permanent activity.

On other issues, Janeway said Sullivan retains the unique less-developed character long since lost in other area counties, such as Ulster and Dutchess, but large-scale development can happen if done carefully.

He also said the federal stimulus package has the right focus on one issue critical in Sullivan – clean water.

NYRI opponents urge more action

link to complete article is here:

http://www.thedailystar.com/local/local_story_050040055.html

By Jake Palmateer
Staff Writer

LAURENS _ Opponents of the 400,000-volt NYRI power line on Wednesday urged Otsego County residents to rise in opposition even as they hailed what they said was a major victory in the fight against the project.

State Sen. James Seward, R-Milford, and Otsego County Board of Representatives Chairman James Powers joined leaders of Communities Against Regional Interconnect, an umbrella group of NYRI opponents, at a forum at Laurens Central School.

New York Regional Interconnect has applied to the state's Public Service Commission to build a $2 billion, 190-mile-long transmission line from Marcy in Oneida County to New Windsor in Orange County. Various routes, including one following the existing Marcy South line in Otsego and Delaware counties, have been studied by the company.

A federal court Wednesday struck down rules that would have allowed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the power line even if the PSC denied it within one year of the completed application's submission.

"The good news is the Fourth Circuit Court out of Richmond, Va., pretty much affirmed many of the points our group made," CARI Chairman Steve DiMeo said. "We think that's an important ruling today."

DiMeo said it is the latest in a series of setbacks for NYRI.

"We're knocking chess pieces off the chess board, and they have fewer and fewer pieces with which to make a move," DiMeo said.

Opponents of NYRI believe the project would: result in higher electricity rates in upstate New York, is not needed, would taint the landscape of the region and could have health and safety risks.

NYRI contends the proposal is a technologically innovative, congestion-reducing project that would alleviate electricity supply concerns in the New York City area.

"The proposed NYRI line, wherever it would be built, is a bad deal for upstate New York," Seward said to the Laurens audience of about 20 county residents. "The list of reasons to oppose this line is a long list."

Much of the fight against NYRI has been outside of Otsego County because the primary route proposed by the company would take the line through Oneida, Madison, Delaware and Chenango counties. But the PSC has said the alternative route proposed by NYRI through Otsego County is a viable option.

STOP NYRI co-chairwoman Eve Ann Shwartz, who is also a CARI representative, urged the audience to get involved in the fight against NYRI, which she said was not over.

CARI has raised $2.1 million for its cause, while NYRI has spent $19 million in its effort to get the project approved, Shwartz said.

Broome, Chenango, Delaware, Madison, Oneida, Orange and Sullivan county governments are already partners with CARI, and those counties have provided 47 percent of CARI's funding, according to Shwartz.

Otsego County may be next, Powers said.

He said he expects the county board to discuss the issue March 4 and possibly appropriate funds for CARI.

"The number I heard mentioned is $50,000," Powers said.

A PSC decision on the power line is expected by August. Before Wednesday's court ruling, if the PSC were not to rule on NYRI by August, a year after the firm's completed application was submitted to the state, the project could have been approved by FERC.

"We don't believe there is a need for any line," DiMeo said.

But he said CARI has suggested two alternatives if the line must be built: Running the line underground through the Marcy South corridor or running it through the Thruway corridor. However, an administrative law judge has ruled out the Thruway option.

The New York Power Authority has suggested that the existing Marcy South AC line could be re-cabled with a DC line, which would increase capacity and eliminate the need for NYRI, according to Troy Bystrom of CARI and the Upper Delaware Preservation Coalition.

Several county residents spoke out against NYRI on Wednesday night, including Laurens Town Supervisor Oscar Oberkircher.

"We have to act cooperatively to fight this," he said. "This is something we have to fight together and with all of our vigor."

Several residents said Otsego County has been slow to join the fight and may have been lulled into a false sense of security because the county was not included on NYRI's primary preferred route.

NY State Admits Ignoring Threat to City's Drinking Water

Officials Suggest Gas Drilling Technique is Safe, Then Acknowledge Lack of Evidence

NYC City Councilman Gennaro Demands Immediate Action from Albany

 WASHINGTON – According to documents obtained by Environmental Working Group (EWG) through New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has not conducted a single test to determine if a controversial technique used to drill for natural gas upstate is a threat to New York City's drinking water.

 The technique, known as hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracing, injects up to five million gallons of water laced with toxic chemicals into the ground at high pressure to fracture rock formations in order to create a natural gas well.  This type of drilling makes it easier to extract natural gas, but at a potentially disastrous cost to the environment, particularly underground water supplies.

 A 2004 report by the U.S. EPA identified diesel fuel as a common fracturing fluid and concluded that 30 percent of four toxic components of diesel fuel --benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene -- remained underground after injection and were "likely to be transported by groundwater supplies."  

 Natural gas companies have expressed significant interest in using high-volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling to extract natural gas near upstate reservoirs that provide water to the estimated 14 million people who live in and around New York City.

 In two documents released last October and earlier this month, the Department of Environmental Conservation declared that it "does not…find a significant environmental impact associated with [hydraulic fracturing], which has been in use in New York State for at least 50 years."

 Yet when EWG sent a FOIL request asking the DEC to disclose details of tests of surface and underground waters for contamination by hydraulic fracturing chemicals, department officials responded that "the division of Mineral Resources does not maintain any records which are responsive to your request." EWG senior analyst Dusty Horwitt placed a follow-up telephone call to a state official, who confirmed that the state had done no testing and had no test results. Link to DEC responses:

 "The Department of Environmental Conservation violates the public's trust when it says that hydrofracing is safe for the environment," Horwitt said.  "New York's taxpayers and property owners have a right to know exactly what happens when tons of water laced with carcinogens and other toxics are blasted into the earth near their water supplies.  Whether out of ignorance or deceit, the DEC's policy amounts to 'don't ask, don't tell'."

 New York City Councilman James F. Gennaro, chairman of the council's Committee on Environmental Protection and a vocal critic of drilling near the city's water supply, yesterday afternoon sent a letter to Pete Grannis, Commissioner of the State's Department of Environmental Conservation, calling for the state to acknowledge its lack of testing for contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing.  He also demanded that the state require that natural gas companies publicly disclose the chemicals they are using and that the state perform tests to determine whether hydraulic fracturing has polluted water supplies.

 "This cavalier approach to the science is unacceptable, particularly when the integrity of New York's drinking water is at stake," Gennaro wrote. "Contrary to the DEC's assertion, a consistent body of emerging science indicates that hydraulic fracturing can contaminate water supplies. Though natural gas is often billed as a 'clean' source of energy, the extraction process poses serious risks for water contamination.  The state must conduct its environmental review in a thorough, transparent manner to ensure that the citizens of New York can count on clean, safe drinking water – now and for generations to come."

 According to Congressional testimony in 2005 from the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a group that represents governors from oil and gas producing states, hydraulic fracturing is used in 90 percent of all oil and natural gas wells drilled in the United States.  But recent investigations by the EPA have raised disturbing questions about the industry's assertion that the process is benign.

 Last summer, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management documented that groundwater in Sublette County, Wyoming, had been contaminated with benzene, a substance that has been linked to cancer and nervous system disorders.  Sublette County is the site of one of the nation's largest natural gas fields and hydraulic fracturing is common there.

 A 2008 investigation by EWG and The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, an environmental health group based in Paonia, CO, identified at least 65 chemicals used in gas drilling that were classified as hazardous or toxic under federal environmental laws.  Many of the chemicals are used in hydraulic fracturing.

 Despite this evidence, the federal government and most state and local governments do not require oil and natural gas companies to disclose what chemicals they are using in hydraulic fracturing or any other aspect of their operations, and that leaves government officials and citizens in the dark.

 According to a recent front-page story in The Denver Post by Abrahm Lustgarten of the the New York-based non-profit investigative newsroom ProPublica, EPA scientists said they could not assure the public that the drilling process was safe, nor could they accurately measure its effects.

 Joyel Dhieux, a drilling field inspector who handles environmental review at the EPA's regional offices in Denver told ProPublica that "I am looking more and more at water quality issues…because of a growing concern…But if you don't know what's in it I don't think it's possible."

 New York's Department of Environmental Conservation has announced it is conducting a formal environmental review of "horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing" that companies are expected to use for natural gas extraction in shale formations such as those near New York City's drinking water supply.  State officials have indicated they may issue permits for such drilling once the review is complete

 EWG recommends that New York state authorities decline all applications for hydrofracing permits until natural gas companies have publicly disclosed the chemicals they plan to use and until the state has conducted tests on whether past instances of hydraulic fracturing have contaminated New York water supplies.  The state should also decline such applications until it obtains reliable tests from hydrofracing operations similar to those that may be conducted in New York, to determine whether those operations contaminated water supplies.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.

Ski tax proposal draws ire of resorts

link to complete article is here:
http://www.thedailymail.net/articles/2009/02/20/news/news2.txt

Gov. Paterson’s idea called “shortsighted”

By Colin DeVries

Paterson’s proposed ski tax that could detrimentally affect the industry in Greene County and beyond.

“It’s very shortsighted by our governor,” said Scott Brandi, president of Ski Areas of New York, Inc.

The proposed tax would add a minimum 4 percent state sales tax to all lift tickets and lessons, as well as an up to 4 percent county sales tax. State-owned and operated resorts would be exempt from the proposed tax.

According to Brandi, the tax could not only have an extremely negative effect on ski areas but also indirectly impact area businesses that cater to the influx of skiers to eat at their restaurants, sleep at their hotels, drink at their bars, etc.

“We commissioned an economic study last year and showed that the ski industry in New York generates $1.1 billion,” said Brandi, “and that is only during the four months of winter.”

Greene County resorts Hunter Mountain and Windham Mountain are not happy about the new taxes and believe it will greatly impact their sustainability in these tough economic times.

“This is an industry with very high capital expenses and also very dependent on the weather and the discretionary income of our guests,” said Kirt Zimmer, marketing director at Windham. “At a time when discretionary income is so tight, an increase in sales tax will only hurt our sales.”

Zimmer thought it was also contradictory to impose a tax on non-diet soft drinks, while taxing healthy alternative during the time of year when it is really needed.

Brandi agrees: “We don’t think it’s fair. … You impose a soda tax then you turn around and tax one of the healthiest things for our kids to do in the winter time for our kids.”

The tax is not only limited to skiing either, it also includes golf courses, campgrounds, beaches, swimming pools, sporting arenas, bowling alleys, shooting galleries and motion picture theaters.

Greene County Legislature Chairman Wayne Speenburgh said it was unfair to exclude state-owned and operated recreational facilities.

“If he is going to do a sales tax and exclude state-owned ski areas and golf courses,” Speenburgh said, “I think that is putting private industry at a disadvantage.”

He added that the Greene County Legislature may be introducing a resolution opposing the tax.

A press conference will be held at Windham Mountain today to address this critical issue that many officials agree could severely damage one of Greene County’s most vital industries.

State Senator James Seward and Assemblyman Pete Lopez will be present to show their support for local ski areas.

Log onto www.stoptheskitax.com for more information on Brandi’s organization and initiative.

To reach reporter Colin DeVries, please call (518) 943-2100, ext. 3325, or e-mail [email protected].

For Immediate Release:                                                                                              Contact: Jeff Lieberson

February 19, 2009                                                                                                         202-225-6335 (office)

                                                                                                                                       202-225-0817 (cell)

 

Hinchey Hails Court Ruling Reversing FERC Rules

Impacting Proposed NYRI Transmission Lines

 

 

Washington, DC -- Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today lauded the decision filed yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that overruled the interpretation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of federal regulations that would have potentially allowed the agency to overrule state objections and permit the construction of power lines, such as the one proposed by New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI).  Hinchey has long opposed NYRI's proposal to construct massive new electric transmission lines, arguing that the project is not needed to meet New York's electricity needs and will adversely impact local communities and the environment along the proposed routes while taking private property through eminent domain for a private corporation. 

 

In its ruling released February 18, the Fourth Circuit struck down the FERC's December 2006 interpretation of Section 216 of the Federal Power Act -- a provision put in place by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which Hinchey opposed and voted against.  The Fourth Circuit found that FERC's interpretation of the agency's authority under Section 216 was "expansive" and "contrary to the plain meaning of the statute."  In a strong rebuke to FERC's decision, the Circuit ruled that, "The statute (Section 216) does not give FERC permitting authority when a state has affirmatively denied a permit application within the one-year deadline."

 

"The Fourth Circuit's ruling is a decisive and hopefully fatal blow to the power line proposal that NYRI is trying to force upon the residents of New York," Hinchey said. "By reversing FERC's misguided legal interpretation that it had the ability to override state decisions that deny power line permit applications, the court has restored some balance and common sense to this regulatory process.  The courts made it clear that if the State of New York finds that NYRI is not needed and denies NYRI's application within the one-year statutory time frame, FERC has no right to overturn the state's denial.  This ruling is a victory for the residents and ratepayers of New York, and I congratulate and thank all of the parties who successfully pursued and argued this case, including Communities Against Regional Interconnect, the New York Public Service Commission, and the New York Attorney General."

 

Hinchey has previously challenged FERC's authority to designate so-called "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" that potentially allow the agency to permit construction of electricity transmission facility under certain circumstances and could have been used to permit NYRI over New York State objections and denials.  Hinchey has also worked with other members of Congress to revoke and amend sections of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that included Section 216 and FERC's permitting authority for power lines in federal law.

 

###

Federal court says FERC overstepped bounds in NYRI case

link to complete article is here:

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2009/February09/19/NYRI_FERC_ct-19Feb09.html

WASHINGTON – New York Regional Interconnection, the company that wants to build an electric transmission line from Utica to New Windsor, appears to have suffered a setback as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission overstepped its mandate in transmission siting, leaving the decision with the state.        

That is good news to Orange County Executive Edward Diana. “This decision certainly puts this decision back in the hands in the hands of the public power authority in New York State to make that decision within a 12 month period of time and that we would hope would be in denial of this NYRI application to enhance and build this line in the seven counties,” he said. “We think it’s unnecessary.”

US Senator Charles Schumer said the decision is a victory. “This decision puts the kibosh on NYRI’s effort to do an end-around local law and correctly determines that New York State should have the preeminent role in siting projects like NYRI,” he said. “NYRI’s proposed path remains unduly intrusive and would have damaging impacts on parks, vista and communities from Utica to Chenango to the Catskills to Orange County.”

Len Singer, General Counsel for New York Regional Interconnection responded with a statement:

"The 4th Circuit decision holds that the FERC cannot exercise siting jurisdiction if a state siting authority denies an application within a year after the application is filed. If a state denial comes more than a year after an application is filed, then the FERC would have jurisdiction. NYRI's application was filed February 20, 2008 so if a denial were to occur by the NY PSC after February 20, 2009 it would be subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Court's decision. NYRI believes that if the project is judged on its merits by an independent, objective siting authority, it will find that the project is in the public interest."

 

Spotlight - PA Trout Unlimited Issues White Paper On Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Drilling

PA Council of Trout Unlimited, which represents 13,000 members in 53 local Chapters across the state, issued a white paper this week outlining its concerns about drilling for natural gas in theMarcellus Shale formation outlining several concerns about the need to make sure drilling is done in a way that does not damage natural resources.

 

The following is a summary of the white paper which is available online.

 

"We understand that natural gas drilling and other energy developments are important to the economy of the Commonwealth and the nation. However, we are adamant that this drilling be done in a manner that does not damage our natural resources. Deep gas well drilling is relatively new to Pennsylvania , and the environmental concerns have not been fully evaluated prior to numerous permits being issued. Adequate permit restrictions and oversight are necessary. We encourage our regulatory agencies to actively ensure that all protections be enforced to protect our water resources as afforded under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Streams Law."
 

PA Trout outlined several concerns:

 

-- The removal of millions of gallons of water from streams and aquifers to frack the Marcellus gas producing zones;

 

-- The potential environmental damage the fracking water will do; both on site and during its disposal;

 

-- Drilling activity in Special Protection Watersheds (High Quality and Exceptional Value streams) and Wilderness Trout Designated areas may permanently affect these areas;

 

-- Bonding is inadequate to deal with plugging/closing of wells and to deal with any long-term environmental implications of orphan/abandoned well sites;

 

-- Potential increase in sediment and stormwater from the well pad sites; and

 

-- Resource agencies may be inadequately staffed to deal with the increase in permit requests and on site enforcement.

In response to these concerns, the Council makes 13 recommendations:

1. Marcellus Shale drilling and production presents a new series of problems. Namely, the need for millions of gallons of water for fracking, and the need to properly treat and dispose of this water when it returns to the wellhead. Simply put, Pennsylvania must enact criteria and disposal methods not yet employed in the Commonwealth. As an organization concerned with coldwater fisheries and the water quality and quantity needed to support these fisheries, Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited (PATU) insists that PA DEP must meet this new challenge. For example, PA DEP should encourage the use of reverse osmosis units to remove salts and any associated heavy metals from production waters and reuse the resulting water for future fracking.

 

2. PATU strongly believes that Marcellus Shale development cannot be permitted within Exceptional Value (EV) watersheds. We do not see how the existing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment and erosion control, given the significant earth disturbances associated with road and pad construction, can comply with the anti-degradation standards required under the Clean Streams Law.

 

3. PATU sees an urgent need for PA DEP to change its present bonding requirements for existing vertical wells, and to cover the likely higher plugging costs for Marcellus wells. PA DEP needs to take immediate steps to determine the anticipated costs of closing Marcellus wells. PA DEP needs to consult with surrounding states regarding their existing or proposed bonding rates for this class of wells. PA DEP also needs to work closely with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) to assure that bonding rates meet the necessary closing costs for Marcellus wells. Without adequate bonding, Pennsylvania will inherit more abandoned wells that cannot be properly closed, and that risk the spewing of contaminants into our waterways, much as we presently see from pre-Act drilling, and where bonding was inadequate to close the wells.

 

4. PATU sees an urgent need for PA DEP to require a severance fee adequate to meet the Department’s costs for permitting, inspections and enforcement, including the logistical needs of the program.

 

5. In High Quality-Coldwater Fishery (HQ-CWF) watersheds, PA DEP should, at minimum, require individual permits for gas development. Individual permits assure that the public has an opportunity to review, object to, or request a public meeting on, the proposed drilling operation and its associated discharges prior to the issuance of the permit. These options are not available with the present practice of issuing general permits pursuant to Chapter 102. Appeal rights, under the general permit, are limited to a short window after issuance of the permit. We find this practice unacceptable.

 

6. Drilling projects have the potential to cause multiple impacts on our environment. Permit approvals should consider all of the impacts before issuing a permit, including water needs for drilling, treatment and discharge of backflows and brine, habitat destruction from drill site pads, and erosion from road construction and pipeline construction.

 

7. PATU urges state agencies to prohibit any oil and gas development in Exceptional Value (EV) watersheds, Wilderness Trout Stream watersheds, EV wetlands or areas containing threatened or endangered species. Increased oversight should be applied in High Quality-Coldwater Fishery (HQ-CWF) watersheds.

 

8. We insist that water withdrawal permitting by SRBC, DRBC and PA DEP be closely monitored. Namely, flows from the permitted watershed need to be documented at the time of withdrawal to assure that the stream uses are protected. This will require that flow monitoring devices are part of the permit, thus assuring that the Q-7/10* is not violated.

 

9. PA DEP is obligated to consider the cumulative impacts these drilling sites will pose in a watershed. In addition, resource agencies should evaluate the overall impacts to groundwater and surface flows and place a cap on permits to prevent Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) from being reached. While any one project may do minimal damage, the cumulative impacts from multiple projects could cause significant damage.

 

10. Surface landowners must consider the cumulative impacts of site development as it pertains to forest fragmentation and its potential impacts on our coldwater resources.

 

11. Roads built to and around well pad sites should be required to incorporate Environmentally Sensitive Maintenance principles as outlined by the Center for Dirt and Gravel Roads Program.

 

12. Fracking water must be treated at facilities built to meet NPDES permit requirements. Municipal sewage treatment plants are not capable of treating chlorides and toxins present in fracking water.

 

13. The public has the right to know what materials the industry is injecting for Marcellus Shale development. It also has the right to know the chemical analysis of the flowback water.

PA Trout recommends those sharing these concerns contact the Department of Environmental Protection, county conservation districts, the Game Commission and the Fish and Boat Commission in their local areas.

The full white paper is available online.

*Q-7/10 is defined as a consecutive 7- day low streamflow during a ten year drought. Water qualitymodeling is based on this low flow condition to assure that stream uses are maintained.

Central NY ‘Racino’ Project Faces Delay

link to complete article is here:
http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=7DB283628F3139C27DE317AF41E699FA

Empire Resorts, Inc. apparently won’t start building its planned $1 billion "racino" - a combined hotel, casino and horse racing track -- in east-central New York this spring.

The project, like most other big development efforts, has had a tough time securing the full financing necessary for build out. The gaming resort operator and its developer, Cappelli Enterprises, announced this week that its joint venture partner, Concord Associates LP, received approval from the Thompson (NY) Planning Board to build its Concord-Empire Hotel and Casino project in phases rather than all at once.

Under the amended site plan, Empire would build a 500-room resort hotel, casino, spa and racetrack during the first phase, now expected to occur "within the next 18 to 24 months," the company said in a release. The original proposal called for a 750-room hotel, with the project to be started this spring.

Future phases would include construction of ballrooms, a 1,000-seat theater, a 7,500-seat multi-purpose entertainment center and up to 4,000 spaces in two parking garages.

NYRI threatens pullout?

Asks FERC to guarantee profits

link to complete article is here:

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/09-02-12/head3-nyri.html

By FRITZ MAYER

NEW YORK STATE — The company that wants to build the $2.1 billion power line through New York also wants to be sure it can recoup its entire investment, but that might not be possible under current rules. In New York, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), the not-for-profit that manages the state’s electricity grid, determines whether a utility, such as a power line, can pass the entire cost of a project onto ratepayers.

Under current NYISO rules, the cost of the power line proposed by New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) can be passed along only if 80 percent of the entities who receive electricity from the line agree. In this case, the entities receiving the electricity would be downstate power companies like Con Edison, which serves New York City. The problem for NYRI is that Con Edison, which in a weighted system accounts for 21 percent of the vote for the NYRI project, has already said that it is unnecessary.

NYRI, therefore, asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to conduct a rehearing on the NYISO policy in November 2008. In another filing with FERC on February 2, NYRI wrote, “Unless the commission grants the requested rehearing or clarification, it is unlikely that large-scope, technologically innovative, congestion-reducing projects like the NYRI project will be built because there will be no way to recover a return of and on the investment. NYRI respectfully requests that the commission issue a decision by March 2009 so that NYRI’s investors can decide whether to continue investing in this project.”

Opponents of NYRI saw this as a threat to withdraw if FERC does not act according to NYRI’s wishes. Eve Ann Shwartz, a spokesperson for Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), in a press release said, “NYRI’s latest threat to withdraw this project indicates that NYRI investors and backers see the handwriting on the wall.”

Troy Bystrom, another CARI member, said, “NYRI is looking for a guaranteed federal ‘bailout plan’ to build this unneeded project in New York State. They are seeking to make a profit at the expense of ratepayers for a green washed project using 20-year-old technology.”

But Len Singer, the lawyer for NYRI, said a decision against the company and in favor of NYISO would not necessarily mean the death of the project. He told a reporter the situation would be re-evaluated, and that investors don’t intend to walk away from the power line.

Some amount of profit for NRYI has already been guaranteed by FERC. In September 2008, the agency ruled that NRYI was eligible for an “incentive rate” if it builds the powerline, which would amount to 2.75 percent more that it would otherwise earn as a regulated utility under NYSIO.

At the time, Congressman Maurice Hinchey lashed out against the FERC action, saying, “It is outrageous that FERC has required ratepayers to subsidize a project that is neither warranted nor wanted by the residents of New York.”

Local guest column: Too many questions, dangers in drilling

By Maureen Dill

February 08, 2009 04:00 am

—

Where is the voice of the majority concerning gas drilling?

According to reports, leasing firms control 67 square miles of land owned by 300 Otsego County residents.

Will we who represent the majority "" having ownership or oversight of the other 935 square miles "" stand by while our water sources, health and well-being are compromised solely for the short-lived profits of a few?

Or will we take action to protect our aquifers and watersheds "" for ourselves, our livestock and crops? There are important questions that we should be asking.

If a one-mile buffer zone between the New York City watersheds and gas-drilling sites is deemed critical to the protection of those watersheds, why wouldn't the same protection be appropriate to protect our watersheds and ecosystems? The city has warned state officials and the DEC that drilling could have "crippling implications," degrading water quality of Catskill reservoirs that provide 9 million people with drinking water.

Do all property owners know about the "compulsory integration" law? Under this 2005 state law, leasing company "spacing units" may encompass privately owned lands whose owners haven't agreed to sign leases.

Despite the risks hydraulic fracturing poses to human health and safe drinking water, why doesn't the federal Environmental Protection Agency regulate fracturing fluids? Why did Congress exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005?

The oil and gas industry is the sole industry allowed by the EPA to inject known hazardous materials, unchecked, into the earth. Halliburton helped pioneer hydraulic fracturing. The chemical mix used in this process is considered proprietary by the industry and kept secret, even from the EPA.

We know the effects on living organisms of chemicals such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. Should we accept the degradation of our environment and related health risks of these extremely dangerous substances?

To date, hydrofracking is suspected of endangering drinking water in more than nine states. Here in Central New York, aquifer infiltration by drilling materials and a gas well explosion have been reported in Brookfield and Smyrna, respectively.

Hydrogen sulfide and nitrogen oxide are also among other toxic byproducts of the drilling process. Many of these chemicals are known to cause respiratory distress, heart conditions and lung damage, and other potential threats.

Should we be prepared for increased levels of radon in our homes, since the Marcellus shale formation is radioactive and identified as a radon source?

Can we be assured that the DEC and leaders of towns and municipalities will carefully monitor every drilling operation? Can they afford to? Will they diligently monitor changes in radioactivity levels resulting from gas drilling? How will local government address erosion and sedimentation at well sites and enforce stormwater management? Since the 2006 floods, have flood plain data for our county been updated?

What will be the effects of withdrawing more than 5 million gallons of water from our rivers, streams and aquatic habitats for each hydrofracking operation? As much as 40 percent of that contaminated water may remain in the ground "" water that could eventually migrate through cracks and fissures into private water wells. How and where will the recovered drilling byproducts be disposed? We should be gravely concerned with the notion that toxic fluids might be stored inside injection wells.

Evidence is mounting of the contamination and depletion of water sources by the gas industry's use of billions of gallons of water. If wellbore integrity at abandoned gas wells is not monitored, the infrastructure can fail over time and become another source of contamination. According to a DEC report, "Once gas escapes from the wellbore, under certain geologic conditions it can travel considerable distances either laterally or vertically and through natural fractures reach the surface or infiltrate a water zone."

The report further states that gas in an aquifer can enter water wells "and can accidentally be ignited at the water tap or it can build up inside the house in explosive quantities."

Where is the voice of the majority concerning the effects natural-gas drilling will have on our community character and our pastoral landscape _ the reason many people relocate or vacation here, and among the reasons folks born here choose to live and be laid to rest in this bucolic countryside?

Every member of the majority should contact their local and state representatives to demand support in protecting our water and the quality of our lives. Elected officials who have leased their land to drilling enterprises should so declare and recuse themselves from any decisions in this matter.

We, the majority, voted these representatives into office, and they have a duty to acknowledge our concerns and respond appropriately. We can live without natural gas, but we, our crops and animals cannot survive without clean water.

___

Dill, a Morris resident, is a social justice advocate and staff member at the State University College at Oneonta's Center for Social Responsibility & Community.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.