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 som