Hi all - sounds like the same kind of "Smart Growth" (for whom?) deal engineered by Camarda,  Riverkeeper and the former Watershed Inspector General Tierney that is now giving Carmel a 123 room hotel and 300 units of senior housing.  Can't wait for Patterson Crossing and Stateline.  Watch for the players - local and otherwise - spin on these two projects.  Camarda is already whirling on Channel 8.


Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
 

New York Times Editorial

A Watershed Agreement
Published: September 10, 2007

A seven-year standoff over a huge commercial development that threatened New York City’s water supply has been all but settled with a new agreement that would permanently protect sensitive lands while providing an economic transfusion to an area of New York State that could use one.

If successfully carried through, the compromise will mark a milestone for conservation, for watershed protection and for smart growth in the Catskills. It could serve as a template for agreements elsewhere in New York and the Northeast, where the tension between open space and development seems a permanent fact of life.

At issue was an ambitious plan for a five-star resort offering 400 hotel rooms, 350 time-share apartments, a spa, conference center, restaurants and two golf courses on Belleayre Mountain, 120 miles northwest of New York and within 20 miles of two of the city’s largest reservoirs. The fear was that the project would destabilize the mountain’s thin soil, sending polluted water into streams feeding the reservoirs, and that it would also invite secondary development that would enlarge the threat.

Under the settlement, 1,200 acres on the more fragile eastern side of the mountain — nearly two-thirds of the land in the original proposal — would be sold to the state for inclusion in the Catskill Forest Preserve. The developer, Dean Gitter, would be allowed to build a considerably smaller resort on 620 acres on the western side of the mountain, but would also be required to limit environmental damage by not building on steep slopes and by not using chemical fertilizers on the golf course. The project is expected to generate 1,800 construction jobs and 450 permanent jobs and generate about $4 million annually in property and sales taxes.

Nearly as remarkable as the deal itself was the number of moving parts involved in putting it together and the fact that they did not grind to a halt.

The architect of the compromise was Representative Maurice Hinchey, an upstate Democrat. Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his deputy secretary for the environment, Judith Enck, were crucial in reviving negotiations with Mr. Gitter. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development helped work out the environmental safeguards. And the Trust for Public Land, an open space preservation group, engineered the land sale.

In the end, everyone gave up something, but the result was a victory for the environment, for the local economy and most of all for common sense.

July 12, 2007

The $2.8 billion hole?

Bronx water filtration plant under construction drowning in cost overruns and controversy

By JUAN GONZALEZ
DAILY NEWS COLUMNIST

Wednesday, May 30th 2007, 4:00 AM

In the middle of the Bronx's Van Cortlandt Park, a 380,000-square-foot hole in the ground lies at the heart of a growing scandal.

Back in 2004, the city decided to build a water filtration plant in the park, arguing it was cheaper than other locations.

But the Daily News has learned the cost of the project has already skyrocketed from $1.3 billion to $2.1 billion - and that may just be the start.

"We estimate the real price tag is already $2.8 billion and growing," Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Bronx) said.

Either city officials "lied" in their original cost estimate, he added, "or they're incompetent, or a combination of both."

Dinowitz demanded an investigation into the "astronomical cost overruns," sending off a letter to the city's commissioner of investigation expressing shock there hasn't already been a probe of this "apparent scandal."

A spokesman for the city's Department of Environmental Protection, which coordinates the water plant construction, declined to comment on the ballooning costs yesterday - which, by the way, will be paid for out of those whopping water-rate increases the city just announced.

But to longtime foes of the plant, the city's snow job is no surprise.

North Bronx community leaders said all along that a city-owned site on sparsely populated land in Westchester County was a far better alternative. But City Hall merely scoffed at the local residents, characterizing them as a bunch of NIMBYs.

"These costs are out of control," said local resident Karen Argenti. "It's approaching three times the amount, and I'm shocked that no one has said, 'What's going on here?'"

Many park advocates had opposed the alienating of parkland for a portion of the plant, most of which will be built underneath the Mosholu Golf Course.

Despite the widespread neighborhood opposition, Mayor Bloomberg and Chris Ward, the former Department of Environmental Protection commissioner, secured the backing of the Bronx political machine, the City Council and the state Legislature by offering $240 million in additional spending for the borough's parks.

As for Ward, the day after the City Council approved the water plant, he resigned to go work for American Stevedoring, a major port operator.

A year later, he switched jobs again - this time going to work for the General Contractors Association, the main industry group that lobbied for the water plant.

Dinowitz noted back then that something seemed fishy.

"No one knows at what point in time Commissioner Ward knew that he would become the general manager of the GCA," he said in a statement, "but the appearance couldn't be worse. At best, this shows very poor judgment and a conflict of interest."

Yesterday, Dinowitz went a step further.

He sent a second letter to request that the city's Conflicts of Interest Board review Ward's actions.

Ward did not return my telephone call yesterday for his reaction.

As for the cost overruns, city officials conceded for the first time at a May 17 community meeting in the Bronx that at least $2 billion in contracts for the project have already been approved.

That does not include any construction or design costs or various other expenses that Dinowitz estimates will add nearly $800 million more to the price tag.

What it does include is $1.3 billion for the general contracting work to a consortium of three companies led by Slattery-Skanska.

That contract was hastily approved after the original $1.1 billion bid by a consortium led by Perini Corp. suddenly fell through in April after the company disclosed it was the subject of a federal grand jury probe.

There's also a $30,000-a-day fine the city is paying for violating a federal order to build the plant.

The multibillion-dollar hole in Van Cortlandt Park just keeps getting bigger.

jgonzalez@nydailynews.com

July 12, 2007

DEP's $2.9 Billion Boondoggle

The true cost of DEP's fateful decision to approve an obsolete technology for its water filtration plant in Van Cortlandt Park and its obstinate refusal to consider Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition's (CWCWC) alternate membrane filtration is now known: $2.8 billion and climbing.  The far-reaching consequences of this decision are only now becoming apparent: blight inflicted on the Van Cortlandt community, rise in childhood asthma rates and adult respiratory illness and increased tax burden for NYC water ratepayers.

Spurred by pressure from the union and construction industry lobby and the NYC political machine, DEP ignored CWCWC's irrefutable scientific evidence that membrane filtration (comparable to "coffee filters") was superior technologically and economical in cost, energy consumption, land usage and impact on the Van Cortlandt Park and community when compared to the outdated, chemical-dependent Dissolved Air Floatation with Filtration (DAF/F) chosen by the DEP.  Microfiltration provides cleaner and safer water at a fraction of the cost.

The contrast between the filtration method chosen DAF/F and membrane filtration is startling.

1. Membrane filtration would require only 2-3 acres vs the 11-acre, 380,000 sq ft hole, the size of Yankee Standium, for DAF/F.

2. Membrane filtration provides greater margin of safety, since microfilters would block dangerous public health menaces such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia pathogens.

3. Membrane filtration is fast becoming the technology of choice for water treatment plants and suppliers.  For ex. as of 2000, there were 12 DAF/F plants and 120 WTP's in the US. Worldwide, between 1999 and 2004, 336 membrane plants came on line with a total of 700 operating by 2004.

4. Membrane filtration is so effective that utilities are retrofitting older conventional filtration plants with membrane units to improve water quality, reduce operating costs and increase capacity.

5. Membrane filtration is energy efficient. Conventional plants require 2 1./2 times the connected power; 3 times more power for maximum water production and 3 1/2 times more power for average water production.

6. Membrane filtration results in huge cost savings.  Compare NYC's current $3 billion cost for the 144 mgd chemical filtration plant vs. San Diego's 100 mgd Twin Oaks Valley microfiltration plant's total design/build/operating cost of $159 million.  Translated into per gallon dollars that is $20.80 vs. $1.59. 

And lastly membrane filtration has been cited in Water Treatment and Design, John Wiley 2nd edition, 2005 as "arguably the most important development in the treatment of drinking water since the year 1900 because they offer the potential for complete and continuous rejection of microbiological contaminants on the basis of size exclusion."

We urge DEP to abandon this obsolete, destructive, costly monster being constructed in Van Cortlandt park and embrace the 21st century of Water Treatment Plant design and technology: membrane filtration.

June 26, 2007

GREAT NEWS: Two important legislative victories for Hudson Valley environment

From: Ned Sullivan <takeaction@scenichudson.org>
To: Ann Fanizzi <geesewatch@aol.com>
Subject: GREAT NEWS: Two important legislative victories for Hudson Valley environment
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:03:47 GMT

Dear Scenic Hudson Member,

I'm delighted to report on two public policy successes that the
environmental community won -- with your help -- at the end of
the 2007 NY legislative session.

HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT (HVCPA): PASSED!
Our work for clean drinking water, working farms, scenic vistas,
historic main streets and recreational areas for our children
was bolstered by this new law that makes it easier for towns in
Westchester and Putnam Counties to preserve land. Senator
Leibell and Assemblyman Bradley deserve praise for this landmark
achievement that sets a precedent for the entire valley. I
encourage you to call Senator Leibell (518 455 3111) and
Assemblyman Bradley (518 455 5397) to thank them for their
extraordinary efforts.

EXPANSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND (EPF): PASSED!
The bill to expand the Environmental Protection Fund to nearly
$300 million by 2009 was approved by both the Senate and
Assembly in the final hours of the legislative session, putting
us closer to our goal of $500 million. The EPF is used to fund
critical projects in the Hudson Valley and around the state --
from waterfront-revitalization programs and community parks to
farmland protection -- and its expansion could not have come at
a better time.

WE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT YOU
These victories were truly a team effort. Throughout this
legislative session, we've reached out to you, our Scenic Hudson
members, when letters and phone calls to Albany were needed. I
know the pressure you exerted on your elected officials was a
big factor in getting these bills approved. Please accept my
heartfelt thanks.

GEARING UP FOR FUTURE BATTLES
In the coming weeks, I'll be sending you details of Scenic
Hudson's new public policy initiatives. We're in a race against
time: powerful real estate developers are clamoring to grab up
riverfront property, and we're doing everything we can to save
that land. Our legislative strategy focuses on securing funding
for protecting the land that matters most and working with
elected officials to strengthen land-use regulations. And once
again, we're going to need your help. Active, engaged citizens
like you are crucial to our success.

Thanks for all that you do.

Sincerely,

Ned Sullivan
President
Scenic Hudson

June 26, 2007

The DEP Indicted

Good morning all

The Putnam County Press has published a lengthy article that I wrote with the rather melodramatic title "The Kent Manor Horror."  I would have preferred "The DEP Indicted."  It chronicles the recent history of DEP's abandonment of its stewardship of the Croton Watershed. In Kent and in Carmel, it has aided and abetted developers by routinely approving projects threatening the environment, devastating our landscape and the quality of life of residents.

The issue of the paper is readily available at local stores including the A&P.

Sincerely,
Ann

Article or Letter to the Editor - Ann Fanizzi, Chair, Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space - 2505 Morgan Drive, Carmel, New York - 228-4265

Speak with anyone in Kent and even with some Putnam County officials and "dismay" is the word that most often arises when the subject of the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to approve Kent Acres application to participate in Putnam County's third (two in the Town of Southeast) Phosphorus Offset Pilot Program (POPP) adopted under the 1997 Memorandum of Agreement.  Was the DEP's decision in approving the  POPP for the 113-acre, 273 townhouse project arbitrary and capricious?  If one were to read the recent court decision, apparently not. 

No matter that the DEP's own recent evaluation of the POPP allocated for Brewster Highlands yielded less than satisfactory results. No matter that both the granting of the POPP for residential development and the project itself faced universal opposition of town and county officials including Legislators Tamagna, Intrary and O'Dell.  No matter that the stormwater plans came under withering criticism from Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition's engineer, David Clouser and attorney Jim Bacon as well as Riverkeeper's Bill Wegman.  No matter that environmental organizations such as the Coalition to Preserve Open Space joined with Hill & Dale Homeowners Board chronicling a series of cascading destructive water quality impacts to Michael's Brook, Palmer Lake and phosphorus limited Croton Falls Reservoir and numerous quality of life issues ranging from traffic congestion on two-lane Rte 52, strain on emergency police, fire and EMS services to crushing additional Carmel School District taxes for Kent residents and dilution of quality education.   

Why didn't this mass of documentation and credible scientific evidence matter? How did we arrive at this state of affairs? And here we must return to January 21, 1997 when on that fateful day, developers, the DEP, NYC and officials from Westchester and Putnam Counties and the towns in the Croton Watershed together with Riverkeeper, NYPIRG and other environmental organizations signed the Memorandum of Agreement.  Its effect was to codify a two-tier system: advantaging one watershed while simultaneously disadvantaging the other. It provided the unfiltered Catskill/Delaware Watershed, which accounts for 90% of the water for the city, with stringent protections against water quality degradation including massive infusions of dollars for land acquisition now totaling over $300 million and serious constraints and restrictions on development.  

However a different standard was applied to the Croton. Supplying 10% of the water for the city and 30% during times of drought,  the Croton Watershed would be sacrificed, starved of necessary land acquisition funds (a total of only $17 million), filtered and developed.  Putnam County received special treatment: the MOA permitted the allocation of three Phosphorus Offset Pilot Programs as a concession to developers.  And the DEP stamped its approval on residential and commercial development projects i.e.  Brewster Highlands, the proposed Campus at Fields Corners in Southeast and now Kent Manor in Kent.  

And that was not all.  The Croton would be filtered. The byproducts of unleashed development degrading the water at the source would be overcome by the construction of a massive chemical/ filtration plant "down the line" on 11 acres of Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx, whose ballooning costs from $1.3 billion to $2.8 billion has become a scandal fit for the tabloid pages of the Daily News.   Filtration accompanied by a bias toward artificial engineering tool box solutions -e.g. detention/retention ponds as substitutes for the environment's natural barriers  comprised of wetlands and forested acres and lax or non-existent town zonng codes fueled the unrelenting march of overdevelopment. 

Cursory observations along a five-mile area comprising Kent and Carmel provide stark evidence of the DEP's acquiesence, approving project after project, compromising the Croton Watershed. In addition to the 113-acres Kent Manor;  let me enumerate just a few of the more egregious examples: Camarda Park - 37-acres of pristine forests surrounding the West Branch of the Croton River's trout spawning stream; 100 forested, sloped acres carpet bombed off Stoneleigh Avenue for the 381 senior "Retreat;" and Hillcrest Commons for an additional 150 senior housing units;  more than 200 acres of forests and bedrock to be blasted out of existence for a "hotel," and over 300 units of senior and assisted living housing and, of course, 90 acres straddling the Kent/Patterson border for a redundant regional retail center - Patterson Crossing.

And finally the 35.2-acre, (30% on slopes eceeding 15% and 22 acres deforested) 120 senior units off Stoneleigh sponsored by Sen. Leibell's not- for -profit, Putnam Community Foundation.  One would think that such a project would be unthinkable - Dead on Arrival -  since the DEC determined that the phosphorus restricted Croton Falls Reservoir Basin already exceeded  the necessary total maximum daily load (TMDL) for phosphorus and  threatened Carmel's ability to meet its mandated TMDL requirements.  As I write, Planning Board officials have remanded the project to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Solomon-like interpretation of the 2006 senior housing law, which mandates senior housing units be located 2,500 feet from "retail,"  the rationale being that such projects should be conveniently located within walking distances.  Are hospital gift shops "retail?."  Stay tuned.  

Aside from Kent Town officials who have steadfastly waged a 20-year battle opposing the size of Kent Manor as contrary to the welfare of its residents and the POPP as a misapplication of the program, town officials, especially in Carmel, have shown no such disposition toward protecting the natural environment or the quality of life of its residents.  Instead, unashamedly they have adopted and/or revised zoning codes, customizing them to fit an individual developers' project plans, protecting their rights over the common rights which we all share as residents and citizens.

What must be done?  The Memorandum of Agreement is now ten years old and the devastating consequences for Putnam, the Croton Watershed and its citizens clearly evident.  Putnam county and town officials together with residents and environmental and community organizations, must demand its re-negotiation, instituting a new paradigm that recognizes equality in treatment and funding as the governing principle for both the Cat/Del and Croton Watershed.  The DEP must  regain the faith of Putnam County residents who believed that the DEP's obligation to provide stringent scrutiny to proposed projects would protect them from developers' greed, offical town indifference or ignorance and wanton destruction of their environment and quality of life.  As a first step, it must increase funding and lift the prohibition against use of East of Hudson funds for land acquisition.  And its first candidate: Kent Manor.

June 26, 2007

Don't miss important interviews regarding the Croton Watershed

CWCWC directors David Ferguson, Ann Fanizzi and Fay Muir will be on WBAI, 99.5FM radio, EcoLogic 11:00am on Tuesday, June 26, 2007.

They will be talking mainly about land acquisition in the Croton Watershed, the advantages of membrane filtration as opposed to DEP's proposed method for treating Croton water, and the tsunami of proposed development in the Croton. Don't miss this opportunity to hear three great speakers!

Visit www.newyorkwater.org

 

April 19, 2007

IF DEP CAN'T GET ANYONE TO BID ON BUILDING THIS EXTREMELY COMPLEX WATER TREATMENT PLANT AT THE BOTTOM OF A 100-FOOT HOLE, PERHAPS THEY WILL DECIDE TO USE THE MUCH SIMPLER AND LESS COSTLY MEMBRANE FILTRATION PROCESS, AS CWCWC RECOMMENDED.

Marian

NEW YORK BUSINESS.COM

DEP seeks bids as Croton project cost rises
By: Anne Michaud
Published: April 17, 2007 - 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------

The city Department of Environmental Protection confirmed this week that it is now seeking to negotiate a contract with the second-lowest bidder for construction of the Croton Water Treatment Plant in the Bronx at a cost of an additional $200 million.

The first bidder, a joint venture led by the Perini Corp., had bid $1.3 billion, which the city accepted in November. But Perini recently withdrew from the process, a DEP spokesman said. He would not elaborate.

An insider said that the city Department of Investigation had qualms about violations involving Perini's meeting targets for subcontracts with minority- and women-owned business enterprises; the company was convicted in California in 2001 of making fraudulent MWBE claims.

The DEP spokesman says Slattery Skanska, the only other bidder for the Croton plant construction at $1.5 billion, can now choose to accept or decline the work.

One source says it should have been possible for the DOI to negotiate a contract with Perini that protects the city's interest.

Visit www.newyorkwater.org

April 13, 2007

The Croton - Wrong Side of the River

Good morning all

Today's New York Times has headlined "City's Catskill Water Gets 10-Year Approval."  And I will excerpt a couple of points: 1. The EPA extended the city's exemption from filtration requirements for 10 years.  However, it came with a price. 2. The City has agreed to raise its open space acquisition allocation to $300 million over 10 years to acquire land and restrain develoopment.  What is $300 million when faced with a possible $1.6 billion filtration plant tag? 

And what of the Croton - nothing, zero, nada.  We are definitely on the wrong side of the river and that is the problem.  Land acquisition funds have dried up; the DEP has put a lock on East of Hudson funds for land acquisition so what is the result? Unrestrained development.  Sacrifice the Croton, protect the Cat/Del. 

This is what keeps me awake at night.  How do we acquire land to protect our environment; how do we forestall the paving over of the Croton Watershed areas of Southeast, Kent, Patterson and some of Carmel.  The DEP has given the green light -Go Camarda; Go Leplar; just go, go, go; chop it up; level it to the ground and pave it over. 

The Coalition to Preserve Open Space and Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition are fighting for the integrity of the Croton and we are heartened that so many residents in Kent, Carmel and Southeast have joined us. And we encourage Town officials of Southeast and Kent (in the face of threats of litigation) to continue to update and change their zoning codes to protect the health, welfare and safety of their residents and of the environment. 

However, Carmel, the largest and most populous town in the County (37,000), continues to demonstrate a reckless disregard for the environment; refusing to update and strengthen town codes that would protect steep slopes, ridges, wetlands, buffers and forests from the maws of greedy developers.  In fact,  a mixture of cronyism and cynical disregard for residents have characterized their actions, changing codes at will to enable Camarda to make millions while ravaging the landscape.  Look at what has happened to the hillsides framing Carmel - disseminated of forests, wildlife and beauty.  And this metistatic cancer is spreading to Kent and Patterson. 

Wednesday, the StopPatterson Crossing committee had a demonstration in Patterson; unfortunately conflicting schedules prevented me from attending.  Other demonstrations are being planned - for times and dates just click on the site and join.  Only residents can defeat this reckless carpet bombing of our land.

Sincerely,
Ann

April 5, 2007

DEC Announces Amended Wetlands Maps for Putnam and Dutchess Counties

A Total of 5,450 Acres of Additional Freshwater Wetlands Added

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Denise M. Sheehan today announced the release of revised final State Freshwater Wetlands Maps for Putnam and Dutchess Counties.

"Wetlands provide many vital benefits to the overall health of our environment," Commissioner Sheehan said. "These amended wetlands maps will help provide additional protection to these critical natural resources that help improve water quality and provide important wildlife habitat and open space in Putnam and Dutchess Counties."

Wetlands naturally cleanse and purify water by removing nutrients, sediments and other impurities and keep these pollutants from entering our streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Wetlands are especially important in protecting the long-term quality of the New York City drinking water supply. Wetlands preserve our ecosystems by serving as fish and wildlife habitats, especially for many endangered and threatened species. They provide crucial open space, and protect our communities against flooding by retaining and reducing the volume and velocity of water entering our streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs following a storm event.

The revised maps are for all of Putnam County and the portion of Duchess County that falls within the New York City Watershed. The amendments consist primarily of the addition of previously unmapped wetland areas, inclusion of smaller wetlands identified as of unusual local importance, and boundary adjustment to previously mapped wetlands. As a result of the amendments, a total of 5,450 acres of wetlands have been added to the Article 24 Freshwater Wetland Act Regulatory Maps in these areas of Putnam and Dutchess Counties. This includes the addition of 4,150 acres of wetlands to the existing 7,730 acres of previously mapped wetlands within Putnam County. Within the New York City Watershed portion of Dutchess County, approximately 1,300 acres were added to the 1,300 acres of wetlands previously mapped in this area. Approximately 76 acres of previously mapped wetland areas were deleted as a result of boundary adjustments.

Beginning in September 2005, DEC held two informational sessions and a public hearing to provide landowners, stakeholders and other interested citizens with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Freshwater Wetlands Maps before the amendments were finalized. The public comment period officially closed on September 28, 2005. The Department reviewed and considered all comments received and incorporated those changes that were deemed appropriate.

Copies of the revised final maps depicting the additions may be viewed at local government clerks' offices, local town libraries, DEC's Region 3 Office located at 21 South Putt Corners Road in New Paltz, New York, or on the DEC website: www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/wetmap/index.html. Full size copies of the maps can be purchased from www.btimages.com/ or www.syracuseblueprint.com/.

The Freshwater Wetlands Act (Act), Article 24 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, provides DEC with the authority to regulate the State's freshwater wetlands resources. Under the Act, DEC regulates wetlands 12.4 acres or greater in size, certain smaller wetlands of unusual local importance (ULI), and 100-foot buffer areas around mapped wetlands. The Act authorizes DEC to amend maps in order to add, modify or delete wetlands represented on the maps. For additional information regarding the Act, please visit DEC's website at: www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/fwwprog.htm.

Wetlands and other waters of the United States are also protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Questions concerning the Section 404 program should be directed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' New York District Office at (212) 264-0184. In addition, municipalities within Putnam and Dutchess Counties may also regulate these wetlands under local municipal law

Invitation to hear Greenburgh Supervisor, Paul Feiner

Our Water Supply: The Next 170 Years
 
The New York Times
Published: March 4, 2007

To the Editor:

On the Water Front (February 18, 2007)

Elizabeth Royte’s “On the Water Front” (Feb. 18), about the perils facing New York City’s drinking water and water supply system, leaves two important factors out of the equation.

First, the Bloomberg administration has demonstrated that it is less interested in protecting the water at its source than it is in appeasing the construction unions clamoring for jobs on an unnecessary chemical filtration plant in the Bronx — one that employs antiquated dissolved air floatation technology, with costs far higher than that of a comparable membrane filtration plant in San Diego County, and deprives an underserved area of its parkland.

Second, if New York City is serious about protecting the high quality of its precious drinking water, it will need to strongly challenge upstate real estate and development interests in the regulatory process to protect our water at its source.

Donald C. Pachner
Bedford, N.Y.
The writer is treasurer, Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition.


Visit www.newyorkwater.org

Take Action to Improve New York's Wetland Laws

 

Would you like to save wetlands in New York State? State Senator Bruno blocked very necessary wetlands legislation reform in New York in 2004 and 2005. Sierra Club sponsored an ad in a Troy, NY, newspaper (Mr. Bruno's district) to try to get the message to Bruno. The large ad featured photos from the Klydel Wetland area in North Tonawanda. Hit here to view that ad.
The following article appeared in the Albany newspaper regarding Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and his involvement with wetlands.



 

From the Albany Times-Union
By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer
First published: Sunday, July 3, 2005

ALBANY—For more than a year, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno has blocked widely supported wetlands legislation that would limit development on luxury home sites his family’s business recently sold for more than $1.1 million.


A wide margin of senators—three-fourths of them by some lobbyist counts—were prepared to vote for the proposed law, called the Clean Water Protection/Flood Prevention Act, but Bruno refused to allow any full Senate vote.

The state Assembly passed the bill 115-28 on Feb. 2, 2005.

The act would have created basic state protection for small areas of wetlands—ranging in size from one to 12.4 acres—that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 declared exempt from regulation by the federal Army Corps of Engineers.

Records obtained by the Times Union show a Bruno family investment, First Grafton Corp., has a history of resisting wetlands restrictions on a 625-acre development site in Grafton in eastern Rensselaer County.

In 1991, Bruno created a stir when his business mowed down forest and wetlands to create a road without any permits. In 1995, state officials warned that extending that road and building homes on at least six planned lots “will impact federally protected wetlands.”

In 2000, the Army Corps issued a stop work order when First Grafton began bulldozing and filling protected hemlock swampland to extend its road to accommodate the future home of Kenneth R. Bruno, the senator’s son.

Last July, with Ken Bruno acting as a real estate broker, First Grafton began quickly selling off its 14 remaining lots to five buyers, including one $800,000 sale in February of 10 lots and raw land to a Massachusetts developer, who promised to extend the site’s road another mile within a year.

The developer’s lots and road right of way are dotted with wetland areas of six acres or less that would be covered by the proposed legislation.

Bruno spokesman John McArdle scoffed at claims the senator purposefully killed the wetlands bill or that the senator’s interest in First Grafton Corp., which was placed in a blind trust, represented any conflict of interest.

”It’s outlandish to use First Grafton as an excuse,” McArdle said. ”That argument doesn’t hold any water.”

Bruno has repeatedly said he opposes the wetlands plan because it is unfair to landowners who want to make their own decisions about what happens on their property. Nevertheless, environmentalists who work in the capital are outraged and outspoken.

”We did a survey of senators on how they would vote and we know we had more than sufficient votes,” said Bill Cooke of Citizens Campaign for the Environment. “What happened? Joe Bruno is what happened. Joe stopped the legislation.”

”Is his conduct criminal? I don’t know,” Cooke said. “Is it outrageous, unreasonable and bordering on the immoral? You bet. It’s a disservice to the voters in this state.”

The bill was sponsored by Senate Environmental Conservation Committee Chairman Carl L. Marcellino, R-Syosset, and co-sponsored by 10 other senators, including two Republicans on Marcellino’s committee. Marcellino first introduced the bill in last year’s session. Lobbyists say 20 Democratic senators also asked to be co-sponsors.

The Senate Environmental Conservation Committee approved the bill 11-1.

Marcellino did not respond to requests for comment, nor did most of the bill’s sponsors or any other legislators contacted by the Times Union.

Sen. Frank Padavan, R-Queens, and the Senate vice president, is still committed to the legislation. “He’ll do whatever he has to do to keep it in focus,” Peter Potter, his spokesman, said.

Potter declined to say whether Padavan planned to press Bruno for the bill to be put to a vote next session.

Marcellino’s bill would give the Department of Environmental Conservation regulatory jurisdiction over 270,000 wetland areas around the state of between one and 12.4 acres. The Supreme Court’s 2001 decision left those areas without any oversight.

The legislative session closed again this year without a vote on Marcellino’s bill just as the Times Union published a June 23 report on First Grafton and Bruno’s perceived conflicts of interest.

The Senate majority leader was a 25-percent stockholder in the business, which was run by Bruno friend and lobbyist James Featherstonhaugh. Bruno transferred his stock to a so-called blind trust in 1992 to remove any direct financial interest that could have raised ethical conflict of interest issues under state law. Peter Bruno of Glens Falls, the senator’s brother, continued to own a one-eighth interest in First Grafton.

The company dissolved in May.

In a 1995 letter to Army Corps brass, First Grafton engineer Peter A. Chiefari urged federal officials to be swift in allowing the project to move forward after First Grafton was cited for building a 1.7-mile road over wetlands without a permit.

”The price range for the lots has been set at from $250,000 to $400,000 each,” wrote Chiefari, who did not return a call or e-mail for comment. ”Failure to obtain a timely approval may result in serious financial harm to First Grafton with consequent liability.”

In April 2001, the Army Corps of Engineers lifted a stop work order prompted by further road construction after receiving a remediation plan. Two months later, Ken Bruno, then Rensselaer County’s district attorney, purchased a 10.8-acre lot near the end of the extended wetlands road for $44,000.

That summer, Ken Bruno received permission from the Rensselaer County Health Department to build his septic system without a county inspection, according to documents obtained by the Times Union.

The remainder of the development includes a total of 49 small wetlands areas covered under Marcellino’s bill.

”The fact Sen. Bruno was involved with an enterprise that violated federal wetlands laws helps explain why he’s working hard to stop a bill that would regulate destructive development on New York’s treasured wetlands,” said John Stouffer, who is the legislative director for the Sierra Club’s Atlantic chapter.

Wetlands serve as natural water filters, absorbing contaminants, as they protect water quality in streams, lakes and rivers, advocates explained. That’s critical for municipalities that rely on surface supplies of water, like New York City and Albany.

Bruno’s stance against the wetlands bill contrasts with his usual support for environmental legislation and issues.

In April, he joined Gov. George Pataki and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver in signing a memorandum of understanding that makes $30 million available for local communities to develop strategies to clean up and reuse brownfields.

A supporter of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s new $20 million center for future energy systems, Bruno also took the lead in passing a tough anti-smoking law in 2003. In August 2000, he delivered a $400,000 state grant to Troy to renovate Riverfront Park and improve the view.

In 1998 he rolled out $6.6 million in pork barrel grants for historic preservation and environmental conservation around the Capital Region.

Bruno spokesman McArdle said detractors may as well blame First Grafton for all of what ails the Legislature, including its failure to restore the death penalty.

The Senate majority leader became more defensive this year after a May report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, a downstate think tank, slapped him for “standing in the way of progress” as he continues to control what legislation sees the light of day.

Cooke, of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a Schoharie County farmer, said he and his colleagues persuaded tens of thousands of New Yorkers to ask their state senators to support the wetlands bill.

Cooke owns 14 acres and rents another 80 or so. He acknowledged the bill would prevent him from developing the majority of his property.

”I’m a conservative Republican, and I still recognize the need to protect it,” he said.

”This issue is not about Joe Bruno and Bill Cooke,” Cooke said. ”It’s about our children and their children.”

”I understand about peoples’ property rights, but that’s life. We regulate everything, including the fence height in between peoples’ houses—and we can’t protect our wetlands? Come on. Is it public need? Or personal greed?”

Rob Moore, a lobbyist with Environmental Advocates, was another of many who urged state lawmakers to pass the wetlands legislation, which would require any development that encompasses a smaller wetland to obtain a DEC permit.

Moore agreed with his colleagues that Bruno’s refusal to allow votes on certain bills seems to follow a pattern directly related “to his reported personal and business interests.”

”The thumb was already put on this early,” he said. “It didn’t get a debate on the floor. That doesn’t happen in any other state.” 

 


Read letters of support for the new wetlands legislation.


Please contact your state senators in New York State to support the next senate version of revised wetlands legislation. Also read the information (further below) that compares New York's wetlands laws to other states in the northeast and discusses the legislation that has already passed the Assembly.

 

New York State Assembly Passes 2005 Wetlands Bill

 

On Wednesday February 2, 2005 The New York State Assembly passed the Clean Water Protection/Flooding Prevention Act (A.2048), sponsored by Assemblyman Thomas DiNapoli.

Last year this measure was one of the top priorities for many environmental organizations, including Sierra Club, Audubon New York, Environmental Advocates, National Resources Defense Council, Trout Unlimited and Citizens for a Green North Tonawanda to name just a few.  In 2004, the wetlands protection bill passed the State Assembly, but failed to be brought up for a vote in the State Senate (although it was approved by the senate's environmental conservation committee).

Again this year, many organizations continue to be a strong advocates for passage of this legislation, which will strengthen New York’s freshwater wetlands law, increasing the New York’s ability to protect these ecosystems, by decreasing the size threshold for NYSDEC regulation of freshwater wetlands, allowing them to protect wetlands 1 acre or larger.

Regardless of size, freshwater wetlands provide essential habitat for many species of migratory waterfowl, amphibian, avian, fish, and other wildlife species to nest, breed, and feed. They also provide countless other environmental benefits from flood protection and stormwater runoff control, to filtering pollutants, pesticides and sediments from the water.

Currently, New York State is the only state in the Northeast to impose size limitations on wetlands Regulation. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has the authority to regulate wetlands 12.4 acres or greater that are mapped, while the federal government (EPA and Army Corp.) has authority over the rest. However, a 2001 Supreme Court ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers held that the federal government did not have the authority to regulate "isolated " wetlands under the Clean Water Act. "Isolated wetlands" are wetlands that are not connected by navigable surface water to waters of the U.S. Since that time, the federal government has backed away from protecting these extremely important areas.

Thanks to the leadership of Assemblyman DiNapoli, we are one step closer to filing in this gap in regulation and protecting these important freshwater wetlands. You can help us now by thanking your Assembly representative for passing this important measure.  More details can be found on the NYS Assembly vote in 2005 at:


http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02048
Learn additional ways to save wetlands.


Memorandum in Support - 2005 - 
NYS ASSEMBLY WETLANDS LEGISLATION


In Assembly 2048 by Assemblyman DiNapoli

 Title:  An Act to amend the environmental conservation law in relation to freshwater wetlands and repealing section 24-1305 of such law relating thereto.

 Provisions:

 A.2048 proposes several important amendments to strengthen and improve New York’s freshwater wetland protection law.  The bill amends the definition section of the law to allow the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to protect smaller wetlands.  Existing law regulates wetlands that are 12.4 acres and larger.  Smaller wetlands may be subject to regulation if these wetlands are deemed to be of “unusual local significance” by the commissioner of the DEC.  A.2048 would make wetlands one acre or larger subject to regulation as well as smaller wetlands that are adjacent to water bodies, or those that are deemed to be of significant local importance by the DEC commissioner.

 

Another strengthening amendment proposed by the bill relates to the regulatory status of New York’s freshwater wetland maps.  Currently, in order for wetlands to be subject to regulation under the law, wetlands have to meet a number of environmental criteria and be mapped on freshwater wetland maps prepared by the DEC.  This bill would change the definition of wetland so that wetlands meeting the environmental criteria in the law would be subject to regulation. 

 

Other changes proposed by the bill include eliminating the current four part wetland classification system and removing a provision of current law that grandfathers subdivisions and other activities in wetlands that were permitted prior to the passage of the law in 1975. 

 

Finally the bill would require that permits issued by the DEC be included in the deed for the property.  This provision will ensure that future prospective purchasers receive notice that structures on the property were constructed in wetlands.

 

Statement in Support

 

On January 9, 2001, in the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County, or SWANCC, decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 that the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) did not have authority under section 404 (the dredged and fill material permit program) of the Clean Water Act to assert jurisdiction over wetlands that were considered waters of the US solely due to their use by migratory birds. 

 

Prior to the SWANCC decision, the Corps asserted comprehensive regulatory jurisdiction over activities that threaten wetlands.  After the SWANCC decision, the Corps limited the waters over which it asserts jurisdiction to waters of the US, defined as tidal, interstate and navigable water bodies and their adjacent wetlands.  Wetlands are considered to be adjacent and subject to federal jurisdiction if they are connected by surface water to waters of the US.  Wetlands that are not connected by surface water to waters of the US – so-called isolated wetlands - are no longer afforded federal protection.  A survey of Corps records conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2004 found 181 instances in which the Corp allowed unregulated destruction of wetlands.  Since then both the Buffalo and New York District Offices of the Corps websites [1]list a growing number of wetlands that are no longer afforded protection by the federal wetlands protection program.

 

The New York Wetland Protection Act (ECL Article 24) was passed by the legislature and signed into law in 1975.  Article 24 establishes jurisdiction for the DEC to regulate land use in wetlands that are on the state wetlands map.  The DEC is directed to place on the map, wetlands that are 12.4 acres or larger, or wetlands that are of unusual local significance.  New York’s wetland protection program overlaps with the federal program for wetlands that are 12.4 acres or larger and in limited circumstances for smaller wetlands as well.  Up until now, wetlands that fell below the 12.4 acre threshold were nearly universally regulated by the federal program.  In the aftermath of the SWANCC decision, however, so-called isolated wetlands that fall below the 12.4 acre threshold will only be protected in those limited instances where the DEC has found that the wetland is of unusual local significance.

 

Protection of wetlands is a vital issue for New York’s environmental quality and quality of life.  Wetlands perform a variety of important functions that benefit both people and the natural world.  For example, wetlands soak up water run-off from rain and snow-melt, preventing floods.  Studies by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service show that an acre of wetland can store more than 1.5 million gallons of floodwater.  A study by the Illinois State Water Survey found that destroying just 1% of a watershed’s wetlands increases total flood in the watershed volume by almost 7%.  Clearly, filling wetlands increases the risk of flood.  Protecting people from flooding is one compelling reason to protect wetlands. 

 

Water that is held in wetlands percolates into the ground, replenishing aquifers that serve both private and municipal water systems.  Wetlands also filter out contaminants, protecting water quality in streams, lakes and rivers.  This function of wetlands is especially important for municipalities that rely on surface supplies of water, like New York City and Albany.

 

Ducks, geese and other species of animals rely on wetlands as places to live and find food.  In addition, the flood control and purification functions of wetlands help to maintain the water quality and flow in streams and rivers necessary to support healthy populations of fish. 

 

Protecting New York’s wetlands promotes flood control, water purification and habitat.  In addition, there are consumer protection purposes that are served by protecting wetlands.  In numerous cases, New Yorkers who have purchased homes that have either been built in filled wetlands or adjacent to filled wetlands have suffered flooding and in some instances structural damage to their homes. 

 

In order to preserve the valuable environmental and public safety functions performed by wetlands, New York must expand the jurisdiction of its wetland protection law to cover smaller wetlands.   


[1] http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/, http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/orgs/reg/NJD_epa.htm.

Protecting Wetlands: A Survey of Northeast States’ Laws



Survey Findings:

 

New Jersey


Protects “isolated” wetlands
No size threshold for regulationNew Jersey is one of only two states that assumes federal permitting authority from the Army Corp of Engineers as well as implementing their own state wetlands program. The program is governed by The New Jersey Freshwater Protection Act, 13-9B, and The New Jersey Freshwater Protection Act Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:7A.    The program regulates a variety of activities impacting wetlands.  To define wetlands, New Jersey uses the federal manual from 1989 and does not require a size threshold in order to assert jurisdiction.

 

New Hampshire

 

Protects “isolated” wetlands
No size threshold for regulationNew Hampshire’s wetlands law, RSA-482-A, and rules, Wt 100-800, protect “isolated” wetlands, intermittent streams, and vernal pools.  New Hampshire uses the Army Corp’s wetlands definition and does not have a size threshold to regulate wetlands.

 

Connecticut

 

Protects “isolated” wetlands
No size threshold for regulationConnecticut state statute, The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, CT General Statute 22a.36-45, establishes broad state authority to regulate wetlands.  The state’s definition is based on soil type and does not have a size threshold.

 


Pennsylvania


Protects “isolated” wetlands
No size threshold for regulationPennsylvania’s law, the Dam Safety and Encroachment Act, protects “isolated” wetlands.  The state relies on the Army Corp’s definition of wetlands, and does not have a size threshold for regulation.

Vermont

 

Protects “isolated” wetlands
No size threshold for regulationVermont’s wetlands law, 10 USA chapter 37 section 905A, 7-9, was adopted by the Water Resource Board in 1990.  The board classifies wetlands in three categories, based on ten values and functions, and regulates activities in the two higher classes.  For class one and two wetlands, there is no size threshold.

 

Massachusetts


Protects “isolated” wetlands
No size threshold for regulationMassachusetts’ law, the Wetlands Protections Act, addresses tidal and freshwater wetlands, coastal dunes, and riverbanks.  The local Conservation Commission in each town regulates activities impacting the town’s wetlands.  Massachusetts uses both vegetation and hydrology to define wetlands and does not have a size threshold for regulation. 

 

Maine


Protects “isolated” wetlands
No size threshold for regulationMaine’s law, the Maine Natural Resources Protection Act, protects wetlands without any size threshold for regulation.  The degree of environmental review depends on the size of impact to the wetland.  Less 4,300 square feet (approx. 0.1 acres) of impact requires no reporting.  Impacts to wetlands that between 4,300 square feet and 15,000 square feet, Tier I, (approx. .3 acres) require the lowest level of review and have an expedited review process.  Tier II, 1,500 square feet to one acre, and Tier III, greater than one acre, require more documentation and review.

 

New York


Only regulates “isolated” wetlands:
Greater than 12.4 acres
Or demonstrating unusual local importanceNew York’s Law, the Freshwater Wetlands Law, only protects freshwater wetlands that are 12.4 acres or larger and on the official map of state-regulated wetlands.  Wetlands that are smaller than 12.4 acres but demonstrate unusual local importance can be put on the map through a regulatory process.  New York defines wetlands by vegetation.

 

New York’s Law As Amended by A.7905/S.4480

 

Protects “isolated” wetlands
One acre size threshold for regulationThe Clean Water Protection and Flooding Prevention Act, A.7905/S.4480, would bring New York’s Wetlands Law more in line with neighboring states by amending the law to regulate wetlands one acre or larger, regardless of their presence on the map.   To better align New York’s program with surrounding states, bill sponsors should consider amendments that would allow New York to regulate activities that threaten wetlands smaller than one acre. The New York State Assembly passed their version of the law, A.7905, on April 19, 2004. The New York State Senate companion bill, S.4480, has not yet been passed.

Click here for more about the Klydel Wetland in North Tonawanda..
 

Open space will actually minimize taxes in the long run

By MEGAN CALLUS

(Original publication: December 26, 2006)

Elizabeth Ganga's recent article, "North Salem proposes 6.2 percent tax increase," implied that land preservation in North Salem is resulting in an increase in taxes paid by residents. As an environmental consultant who works for the North Salem Land Foundation, I would like to address this claim.

The proposed tax increase in town will result in approximately $122 increase for someone whose house is assessed at the average value. About half of the $122, according to the article, is attributable to borrowing for open space. So, without looking at the broader tax issues discussed below, for approximately $61 a year, North Salem property owners have gained 130 acres of protected land. While this is still a burden on taxpayers, the cost is less than if the parcels were developed, and residents overwhelmingly supported this endeavor, twice.

Understandably, taxpayers are often concerned about the trade-off of preserving land - an increase in local tax bills from the removal of the property from tax rolls - vs. the environmental and quality-of-life benefits of conservation. Interestingly, this tradeoff is more of a myth than reality. Have you ever noticed that despite new development in town, your taxes never actually go down? That's because more development means more tax money for more services.

Over 70 "Cost of Community Services" and fiscal impact analysis and numerous academic studies have revealed that parks actually minimize property tax increases in the long term. These studies show that for every $1 in taxes generated, developments cost $1.04 to $1.68 in services, with these costs continuing in perpetuity. In other words, it costs local governments more to provide services to these new developments than they pay in property taxes. In addition, the new development can strain the municipality's infrastructure, creating increased traffic, water pollution and overburdened schools.

In contrast, preserving farmland and natural areas, despite requiring a significant up front investment, carries a much lower cost in municipal services. Although, in the short term, while servicing the department to pay for the acquisition, the cost to the town is greater, in the long-term, the open space actually reduces municipal costs. In regards to the loss of property tax revenue, protected open space increases property values in the surrounding area, thereby often negating the loss. The result is that open space and farmland prevents taxes from increasing and actually stabilizes local taxes.

Ultimately, it is up to communities to balance the goals of growth, including the creation affordable housing and jobs, with land conservation. Comprehensive planning is the key to ensuring that these goals complement, not compete with, one another.

The writer, who is based in Ridgefield, Conn., currently consults for the North Salem Open Land Foundation, a land trust and Vita Nuova LLC., an environmental consulting firm.

Good morning all -

On June 23, 2006, the new Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner, Emily Lloyd, testified before the New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection.

Her testimony was occasioned by the Committee's proposals - Intro 375 and Intro 376.  Her comments which I will type verbatum concern Intro 375 and relate to the acquisition of land in the Croton and in the Catskill Delaware Watershed.  Her comments are especially pertinent in light of recent news articles concerning the very real possibility that in addition to the $3 billion Croton Chemical/ Filtration plant, being constructed in Van Cortlandt Park, that the Environmental Protection Agency might require the additional construction of an $8 billion plant to filter the Catskill Delaware.

Just a note: The Commissioner mentions "water quality problems in the Croton."  These "problems" involve at times some discoloration which while asthetically a problem, does not in any way suggest that Croton water quality has been compromised.  On the contrary, by DEP own studies, water quality continues to be high despite and inspite of all the development assaults in recent years. 

Here are Commissioner Lloyd's statements:

"My final comments on Intro 375 are on Section 24-370 of the bill, which creates a requirement that DEP establish a goal for purusing increased watershed protection and land acquisition in the Croton watershed.  DEP continues to be willing to discuss our Croton watershed protection measures with the Council through the submission of reports of through oversight hearings or both.  But the language of Section 24-370 does not explicitly take into account some key facts, such as the differences between the Croton and Catskill-Delaware watersheds in terms of population, land use, and threats to water quality.  Or the fact that DEP is building a filtration facility due to the water quality problems in the Croton system.  While DEP will continue to pursue land acquisitions in the Croton watershed on a case-by-case basis, we no longer have a large-scale land acquisition program active in that watershed due to the cost of land in Westchester and Putnam Counties.

Our watershed protection efforts in the Croton system are targeted at completing the upgrades of the approximately 70 wastewater treatment plants in that watershed, at a cost in the range of $250 million.   DEP also annually reviews hundreds of proposed development projects in the Croton watershed to ensure compliance with water quality protection standards in our regulations.  Where necessary, we issue Notices of Violations to stop projecs that have not been approved, or that are conducting work outside the conditions of our approval."

The ramifications of the Commissioner's remarks for Putnam are indeed cause for much concern.  Heretofore, the DEP had been a partner in purchases; however, it appears that residents of Putnam towns and county must now step up to the plate and help "Save the County Where the County Begins."

Sincerely,
Ann
 

Hi all - Trust for Public Land does it again.
Sincerely,
Ann
http://www.putopenspaces.com

State adds access to Wonder Lake park
By MICHAEL RISINIT
mrisinit@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: February 12, 2006)

KENT — A woodland pool tucked away in the almost 1,000-acre Wonder Lake State Park is anything but a quiet place for reflection come spring.

"I've never heard such a mixture of different frogs, from the bass of bullfrogs to peepers," said Dod Chahroudi, a Patterson hiker and mountain biker who frequents the state land. "They were going at it like a symphony (last year)."

Chahroudi, a manager of a group home, is one of the few to experience the park that sprawls across the Kent-Patterson border. The public land has been without clear public access since Gov. George Pataki heralded its creation in 1998.

That is supposed to change this year. Pataki on Thursday announced the addition of 106 acres to the park. Cars, school buses and horse trailers will drive into it from two points in its northwest corner — either through a Ludingtonville Road parcel acquired in 2004 or through the latest addition off Mooney Hill Road.

"It's a lovely piece of property fringed by roads all around it with small houses," said Matt Shurtleff of the Trust for Public Land, referring to the entire park. "Access was difficult because of those houses and steep slopes."

The trust helped the state buy the latest piece for almost $1.1 million and also assisted with the park's 1998 purchase for $4 million. Amanda Cushman Coley of Patterson and her family — actress Elizabeth Montgomery of television's "Bewitched" was her cousin — sold the original 800 acres to the state. The deal didn't include the traditional entry off Cushman Road, which was considered too small and the neighborhood too residential to support park-going traffic.

Those visiting the park, which sits on a ridge above Interstate 84, describe it as a hidden gem. Intrepid hikers could find an entrance off Ludingtonville Road after parking at a nearby commuter lot, or follow a power line right of way off Cushman Road. Either way, the climb to the lake from which the park takes its name is an arduous one.

Mixed stands of oak, maple and birch cover much of the park. Grassy meadows and well-worn trails left from its days as a private estate also grace the property. What's missing to date are signs, a parking area or mention of Wonder Lake on the state Parks Department Web site.

The park is a neighborhood asset for those living in eastern Putnam County, said Judy Terlizzi, a Lake Carmel resident and president of the Putnam County Land Trust: Save Open Spaces Inc.

"It's close by for residents to enjoy, and that is very good news," she said. "This (the access plan) is really terrific news."

Lucille and Allan Corrier, who split their time between homes in Manhattan and Kent, sold the 106 acres to the state. The sale closed Monday. The acreage includes a dirt road marked by a towering fir tree and flanked by stone walls, which Lucille Corrier said will provide "absolutely perfect ingress to the park" from Mooney Hill Road.

"There's a certain kind of beautiful serenity when you're in there. You can see the sky," said Corrier, a broker with Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate and a partner with a marketing consulting firm.

State Parks Department spokeswoman Wendy Gibson said the Ludingtonville parking area would be completed first, followed by improvements off Mooney Hill Road.

"It'll be a big difference for park-goers even six months from now," Gibson said.

Good morning - Forum on open space protects wildlife, property and protects pocketbook.
Sincerely
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Cortlandt forum to encourage open space
By GREG CLARY
gclary@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS

If you go

What: Our Extraordinary Backyards, a public forum on how property owners can use conservation easements to protect animal and plant habitats.

Where: Cortlandt Town Hall, 1 Heady St., Cortlandt.

When: 2 to 4 p.m. Saturday.

For information: Westchester Land Trust, 914-241-6346.

(Original publication: January 15, 2006)

CORTLANDT — Susan Todd got a bit of a surprise when she looked into giving up the right to ever develop her family's 7 acres in Cortlandt in exchange for maintaining a natural surrounding that offers her peace of mind.

"In terms of our appraisals, it's increased the value of our property long-term," said Todd, a five-year member of the town's Planning Board. "That was news to me."

Todd and her husband didn't protect their land's use with a conservation easement for the financial reward, which she said can be considerable, but for something more altruistic.

"I see it as something that will live on generations after our family," she said. "My hope is that it will inspire a lot of other people to do something similar. If we use up all of our land, where are our kids going to learn about that nature?"

At an upcoming meeting on conservation easements, Todd will speak about the five years of tax breaks available to landowners who allow their property to buffer future development.

The focus will be on the diversity of animal and plant habitats along the western portion of the Westchester-Putnam border, encompassing but not limited to the towns of Cortlandt, Yorktown, New Castle, Putnam Valley and Philipstown.

"A lot of the people have no idea what a conservation easement is and no idea a study of the area's biodiversity was done, showing the treasures we have, biologically speaking, right in our own backyard," said Lisa Moir of the Cortlandt Trust, one of the event's organizers.

"With the heightened pace of development, the window of opportunity is slamming shut," said Eileen Goren of the Westchester Land Trust, another organizer. "And once (open space) is gone, you don't get it back."

Michael Klemens of the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the author of the biodiversity study, will be the keynote speaker at the meeting.

From: Tom Andersen <tom@westchesterlandtrust.org>
To: wltnews@mailman.westchesterlandtrust.org
Subject: Open Space Protection 2005
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:39:46 -0500

Before the New Year gets too far along, we wanted to give our supporters a
summary of Westchester Land Trust’s preservation accomplishments in 2005.

It was an extraordinary year, with 22 projects and 708 acres protected in
nine communities. Westchester Land Trust has been around since 1988 and
never have we completed more projects or protected more land.

The projects included major land purchases using a variety of funds,
including local open space money approved by voters in referendums in recent
years. Perhaps the most important of these 2005 acquisitions is the 386-acre
Leon Levy Preserve, in Lewisboro.

The projects also included 17 conservation easements, which we completed in
conjunction with private landowners, other environmental organizations, and
local Planning Boards and Town Boards.

We also made significant progress toward completing the acquisition of the
654-acre Angle Fly Preserve in Somers (the acreage of which is not included
in our 2005 total). We expect to close that acquisition in May of 2006. When
the Angle Fly deal is complete, 13 Westchester communities will have
protected 1,620 acres since 2000, using local acquisition funds and other
financing from Westchester County, New York State, New York City and private
sources.

We want to thank our land donors and our acquisition partners, all of whom
put in generous amounts of time, money and effort to make 2005 the
successful year it was.

The complete list of 2005 projects is below. Our website has more
information about some of the specific projects:
www.WestchesterLandTrust.org.

Many thanks, and happy new year!

Tom Andersen
Projects Director
Westchester Land Trust
914 241 6346 x24
www.Westchesterlandtrust.org

Purchases
· Purdys Ridge - 66 acres, owned by North Salem; negotiated with the Town
and the North Salem Open Land Foundation.
· Leon Levy Preserve - 386 acres in Lewisboro; funding from the Jerome Levy
Foundation, Town of Lewisboro, City of New York, and the Dextra Baldwin
McGonagle Foundation.
· Gardener - 4 acres, owned by Yorktown; negotiated with Yorktown Land Trust
and Riverkeeper.

Conservation Easements
· Kristen Carollo - 31 acres on Bedford Center Road, Bedford Hills.
· Erick Hansen - 4 acres on Pines Bridge Road, Bedford
· Bedford Community Church - 4 acres on Buxton Road, Bedford
· Umberto Santaroni - 12 acres at Manor Ridge, on Young Road, Somers.
· Nicholas & Hanay Angell - 40 acres on South Mountain Pass, Cortlandt.
· Twin Lakes - 17 acres on Twin Lakes Drive, Bedford.
· Jane Pauley & Garry Trudeau - trail license for Westchester Wilderness
Walk, Pound Ridge.
· Michael & Jamie Wolff - 4 acres on Salem Road, Pound Ridge.
· Peter & Janet Harckham - 8 acres on Mount Holly Road, Katonah.
· Lisa Smith - 11 acres on Guard Hill Road, Bedford.
· Scott & Christine Hill - 4 acres in Lawrence Farms, New Castle
· Jim & Christine Gelwicks - 6 acres on Broad Brook Road, Bedford.
· Susan Todd & Andy Young - 7 acres on Colabaugh Pond, Cortlandt.
· James Zappi - 80 acres at Windsor Farms, Somers (in the process of being
signed).
· Marian Rose - additional restrictions to a previous 14-acre easement on
Old Corner Road, Bedford (in the process of being signed).
· MBIA - 8 acres off Route 120 in North Castle, negotiated with Natural
Resources Defense Council and Riverkeeper (in the process of being signed).
· Hilltop Hanover - 8-acre conservation easement to Yorktown, WLT assisted
in negotiating and drafting.

Gifts of Land
· John & Mary Ciardullo - 6 acres in Cross River, next to the Frederick P.
Rose Preserve.
· Bill Brody - 1 acre in Cortlandt, near the McGregor Pond Preserve.

IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING RE BEDFORD WETLANDS BUFFERS

From: MarianR451
Subject: IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING RE BEDFORD WETLANDS BUFFERS
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:03:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time

The Town of Bedford is proposing to increase the buffers that protect some of
its critically important wetlands from the present 100 feet, to 150 feet.

Bedford lies 80% in the Croton Watershed that is an important component of
the unique system that provides 9 million New Yorkers with still unfiltered
drinking water. The remaining 20% lies in the Mianus River watershed that provides
drinking water for Greenwich, CT.

Wetlands buffers are the best protectors of our wetlands that, in turn,
protect the streams and reservoirs that provide us with our good drinking water

Please come to the Public Hearing on Wednesday, October 5 at 7PM at the
Bedford Town Hall, 321 Bedford Road, Bedford Hills and speak up in support of this
proposed increase in our wetlands buffers

It is vitally important that supporters turn out in large numbers because,
based on past experience, there will be plenty of developers and their
supporters who will speak out against the increase!

For more information on the value of buffers, please click on our website
www.newyorkwater.org (see below)

Proposed Changes to the Town of Bedford Wetlands Law

The Town Board is considering changes to the Town Wetlands Law. These
proposed changes would selectively increase from 100’ to 150’ the wetlands “buffer”
or “setback” area. This increase would only apply to critical wetlands,
watercourses and water bodies in Town. For further explanations you may view the
following:
• Summary of Portions of the Town of Bedford Wetlands Law as of July
31, 2005 (Click Here to view)
• Explanation and Summary of the Proposed Selective 150’ Wetlands
Buffer (Click Here to view)

If you wish to know whether your property may be affected either by the
present wetlands law or the proposed changes, you are welcome to look at maps
(provided for guidance purposes only) located at the Office of the Planning
Department, 425 Cherry Street, Bedford Hills. Questions may be directed to the
Wetlands Control Commission at 666-5140.

The Town Board will hold a public hearing on the proposed changes at 7:00 pm
on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 in the Court Room of the Town House at 321
Bedford Road, Bedford Hills.

Visit www.newyorkwater.org

Good morning all - just look who is crying over the proposed Somers wetlands law, increasing buffers to 150' developers who are bemoaning the loss of density for the projects - substitute profits for density and we'll get to the real source of their whining. A backdoor says one developer; well he should know all about backdoors. Just see what has happened in Carmel with 1000 senior housing units proposed within an area of less than couple of miles of each other sustained by a law with more holes than swiss cheese.

Cutting into profits Camarda smiled - can't give the seniors all those amenities like the bocci courts - when the Coalition tried to persuade him to lower the senior housing density from 375 in his Carmel Senior Center to more sustainable numbers. No way. And so we were compelled to sue. Altho outcome of court case may not be what we would like, the Town Board is now conducting a study of the senior housing needs; the law upon which Camarda hopes to become King Midas, has been termed a mistake by a majority of the Board and we now have an ad campaign calling for a moratorium. In fact, the Coalition has been very critical of all senior housing laws and projects in Southeast (Terravest) and in Putnam Valley, recently supporting residents against a proposed Multi-Family Housing Law, even worse than Carmel's if that could be imagined.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what this is really all about.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
PS - the extension of buffers protects wetlands, the absorbers of pollutants and contaminants which of course in terms protects our reservoirs.

__________________________________________________________
From the North County News

Changes to wetland laws hotly contested

by Rick Pezzullo

To Julia Rellou, increasing the size of wetland buffers in Somers is critical and long overdue.

To an attorney representing the developers of Windsor Farms, the proposed regulations are a "bad law" and "a back door density reduction measure."

Proponents and opponents of several amendments to the town's code clashed repeatedly during a more than four-hour marathon public hearing at Somers Town Hall last Thursday night.

A standing-room only audience that stretched into the parking lot heard passionate arguments from both sides, with some speakers spending up to 25 minutes pleading their case.

"I care passionately about the environment, about clean water, about sustainable development, about quality of life in Somers," said long-winded Planning Board member John Keane.

"All five wetland changes look good on paper. When one examines them up close with a microscope, they're not very good at all," he said.

The Town Board is weighing whether to expand the wetland buffers from 100 to 150 feet, limit the number of wetland crossings in a development and regulate wetlands of all sizes.

Based on thunderous applause from the crowd, Keane's opinion was shared by a majority of residents on hand.

"This violates the sanctity of a man's private property," said Granite Springs resident Norman Fuller.

Richard Atkins, who owns more than seven acres on Route 202 known as "The Cross property," went one step further, asserting the proposed changes would result in the town "stealing" from his retirement by leaving his land unbuildable.

"This is really not environmental protection. It's growth control disguised in environmental clothing," remarked Hallocks Run resident Wayne Lemmon. "This is almost underhanded and deceptive."

The majority of the Planning Board and Town Engineer Guy Gagne have recommended against the code changes.

However, the amendments also had their share of supporters who argued the environment can never have enough protection.

Allan Golden of ForSomers.org said insuring water quality should be a top priority for Somers.

He pointed to a 2002 study by the Army Corps of Engineers that stated 100-foot buffers were inadequate to protect wetlands.

Michael Barnhart, co-chairman of the Somers Open Space Committee, noted the Department of Environmental Protection requires 300-foot buffers around the reservoir and contended some wetlands require larger than a 100-foot buffer to be sustainable.

"We feel a blanket extension of buffers is a good idea," he said. "Wetlands are a vital resource to the area and its residents. Whether they are large or small, they are key to the quality of drinking water."

Those sentiments were shared by Westchester Land Trust, which stated similar regulations had been approved in Pound Ridge, New Castle and Lewisboro.

"The proposed changes establish enforceable clearing and grading limits that provide meaningful wetland protections and allow wetlands to function," stated Land Trust Executive Director Paul Gallay.

"They also will help landowners by creating a method of communicating those limits to future landowners, making them aware of the protections and making it easier for them to work with the town administrators responsible for enforcing the wetlands provisions," he stated.

Several speakers also took issue with an anonymous mailing sent to residents from Concerned Citizens of Somers, which stated "How many shots are you going to take from the Somers Town Board?"

Barnhart called the mailing "overheated rhetoric," before he suggested the Town Board establish a wetlands authority to regulate the water bodies.

During a public hearing in June, a town consultant said the proposed legislation would affect 1,400 lots in Somers.

The Town Board agreed before last week's hearing to take no action and study the amendments further.

"I have realized tonight, more than I had realized over the past 16 years living in this town, that Somers needs a great deal more than a 150-foot wetland buffer," Rellou said.

"It is clear to me tonight that there is an urgent, crying need in this town for environmental education and awareness. Awareness of the role Somers' wetlands and all other scarce and rapidly diminishing environmental assets play for our life and health."

Boil water alert for Kensico reservoir (Cat/Del) water
(Original publication: June 30, 2005)

From: MarianR451
Subject: Boil water alert for Kensico reservoir (Cat/Del) water
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 2:23:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time

NY'ers warned to boil drinking water

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Citing recent heavy thunderstorms, city officials issued a
recommendation to boil water Thursday after higher than normal levels of
particles were detected in the city's drinking water supply.

Officials say the particles can interfere with the water chlorination
process.

The discovery was made at about 2 a.m. Thursday at the Kensico reservoir
in Westchester County, one of three reservoirs that supply drinking
water to New York City, said Sandra Mullin, a spokeswoman for the
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

While the affected water was diverted, health officials, citing "an
abundance of caution," suggested that infants, the elderly, pregnant
women and New Yorkers with conditions that compromise their immune
systems use either boiled or bottled water as a precaution until noon
Friday.

The recommendation applies to those with HIV/AIDS, especially those with
CD4 counts less than 200; those with leukemia; and those who have
received bone marrow transplants, officials said.

The Health Department also asked doctors to increase testing for
parasitic illnesses and immediately report any diseases, as well as any
increase in gastrointestinal symptoms.

Originally published on June 30, 2005

Visit www.newyorkwater.org

Weeds choke lakes as new rules delay cleanup permits
By SEAN GORMAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: June 21, 2005)

LEWISBORO — The view of Lake Katonah from a pair of nearby benches yesterday offered a tranquil picture of ducks resting on a floating platform and ripples forming over the water.

But passers-by need only look down at the water's edge to spot the swath of stringy, brownish weeds submerged in the lake amid patches of green, bubbly algae.

Jeff Mear, chairman of the Lake Katonah Club lake committee, said the offending vegetation should be gone by now, but new state environmental requirements have caused delays all over the region in getting annual spring permits to snuff out pesky plant life in lakes.

As a result, almost all of Lake Katonah's 24 acres is now filled with unwanted vegetation, Mear said. About a week ago, neighbors around the lake waded into the swimming area and, using hands and rakes, tore out about 2,000 pounds of weeds, Mear said.

"It took us 10 hours over two days just to clear the small swim area," Mear said last week. "These weeds can grow 3, 4 inches a day. They grow like crazy."

Glenn Sullivan, the president of Allied Biological, a Hackettstown, N.J., company that applied for Lake Katonah's pesticide permit, said the DEC this year required additional paperwork to get the permit. The extra steps include an additional period for public comment and a form asking for information on the history of the lake's management and whether any endangered species are in or around the water body, Sullivan said

Wendy Rosenbach, a DEC spokeswoman, said the agency this year adopted stricter rules for obtaining aquatic pesticide permits, and that has caused a slowdown.

"There is a backlog," Rosenbach said. "... We're working on them as quickly as possible to make sure they get out in a timely way."

Lakes that meet certain criteria — such as those that are of special regional concern, those that cover more than 6.4 acres, or those that have endangered, threatened or rare species — are now reviewed by the agency's Division of Environmental Permits, which Rosenbach said entails a more comprehensive examination.

"We're just taking a more careful look at them ... to be more environmentally safe," Rosenbach said.

The DEC's Web site this week shows there have been about 20 applications to put aquatic pesticides in water bodies in Westchester and Putnam counties, including lakes in Bedford, North Castle, Carmel and Kent. In all of DEC's Region 3 — which has headquarters in New Paltz and covers Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Dutchess, Ulster, Sullivan and Orange counties — 62 applications have been referred to the Environmental Permits Division, Rosenbach said. Of those, only four have been approved. Rosenbach couldn't specify which ones.

Sullivan's company, Allied Biological, also applied for a permit to eradicate weeds in Truesdale Lake, an 83-acre water body in South Salem. That permit received approval last week, Sullivan said. Last year, pesticide already had been applied to the lake by mid-May.

"It's a little bit weedy. It depends on who you talk to," Gary Struve, a member of the South Salem lake's management committee, said last week. "It can make it difficult for sailboats."

Lake Dutchess, which is on the border of Pawling and Kent, is still awaiting its permit to kill algae.

"It's like green jello. ... The homeowners are furious," said Patrice George, a member of the Lake Dutchess Association. "I don't understand this at all. This is not a new application. This is something we've been doing forever, as other lakes in our area have done."

At Lake Katonah, the average water depth is only about 5 feet, meaning sunlight can easily reach the lake floor and spur weed growth, said Mear, who hopes the permit comes through this week.

One type of vegetation in the lake — curly leaf pond weed — is an invasive species, Sullivan said, meaning it eventually will crowd out the lake's indigenous vegetation.

The plant growth was particularly bad last weekend, said Cheryl Neuburger, who lives near Lake Katonah and tried to take a boat out on it.

"You can't even row. It was like rowing on a carpet," Neuburger, 39, said after dropping her children off at a bus stop next to the lake yesterday. "You put the oars in, and you come up with, literally, 20 pounds (of weeds and algae) on one oar."

Bedford seeks source of clean water
By SEAN GORMAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: June 3, 2005)

BEDFORD — The town's water contamination woes mean another source will have to be found for Katonah and Bedford Hills residents who use municipal water, town officials said this week.

Bedford officials have been looking in recent years for other water supplies for the Bedford Consolidated Water District, where wells provide water to 7,000 people in the two hamlets. But the search has gained urgency from recent tests showing elevated nitrate levels in a town well at Jay Street in Katonah. Very high levels of nitrate can be fatal to infants.

John M. Benvegna, a Bedford water consultant, said in a presentation to about 35 people at the Town House on Tuesday that the concentration of septic systems in the area was causing more nitrate to seep into the town's aquifer. Tests at the Katonah well — one of several supplying the district — have shown elevated levels of nitrate. Still, the concentration is below state health department standards that would require shutting down the well.

"We test all the time for it (nitrate)," Supervisor Lee Roberts said. "That is one of the concerns, one of the larger concerns ... It's not unsafe to drink at the levels they're at."

Another well on Route 117 in Bedford Hills was shut down in 2001 and again in 2003 because of high nitrate levels. For infants less than 6 months old, excessive amounts of nitrate in drinking water can cause serious illness — including shortness of breath and blueness of the skin — and sometimes death, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Web site.

Nitrate is not considered a risk to children or healthy adults. Bill Nickson, the town's water department foreman, said elevated nitrate levels were found in the Katonah well in March 2004. The nitrate concentration fell sharply, but has been back up again in recent months. The levels have fluctuated between 5 and 8 milligrams per liter. The allowable federal standard is 10 milligrams per liter.

Janet Jacobsen, 36, said before Tuesday's meeting that she was concerned about nitrate in local wells.

"In all the years of living in Westchester, I never had to deal with that," said Jacobsen, who recently moved to Bedford Hills from Yonkers. "I'm happy they're monitoring it. It seems to be they're paying close attention to it, but the concern is definitely there."

Nitrate from faulty septic systems has contaminated some wells around Putnam Lake in Patterson.

Jim Hahn, Bedford's consulting engineer, said the town was considering several options for alternative water supplies to the Bedford district. Hahn said he didn't want to estimate yet how much the proposed changes would cost, but Roberts said they all carried a high price tag.

Ideas include developing new wells in Katonah. The town could buy water from New York City and filter it with a plant Bedford would build. Another suggestion includes piping water down from a New York City aqueduct in Bedford to Mount Kisco's filtration plant at Byram Lake, so it could be treated there. Bedford might also buy filtered water from Mount Kisco or New Castle or perhaps get water from wells at the Bedford Correctional Facility. Roberts said the town planned to have cost estimates in the coming months.

"We've had incredibly low water rates for a very long time, and that has to change," Roberts said. "We're reaping the effects of years of failed septic (tanks), and dumping, gasoline stations failing, dry cleaners polluting, and now, it's time to pay the piper."

Mark Farrell, an attorney for Phoenix Industries, a Bedford Hills-based developer that built 19 moderate-rent apartments on Route 117, said a well on that property has been projected to yield perhaps up to 200,000 gallons a day, and suggested that may help solve Bedford's dilemma. Hahn, however, said that still wouldn't be enough to meet the district's needs.

Along with Bedford Consolidated, two other water districts are in town: one in Bedford Village and one in Bedford Corners. The nitrate levels in their wells are "very low," Roberts said. Most people in town get their water from private wells, the supervisor said, adding Bedford officials are not aware of nitrate pollution problems in those wells.

The Katonah well was shut down in the 1970s because dry-cleaning solvent fouled it. The well went back in service in the early 1990s after devices were installed to clean contamination from the water. Some Bedford Consolidated district customers last year complained of manganese in their water — a metallic element that leaves a dark sediment, but isn't a health threat. The system's water mains were flushed, and there haven't been manganese complaints in months, Nickson said.

Hi all - low reservoir water levels threaten trout. And that's not all - the Carmel Town Board's SEQRA Neg Dec on the Camarda REC PLEX off Seminary Hill Rd threatens both fish and man. Guard your pocketbooks.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Water levels worry residents
By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: May 31, 2005)

MAHOPAC — Joe Misuraca is a patient man, but after more than a year, he would like his reservoirs back.

The Cherry Hill Road resident has so much enjoyed being a neighbor to the reservoirs in the Croton watershed since he and his wife, Catherine, moved to their home in 1969, he said he feels almost a pride of ownership.

"In all the years we've lived here, we still stop and enjoy the view," Misuraca said recently.

Since the New York City Department of Environmental Protection started renovating dams in Southeast and Carmel, workers have drained the water levels more than 50 feet to make the construction projects easier to handle.

For some, it's startling to see the level so low for so long.

"The only time something like that would happen would have been a drought," Misuraca said. "And we knew there wasn't a drought. It's just that it looks so ugly. Usually this time of the year it looks absolutely beautiful."

Misuraca often travels around the Middle Branch Reservoir and its neighbor, the Croton Falls Reservoir, where the DEP is spending $15.4 million to redo the dam between the two. The project should be finished by the end of this year, said Tom Faughnan, who is running the project for Yonkers Contracting Company Inc.

None of the structures is in trouble, city officials said. The city is doing the work to comply with the National Dam Safety Act and expects to spend about $52 million for construction and renovation of the system's structures. The system supplies drinking water to part of Putnam, most of Westchester and New York City.

Work at the West Branch Reservoir in Carmel has been completed. The $20 million reconstruction work at Bog Brook Reservoir in Southeast should be finished by spring 2006, Faughnan said.

Water levels should be returned to normal within a couple of weeks after work is completed at each site. The time it takes to refill the reservoirs will depend on rainfall and the water levels throughout the system. The dams are used like spigots and drains to control the levels in each reservoir.

At peak operating capacity, the dams — all built between 1878 and 1896 — control the flow of nearly 20 billion gallons of water.

The 19 dams throughout Westchester and Putnam counties and in the Catskills have been inspected to make sure they comply with federal standards, officials said.

While reservoirs serve a vital purpose, they're also important to hobbyists.

Mark Sheivachman, a fly fisherman from Pomona, casts into the reservoirs a few days a month, enjoying the hunt for brown trout enough that he doesn't mind having to release his catch according to DEP regulations.

"We had heard rumors at least two years ago they were going to lower the water," Sheivachman said while on an early getaway from his law practice. "One of the reasons why this area is so good for trout fishing is that, because of the periodic water releases from the dams, with the cold water on the bottom, the habitat stays pristine and the fish don't get stressed."

When there are changes in the water levels, Sheivachman said, the fish react.

"As a fisherman, that's the first thing you look at — the water level," he said. "That's the environment the fish are living in. It's best to keep the water levels the same. If it's low going into the hotter months, it can affect the fishes' ability to survive."

From: MarianR451
Subject: New EPA Guidance
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 9:10:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time

New EPA Guidance May Help Target Pollution Sources In Water TMDL Rules

An upcoming EPA guidance on how to distinguish human versus animal sources of
fecal contamination in water bodies could determine which pollution sources
are targeting in cleaning up water bodies, EPA officials say.

The guidance, which addresses how to use a variety of existing methods to
track different sources of contamination, will be useful in developing cleanup
plans for water bodies, known as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), because it
will help regulators pinpoint which sources are responsible for pollution, EPA
research official Mark Rodgers said May 17 at EPA’s 2005 Science Forum.

Specifically, the guidance will help in determining whether surface water
contamination results from nonpoint source pollution or from permit violations by
wastewater treatment plants. Rogers oversees microbial contaminants research
in EPA’s Water Supply and Water Resources Division of the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory.

In addition, the document also could help federal and state regulators
conducting sanitary surveys of public drinking water systems and testing for
bacterial contamination at beaches, Rodgers added.

EPA sources say about 65 percent of fecal contamination comes from scattered
nonpoint sources such as inadequate septic systems, runoff from animal farms
or manure-treated land and wildlife. Rodgers said the idea of being able to
pinpoint sources of the contamination has been around for more than 50 years, but
it is only in the last 10 years or so that scientific methodologies have been
able to detect the differences among bacteria from humans, wildlife and farm
animals.

Traditional methods are known as “library-dependent” because they compare
cultures of bacteria like E. coli found in suspect water and compare them to
databases called “libraries” of E. coli strains isolated from known human and
animal sources, EPA sources say. The sources say conventional methods work well
in laboratory studies but can be problematic in the field because of sampling
protocols and time variables.

Newer methods, which Rodgers said will become the norm, are known as
“library-independent” and use techniques that focus on biomarkers connected with the
bacteria and examine the development of microbial “communities.”

The new guidance, which is expected to be released next month, is necessary
because there has been a proliferation of new tracking methods in recent years,
he said. The 120-page document addresses: decision criteria, or when to use a
specific method; theoretical approaches to the different methods, including
examples; data collection and analysis; performance standards; and assumptions
and limitations of the methods. It also includes case studies on the use of
different methods.

EPA sources say the guidance was developed through a multi-regional effort
and was the first time regions pooled their funds from the Regional Applied
Research Effort, which promotes collaboration between the Office of Research and
Development and the regions, with a focus on high-priority, region-specific
research.

Date: May 25, 2005

© Inside Washington Publishers

5252005_guidance

Visit www.newyorkwater.org

May 20, 2005

From: MarianR451
Subject: Bill to protect NYC watershed
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:13:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time

The New York Times

By ANTHONY DePALMA
Published: May 17, 2005

New York is one of only five cities in the United States with drinking
water so pure that most of it does not have to be filtered. The City
Council is considering a bill to help keep it that way, but the
legislation is meeting opposition from several sources, including some
environmentalists.

The bill, to be discussed at a public hearing today, commits the city to
the purchase of 7,500 acres of watershed land in the Catskills every
year for the next 10 years to protect it from development that could
contaminate creeks and streams flowing into the city's upstate
reservoirs.

The bill also requires the city's Department of Environmental
Protection, which runs the current watershed land-buying program, to
submit its plans for protecting the watershed to the Council for review.

Since 1997, the city has spent about $175 million to buy, from willing
sellers, about 60,000 acres of Catskill Mountain woodland.

Councilman James F. Gennaro, chairman of the Environmental Protection
Committee and principal sponsor of the bill, said that "it's critical
that we look way, way, down the road."

Mr. Gennaro said that the legislation should not cause any concern
upstate because it merely formalizes the land-buying plan that already
exists. And at more than a million acres, the watershed is so vast that
it is unlikely any group of landowners could conspire to drive up
prices.

While there is widespread support for the Council's eventual goal of
preserving three-quarters of a million acres of woodland over the next
decade, environmental officials worry that setting a yearly mandate will
drive up prices and force the city to buy land whether or not it is
crucial to protecting the watershed. The plan could also create fears in
upstate communities that the city would use its power of eminent domain
to acquire land to avoid falling short.

Charles G. Sturcken, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection
Department, said that increased Council involvement could end up
jeopardizing the program's independence. "We've tried to keep politics
out of this," he said.

Cathleen Breen, the watershed protection coordinator for the New York
Public Interest Research Group, worries that the proposed legislation
will undermine a 1997 agreement between the city and the 70 watershed
towns and villages giving the city a 10-year exemption from federal
requirements to filter its drinking water, provided that the water met
health standards.

The exemption will be up for renewal in 2007. Mr. Gennaro said the
proposed legislation, with its mandated land-acquisition goal, would
help convince federal authorities that New York is serious enough about
protecting the watershed to warrant another filtration exemption, which
would allow the city to avoid, for now, the estimated $6 billion cost of
building a filtration plant.

The city has already started construction on a $1.2 billion filtration
plant for the 10 percent of its water supply system that comes from the
Croton watershed in Westchester.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency declined to comment.

Under the 1997 agreement, towns and villages in the Catskill watershed
were willing to accept the city's land-purchasing efforts if the city
agreed to approve environmentally responsible local developments to help
the region's economy.

"This legislation undermines the watershed agreement," said Ms. Breen,
whose organization is one of five environmental groups that signed the
1997 memorandum. Tom Alworth, executive director of the Catskill Center
for Conservation and Development, which also signed the memorandum, said
that while he did not disagree with aspects of the legislation, he
thought it would be better simply to work within the existing agreement.

But Eric A. Goldstein, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources
Defense Council who helped draft the legislation, said that subjecting
future watershed protection plans to City Council review would allow the
public to participate. "This ought not to be an incendiary proposal with
upstate communities," he said.

The other four cities that do not have to filter their water have done
far more than New York to protect their watersheds. Three of them,
Seattle, San Francisco and Portland, Ore., basically own their entire
watersheds, while the fourth, Boston, has protected about 43 percent of
the land around its reservoirs. Only about 30 percent of New York's
watershed is publicly controlled.

May 13, 2005

Hi all
How well we know. Even when town laws and ordinances appear to be stringent, there is another loophole in the law which reads "to the maximum extent practicable" giving developers wide berth to destroy wetlands and buffers. Witness the travesty that took place in the Terravest development in Southeast. (One can see the 84,000 sq. ft hulk of Ace Endico (projected to expand to 125,000 sq. ft) rising along I84 further blighting the gateway to Putnam County).

Having first acknowledged that 8 acres of wetlands/buffers would be destroyed, the developer self-righteously pointed to his arduous engineering and mathematical exertions (decimal changes in total land) in saving the grand sum of 2 acres That was his "maximum degree practicable" and for which he received the craven plaudits from at least one ECB member. And this in the face of unrelenting critical comments from the Watershed Inspector General, all environmental and community organizations and litigation by Riverkeeper, CWCWC, the Coalition and residents.

There is a great deal of work to be done. Nothing less than absolute prohibition against any destruction of wetlands or incursions into buffers will do to protect our watershed.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

State wetlands lack protection, report says
By YANCEY ROY AND GREG CLARY
gclary@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: May 13, 2005)

More than 270,000 wetland areas, ranging in size from 1-acre bogs to 12-acre swamps, are too small to meet the minimum requirement for state oversight, the report said. Meanwhile, a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down the federal government's ability to regulate small, isolated wetlands.

As a result, landowners and developers have lots of leeway to decide whether to fill in wetlands or build a road through them.

Locally, some municipalities have added their own layer of oversight, something officials want to spread across the region.

"We don't define wetlands by size," said Lewisboro Supervisor Jim Nordgren. "All wetlands, no matter what the size, are of equal importance."

Robert Doscher, Westchester County's principal environmental planner, said the extra layer of protection makes a difference, especially when the state has size limits and federal regulations don't deal with lands around wetlands, which experts believe are almost as important as the wetlands themselves.

"If they shrink the size of the regulated wetland at the state level, then they're going to need more staff," Doscher said of the state. "You can do all you want with laws, but if there's not a staff to administer it and enforce it..."

Wetlands are the marshy ecosystems around streams and larger waterways that play an important role in both pollution control and food.

The Sierra Club, other environmental groups and a hunting and fishing organization, called on the state Senate to pass a bill that would give the state Department of Environmental Conservation jurisdiction over small wetlands.The Democrat-led Assembly has passed the measure, and Gov. George Pataki supports it in general. The impact of the bill: any development that affects wetlands would require a permit.

In most of the Northeast, state governments regulate wetlands as small as 1 acre. "We think New York needs to do something," said John Kusler of the Association of State Wetland Managers.

Activists said there is plenty of Senate support for the measure: 39 of the 62 senators have either signed up as sponsors or promised to vote for the bill when it comes to the floor.

But it faces opposition from some key upstate Republicans, especially Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Rensselaer County, the New York State Business Council and the New York Farm Bureau. Activists acknowledged there's no hard evidence as to what has happened to small wetlands in New York since the Supreme Court decision but still want to see increased oversight.

"Anything to protect wetlands is paramount," said New City resident Richard Israel, a volunteer water sentinel for the Sierra Club. "The loophole needs to be filled in quickly."

Threat to Amawalk Reservoir

The Amawalk Reservoir, an important component of the Croton system is being
threatened once more by development. This is a proposal for developing two
tracts of land at Amawalk Point, an area that juts into the reservoir at its
southern end. The Amawalk supplies Somers, Yorktown and Cortlandt with their
drinking water. It also connects to the New Croton Reservoir that provides 10% of
NYC's needs (30% in times of drought).

The Amawalk is already burdened by an excess of phosphorus that causes
degradation of its water quality. Every effort should be made to reverse that trend
- not to worsen it by development.

Opponents of the development have a website - www.SaveAmawalkPoint.org - from
which the following quote is excerpted:

"Amawalk Point is a 30 acre tract of pristine undeveloped land on the
southern border of the Amawalk Reservoir just East of the intersection of Route 118
and Route 35 in Somers, New York. Amawalk Point uniquely contributes to the
natural beauty of Somers because of its visible prominence from both Lake Road
and Route 118.
Currently before the Somers Town Planning Board are two applications seeking
Steep Slope and Tree removal permits for the development of over eight acres
of this beautiful property. These applications, if approved, will require the
removal of scores of trees and the blasting of huge portions of bedrock
virtually on the banks of the reservoir. Indeed, one of these applications seeks
permission to build a residence in excess of 7,000 square feet within 310 feet of
the reservoir. Should these applications be approved, the entire point will
ultimately be developed."

Please visit the above website and add your name to the fast-growing list of
those of us who want to preserve water quality and the beauty of the land.

Thank you!
Marian

Lawyer proposed for talks with DEP
By CARA MATTHEWS
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: April 7, 2005)

CARMEL — Eight months after authorizing County Executive Robert Bondi to seek more watershed money from New York City, lawmakers want to strengthen Putnam's bargaining muscle by bringing an attorney specializing in environmental law into the negotiations.

The move comes as the $30 million the county received to protect New York City's watershed was drawn down to $331,406.49 as of Dec. 31. The money grew to almost $40 million with interest. As of the end of 2004, the county had spent or earmarked $39.3 million.

Legislators voted unanimously this week to urge Bondi to include George Rodenhausen of Poughkeepsie-based Rapport, Meyers, Whitbeck, Shaw & Rodenhausen in the discussions with the city's Department of Environmental Protection. The Legislature can ask but not force Bondi to accept the lawyer as a partner.

But Bondi's administration is not necessarily looking for help. Deputy County Executive Frank Del Campo said he and Bondi recently had a productive meeting with DEP representatives regarding old business. Del Campo declined to comment on the substance of the meeting, but said Putnam plans to request more money once existing issues are handled.

"It would send the wrong signal to bring an attorney into these negotiations," he said.

Ian Michaels, a DEP spokesman, said the scope of the late March meeting was to discuss outstanding business. "(It) was not in any way to negotiate or discuss putting additional funds into the water quality fund," he said.

Ann Fanizzi, an environmentalist who lives in Southeast, said she supports doing whatever it takes to protect the watershed. The New York City funds are depleted, and the county needs more money, she said. "I think the Legislature and Bondi have got to come together, and maybe Rodenhausen can be part of the team," she said.

The county hired Rodenhausen's firm in 1993 to evaluate the impact of new restrictions on development in New York City's watershed in Putnam. The county signed the $30 million agreement in 1997. City reservoirs in Putnam and northern Westchester form part of a system that supplies drinking water to 9 million people, including all of the city, most of Westchester and a third of Putnam.

A lot of the money was used to make large open space purchases, such as the 199-acre Tilly Foster Farms in Southeast for $3.9 million and $11.35 million for the Country Club at Lake MacGregor in Mahopac, now Putnam National Golf Club. The county has to repay $5 million of the $11.35 million to the watershed fund.

A significant portion of the money has gone toward drainage improvements, wastewater and sewer projects. The county is giving $2.1 million in watershed money for a sewage treatment plant in Patterson. More drainage, wastewater and sewer projects are on the horizon, but the county has little money to contribute to them.

Rodenhausen's firm has a contract to handle Putnam's watershed matters, County Attorney Carl Lodes said. Rodenhausen was on vacation and could not be reached for comment.

Legislator Vincent Tamagna, R-Philipstown, said the attorney would bring a level of sophistication to the bargaining table and "will go a long way in helping Putnam County get what it deserves."

Legislature Chairman Robert McGuigan, R-Mahopac, said the action is not meant as a vote of no confidence against Bondi, but it is meant to put him on notice.

"We just really need to have somebody like George, where this is his forte, sitting alongside the county executive," he said.

Legislator Sam Oliverio, D-Putnam Valley, said it makes sense to stick with someone who has brought the county success. "To say now that his expertise is no longer there or his day has passed would be ludicrous," he said.

Snow and salt

Snowfall amounts in 2000-05 as measured in White Plains, according to AccuWeather. Average snowfall for the winter season, which is considered November through March, is 38 inches.

• 2000-01, 60 inches

• 2001-02, 15 inches

• 2002-03, 70 inches

• 2003-04, 45 inches

• 2004-yesterday, 45 inches

Approximate tons of road salt used by the state and certain municipalities this winter

• New York state, 1 million

• Kent, 2,000

• New Rochelle, 6,500

• North Salem, 3,400

• Southeast, 3,000

• White Plains, 9,000

• Yorktown, 5,100

(Original publication: March 23, 2005)
CARMEL — Spring is just a few days old, but salt left on the roads from winter storms still eats cars — a season-spanning fact not lost on Jose Flolas, who was washing his blue Mazda on a recent afternoon.

"Absolutely," he said, explaining that he spends more time at the Brushless Carmel Car Wash on Old Route 6 in the winter than in the summer. "It's just that I'm more worried about my car."

In addition to corroding cars, road salt can be toxic to fish and amphibians, can contaminate water supplies and can kill vegetation. Sand, too, isn't welcome when it strays off pavement — clogging storm drains and filling streams with silt. Winters without either material would be nearly impossible, road chiefs and environmental advocates agree. The trick is balancing snow-and-ice-free roads while trying to limit contamination of surrounding areas.

"Salt's one of those materials that has a laundry list of adverse impacts to human health, wildlife and infrastructure," said Marc Yaggi, a senior attorney with the environmental group Riverkeeper, who co-authored a 2001 study on road salt's environmental impacts.

"At the same time, there needs to be some sort of de-icing program for public safety," he said.

Nationally, about 27 million tons of salt were sold for highway use last year, according to the Salt Institute, a Virginia-based industry group. First used in the 1930s to make roads passable, local public works departments spread millions of tons of salt and sand each snow season.

Salt lowers the freezing point of moisture on a road's surface, keeping snow and ice from bonding to pavement and allowing roads to be cleared more easily. Salt becomes less effective around 23 degrees and is virtually useless below 14 degrees. Colder weather is where sand comes in — providing traction on slippery surfaces that don't yield to salt.

"There is a psychological value to that. People like to see the sand. It's grit on the road, traction," North Salem Highway Superintendent Drew Outhouse said.

Road salt and sand both are considered non-point sources of pollution by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, meaning they are contaminants without a specific origin. Left behind when the snow melts, sand can wash into storm drains and roadside bodies of water, clogging habitats needed by fish, frogs and other creatures. Salt works its way into streams and lakes, changing the water chemistry and affecting the life cycle of amphibians.

Salty water most likely threatens the more sensitive species, such as wood frogs and certain species of salamanders, said Michael Klemens, director of the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, a program of the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society.

"Hypersaline habitats aren't good for amphibians," Klemens said. "Certainly, road salt has been demonstrated in experiments to be lethal or cause development problems to amphibians."

Highway departments try to be judicious when using the materials around waterways and drinking-water sources. North Salem recognizes several "no-salt spots" where residents have found high levels of salt in their wells. The state Department of Transportation, spokesman Peter Graves said, uses a single application per storm in sensitive areas.

There's no direct evidence linking road salt to wells with high levels of sodium chloride (salt's chemical compound), but the de-icer is the assumed source of the problem. Road salt has been blamed for polluted wells in Putnam Valley, Pound Ridge, North Salem and Stony Point.

John Coyle, a New York City Fire Department lieutenant who lives in North Salem, said his well water in 2003 went from delicious to tasting like "diluted sea water." Storm water, he said, ran down his road and across his lawn. The highway department built a curb on his property's edge last summer, keeping the water on the road.

"Since then, the obvious saltiness has dropped dramatically," Coyle said. "You used to be able to taste the saltiness in the shower. Today, I didn't taste it."

Many municipalities, such as Kent, North Salem, Southeast, New Rochelle and White Plains, are out sweeping their streets this week in an effort to capture the leftovers. Yorktown doesn't use any sand and mixes an additive with its salt, allowing the material to be used when it's as cold as 34 degrees below zero.

The calendar says spring, but those in charge of the area's roads aren't relaxing.

"I never trust Mother Nature," Outhouse said. "April 15 is when winter's over. At least I hope."

The road over the Croton Dam is set to reopen this month — but not to cars and trucks.

The New York City Department of Environmental Preservation, which owns and administers the dam and the road over it, is concluding a $5 million repair of a portion of the dam that closed the road to traffic.

But because of security concerns relating to terrorism, the road will not reopen for vehicles.

"The public road will not be reopened. The reason is the same as the Kensico Dam and at all of our dams," said DEP spokesman Ian Michaels, citing public safety.

"The Army Corps of Engineers did an evaluation, and one of their recommendations was that we close the roads over the dams, based on engineering concerns."

Michaels said the road would be open to pedestrians and bicyclists, and a physical barrier would be placed on the access points to the road to prevent cars and trucks from passing over it.

Discussions are under way to provide access to the road for emergency vehicles, he said, and the barriers could be removed in case of emergency by the DEP police.

The road over the dam was originally closed in 1999 when structural deficiencies were found, Michaels said. It has not been open since then.

The closing of the road has caused inconvenience, as well as safety concerns, for the Quaker Ridge and Teatown neighborhoods on the east bank of the Croton River.

Since the closing of the dam road, traffic has been funneled onto a century-old span less than a mile to the south over the Croton River.

The one-lane Quaker Bridge was never intended to handle such a traffic load.

The residential area east of the river receives fire protection from the village of Croton-on-Hudson, and firetrucks must pass over the dam road or the bridge to reach it.

Longtime Teatown resident Peter Sloan said the dam road's closing was a nuisance, but he was more concerned about the issue of emergency access.

"The road closing is an inconvenience, but I don't think we have much choice about it. It's probably the right decision, given the state of the world today," he said.

On the issue of emergency access, Sloan said he worried about maintenance of the bridge, which is Westchester County's responsibility, or a big hurricane that could flood the river and endanger the structure's viability.

He said the county and the town of Cortlandt should ensure that the bridge is properly maintained now that the dam road is not a reliable alternate.

"We're in deep trouble if that bridge is closed," he said. "I don't want a situation where we're stuck without a firetruck."

Cortlandt Supervisor Linda Puglisi said the town administration had tried to open the dam road by appealing to the DEP. She said she had received a dozen or more complaints about the road closing from residents. The Cortlandt Town Board approved a resolution two months ago calling for the road to reopen to vehicles.

"They said that for security purposes it's staying closed," Puglisi said. "The only thing we can do is lobby. It's a real inconvenience to our citizens, and we tried to do what we could to support them. But it's not our call."

Puglisi said the discussions about emergency access were continuing, and Croton Village Manager Richard Herbek said it appeared likely some kind of system to allow emergency vehicles from Croton over the dam road would be arranged.

A date for the dam road's opening to pedestrians has not been set, said Michaels, the DEP spokesman.

Good morning all - in the event that you are not a subscriber to or purchase the Putnam Courier, I am attaching Coalition Board Member, Robert Kogan's excellent OP-ED piece that appeared in this week's paper. After reading Robert's article, how can you not vote "YES" for the Open Space Bond Fund on November 8th.

And, I am trying to get Eileen's Gorin's equally excellent letter to the editor that also appeared in the same issue to post on the website and to distribute to the e-mail list.

Have a great weekend.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
PS - it is not too late to write to the Journal News - you can do it online or fax 1-914-696-8396. If you do, please limit yourself strictly to 250 words and include your address and telephone number. They will contact you prior to publication to verify the authorship of the letter.

Hi all - we should all carry Peter's letter with us - tells it all (my highlighted portion)

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
Please Vote Nov. 8th for Proposal Three- open space bond fund.

Undeveloped land saves services

(Original publication: November 4, 2005)
Recent letters questioning the cost of the proposed Putnam County Open Space bond miss the point of why we need to approve this bond: Undeveloped land does not drain municipal services. While it may be true that open land does not generate much tax revenue, neither does it consume expensive public services.

If anyone believes that massive development actually reduces taxes, you simply need to look at the tax situation in our neighboring communities, where there is large-scale commercial development. If these developments actually reduced taxes to any great extent, residents of those communities would be paying almost no taxes at all. Open space should not be confused with golf courses, country clubs and ball fields, which do require maintenance expenses. Undeveloped land does not require new schools, new roads, traffic lights, snow plowing, garbage pickups, sewage disposal, drainage improvements, water districts, police, and ambulance, medical and fire protection.

Peter Riebold, Patterson

Hi all - unfortunately, some (ironically those most threatened with development) just don't get it.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
Vote Nov. 8th - Proposal 3 for the open space bond fund

Some Putnam farmers oppose $20 million open-space fund
By SUSAN ELAN
selan@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS

Putnam's open-space referendum

A countywide referendum on Tuesday's ballot asks voters whether they would support borrowing $20 million over 20 years to buy endangered wetlands, forests and farmland.

It would cost 15 cents per $1,000 of assessed value for an average property owner over the life of the bond.

The fund would cost taxpayers $32 million over 20 years, or an annual $1.6 million per year in principal and interest. The fund could help leverage as much as $50 million in matching funds from other levels of government and nonprofit land conservation groups.

(Original publication: November 3, 2005)
Maria DiSalvo owns a 37-acre horse farm in Patterson, but she and some of her fellow Putnam farm owners plan to vote "no" Tuesday on a $20 million open-space referendum.

"We can't afford to spend another dime in taxes," said DiSalvo, owner of North Ridge Farm on Route 311. "They will force me to sell my farm, and they will put 30 houses here, and what will that accomplish? Let's keep the farms and land we have now instead of looking to create things that will never benefit the public."

Numerous environmental and conservation groups, however, support passage of the county's open-space resolution, saying it would help protect farmland, wetlands, woodlands, lakeshores and river frontage while blocking construction of new housing or shopping centers.

"The county could buy development rights, which would put cash in the pockets of farmers and allow them to continue doing what they're doing," said Erik Kulleseid, director of the state office of the Trust for Public Land. "The public sector would pay for them to keep farming."

If approved, the open-space measure would cost the average taxpayer an additional $44 a year. But in the long run, advocates say, it would put a cap on taxes by limiting the cost of education and other services that development brings.

"School budgets are skyrocketing as a result of residential development," said Ann Fanizzi, chairwoman of the Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space. "The reason we have these increases is because farms have given way to development."

DiSalvo, whose property is assessed at $1.1 million, says her immediate tax hike would be a lot higher than the amount open-space advocates tout and would continue to climb as land is removed from the tax rolls.

The county would borrow $20 million over 20 years to buy land for preservation. It would cost 15 cents per $1,000 of assessed value for an average property owner over the life of the bond, County Finance Commissioner William Carlin said. DiSalvo's bill would amount to $165 a year based on the latest equalization rates, he said.

The Nov. 8 referendum vote follows approval last month by the county Legislature of a 7.75 percent tax rate hike for next year — the first in a decade — to help cover the cost of the $124 million budget.

George Michaud, Putnam's director of Real Property Tax Services, said yesterday school, town, county and special district taxes are "the number one reason statewide why farms are going out of business."

About a third of Putnam's 247 square miles is open space. Farms make up 9,000 acres of Putnam's 158,080 acres. Taxation to pay for open space would place a double burden on farmers who, in addition to maintaining their own, would have to contribute to buying more, Michaud said.

Carla Sacco, owner of Zephyr Farm in Mahopac, and Laura Parker, owner of Inner Circle Farm in Patterson, say their horse boarding businesses can barely cover costs now.

"Taxes are becoming more and more prohibitive," said Parker, who in 2000 bought 73 acres destined for single-home construction after the developer went bankrupt. Instead of a subdivision with more than 20 homes, Parker created a 53-acre horse farm off White Hawk Trail and sold two large parcels with one home each.

Her farm is assessed at $1.9 million, and Parker said she doesn't know how much longer she can afford to stay in business.

"I'm not making money doing this," she said. "I do it because I love it. It's ironic, but my farm may be the next thing that goes on the market."

Sacco, who replaced a broken-down trailer on her 18-acre farm on Watermelon Hill Road with a house, said her property now is assessed at $1.2 million.

"I'm being taxed as if I own a private estate," said Sacco, who has taught riding and boarded horses there for 11 years. "I'm against anything that makes my taxes go up."

But Betsey Ryder of Ryder Farm in Southeast, an organic vegetable and flower operation, said she supports the open-space proposal.

Ryder said her family is considering the range of options for selling the development rights to its 125-acre property in Southeast that would preserve it as open space for agricultural activity forever.

"This would give some temporary financial gain, not a financial gain in perpetuity," she said. "What it would really affect is that the land would remain open space in perpetuity."

Hi all -
Excellent letter in today's Journal News on the open space referendum. I encourage you to write also and share the letter with friends and neighbors.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
Remember to Vote "YES" Nov. 8th on Proposal 3 Every vote will count.

Show we care, vote 'Yes' on open land
(Original publication: November 2, 2005)

Tuesday, the voters of Putnam County will be given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to show that we care about where we live. As one of the fastest-growing counties in New York, we have seen many of our beautiful hillsides cleared for more housing and commercial development, our main highways choked with traffic, our costs for uncrowded schools and government services rising at a rate almost beyond our ability to pay, and our water and air quality decreasing in more neighborhoods throughout our region.

The Putnam County legislators, with support from leading, local citizens, have placed a Community Open Space Fund proposal on the ballot. By voting "Yes,'' we can set aside some of our disappearing countryside for our enjoyment, while also protecting the environment and our quality of life. Nearly all surrounding counties have dedicated funds for this purpose, as have the state and federal governments. With the rising costs of land and the rising costs to taxpayers of unbalanced growth, it makes economic sense for Putnam County to wait no longer.

If we are to continue to be "Where the country begins," we must do something. A "Yes'' vote on the Putnam County Community Open Space Fund may be our only opportunity to show that we really care about where we live.

Dod Chahroudi, Patterson

Hi all - Yes, I do believe in Christmas and in miracles, The Journal News has come out for the open space referendum.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
Remember to vote Tues., Nov. 8th for the open space referendum.

Putnam open-space referendum
(Original publication: October 30, 2005)

It was back in May when the Putnam County Legislature voted unanimously to place a countywide referendum on the Nov. 8 ballot. The bottom-line question to voters: Is it worth $45 per household a year over the 20-year life of a proposed fund ­ $20 million total ­ to let the county buy properties for open space? For passive recreation, such as hiking and biking; for nonrecreational uses such as nature preserves; and to leverage as much as $50 million in matching funds or more from other levels of government and nonprofit land conservation groups?

For one of the fastest-growing counties in the state, and one of the smallest at that, we recommend an easy answer of "Yes,'' with a few caveats. County officials and others involved in the decision-making process in the years ahead are going to have to use the utmost in restraint and good judgment in deciding exactly how to spend the $20 million. It should be a transparent process, free of anything that could even smack of shenanigans or partisanship so that the paying public can feel assured that the money is well-spent.

After all, this is a populace that is experiencing its first county tax hike in a decade, which pales in comparison to what has happened to school-tax increases in Putnam. Nevertheless, the open-space money is an investment, not to go into the red but to keep green the county whose motto is, "Where the country begins.''

Fortunately, the referendum and accompanying legislation have sensible checks on unwise purchases. The county would be allowed to borrow up to $20 million to purchase open space, farmland, farmland development rights and other sensitive environmental parcels. A five-member committee would be set up to make recommendations on how to spend the money. That county Open Space Advisory Committee and the Legislature would have to vote unanimously to make an exception.

Numerous environmental and conservation groups support passage of the bond. A 2004 poll commissioned by the Open Space Institute and the Trust for Public Land found that up to 67 percent of voters would support it.

Overdevelopment and traffic in Putnam remain top concerns, of course. So do taxes and other pressures on the wallet. One resident interviewed by The Journal News said last month about the resolution: "I think open space is a good thing, but I don't want to pay for it."

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, particularly in these land-hungry times. To keep it country, Putnam needs to invest.

October 28, 2005

Good morning - for those of you who rely on PlanPutnam for the complete news, some of the news contained in the article was omitted. I have highlighted that portion.

Sincerely,

Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Putnam voters to decide next month on $20M open space fund
By SUSAN ELAN
selan@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: October 27, 2005)

Putnam voters will decide Nov. 8 on whether to create a $20 million open space fund to buy parcels of endangered wetlands, forests and farmland throughout the county.

Approval of the open space referendum, would cost the average household about $45 a year. The vote closely follows approval by the county Legislature earlier this month of a 7.75 percent tax rate hike in 2006 — the first in a decade — to help cover the cost of the $124 million budget.

Even though the average taxpayer can expect to spend an additional $48 next year on county taxes, Marie Zarcone, founder of Concerned Taxpayers of Putnam Valley, said she backs the open space resolution. It would allow the county to issue $20 million in serial bonds to acquire land for passive recreation, such as hiking, biking, fishing and hunting, and non-recreational uses, such as nature preserves and animal sanctuaries. The fund could also be used to buy farms and "critically sensitive environmental properties."

County officials estimate it would cost 16 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value for an average property owner over the life of the bond.

"It's a great thing that people will have a chance to give their input," Zarcone said of the referendum. "We don't want to see Putnam overbuilt."

Taxpayers would wind up spending more in the long run to provide the added police, firefighters and teachers that increased residential development would require, Zarcone said.

Will Abberger, a spokesman for the Trust for Public Land, said a recent poll of voters shows continued support for the open space measure. A 2004 poll commissioned by the Open Space Institute and the Trust for Public Land found that up to 67 percent of voters would support spending $20 million. Voters said growth and development were the most important issues facing the county.

County Executive Robert Bondi, who proposed the open space fund in his 2004 State of the County address, has said he objects to changes made to his original proposal that prohibit the purchase of land with recreational facilities on it. Special purchases would require a unanimous vote by a new five-member advisory committee and the nine Putnam legislators.

Ann Fanizzi, chairwoman of the Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space, said she expects residents to recognize the expenditure as an investment.

"It conserves irreplaceable water quality and incomparable vistas and landscapes. This is a value that is priceless," Fanizzi said.

October 27, 2005

Support open-space proposition in Putnam - New York Journal News Opinion

Vote "Yes" on the $20 million open space referendum - an investment that will
keep on giving for generations to come.
Ann Fanizzi

June 26, 2005

06/15/2005 - Court ruling on condemnation still leaves lots to fight about - New York Journal News Article

June 17, 2005

From: Tom Andersen <tom@westchesterlandtrust.org>
To: wltnews@mailman.westchesterlandtrust.org
Subject: Action needed on Community Preservation Act
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:34:24 -0400

The Community Preservation Act, granting towns the ability to raise money
for open space acquisition through a minor real estate transfer fee, is
being passed by the assembly tonight. It is off to the Senate tomorrow where
by all accounts it has enough votes to pass. However some senators are
saying it won't be allowed to come up for a vote.

The senate finishes its work for the year tomorrow, so it is essential that
you take a minute today to help make sure they get a chance to vote on it.

E-mail Senator Joseph Bruno, the majority leader:

bruno@senate.state.ny.us

or fax him at 518-455-2448

His phone is 518-455-3191

Ask him to put the Community Preservation Act up for a vote.

Many thanks.

Tom Andersen
Projects Director
Westchester Land Trust
914 241 6346 x24
www.WestchesterLandTrust.org

June 17, 2005

06/15/2005 - In Putnam, Open Space Now Has a Price - New York Times Article

Hi all - more than ever, we need open space to renew, revitalize and reinvigorate. Remember November and vote for the open space bond fund.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

The call of the wild
By ROB RYSER
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: June 9, 2005)

CROSS RIVER

As a boy in Belfast, Danny Martin hiked the hills of Black Mountain that sheltered his home in Northern Ireland's capital.

At that height, where the lapwings and the curlews made their nests, he would lie in the heather and feel such harmony with the heavens, he recalls, that it was like receiving Communion at early morning Mass.

Now, as a 58-year-old man in America, Martin still pursues the panorama near his home at the Ward Pound Ridge Reservation — where hawks ascend on thermal winds and again bring him eye to eye with the ethereal.

"There is an expansion of my soul, an expansion of my sense of self," Martin said about what happens to him in nature, about what always has happened to him in nature. "The beauty of it blows open the tendency I have to live in the presence of my own making."

In a wider sense, and for many of the same reasons that Martin still cultivates the connection he experienced in his youth, the New York suburbs are celebrating an open-space renaissance that hasn't been seen since Earth Day was introduced 35 years ago.

The new reverence for nature and the zeal for preserving the wilds of Westchester and Putnam counties, highlighted by bold public acquisitions of private land that seemed unthinkable only a few years ago, seem almost religious.

"Environmentalism and spirituality at their best are inseparable because both have the same capacity to make a person feel a connection to something larger," said John Cronin, a Hudson River activist from Cold Spring who, as the nation's first riverkeeper, earned one of Time magazine's Hero of the Planet honors in 1999. "To some, it may sound like New Age mumbo jumbo, but it is the honest truth."

Open space now is more than 35 percent of all Westchester County land, accounting for more than 100,000 acres. In Putnam County, where nearly 28 percent of the land is open space, leaders will ask voters in the fall for $20 million to preserve more wilds.

That is not to say that environmental activists are changing their tactics, but rather that the culture is making a connection with nature that runs deeper than protecting water from pollution, wildlife from destruction and suburbs from sprawl, advocates agree.

The renewal is as much about beauty as it is about biology, as much about the spiritual as it is about the scientific and as much about values as it is about economics.

Whether it is a need to reconnect or to disengage, a need to feel whole or to lose oneself, a need for solitude or for the companionship that author Henry David Thoreau described as an "infinite and unaccountable friendliness," the draw of nature is more universal than it is individual. Although nature has met human needs in every age and season, something about the modern toxins of materialism, alienation and polarization makes nature a particularly effective antidote today.

"There is a shift in human consciousness, and biodiversity is becoming a kind of an awe of nature, a spiritual appreciation of nature," said Michael Barnhardt, a father of two and a philosophy professor who pushed with hundreds of residents for the $20 million public purchase of 650 acres of woods in central Somers, a deal that also preserves watershed lands, protects rare wildlife and erases plans for 108 mansions.

"What has rallied people up here to the cause, and what they tell you if you ask them — they put it in the language of beauty and aesthetics," Barnhardt said.

Simply put, the green gospel is winning converts on what might be called moral issues. Those imperatives, in turn, are fueling a new faith in nature as the hope of the future, activists argue.

"People have always found their values and elevated their values in wilderness," said environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of Mount Kisco. "When we cut ourselves off from nature, we cut ourselves off from the source of our values and, ultimately, we lose our humanity."

It is a suburban awakening, particularly in northern Westchester and Putnam counties, that politicians have acted on with success, in contrast to well-meaning public spending efforts that have failed recently, including referendums for a municipal pool and a town recreation center.

In just the past two months, for example, in addition to the coalition in Somers that made the deal for 650 acres, Lewisboro found partners to buy a 385-acre estate off the development market for $8 million. The deals followed similarly ambitious moves by Putnam County government to buy a country club and surrounding acres in Mahopac for $11 million and to preserve the landmark Tilly Foster Farm in Southeast for nearly $4 million.

Because there is a limit to everything, especially taxpayer money, advocates will watch how the open-space referendum fares in Putnam in November.

The vote should help locate the crest of the wave that open-space acquisition has been riding since the turn of the millennium, when a survey showed that Westchester residents would pay more taxes to preserve open space. A June 2004 survey of 400 registered Putnam voters found a similar result.

The taxpayer support has powered Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano's Legacy program, which has preserved some 2,000 acres on 15 parcels from Yonkers to Yorktown in the past seven years. It has coincided with an aggressive land acquisition agenda by New York City watershed officials and their counterparts at the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

Those forces, combined with private efforts by preservation organizations, such as Teatown Lake Reservation, and the growth of green businesses, including nurseries and stables, have added more than 15,000 acres of open space in Westchester County since 1994.

"We wanted to save pastoral settings where people could go forever and enjoy things the way they always were," Spano said. "Nature gives you a sense of inner peace that is essential."

Ann Fanizzi, chair of the Coalition for Open Space in Putnam, said nature's capacity to renew worn souls is what makes it so attractive today.

"I think there is a spiritual stream running through this, absolutely," she said. "I feel that very deeply."

So, too, of course, does Danny Martin, a former priest whose work since coming to the United States in 1984 has included writing an Earth charter for the United Nations and systems consulting.

Sometimes, Martin said, he can feel himself drawn, as if by the earth's gravity, into a "wider, forgotten identity," making him more aware of the "interbeing of things."

To be sure, the nature experience for most people is hard to put into such poetry. It may be difficult to articulate because the language of beauty is so rarely used. Perhaps words alone have never been enough in nature, even for a master such as Thoreau, who writes in "Walden" that his feelings in nature are as "indescribable as the tints of morning."

"We were just saying how this was a personal thing, weren't we?" said Patricia Pessoni, 65, of Pound Ridge, prompting her smiling but silent friend Ginny Powers, 68, also from Pound Ridge, as the two passed a bog where wild grapes grow on the Ward Pound Ridge Reservation.

Difficult as it is, expressing the inexpressible effect of nature on the soul dates to the nation's earliest landscape painters of the Hudson River School. It bloomed with writers such as Thoreau and Sierra Club founder John Muir, who both saw in nature the surest evidence of immortality and eternity.

"I have a biology degree, and from my experience on the Planning Board, I understood the hard science and the zoning tools, but I was completely missing the other half of the equation," said James Nordgren, Lewisboro's supervisor. His desire to verbalize the values in nature led him to enroll earlier in the spring in a course called Aesthetics and Ethics at Yale University with a Town Board colleague. "There is a growing awareness that we have more than just an economic relationship to the land, but something far deeper."

That said, most environmentalists warn there is a limit to how much revelation conservation can borrow from theology. The main reason: In the realm of coalition-building and competition for government open-space funds, the more neutral and quantifiable the language, the better.

"We have to rationalize what we are doing," said Tom Andersen, the projects director for the Westchester Land Trust. "We have never argued that there are reasons for protecting land beyond the watershed, biodiversity and community character, although I think everybody feels that there are."

It also is true that the joining of spiritual values and environmental activism represents a mixing of what often has been cast as competing world views, insofar as ecologists have argued that the Judeo-Christian focus on eternal life neglects the life of the earth.

Yet, if the nation is to have the dialogue of meaning about the environment that some activists believe was skipped during the turbulent 1970s, the language of the divine may be that resource to engage a new generation.

"We can't let politics take the place of values," Cronin said. "The 20th century was the era of environmental brawn. The 21st century has got to be about the hearts and minds."

Hi all - another land preservation tool - the conservation easement, being used in Cortlandt in addition to town land preservation funds. The Town of Southeast Open Space Committee is gathering information on properties meeting eligibility criteria for preservation. If you are aware of such properties and wish that they be considered for preservation, please e-mail, Angelo Matra -amatra@greenchimneys.org.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Group takes conservation stance in Cortlandt
By BRIAN J. HOWARD
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: June 5, 2005)

Cortlandt residents concerned with rampant development and dwindling open space have joined forces with one of the county's leading land preservation groups.

The Cortlandt Land Trust, formed in January as a chapter of the Westchester Land Trust, made its first public outreach last week by appealing to the owners of undeveloped parcels to consider conservation easements to preserve their land. Letters went out Friday to 80 or so owners of properties identified in the town's 2004 Comprehensive Plan.

"It's our first contact with the public and what we're all about," said co-Chairwoman Lisa Moir. "I think more and more people who live in this area are aware of what a beautiful place this is."

Moir and her husband moved to Croton three years ago and soon became concerned with development near her property. She took an interest in the Comprehensive Plan process, which began in 2000 and wrapped up last July. Besides spurring her to get involved, the study generated a list of potentially developable properties ripe for preservation.

Without funding to purchase properties, the new land trust is taking a softer approach, Moir said. The hope is to convince property owners of the benefits of a conservation easement — the chapter's most effective tool for land preservation. Landowners who consent to an easement may be eligible for a federal income tax break and help stem the tide of overdevelopment that plagues so many communities, the group's letter states.

North Castle, Lewisboro and New Castle also have local chapters of the Westchester Land Trust. There are independent land trusts in five other Westchester communities. Teatown Lake Reservation and the Mianus River Gorge Preserve act as trusts for the local area.

The Westchester Land Trust provides chapters technical, organizational and legal expertise, outreach coordinator Eileen Goren said. "But they are the people who know the important issues in their own community, what is important to preserve," she said. "They have the relationships in town to work with both the land owners and the town government."

Cortlandt Councilman Frank Farrell said the local land trust brings a valuable perspective to the development review process.

"I think that's a pretty good viewpoint to have at the table," Farrell said. "I think now is a good time for it."

Heavily developed along its northern and southwestern flanks, Cortlandt has a recent track record for land preservation. In 2000, the town, county and Scenic Hudson purchased 352 acres known as Hillpoint for $6 million. Three months later, the town created a reserve fund for land acquisition.

But successful open-space preservation often begins at the local level, Katharine McLoughlin found. The 16-year resident and chapter co-chairwoman came to the cause from a political background. The two-time county legislator candidate works for Assemblywoman Sandra Galef, D-Ossining, and was county coordinator for the League for Conservation Voters.

She hopes the Cortlandt Land Trust can teach people about the connections between environmental initiatives and the larger picture, such as when a golf course development drives deer herds into surrounding neighborhoods.

"We're on the ground going neighborhood by neighborhood," McLoughlin said. "It's not from the top down."

Good morning all - Let's help people connect the dots between development and taxes. Lisa's letter is a great start. We need more letters in the same vein, especially in light of the unprecedented number of huge development proposals that are flooding the county from one end to the other.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Development leads to higher taxes
(Original publication: May 25, 2005)

I was most disappointed in the defeat, not only of the Brewster school budget, but also of the proposition to acquire new buses.

In a democracy, we pay taxes into a system that may benefit one group more than others. School tax is one example, another is Medicaid. One benefits our children, the other our elderly and infirm. Both are necessary and of vital importance. Our children deserve a quality education, as well as buses that are safe and non-polluting (to the maximum extent possible).

If people want to keep taxes down, might I suggest showing up at town meetings when developers present their monstrous projects for approval? These overburden our school district, as well as our infrastructure, water, air and quality of life. Currently, there are four or five ruinous projects planned for our area. One of them, Campus at Fields Corner at Pugsley Road, alone will add 143 new, large homes! The commercial developments entice new residents to our area as well. Let's implement a new school-impact tax for developers to pay to lessen the burden they saddle us with! And please help us fight to keep development small and sustainable by attending the town meetings!

Lisa Aurello, Brewster

May 26, 2005

DRAFT Charter

May 6, 2005

Putnam County, NY Talking Points

May 4, 2005

Press Release

Open space vote likely in Putnam
By CARA MATTHEWS
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: May 4, 2005)

CARMEL — Residents of Putnam will likely get to voice their opinion in November on whether it's worth an annual average of $45 per household — $20 million total — to maintain the county's country feel.

The Legislature voted 9-0 last night to place a referendum on the ballot on preserving woodlands, lake shores and wetlands. The measure needs the approval of County Executive Robert Bondi.

Ann Fanizzi, a Southeast resident who heads the Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space, said she was confident voters would approve the expense. Many people are growing more concerned that the increasing traffic and development in Putnam may forever change its bucolic feel, as referred to in the county's motto of being where the country begins. Putnam's population recently topped 100,000.

"They want to truly live in a county where the country begins," Fanizzi said.

County officials estimate that the $20 million will boil down to about $45 a year for an average property owner over the life of the bond. It would cost 16 cents per $1,000 of assessed property.

"It's a small price to pay," said Legislator Vincent Tamagna, R-Philipstown.

A 2004 poll commissioned by the Open Space Institute and the Trust for Public Land found that up to 67 percent of voters would support spending $20 million. Voters said growth and development were the most important issues facing the county.

If the referendum passes, county officials will need to be picky about parcels they buy, said Tamagna, head of the Legislature's Land Acquisition Committee.

"We're not looking to buy just any land. ... We're looking to buy land that is unique," he said.

Although Putnam is facing a potential $9.1 million budget gap for 2006, lawmakers said taxpayers, not their panel, should decide on the additional spending.

Bondi and the Legislature have asked state lawmakers to approve a sales tax increase of half a percentage point, to 8 percent, and a mortgage tax increase to help bring in more revenues. Bondi has said it may be necessary to raise the property tax rate 10 percent next year, after many years of remaining stable.

Under the resolution, the county could purchase properties for passive recreation, such as hiking and biking, and for nonrecreational uses such as nature preserves. The money could also go toward farms and development rights to farms; environmentally sensitive areas; and land that falls into special circumstances. A new, five-member county Open Space Advisory Committee and the Legislature would have to vote unanimously to make an exception.

Bondi's administration asked that the special-circumstances clause be more flexible and allow for majority, rather than unanimous, votes. Attempts by Legislator Arne Nordstrom, R-Kent, to revise the resolution in those respects failed.

Legislator Dan Birmingham, R-Brewster, argued against changing the vote structure.

"This is only one out of six categories of property that we would be acquiring," he said.

The county has made significant purchases of open space in the past several years. One, the Country Club at Lake MacGregor in Mahopac and adjoining land, includes a golf course and would not fall under passive recreation. The club, now called Putnam National Golf Club, cost $11.35 million. The county used money from a watershed protection fund set up by New York City to protect its water supply in Putnam to buy the Mahopac property and Tilly Foster Farms in Southeast. The county acquired Tilly Foster, which cost $3.9 million, in 2002 and the golf club in 2003.

In a news release dated today, the Putnam County Open Space Alliance hailed the Legislature's vote. The alliance is a coalition of environmental groups. According to the release, Putnam is the first New York county outside Long Island to put an open-space fund question before voters. Nationwide last year, 75 percent of open- space measures were approved, including seven of nine in New York, it said.

Andrew Chmar, executive director of the Garrison-based Hudson Highlands Land Trust and co-chairman of the alliance, said he agrees with the restrictions on spending the money. He said it would be important to seek federal, state and local matching funds to make the $20 million go further.

"The key is these monies, as Vinny Tamagna said and his colleagues reinforced, $20 million is not a lot of money when you talk about the property values across the county and how much money it's going to take to buy one property," he said.

April 27, 2005

Hi all - Support the Open Space Fund - an investment that keeps on giving forever.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Protecting Putnam land is crucial
(Original publication: April 26, 2005)

According to the April 20 article, "$20M sought for open space in Putnam," come November, voters from Putnam County will be deciding if $20 million is worth preserving the county's land, lakeshores and wetlands

This is a big decision for the voters/taxpayers, because $20 million will increase taxes by $45 for the next two decades. The county has also asked the state to approve the increasing sales tax rate in Putnam to 8 percent from the standing half a percentage point. That's not all that would change. County Executive Robert Bondi believes that it may be necessary to raise property taxes by 10 percent next year.

I personally am not a taxpayer in Putnam County, but I believe that saving and protecting the county's environment is important. With Putnam County being one of the fastest-growing counties in the State of New York, protecting what the county still has is a must. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated a population increase of 5 percent between April of 2000 and July of 2004. Putnam has a total population of 100,570. With the increase in population, the land is, however, decreasing.

So what do you think? Is $20 million worth saving the environment in Putnam? We will find out in November.

Frank Locascio, Carmel

March 29, 2005

----------------------------------------------------------
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

Environmental Protection Fund Eliminated From
"On-Time" State Budget
----------------------------------------------------------

Budget negotiations have broken down among the "three men in
a room" who ultimately govern the state of New York,
regarding inclusion of the Environmental Protection Fund in
the state's 2005-06 budget. At this writing, the EPF, as
it's known, will not be in the budget.

Many things are funded by the EPF, including some excellent
DEC program areas, open space acquisition, parks, and many
community projects. It's funded by a real estate transfer
tax (which presumably won't be rescinded).

It's vital to the remember that OPEN SPACE = HABITAT. The
EPF is the single most important economic force working to
create an environmental legacy for future generations of New
Yorkers. Open Space preservation and parklands created with
EPF money are the first line of defense against untrammeled
sprawl development across the state.

PLEASE CALL GOVERNOR PATAKI, ASSEMBLY SPEAKER SHELDON
SILVER, AND SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOSEPH BRUNO, AND URGE
THEM TO RESTORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND.

Gov. Pataki: 518-474-8390
Sheldon Silver: 518-455-3791 or 212-312-1420
Joseph Bruno: 518-455-3191 or 518-583-1001

---------------------------------------------------------
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater
112 Market Street Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
If you don't want to get any more mail like this, please
reply to this message and ask to be removed from the list
or remove yourself at http://www.clearwater.org/list.html
---------------------------------------------------------

Slow-Growth Camp Blasts Court's Logic
Fight for Loudoun Home Limits Vowed
By Michael Laris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 5, 2005; Page B01

Advocates of controlling growth in Loudoun County yesterday denounced what they said was laughable logic used by Virginia's Supreme Court to jettison strict limits on home building, and they pledged a political fight aimed at getting the slow-growth policies reinstated.

Alternating between bluster, flashes of anger and candid moments of disappointment, several officials and their political supporters appealed to Loudoun's full Board of Supervisors to fix the problems the court found in how the proposed policies were advertised, to hold new public hearings and to adopt the stiff building curbs once again.

But some members of the Republican-controlled board said they have no interest in reinstating the restrictions.

"I think that's a mistake," said Supervisor Mick Staton Jr. (R-Sugarland Run).

Board Chairman Scott K. York (I), who was reelected countywide in 2003 on his record as an architect of development restrictions, had trouble settling on just one epithet for the court's reasoning, calling it, among other things, "the most bogus thing I've ever heard."

After a raucous debate over property rights and the environment, which included hundreds of hours of public meetings over three years, Loudoun's closely watched and highly controversial construction curbs went down Thursday because of what some dubbed an embarrassing technicality. That reality stung in some quarters yesterday, with one prominent slow-growth supporter questioning the leadership of county officials who spent years crafting the new rules only to see them dismantled on a minor point.

"For it to be so faulty that it can be dismissed out of hand is really a condemnation of that four years of effort," said Ed Risse, a private planning consultant who has campaigned to control the county's growth. "It's hard for me to say it's an excusable thing."

A county official responded that Loudoun had published its public hearing notice in early 2003, months before the court defined the standards in a similar case.

Others sympathetic to attempts to stem growth in the nation's fastest-growing county argued that attorneys for land owners, developers and others who launched a well-funded campaign to overturn the rules pursued a disingenuous legal strategy that undercut the will of Loudoun residents.

Richard Collins, a professor of urban and environmental planning at the University of Virginia who consulted on the county's early legal defense, said all sides agree that the county should strictly follow rules on public notice. But, he said, the plaintiffs prevailed at the Supreme Court by taking that to the absurd.

"Their tactic is to find every conceivable technicality, no matter how ridiculous, in order to strike down the legislation without getting to the substantive issues," Collins said. "We have to have the rule of law. But to express it in this case to such a ridiculous extent is to threaten legitimate democratic process. . . . It casts question on what the rule of law really means. Is it rule by judges we're really talking about?"

The court did not rule on whether the construction curbs -- which required 10, 20 or 50 acres to build a house, as opposed to previous rules requiring three acres -- violated property owners' rights.

Instead, the judges ruled that the supervisors violated state law by failing to cite "specific geographic boundaries or landmarks" in the required advertisements that would have clarified just where their restrictions were planned.

The county advertisement had stated simply that "most of . . . the western portion of the County" would be affected, which the court said was insufficient, inaccurate and misleading because the area described as "western" actually stretched far into the county's eastern portion.

Many in the county have long referred to the 300 square miles of semirural land that covers two-thirds of the county as "western Loudoun," York said. He added that on four occasions, the county sent notices to nearly every property owner, even those whose land was not affected.

"I'm embarrassed for the Supreme Court," York said. "To simply say . . . the legal notice was incorrect is completely asinine."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7094-2004Oct4.html?referrer=emailarticle

<< Message from the Riverkeeper Watershed mailing list >>
Folks,
Pasted below is a press release that discusses some of the findings of
Stroud's Phase I report.
Marc

CLEAN DRINKING WATER COALITION
CATSKILL CENTER
NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
RIVERKEEPER

EMBARGO UNTIL 12:01 AM, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1

CONTACTS: Alex Matthiessen, Riverkeeper (845) 424-4149
Marc A. Yaggi, Riverkeeper (914) 422-4343
Cathleen Breen, NYPIRG (212) 349-6460
Tom Alworth, Catskill Center (845) 586-2611

New Scientific Study: Development Threatening Drinking Water For Millions
White Plains, NY - Environmental groups today applauded a new study of the
New York City drinking water supply watershed conducted by the
world-renowned Stroud Water Research Center. The report - a culmination of
three years of intensive water sampling and analysis - shows that
development is causing significant problems for the drinking water supply of
millions of New Yorkers. The nearly 700-page study was funded through the
Safe Drinking Water Act, pursuant to the 1997 New York City Watershed
Memorandum of Agreement. The New York City watershed, which provides
unfiltered drinking water to nearly 9 million New Yorkers, is located
primarily in the Catskills (West-of-Hudson) and in Northern Westchester and
Putnam Counties (East-of-Hudson).

"The trends established in Stroud's three years of research make crystal
clear that ill-conceived development is threatening the safety and quality
of drinking water for millions of New Yorkers" stated Hudson Riverkeeper
Alex Matthiessen. "It is a clarion call to protect more open space and to
force developers to propose less harmful projects that reduce pavement
levels in Northern Westchester and Putnam Counties," added Matthiessen.

Among the key findings of the report are:

· Macroinvertebrate (aquatic insect larva) indices for sites located
in the East-of-Hudson (EOH) watershed indicated a range of biological
impairment at sites with more paved surfaces, higher population densities,
and higher flows from sewage treatment plants.

What this means: Development is impairing biological integrity and water
quality in the EOH watershed. Healthy macroinvertebrate communities are
indicators of good water quality. In the EOH watershed, the impacts of
development on these communities indicate degraded water quality.

· Human waste contributions (at indicated by tracers such as caffeine,
fragrances, fecal sterols) were positively correlated with sewage treatment
plant discharges.

What this means: Sewage treatment plants in the EOH watershed are
contributing measurable amounts of contaminants to the City's unfiltered
drinking water supply.

· In the West-of-Hudson (WOH) watersheds, macroinvertebrate indices
represented healthy biological communities. However, there were measurable
and predictable changes in water chemistry associated with differences in
land cover/use (agriculture vs. forest) across the WOH watersheds.

What this means: Overall, the WOH watersheds were not yet biologically
impaired by development, but observed trends suggest that increased
development could lead to measurable water quality degradation.

· Fecal steroid data suggested that human sewage was a constant and
dominant source of fecal contamination at many stream sites in both EOH and
WOH watersheds.

What this means: Sewage treatment plants and failing septic systems - not
geese and/or other wildlife - were responsible for most of the fecal
coliform bacterial entering surface water supplies.

· The water quality scores for 19 of the 30 WOH sites showed no stream
health impairment. In contrast, only 4 of the 30 EOH sites showed no
impairment.

What this means: Water quality in the heavily developed EOH watershed is
significantly more degraded than in streams in the forested, rural WOH
watershed.

"Over the years, many agency officials have been reluctant to place
restrictions on impervious surfaces in Northern Westchester and Putnam
Counties. They claimed that the science was missing. Here it is:
development and its high levels of pavement threaten public health. Now, it
is time to take more aggressive measures," stated Cathleen Breen, Watershed
Coordinator for the New York Public Interest Research Group.

The study found that the forested Catskills watersheds produced drinking
water of much higher quality. "This study affirms our belief that we should
be revitalizing our downtown hamlets and restricting sprawl. Healthy,
intact forests are doing their work in the Catskills," said Tom Alworth,
Executive Director of the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development.

The Catskill Center, New York Public Interest Research Group, and
Riverkeeper are members of the Clean Drinking Water Coalition. The Stroud
Water Research Center's report is available online at:
http://www.stroudcenter.org/research/NYReport/Phase1FinalReport.pdf

Town supervisors detail watershed pact's effects
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: September 22, 2004)

The 1997 agreement between New York City and communities in its watershed set out to protect the city's drinking water.

But like any set of rules, the document has detractors and defenders. Yesterday, three leaders from Westchester and Putnam towns played both roles.

"We all have spent a bit of time grappling with the watershed regulations," Yorktown Supervisor Linda Cooper said. "But for all my venting, the good work that is being done travels right along with that frustration."

Cooper was joined by Patterson Supervisor Michael Griffin and Somers Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy at the sixth annual Conference on Watershed Protection. The three spoke for about 45 minutes at the event, which was sponsored by the state, city and several private organizations. The supervisors touched on the rules and their role in managing storm water, dealing with sewage waste and protecting open space.

Cooper and Griffin signed the agreement, which aims to keep contaminants out of the city's reservoirs by limiting development through property acquisition and land-use regulations, almost eight years ago. Less development means less potential pollution washing into the reservoirs.

Murphy was appointed supervisor after then-Supervisor William Harding resigned to head the state Watershed Protection and Partnership Council, the group running yesterday's event. Harding yesterday said such conferences usually allow those formulating regulations to discuss matters. The supervisors, he said, provide another perspective.

"It's also informative to hear what the regulated are thinking," said Harding, who was a key negotiator for Westchester when the agreement was written.

Murphy said the agreement gives Somers an assistance network as it seeks funding for a 628-acre tract, the largest private-land tract left in Westchester. The land is slated for the Eagle River project, a proposed 108-home subdivision.

Allan Golden, a Somers resident and organizer of the group ForSomers.org, agreed with Murphy's assertion. Golden's group has advocated for protecting the 628 acres from development.

"I do think there is a heightened awareness because things like the (agreement) have sparked interest in doing everything to preserve wetlands and open space," said Golden, who didn't attend yesterday's session.

The agreement, Cooper said, doesn't provide the "conflict resolution" needed in the ongoing debate about Yorktown's plan to divert sewage from its faulty Hallock's Mill plant to the county-owned plant in Peekskill. That idea, which New York City supports, has stalled because Peekskill officials adamantly oppose it even though the county facility can adequately handle the waste. The treated effluent would then be discharged into the Hudson River instead of a drinking water supply. The city, the county and the state "haven't found a common will on achieving that purpose," she said.

"There are tremendous frustrations when regulatory agencies can't come together to achieve the goal," Cooper said.

Elected officials, Griffin said, have it harder than the regulatory agencies because officials have to deal with all concerns, not just environmental ones. Proposed developments, he said, undergo a much more stringent review than they did seven years ago. But environmental officials have to remember one thing, he said.

"(Environmental laws) are a tool, not a weapon," Griffin said.

Send e-mail to Michael Risinit

How can Mr. Bondi approve $2.3 million for a few hundred condo owners while denying the same support to the thousands of residents of Peach Lake, Putnam Lake, Lake Tonetta, Brewster village and Lake Peekskill? While the preservation of open space is surely an admirable goal, it must be noted that these watershed funds were specifically provided for the types of projects Peach Lake and Brewster village represent. It must also be noted that significant other funds have disappeared into Putnam's budgetary black hole — the $9 million Ziff settlement, tobacco lawsuit funds, etc. — funds that should have been used for discretionary purchases.

Fortunately, the watershed money does not belong to Mr. Bondi; it belongs to the people of Putnam County. And through their representatives — the Legislature — the people need to speak out. I urge all interested individuals to contact their legislators and demand these funds be used as intended.
Ken Harper, Patterson

Mount Pleasant is no longer being considered as a possible site for the construction of a multibillion dollar water filtration plant, New York City officials said this week.

The plant will be built at the Mosholu Golf Course in the Bronx's Van Cortlandt Park, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a press conference Wednesday during a question and answer session. The news was expected, since city officials have been vocal in expressing support for the Bronx site.

"Putting it in Westchester would have been, I always thought, a bad idea, and I'm glad the recommendation came out the way that it is," Bloomberg said at the press conference.

The mayor's announcement came after the city's Department of Environmental Protection completed an environmental review and made its recommendation to build the plant in the Bronx.

Bloomberg said that keeping the plant in the city would be less expensive and would generate 600 local construction jobs.

Mount Pleasant Supervisor Robert Meehan said yesterday the news was not surprising.

"It (the news) was expected since the city got approval from the state to put in that area," he said.

Last year, the state Legislature and Gov. George Pataki gave the city approval to build the plant in Van Cortlandt Park. State permission was necessary because it is public parkland.

The plant would have generated approximately $2 million a year in property taxes for Mount Pleasant.

The federal government ordered the New York City to build the filtration plant in 1993 after concluding that development near the Croton watershed threatened water quality. The city considered three sites for the plant, including the site in Mount Pleasant and a parcel along the Harlem River.

Opponents of the Bronx site have threatened to sue the city on environmental justice grounds. They argue that the city's environmental impact statement underestimates the impact to the Norwood section of the Bronx, which is a densely populated, high-traffic area.

Mount Pleasant is now considering another plan to put a water-treatment facility on the 90-acre site near the Westchester County jail. The proposed facility would use ultraviolet radiation to treat water from the Catskill and Delaware aqueducts.

The tax revenue from the project has not been determined, Meehan said.

"The ultraviolet light plant is smaller," Meehan said, "but it will be significant."

Send e-mail to Hannan Adely

Filtration plant would endanger Croton watershed
MARIAN H. ROSE
(Original publication: July 4, 2004)
(The writer is president of the Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition.)

New York City has chosen to build a water-filtration plant at Van Cortlandt
Park in the Bronx after considering that site and two others: one in Mount
Pleasant, and one along the Harlem River in the city. Here, the president of an
organization against filtration explains the group's opposition.

Every time we fill our cars with gas, we are reminded of how precious oil is
to our way of life. What we too easily forget is that water is even more
valuable; we literally cannot live without it.

There is an unheralded battle raging right now, in our own region, over the
future of our own water supplies, that could determine the future viability of
New York City and surrounding areas. It is a battle for control of the city's
watersheds, among them the Croton, whose wetlands and forests protect the
streams and reservoirs that furnish the city and its metropolitan area with
arguably the best, most abundant water supply of any large city in the world.

Water from the city's 2,000-square-mile watershed both east and west of the
Hudson River pours at a rate of over 1 billion gallons per day into three
mighty aqueducts that bring this high-quality water to 9 million people, more than
half of New York state, including New York City and 85 percent of Westchester.

As guardians of this critical water supply, the city's Department of
Environmental Protection and the state's Department of Environmental Conservation and
Department of Health should be vigorously protecting the watershed from any
development that could degrade its reservoirs. Instead, water from the Croton
watershed, a 380-square-mile area that includes half of Putnam County and much
of northern Westchester, is under a court's Consent Order to be filtered at a
cost of $1.2 billion, this despite the Croton's continued compliance with state
and federal health standards. In addition to filtration, the plant would use
a variety of chemical processes. Tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals
would be stored on-site, such as sulfuric and phosphoric acid, and many others
that are classified as "hazardous" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The mere prospect of filtration has resulted in the regulatory agencies
making only minimal efforts to protect the Croton watershed. Only a few hundred
acres have been protected. By contrast, more than 3,000 acres are currently under
application for housing developments, conference centers, golf courses and
industrial parks. Since this remaining undeveloped land is marginal — mostly
wetlands, steep slopes, thick forests and rocky terrain — these projects can only
be carried out by wholesale destruction of the existing landscape.

Not surprisingly, these projects are being resisted by a determined local
citizenry, volunteers doing the work of the agencies that are supposed to protect
their watershed. These citizens are the heroes of the ongoing struggle to
protect our irreplaceable water resources. They turn out by the hundreds at
public hearings and speak knowledgeably and passionately of their wish to protect
their community character and, most important, to protect their water. Their
efforts have resulted in not a single major development winning approval in the
watershed in the last three years.

Effective, vigorous watershed protection is recognized by all responsible
agencies as being the most critical element in the process of providing safe,
clean drinking water. The DEP admits that without watershed protection no
chemical treatment/filtration plant, as presently designed, will be able to eliminate
the toxic, carcinogenic mix of petroleum products that gets washed off roads
and parking lots into our streams and reservoirs during storms. As development
and impervious surfaces increase, the concentration of these dangerous
chemicals in our drinking water sources will become overwhelming.

The Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition has prepared a management plan for
the Croton Watershed that can be read and downloaded from the coalition's Web
site: www.newyorkwater.org. One of the main recommendations is for DEP to
increase its land-acquisition program from its current $25 million to $200
million, seemingly a lot of money but, in fact, not much more than the annual cost
to operate the $1.2 billion filtration plant that DEP seems eager to build.

The battle for the Croton watershed is a compelling story, a microcosm of a
worldwide struggle by local citizens to keep control of the sources of their
drinking water. If effective protection for the Croton can be achieved, it will
save all who use New York City water significant amounts of money. Most
importantl it will ensure safe, clean, affordable drinking water for generations to
come.

Please visit our website at
www.newyorkwater.org

City to Build Filtering Plant Under a Park in the Bronx

By IAN URBINA

Published: July 2, 2004

The city will move forward with plans to construct a disputed $1.3 billion water filtration plant under Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx, the city's environmental commissioner said yesterday.
"From the perspective of security and cost, the Van Cortlandt site is by far the best option," said Christopher O. Ward, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, after releasing the final draft of the department's environmental impact study. "The data could not be more clear on this."

The city considered three possible locations for the filtration plant: under Van Cortlandt park, on a waterfront section along the Harlem River, and on 83 acres of city-owned property in Eastview in Westchester County.
Last year, environmental protection officials expressed a clear preference for the Van Cortlandt location, but they agreed to study the matter more closely.
The Van Cortlandt option would involve excavating a 28 acre-section of the Mosholu Golf Course in the southeastern corner of the park, which is about half a block from the working-class Norwood neighborhood.
Residents living near the park oppose the plan, arguing that it will create health problems, ruin precious greenery and worsen traffic in the area.
"It's also just a huge waste of money," said Gil Maduro, a professor of economics at Baruch University who lives several blocks from the proposed site. "The Van Cortland option is about $309 million more expensive and it poses steeper engineering challenges than Eastview because it has to be built underground."
But Mr. Ward said that the numbers being cited by critics were outdated. The most current studies reveal that the Van Cortlandt option would cost $1.3 billion whereas Eastview, the next cheapest option, would have cost $1.8 billion, he said.
Mr. Ward also pointed out that an additional $243 million worth of park amenities had been included in the Van Cortlandt plan - $43 million of which will go toward improving Van Cortland and the rest for other parks in the Bronx, he said.
"The Van Cortlandt site has the added advantages that it is closest to those who need the water most, and it is within city limits, thus saving the city from paying unnecessary property taxes to Westchester County," Mr. Ward explained.
"The city already pays $83 million in local property taxes for city facilities that are situated outside the five boroughs," he said.
During a news conference on Staten Island on Wednesday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg expressed his support for the Van Cortlandt option. "Everybody is a winner," he said. "The city will have a better water supply. And the people of the Bronx will benefit dramatically from this."
Lyn Pyle, who is the director of The COVE environmental justice committee, a neighborhood association in the Knox Gates neighborhood of the Bronx, calls the decision "an outrage." The plant will involve trucks bringing chemicals in and carrying sludge out, she said. "This also opens the way for the city to start turning parks into industrial zones."
To construct the 290-million-gallon-per-day treatment plant, the city will have to blast a hole several hundred feet deep and about as long as two football fields. City officials have promised that once the treatment plant is completed, the golf course will be restored to its original condition.
The city has burrowed under parks before, most notably Central Park, where it has buried four huge valve chambers, the last one about 25 years ago.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

March 9, 2004CONTACT: Ian Michaels

(718/595-6600)04-11

Stormwater Control Project in Carmel to Improve Water Quality in West Branch
Croton River

New Retention Basin and Wetlands to Decrease Pollutants in Stormwater Runoff
and Help Beautify Carmel Neighborhood

Commissioner Christopher O. Ward of the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) announced today that the DEP will build its first new
stormwater retention project at the northeast corner of Route 6 and Meadowlark
Drive in the Town of Carmel. The project will improve the quality of stormwater
entering New York City’s Croton Falls Reservoir and will result in numerous
aesthetic improvements to half an acre of City-owned property.

Work on the Meadowlark Drive Bluebelt Project is expected to begin in early
summer and last approximately four months. The project will cost about
$750,000, of which $205,000 will come from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the
State Department of Conservation under the federal Water Resources Development
Act. The remaining portion will be paid by New York City.

“The goal is to improve water quality by increasing the retention time of
stormwater that runs off a section Route 6 at that location, and from other
impervious surfaces,” said Commissioner Ward. “By routing that water through
created wetland we can allow more suspended particles to settle out before the
runoff reaches the reservoir and we can take advantage of the natural cleansing
properties of vegetation. If this project is successful the DEP will undertake
numerous similar projects throughout the watershed.”

The project will replace an existing retention basin that was built almost
ten years ago. The new wetland/stormwater system will use a series of earthen
berms to direct stormwater runoff through a twisting manmade marshland and then
into a small pool before the water discharges into the West Branch Croton
River. A low stone wall will surround most of the area. The West Branch Croton
River connects the West Branch Reservoir and the Croton Falls Reservoir, and any
water that enters it winds up in New York City’s water supply.

The project is designed with an emphasis on beautification and fitting
manmade objects seamlessly into the natural environment. Berms and part of the
surrounding area will be planted with wildflowers. The new marshland will be have
low marsh and high marsh plantings, and all structures and walls will be built
with stone and other rustic materials.

The project was developed by the DEP engineers and makes use of many of the
techniques the agency has developed while constructing the Staten Island
Bluebelt system, and the stormwater management controls required by the U.S. EPA’s
filtration avoidance determinations.

The Staten Island Bluebelt system has saved New York City hundreds of
millions of dollars in sewer construction costs by using the natural features of
Staten Island’s open space to convey and manage stormwater runoff. Besides large
cost savings, the project has the added benefit of preserving neighborhood open
space and wetlands.

The DEP has been monitoring stormwater quality going in and out of the Carmel
site for over a year, and will continue to do so during and after
construction to determine the effectiveness of the project in removing suspended solids
and other pollutants. Based on the success of the project and what is learned
from the monitoring, the City will look to build ten similar projects by 2007
in its watershed

For more information on watershed protection, Bluebelt management practices
and the Staten Island Bluebelt please see the Department of Environmental
Protection’s Web.

Please visit our website at
www.newyorkwater.org

Dennis Lynch, the lawyer for John and Patrick Magee, said yesterday that the developers plan to appeal the decision.

"When the guy who gives you the ticket acts as judge, what verdict do you expect?" Lynch said. "It's not surprising that the commissioner sided with her own employee. When we get to a real judge, we'll get a real, fair result."

Erin M. Crotty, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation, agreed with P. Nicholas Garlick, an agency administrative law judge, that the Magees disturbed about two-thirds of a freshwater wetland and more than 2 1/2 acres of an adjacent area just east of Western Highway in Clarkstown.

Crotty said the violations occurred when the Magees filled, graded and built in a state-regulated wetland, but she went beyond Garlick in her decision.

"Based upon my review of the record, and for the reasons set forth in this decision and order, a higher penalty and a more comprehensive restoration of the wetland and its adjacent area are appropriate in this matter," Crotty wrote in her decision.

Garlick had proposed a fine of $83,500.

"My review of the record indicates that a substantially higher penalty than $120,000 is supportable," Crotty wrote. "I am, however, taking into account that respondents have recognized and voluntarily offered to undertake certain wetland restoration activities at the site."

Not so Bart Fitzsimons could notice.

"I get to see it every day off my deck. There's no cover this time of the year," said Fitzsimons, whose back yard is a few hundred feet away from the rusting, three-story frame. "It's been three years now. I would imagine it's going to stand awhile longer, with the appeal."

Fitzsimons questioned how the DEC would enforce the order, especially as the appeal process continues, but agency spokeswoman Maureen Wren said regional regulators would follow a tight time schedule for remediation.

Wren said half of the fine is due within 60 days of the Magees' being served with the decision, which was handed down Jan. 31. The remaining half is due within 60 additional days.

A plan for restoring the area is due within 90 days of the day they are served, Wren said.

"If they commence litigation," Wren said, "it will be up to the courts to determine if the order will continue to be enforced."

Lynch said the matter would soon be up to a federal judge.

"This is only a preliminary judgment," Lynch said. "It's taken all this time, and meanwhile the property has lain fallow. That's what's wrong with New York. This property could be generating tax revenue and instead it's a wasteland."

Send e-mail to Greg Clary

NORTH HIGHLANDS-Gov. Pataki resembled the George Pataki of old when visiting Hubbard Lodge at the Fahnestock State Park Friday.

Wearing a blue sports shirt open at the neck, a pair of casual slacks and walking shoes, Pataki was relaxed when jibing with an audience of some 50 people about his days in the Assembly and Senate.

Pataki was in the area to sign historic legislation that makes all state parkland in Putnam County acquired for public use subject to taxation. The law that takes effect on Jan. 1, 2007 will result in revenues going directly, not only to county coffers, but to local school districts and municipalities as well.

The legislation was crafted by State Sen. Vincent Leibell and by Assemblywoman Sandy Galef.

Leibell, the Patterson Republican, called the day "truly remarkable. This historic occasion will have an everlasting impact on Putnam County."

Galef, who was not in attendance at the bill signing due to a family obligation, forecast that Putnam will receive just under $2 million in tax revenue annually based on the assessed value of the land.

"The new law will assure tax payments from the state while permitting increased reimbursements as the value of the state-owned land rises and additional state lands are purchased," she said in a handwritten statement.

In addition to the bill signing, Pataki announced that New York had expanded the Clarence Fahnestock Memorial State Park to more than 13,300 acres with the addition of a 261-acre land purchase while also protecting nearly 1,400 acres near the park through a new conservation easement.

State Parks Commissioner Bernadette Castro called the occasion historic.

"The acquisition has doubled the size of Fahnestock under Gov. Pataki's leadership since 1995," Castro said.

"We have not only furthered our commitment to open space protection in the Hudson Valley, but have also expanded outdoor recreational opportunities at this scenic site," she said.

Pataki also announced that the state had purchased 291 acres in the Great Swamp of Patterson.

Calling the swamp an "invaluable environmental, recreational and educational resource," Pataki said the purchase of the property would "safeguard our environment and enrich the quality of life for our children and grandchildren for generations to come."

Patterson Supervisor Michael Griffin called the Great Swamp a "critically important wetlands area that has provided for hundreds of years of natural resources for the needs of our community as well as protection of the environment. The Great Swamp is important for both its bio-diversity as well as its bio-filtration."

The governor told the gathering that he was extremely excited to be "home in Putnam" while making such an exciting environmental announcement.

Pataki, who resides in Garrison, said, "I want to take my grandchildren some day on a hike to the top of Bull Hill to be able to look down and not see just shopping malls and sprawl but that same wonderful wild wilderness that I observed as a child. This is our obligation."

James Utter, chairman of Friends of the Great Swamp (FrOGS), thanked the governor for his focus.

"Gov. Pataki canoed through the Great Swamp with one of our members as FrOGS developed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act grant proposal. He came forward to pledge over half the match dollars we needed to qualify for the federal program. George Pataki's involvement was instrumental in the success of our grant," he said.

Ann Fanizzi, chairwoman of the Putnam County Coalition for Open Space, watched the bill signing with pride.

"Open space is an investment that keeps on giving. I feel absolutely as sunny as this beautiful day. I am basking in the warmth of the occasion. We must celebrate and thank Gov. Pataki and our public officials for making this day happen," she said.

As the 45-minute ceremony ended and Pataki mingled with the crowd, he stopped to chat with a group of Haldane High School students as well as a gathering of nursery school children.

Philipstown Supervisor William Mazzuca said, "people rarely see George Pataki in this light. It's so refreshing to have the Patakis as Putnam residents. George cares for his community. The people of Putnam can't thank him and Sen. Leibell enough for all they do."

Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi wants to create an open-space corridor straddling the Southeast-Patterson border, give New York City the potential to preserve other parcels throughout the county and acquire a dilapidated, centuries-old house in Carmel.

Bondi outlined his plans in a letter to the city last month. The letter was a response to a request for more information on his proposed expenditure of some of the $30 million Putnam received after signing the 1997 watershed agreement. He will meet next week with officials from the city's Department of Environmental Protection and land-preservation groups to discuss his plan, which centers on the purchase of Tilly Foster Farms in Southeast.

Land acquisition is an important tool to help protect water quality, Bondi wrote in his Dec. 20 letter to DEP Deputy Commissioner Michael Principe. That is a fact recognized by the city, which bought 18,000 acres in its Catskill and Delaware watersheds to avoid building a multibillion-dollar water-filtration plant for those reservoirs. The city is under a federal order to filter the Croton system.

"There's no purchases in the Croton watershed in Putnam (by the city)," Bondi said. "This is why the county is stepping up to the plate on this issue."

Land purchases made by the city in Putnam have been around the West Branch and the Boyds Corner reservoirs, which are part of the Catskill and Delaware watersheds because of the configuration of the aqueduct system. All of the purchases in the Croton system — about 450 acres — have been in the Westchester portion of the watershed.

Bondi's proposal would add about 516 acres from three separate parcels around the farm, forming an open-space corridor bounded by Route 312 and John Simpson Road in Southeast and Fair Street and Interstate 84 in Patterson. If successful, about 715 acres that drain into the Middle Branch Reservoir would no longer be available for development — including the proposed site of the Campus at Fields Corner, which calls for 143 single-family homes and 237,000 square feet of commercial space.

Bondi also proposes giving the city the right of first refusal on properties the county acquires in lieu of unpaid taxes before those parcels are publicly auctioned. He also suggested trading 138 acres of county-owned land in Kent for the Belden House, a 242-year-old home the city owns next to its West Branch Reservoir.

"If the city goes along with it, it would be wonderful," said Sallie Sypher, the deputy county historian and head of The Friends of Belden House, a residential group trying to save the house after years of neglect.

Both of those matters would be subject to approval by the Putnam County Legislature. Geoff Ryan, a DEP spokesman, said the city was interested in talking to Bondi concerning everything he outlined in his letter.

Through a deal brokered by the Manhattan-based Trust for Public Lands, the county would use about $4.2 million of its $36 million watershed fund — the original sum plus interest — to buy Tilly Foster Farm's 199 acres. The land is owned by Merrill Lynch and the deal is expected to close in the spring.

Bondi wrote that the county will pursue the other pieces of land with some of the watershed money and seek other funding from town, county, state and federal sources. One parcel — about 94 acres in Patterson — is a donation being negotiated by the Open Space Institute. The county Legislature's Physical Services Committee was expected to vote last night on bringing the Patterson donation to the full board.

Send e-mail to Michael Risinit

In the event that you may have missed Robert Kogan's letter in today's Journal News. Says it all.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Support a measure for open space
(Original publication: September 24, 2004)

Hidden in the next-to-last paragraph of the Sept. 9 article on Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi's 2005 budget is a recommendation of great importance to our region. Mr. Bondi has called for the Legislature to allow a binding $20 million referendum for open space purchases.

Supporting his recommendation is the report of a poll of a random sample of 400 residents recently done by the Trust for Public Land and the Open Space Institute. The report's authors write: "Putnam County voters are clearly concerned about the pressures of growth and development and its impact on open space and the environment. A strong majority would support a bond referendum of $20 million at an average household cost of $60 a year for the purpose of acquiring and protecting open space in the county." The report also notes that 58 percent of Putnam voters "agree that spending money now to protect land from development will reduce the need to raise new taxes later on to pay for new schools, roads and other public services."

It is time for the county Legislature, the county executive and all concerned residents to advance this proposal. The survey shows that a strong majority of us are willing to fund preservation efforts directly instead of funding open space preservation through sales tax revenue. That would be making a deal with the devil, encouraging large retail development, which would destroy the very environment we are trying to protect. A small down payment now will spare us much grief and disappointment in the future.

Robert Kogan, Carmel
The writer is a board member, Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space.

Due to time constraints, it will not be in November, but probably off-year. In the interim, we should not lose any opportunity in educating the public. Letters to the editor, letters to legislators and to Mr. Bondi are powerful tools in influencing policy changes. One letter=one vote in the minds of public officials. And not to be forgotten - neighbor to neighbor - grassroots democracy at its best.

Have a great day.

Sincerely,

Ann

September 13, 2004

Letter to the Editor to Putnam Courier - Printed September 15, 2004

A Legacy That is Timeless and Priceless.

Mr. Gross’s article in last week’s Courier headlined “Bondi’s Legacy Continues - a 0 percent increase in taxes” while seemingly comprehensive, was incomplete. It omitted reference to Mr. Bondi’s precedent-making recommendation to the legislature that a $20 million bond fund be adopted by referendum to save “Putnam County’s dwindling open space.”

This recommendation was based on polling of a random sample of 400 residents undertaken by Trust for Public Land and the Open Space Institute. Overwhelmingly, more than 74% of Putnam County residents cited “overdevelopment and sprawl as a serious or somewhat serious problem.” Further the report states: “Protecting air, water quality and open-natural areas”... are strong areas of usage of funds.” And lastly, but most significantly, residents were willing to expend $1.25 a week, $5 per month, or $60 a year to preserve this legacy. Certainly, a infinitesimal price to pay in comparison to the taxes and services that would attend the construction of hundreds of homes, road improvements, let alone the impact on water quality and health costs due to increases in respiratory illnesses amongst children and adults.

Through Mr. Bondi’s use of East of Hudson funds, we are presently enjoying the financial and emotional benefits of open space. Where hundreds of townhouses would have dotted the slopes of Tilly Foster Farm, horses graze peacefully and riders ply its trails; where hundreds of townhouses were contemplated for Lake McGregor Properties, residents now and will enjoy incomparable recreational opportunities; where Putnam County farmers were threatened by development, some protection is now being afforded through Agricultural Districts.

Putnam County will not be unique. In the words of the TPL report. It will join the “93% of New York State residents who between 1998 and 2004” supported open space ballot measures. Can we do less?

What will be Mr. Bondi’s legacy? He will have bequeathed to young and old alike, for generations to come, a legacy beyond price, time and tenure as County Executive. My fellow residents, the Coalition to Preserve Open Space, together with many community members, has urged the creation of such a fund and we have been confident that you would support it. We, as residents, must do our part. $1.25 a week is indeed a small contribution to demonstrate our willingness to join Mr. Bondi in preserving our true, enduring legacy - one that will live long after “0 percent increases in taxes” are a blurry, if not forgotten memory, preserved only in the yellowing, frayed pages of a newspaper.

Ann Fanizzi, Chair
Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space
www.putopenspaces.com

Good morning - Headline: Polling results confirm residents are willing to pay $5 a month or $60 a year for a $20 million bond fund to preserve Putnam County's Open Space.

Although not as yet prominently featured in the papers, the poll commissioned by TPL and OSI and distributed by Eric Kulleseid to the legislators at Wednesday's legislative meeting confirms what The Coalition for four years has repeatedly said: people will pay for open space preservation and now the naysayers know it and can't hide behind the excuse that the people won't. Most significantly, the percentage of those who favor a tax exceeds those who would rely on sales tax revenues for funding.

I have been assured that the budget message and the charter revision for the $20 million bond referendum will be on the Putnam County website shortly. (It will be on the Coalition's website also.) Together with Putnam County environmental and community groups, the results of the polling and the charter should be examined. But it is a giant step in the right direction. We will not and should not rest until the referendum is adopted and passed.

But most importantly. Many thanks must go to Eric Kulleseid of TPL who patiently shepherded this county-wide polling and the leadership of County Executive, Bondi, It is another precedent-breaking achievement in Mr. Bondi's efforts to preserve open space in partnership with the legislature: Tilly Foster Farm; the Lake McGregor Property, the Agricultural District and now the real possibility that Putnam County will, as the theme of Wednesday's video presentation so graphically stated: "We Can Do It - We Can Go From Good to Great!! As in the past, I am confident that the residents of Putnam County will more than do their part.

Have a great weekend, Enjoy the open spaces.

Ann