Ever heard of “fracking”? It could bring cash-strapped New York State revenue in the billions of dollars. It could also contaminate groundwater and aquifers with carcinogens and other toxins, pollute millions of gallons of water, and require New York City to build a water filtration plant at a cost of $10 billion.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, uses water and often-hazardous chemicals to push natural gas up out of ancient sediments such as shale deposits. Decisions about gas drilling in the Marcellus shale formation – an ancient sedimentary rock deposit stretching from New York State down to West Virginia – are high on the agenda of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in 2009.

Hydrofracking itself is not new to New York. What is new is the water-intensive form of hydraulic fracturing with horizontal wells and toxic chemicals that is proposed in the Marcellus shale region of the State. Thus, while the older wells might use 80,000 gallons of water, the gas drilling that is under review would require more than 1,000,000 gallons of water to be injected deep into the well. The “produced” water coming back out of the well would then need to be stored as it would be contaminated with the fracking fluid chemicals.

Despite the modern setting, the players in this drama are much same as they were when fossil fuels were first tapped in the Northeast more than a century ago. With as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of gas available in the Marcellus shale, fossil fuel companies are pressing New York and other states to allow drilling, while environmental groups and concerned citizens are lining up against large-scale gas extraction, and warning of its dangers. State and local politicians and government agencies are right in the middle of this growing struggle for New York State’s underground resources.

Gas Industry Flexes its Muscles – and “Stealth Politics” Creep into the Picture

As Understanding Government has reported previously, November 2008 saw the first permit request issued by New York State’s Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy Corporation to withdraw water in the maximum amount of 999,999 gallons a day from the Delaware River. All that water would be mixed with chemicals and pumped into natural gas wells in a process called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” breaking up underground rock formations to help drive gas to the surface.

With revenues of $7.8 billion in 2007, Chesapeake Energy is one of the 100 largest fossil fuel companies in the world.  Its CEO, Aubrey McClendon, was paid nearly 19 million dollars in 2007.  Also receiving a share of Chesapeake’s revenues has been lobbyist Thomas S. West, a key player in the evolving Marcellus shale drama.  West notes on his corporate profile that he has succeeded in quickly moving major changes through the New York State legislature, including “a major overhaul to New York’s oil and gas law less than four weeks after the legislation was first introduced.”  According to West, this 2005 change took place even as the state was still developing regulations for the old law and dealing with lawsuits about what the old law allowed gas and oil companies to do.

More recently, West’s firm was retained by Chesapeake Appalachia, a subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy, to lobby for legislation to reduce the distance between natural gas and oil wells, known as a “setback” (setbacks also govern how close to other property well owners can drill.) While many states and cities have recently maintained or even increased setbacks for gas drilling, the New York State legislature in July 2008 approved a decrease in setbacks for oil and gas wells from 660 feet to 460 feet. Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy (CCSE), a non-profit organization focused on environmental protection and education, has described this new setback ruling as an example of “stealth politics” because, according to reports on their website, New Yorkers were told no action would be taken on the bill during the summer session. Instead, the bill allowing for more gas and oil drilling facilities to be built was “rushed through committees and passed by both the Assembly and the State Senate. The final vote took place late at night on the last day of the session.”

Environmentalists Accuse New York State of Favoring Big Oil and Gas

Catskill Citizens’ Bruce Ferguson said that the gas spacing bill entirely removed public hearings from the process: “The bill facilitated the kind of drilling [gas companies] want to do in the Marcellus shale by allowing them to do these horizontal wells without having to seek variances. It did away with public hearings.” He added that “under the old law, they would have had to get variances for each of these horizontal wells, and each of those variances would have called for a public hearing. Now they don’t have to talk to the public at all.”

According to Ferguson, six directors from the DEC were present in the room in Albany when he and others went to lobby regarding the bill. “Brad Field was there, Jack Dahl was there, Kathy Sanford was there… They were behind this bill” reducing the space between oil and gas wells. Ferguson believes the reason the bill passed was because the DEC was pushing to pass it. “The DEC, unfortunately, has acted as a shill for the gas industry,” says the environmental activist.

The first public comment period on the hydrofracking process – part of the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, or dSGEIS – ended December 15.  Representatives from all sides of the spectrum submitted comments. DEC spokesman Yancey Roy notes, for example, that New York City is starting to voice concerns about its aquifer. “On the one hand we’re getting letters from New York City officials” including city comptroller William Thompson, Jr., “that . . . relate to the question of not having drilling or a moratorium on drilling,” says Roy. But he mentions Upstate politicians with a different point of view: the Delaware County Board of Supervisors have passed a resolution against an all-out moratorium on drilling, and “leaders out in Elmira and Corning have had news conferences saying essentially, don’t delay any regulatory review of drilling.”  The Oil and Gas Association of New York (an industry group of which the energy company Chesapeake is a member) commented on the Environmental Impact Statement, as did public interest groups including Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, Catskill Mountainkeeper, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Riverkeeper, the Sierra Club, and others.

Congressman, State Legislator Weigh in

At least one person in Washington, D.C. is keeping an eye on what’s happening in New York State. In his comments on the DEC’s environmental impact statement, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D- 22nd District) cautions that “more than one thousand incidents of contamination from hydraulic fracturing have been reported to courts and state and local governments in a number of states including Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.” Hinchey cites contamination of groundwater in Wyoming after hydrofracking in which the U.S. Bureau of Land Management measured benzene levels at “1500 times the ‘safe’ level for humans.” He suggests an alternative: “non-toxic fracturing fluids, such as those used in offshore locations and other environmentally sensitive locations.”

Rep. Hinchey also flags the DEC’s scant staffing, saying that the DEC should increase drilling fees to fund the extra staff needed to oversee thousands of potential new permit applications.  He also calls for the DEC to analyze, develop and require “best management practices” used in other fracking locations nationwide.

Hinchey draws attention in his comments to the case of the whistleblower Weston Wilson, an environmental scientist working with the EPA in Colorado, who in 2004 criticized the EPA’s conclusions about hydraulic fracturing as “scientifically unsound” and noted that it was “peer reviewed by individuals with direct conflicts of interest. Three of these individuals worked for the gas and oil industry while two others were former employees of the industry.”

It was this 2004 report that led lawmakers to rule that the EPA did not need to monitor hydraulic fracturing in the framework of the Safe Drinking Water Act, leaving states to handle all regulation and monitoring on their own. Congressman Hinchey has vowed to repeal the exemption through the passage of a bill currently before Congress.

EPA is not completely out of the picture. It has issued comments on the environmental impact statement, including a recommendation that the DEC “consider the need for a statewide prohibition against the future siting of critical gas well infrastructure – drilling rigs, mechanical equipment, chemical storage facilities, tanks and ponds – within the 100-year flood plain.” EPA notes that gas drilling contaminants and waste products – “such as drilling spoils, hydraulic fracturing chemicals and wastes, brine, oil and grease… [could] adversely impact water quality in rivers and downstream reservoirs.” This includes New York City’s watershed, for which the EPA writes it will be “seeking some special oversight . . . through cooperative agreements among regulatory agencies with authorities in the watershed.”

New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat from Brooklyn, has introduced a bill that would ban the use of toxic chemicals in hydrofracking fluid. The bill notes that fracking solutions “currently used by energy companies typically contain diesel and toxic substances such as benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene.” Ortiz’s draft further notes that “[t]hese substances are carcinogenic and can cause mutation in both human and animal life, leading to health complications which can prove to be hereditary.”

Since, as Ortiz’s bill notes, the potential hazard from these chemicals is all the greater “when oil or gas extraction is taking place near a waterway,” he calls for use of “non-toxic, organic compounds” in the fracking fluids, “thereby alleviating a serious risk to public health.” The bill has thus far languished in committee.

Asked about the possibility of using non-toxic fracking fluids, Chesapeake energy lobbyist Thomas West downplayed the toxic nature of the standard fluids used. Indicating that he was speaking for himself alone, West said, “the problem with legislation like that is, there are many things that are carcinogens if put in concentrated form. But the types of materials they use in the fracking process are very diluted materials. It’s 99.5% water.”  West acknowledged that his firm had represented “some of the fracking companies.”

NY State DEC:  EPA Exemption? Not a Problem

How does New York State feel about the EPA exemption? According to DEC spokesman Yancey Roy, the state’s laws “essentially cover that exemption . . . we would be able to enforce all the necessary clean water regulations.” He added, “we think that our state laws essentially fill in where that gap of the exemption would be.”

But with its 19 gas and oil experts on staff, the NYS DEC will be hard pressed to cover new drilling as well as all other gas and oil projects in a state of 19 million people and 47,224 square miles. Citizens at a December 4, 2008 hearing at Sullivan County Community College repeatedly noted the DEC’s meager resources, saying “DEC is insufficiently staffed,” and “[t]he DEC doesn’t have enough staff.”

Roy later amended his description of the 19 staff members, by stating that there were other DEC workers who would assist, such as the “spills” staff who attend to 18,000 spills of various chemicals or other hazardous materials a year. Roy could not confirm the number of spills-related staff members. But the fact that specialists on spills might be commandeered should give further pause to people concerned about their water supply.

Some Neighborly Advice: Don’t Drink the Water

People concerned about hydrofracking in New York State can learn from the experience of Pennsylvanians like Beth and Stephen Hilyer of McKean County, PA. The Hilyers were disturbed one morning this past July to find that their pristine spring had been contaminated by a vertical well drilled by Seneca Resources a mere 800 feet away. “We complained,” said Beth, “and went to the [Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection], and they told us, ‘Don’t drink the water.’”

The Hilyers had done a chemical analysis of their spring water prior to the drilling. A post-drilling analysis gives a striking portrait of the contamination. Barium is a heavy metal that is regulated by the EPA, which can cause “gastrointestinal disturbances and muscle weakness.” Long-term exposure can cause high blood pressure. The Hilyers’ water post-contamination had a barium level of 3.30 milligrams per liter, 127 times higher than the allowed limit, and well over the EPA’s maximum contaminant level of 2.00 mg/L. The level of manganese in the water was also three times higher , while the total dissolved solids increased 118 times.

Seneca Resources , a subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Company of Williamsville, NY,  provided the Hilyers with bottled water for drinking and an external tank for household water.

Beth Hilyer says her husband warned the drilling company that their proposed well was too close to their spring. She hopes for improvements with Pennsylvania’s DEP. “I wish they had more inspectors… the DEP is stressed with too many new wells. And especially McKean County — it’s all rural and they don’t think that anybody would care.”

“That could have killed us, you know? It was horrible,” says Hilyer. “I don’t want anything like this to happen to someone else.”

Economic Impact: the Numbers Game, or Gaming the Numbers . . . .

One of the most potent arguments for expanded gas shale development is the economic one. In a time of scarce revenues, NY Governor David Patterson and the state legislature are looking for extra ways to fund the budget. Lobbyist Thomas West points to Pennsylvania’s revenues as a sign of what New York could earn, saying that “the way early returns are coming in from below the border, this will be worth a lot of money to Upstate New York.”

But pinning down exactly how much revenue New York’s portion of the Marcellus shale can deliver to the state through leases, licenses, and taxes is no easy task.  One thing is clear:  once a few big, round numbers get into the mix, they can have significant staying power. Deborah Fasser, a vice president at Corning Place Consulting, which is running a public educational campaign about shale gas drilling for the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York, says the economic impact of a 300-gas-well scenario to New York State could be $1.4 billion annually.

An even bigger number making the rounds is $2.2 trillion. That number, from a report by the New York State Commission on State Asset Maximization (SAM) estimates that “the Marcellus Shale’s recoverable reserves are 363 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which equates to a value of approximately $2.2 trillion at $6 per thousand cubic feet (MCF) in today’s dollars.” The report credits an article from The River Reporter, a Sullivan County regional newspaper, for this figure. But that article indicates that the 363 trillion cubic feet estimate was “based on numbers from Chesapeake Energy Corp., one of the largest stakeholders in the Marcellus area,” and no source is provided for the dollar amount.  So New York State is citing a newspaper, which is citing numbers from a gas exploration company, which did not confirm to Understanding Government how it determined this number originally.  What’s the bottom line?  The report concludes that “New York’s portion of the total could reach $210 – $315 billion, assuming that 10 to 15 percent of the reserves are located in New York.”

New Yorkers are left with an unclear picture of potential revenues. But the state’s blue ribbon panel does go on to describe a “good news” version of the impact of gas drilling. No environmental hazards are considered, property owners stand to benefit from lease agreements, and gas drilling even promises to “stimulate education, housing, food, travel, and entertainment sectors as well.” The report mentions not one single potential negative impact of gas drilling.

Do You Really Want 10 Million Thirsty People in New York City?

In calculating the potential costs of hydrofracturing, it’s impossible to ignore the potential costs to water drinkers (that would be everyone) in New York City, which presently gets its award-winning tap water from the Catskill region that could be affected by new gas drilling.  For now, New York City has a “Filtration Avoidance Determination” from the EPA for 10 years (granted in 2007). Following testing of New York City’s drinking water, the EPA exempted the city from having to build a water filtration plant.  But according to NYC comptroller William Thompson, Jr., without the EPA ruling, the City would have to build a filtration plant at a cost of between $6 billion and $10 billion.

Financing the construction of a $10 billion filtration plant, Thompson notes, “would add $730 million per year in debt service expense,” which in turn would require New York to increase water and sewer system budgets and rates by 30%, as well as paying for operating the filtration plant.

More Hidden Costs of Industrial Gas Production

In the absence of firm revenue projections, it’s difficult to say whether the economic benefits to the state would outweigh the loss of New York City’s clean, unfiltered drinking water supply.

But there are other potential costs as well. The Catskills are a prime tourist destination, and an increasingly popular area for second homes. People come to hunt in the woods and fish in pristine streams; there are organic farms and specialized agriculture. Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy notes in comments to the DEC that “if the pristine beauty, abundant wildlife and water and air quality are negatively impacted, high spending city folk will stop coming to the region.” CCSE has urged the state to balance short-term revenues “against the long-term loss of spending by visitors and second home owners.”

CCSE also warns that the gas industry may be shaping reports about the economic impact of drilling. “In some cases,” they write to the DEC, “the authors of the reports are employed by organizations that are funded by corporations or government entities that may have special interests.” The environmental organization recommends that an independent consultant do economic analysis and calls for “concerned citizens” to have “input equal to that of the interested corporations and government entities.”

Another question is whether land owners – many of whom are private citizens leasing land they own to companies like Chesapeake Energy – will get their money. Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy notes that Chesapeake Energy had to be forced to pay an award of $404 million to 8,000 landowners in West Virginia after “improperly withholding royalties on gas extraction.” The land owners had to fight Chesapeake all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. CCSE has urged the DEC to consider the potential costs of litigation in its economic analysis of gas drilling.

Numbers like $315 billion, $1.4 billion per year, or $2.2 trillion in reserves make the Marcellus shale seem more like a gold mine. These numbers will bring out advocates for energy companies eager to tap the revenue stream, and cash-strapped states like New York might prove vulnerable to such wooing. However, what is the cost of a ruined aquifer? More important, what is the cost of safe drinking water? As of yet, no lobbyist, geoscientist, or New York State government employee charged with protecting the environment has been able to put a number on that.

Judge Helene G. Goldberger (above) presided over the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Gas Well Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Public Hearing Thursday evening, December 4.  Elected officials, representatives from gas companies and gas industry groups, and members of the public gave their comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.  The crowd filled the bleachers of Sullivan County Community College’s Fieldhouse basketball court.  The vast majority of speakers were opposed to the drilling for a range of concerns, from drinking water to environmental degredation to health concerns.  Regarding the lack of oversight, one woman stated that “I give the government an F minus.”

Below are illustrations and excerpts from the comments of each person who spoke.

“The ecosystem is our economy… The prospect… is extremely threatening… carcinogenic… radioactive… The DEC doesn’t have enough staff.”

“We have an obligation to all our residents… Road damage and use… they have circumvented this process.”

“Global issues… not local issues… More hearings are needed… no NYC hearing… 10 times more toxic than offshore oil… A contamination emergency… the same thing will happen in New York… No permits should be issued by the department.  We cannot sacrifice water for gas.  Our streams will be ruined.”

“Scare tactics… Some of these people oppose any type of energy development… Energy independence is a national security issue.”

“We’ve seen the devastation drilling has caused… We’ve heard the DEC parrot the same claim… Damaging information was redacted from the report… by Dick Cheney’s office… It excludes the impact of construction of 100s of miles of pipelines.  The DEC does not have the proper resources.”

“My husband has seen accidents on sites… how fast will spills be cleaned up? …will every spill be reported?  The workers defecated on the side of the road.”

“The Town of Highland was the first to enact a moratorium.   We need… home rule… we know the area and you don’t.”

“What is the cost-benefit of doing this?  There’s no mention of any risk analysis… hazardous chemicals… There should be a delay and moratorium.”








“It brings significant wealth to the wealthy… community character… I beg to differ.  There have been profound short and long-term consequences [on] community life… increased crime – 30% increase in crime… Like living in a war zone…  I give the government an F minus”





“Tapping this low cost and efficient fuel… It wouldn’t be like a gold rush… Natural gas… demand is projected to increase… of the frack fluid… Land owners can expect to receive royalties in excess of $100 million.”





“The lies the gas industry promotes to hide the truth… waterunderattack.com… What I witnessed was absolutely devastating health effects… Kim Webber… her land was contaminated… she suffers from brain lesions… Rick… his blood tested positive for [toxic compounds]… Theo… I’m worried about brain damage”





“We need to get this right in New York State… This needs to be treated as a programmatic DEIS… How much methane and natural gas will be leaking?  Hundreds of trucks… millions of gallons of water… traffic impacts are not going to be looked at… We need to have a Zero Risk Policy when it comes to our drinking water supplies.”





“How can we be sure the gas company will have the incentive to talk to the town?  The gain… cannot be borne on the backs of others.”





“Environmental Justice… seems to be missing… There’s no avenues of redress… NY State leads in diesel deaths… Enforcement and monitoring… DEC… isn’t hiring… People have a right to know.”





“I’m from NYC… Our 8 million stakeholders have been excluded from this hearing… BRING these hearings down to NYC… Water is the real staff of life… There are 275 chemicals to be used… I’m sure these are not milk and honey substances… The economy is a subsystem of the environment… Consider the replacement cost of the environment.”





“I ask DEC to consider all the costs… The degradation of the community, the water… An aquifer cannot be restored… What is the cost of a child’s future?  More hearings are necessary… Damascuscitizens.org.”





“The DEIS should include… an evaluation of the chemicals… We need to understand the scale of this project… Approval of one well at a time… as many as 25,000 wells… 50,000 wells.  It will be an industrial zone… 250 billion gallons of water… 1 gallon of toxic chemicals can contaminate a million gallons of water… The industry has a master plan and it should be made public… The only reason to drill is for money.”





“The best EIS is nothing more than a feel good piece of paper… RISK to drinking water… NO RISK IS PERMISSABLE… The threat to drinking water is indisputable.”





“50% well casings fail… The FDA strictly limits the amount of benzene…”





“Get a good environmental attorney, and SUE – starting with the DEC… Human Health – the county has to be strong… I’m very afraid of NYC… The only way you’re going to stop this company is to sue it… Are these companies going to be required to pay county sales tax?”





“There is a compelling need for transparency in this process… I’m compelled to raise the issue of aesthetics.”





“Conflicts of interest… There is no known way of restoring the purity of this contaminated water… Which politicians… have received campaign contributions from the gas companies?”





“The quality of life in Bethel and Sullivan County… It is an invasive and potentially dangerous proposition… No site plan review before my town’s planning board…”





“Accountability of the fracking fluid… There are many areas available for dumping if no one’s looking… I still believe this important information should be recorded.”





“Who will be held accountable when our water is compromised?  Asthma… brain lesions… If gas companies have lied elsewhere, why not here in N.Y.?  Water is our most precious resource… Are we so arrogant that… we turn a blind eye?  There should be no drilling allowed.”





“They’re doing it because there’s nobody there to stop them… How are you going to enforce this?  When a flood comes, I’ve found picnic benches… tires for trucks… and a six foot Minnie Mouse… It’s going to get downstream.”





“Floods are not accidents… Noxious and harmful ozone… 900 spills… 20% of those got into… ground water… Oil and Gas Accountability website.”





“Conservation easements… threats to water, open space, and general life… We encourage you to re-evaluate how towns and boards [can be involved].”





“The gas companies use any tactic to get drilling rights… I understand there are 19 [DEC agents] in the entire state.”





“The watershed provides drinking water to over 17 million people… It is not, and should never become, an industrial zone… Why won’t the gas industry disclose?”





“Catskill Mountainkeeper… The impacts need to include… pipelines… even if [someone else] has regulatory authority… Waste water treatment and disposal… the sludge that could build up over time.”





“When the mines closed down… We should really try to analyze what long-term impacts there are for the future… 150 years… It may take 50-150 years… for problems to surface… Let’s not make any more time bombs for our children.”





“The need for additional planning… DEC is insufficiently staffed… How the industry interacts with communities… There is a severe disconnect between the [corporate responsibility statements] and how these companies behave… In NO CERTAIN TERMS should political pressure be applied to an agency.”





“We have the cleanest water in the entire state… As a community, we should be ashamed.”





“CC recommends… all steps should be taken… [Water should be returned to the source watershed]… Steel tanks should be required… The public has a right to know what is being used in its soil… Public Water Protection Fund.”





“There’s absolutely no reason to do the drilling [when] they use poison… If this does happen, there will be catastrophic accidents… Look into the integrity of the people who are doing the drilling.”





“I have a fair aount of experience at these hearings… We believe [Sullivan County] wells will not produce gas… I don’t believe you’re going to see… thousands… of wells… I would ask the DEC… to limit the drilling to a few wells.”





“Schlumberger…”





“Use of water… untold millions of gallons of water… What sort of Emergency Response Team?  The cumulative effect on fisheries… One well can use 9 million gallons of water… Massive ground water pollution… wrecked infrastructure.”





“The only acceptable [route] is prohibition… We keep being told that this can’t happen and it keeps happening… Many scientists are concerned that [these wells] may contaminate ground water… There is no acceptable disposal method… Abject lies.”





“The purpose of the GWPC… comprehensive groundwater protection… This practice is considered safe… I put biocides in my swimming pool.”

Newburgh, NY, Nov. 20, 2008 — Millions of gallon of water, laced with carcinogenic and other toxic chemicals, are pumped deep into the earth at pressures great enough to break solid rock and release natural gas stored in pockets. The process is called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Politicians with an eye for economic development cheer for the gas and the hoped for prosperity it will bring; also pleased are some property owners who have received fat signing bonuses for drilling leases. But what becomes of those millions of gallons of now contaminated water? If left in the ground, could they affect the groundwater supply? What about spillage or leakage from above-ground storage tanks? This scenario has alarmed people in many states in the past few years, and New York State now faces its own dilemmas with the prospect of drilling in the Marcellus Shale formation in Sullivan County.

Earlier this month, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) received its first application from a company, Chesapeake, to withdraw water from the Delaware River in the maximum amount of 999,999 gallons a day.

According to Sullivan County’s The River Reporter, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has made four commitments on gas drilling: it will be “subject to a thorough environmental review,” the DEC will receive information on the chemicals used in the process, it will look at the storage safety of the large amounts of contaminated water used, and it will examine where, ultimately that water will be disposed.

One agency not involved in the oversight process is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That’s due to an exemption gas drilling received from the Safe Drinking Water Act buried in the massive Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislative loophole put the burden of jurisdictional regulation onto the individual states.

Problems seen in other states could make their way to the New York and Pennsylvania region. For example, ProPublica’s Abraham Lustgarten reports on how natural gas drilling may be endangering U.S. water supplies, in particular in states such as Colorado and Wyoming that have seen an increase in fracking. Lustgarten describes cases of contaminated well water, a woman who developed a rare adrenal tumor, a nurse who nearly died of organ failure when exposed to fracking chemicals, reproductive abnormalities in farm animals, and a house in Ohio that exploded from methane pushed up in the fracking process.

On November 19, Congressman Maurice Hinchey vowed “to aggressively press for the passage” of a bill he co-sponsored with Colorado representatives Diana DeGette and John Salazar. House Res. 7231 is “a bill to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act.” This would put the EPA back in the regulatory picture. The bill was introduced this September and is now before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

“It’s imperative that we safeguard our drinking water from any chemicals associated with natural gas drilling,” Hinchey said. “I understand the desire to expand natural gas development across the country, but we must do so carefully and intelligently. I’m encouraged that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is working to safeguard our water resources in New York, particularly in the New York City Watershed and Delaware River Basin. However, we must ensure that drinking water in all states is protected from toxic chemicals associated with hydraulic fracturing. We must avoid a situation in which a generation or less from now, people shake their heads and wonder how our government could have been so short-sighted and foolish to exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Although it has no official regulatory role at present, the EPA is keeping an eye on the unfolding situation. EPA spokesman John Senn, speaking from agency’s New York City office, said “We’re working with the State [government] and other partners to make sure that provisions to protect New York City’s water supply and watershed are maintained and strengthened… the EPA is keeping abreast of the state review of these issues.”

In the meantime, New York State is proceeding with its own regulatory steps. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will hold a public meeting at Sullivan County Community College’s Loch Sheldrake Campus on December 4, where they will accept verbal comments on a draft document, the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement. New York already has a Generic Environmental Impact Statement from 1992 that covers gas well permits; the Supplemental GEIS focuses on topics specific to the hydraulic fracturing process.

Public forum, with City of Newburgh residents and a New Windsor resident speaking out:


Motions passed regarding the overlay zoning (including Browns Pond area):

In addition to the dense senior housing zoning law that was passed, the Board adopted a motion on water conservation, as was also reported by the Times-Herald Record. According to the Record,

The resolution didn’t spell out what that means, but Supervisor George Green says it means things like requiring residential development builders to dig a well to supply things like a lawn sprinkling system. Green says the town often exceeds its daily limit on the water it takes from New York City’s Catskill Aqueduct. When that happens, any water above the limit costs the town about three times the normal rate, Green estimates — and the town has no legal or practical way to pass that cost along to customers.

It is unfortunate that given New Windsor’s apparent need for additional water sources they voted to put watershed lands around Browns Pond in the dense housing zone. Browns Pond is a City of Newburgh reservoir and, given the water agreement between the two municipalities, will be a New Windsor reservoir as well.

Additional coverage here, here, and here.

“Here we sit, drinking sediment, because of that decision. And so it affects absolutely everybody who lives in the City of Newburgh.”

“In New Windsor, we used Browns Pond. And when you’d get out of the shower, you’d smell like the swamp. And they finally put out a big tank at Town Hall because the people were afraid to drink the water.”

Denise Ribble describes the proposed overlay district for dense senior housing in New Windsor, which would go within 300 feet of Browns Pond reservoir.

The history of Browns Pond; “in the past, two developments were given permission to build on Browns Pond…”

“To what degree has our City Council been informed of this?”

This Wednesday, September 3, will be the first New Windsor Town Board meeting after a zoning law affecting the reservoir of Browns Pond was tabled at the August meeting (see coverage here, “Is Browns Pond at risk?”)

It is possible that the Board might vote on the proposed code, “Local Law to Amend Chapter 300 Zoning Code – Senior Citizen Housing and Totally Affordable Senior Citizen Housing.”  At issue is proposed zoning that would allow dense development on watershed lands surrounding Browns Pond, a City of Newburgh reservoir.  Despite a robust expression of dissenting voices during the public hearing, Supervisor Green endeavored to dismiss their concerns.  It was only the delivery of a letter from City of Newburgh attorney Marc Gerstman, presented by City of Newburgh Water Department Supervisor John Platt, that moved Green to table the vote.

Bill Steidle, who worked for the DEC for thirty years and is a New Windsor resident, was one of the dissenting voices August 6.  He had this comment for the Newburgh Advocate:

The overlay district, as proposed, tells the world that New Windsor wants high density development on a hand full of parcels within the Brown’s Pond watershed.  It will get just that.  In my opinion, the development will create conditions that cause Brown’s Pond to be unsuitable as a water supply.  The City of Newburgh (and the Town of New Windsor) will then be forced to seek other sources of water.  To fund these expenditures, the Brown’s Pond watershed properties and Brown’s Pond itself will be sold to developers.  This will be a sad ending to New Windsor’s inability to protect the water supply and a myriad of other valuable resources.

City of Newburgh Residents Concerned

On August 27, the City of Newburgh Waterfront Advisory Committee met and had the Browns Pond issue on the agenda.  Mary Ann Prokosch wrote this synopsis from the Newburgh Chatboard Forum:

…The residents of the City need to be made aware of the deterioration of Browns Pond by development that has already occurred in New Windsor and the increased runoff that will further deteriorate the pond by the proposal of New Windsor to continue to allow 14 units per acre to be built around the pond in the form of Sr. Citizen housing. I would suggest every resident contact their councilpeople and city hall with their concerns in regard to the pollution of our water supply…

…The next meeting of New Windsor’s Town Board will be on Wednesday, 9/3 at 7:00 pm at New Windsor Town Hall. It might be a good idea for City of Newburgh residents to show up at this meeting. I don’t know if they would have the opportunity to speak but you might be able to grab a board memeber and express your concerns before the meeting starts. You could even try to give some of them a call before then. A petition would also be another way to express our concerns to this board and our own City government about how this decision by the Town of New Windsor actually has a bigger impact on City of Newburgh residents than Town of New Windsor residents. We need to get on this bandwagon.

Note: The photos above, dated 2001, 2004, and 2007, show Browns Pond and an increase in discoloration of the pond.  Diane Newlander offers her explanation in the opening video here. Supervisor Green offers a rebuttal to these photos (see the same post.) Asked for comment, Bil Steidle offered the following remarks:

I have not heard Supervisor Green’s rebuttal but I do know that he is well aware of the turbidity problems emanating at the Reserve development.  He has driven to Brown’s Pond many times after storm events and observed the discoloration of Brown’s Pond.  Likewise, he has attended many meetings dealing with the issue.  DEC has also been involved with both enforcement actions and attempts to correct the stormwater problems.

The Town of New Windsor Board Meeting opened with a public hearing last night to discuss “Local Law to Amend Chapter 300 Zoning Code – Senior Citizen Housing and Totally Affordable Senior Citizen Housing.” The proposed zoning code would have isolated an area of New Windsor land as eligible for senior housing, instead of all of New Windsor (as it is currently.) A good turnout of residents and others expressed concern about the inclusion of lands adjoining Browns Pond in this senior zoning area. Currently Browns Pond serves as a reservoir for the City of Newburgh.

Due to concerns expressed by John Platt, Superintendent of the Water Department for the City of Newburgh, Supervisor George Green moved to table the proposed resolution so there would be time to review the document and concerns expressed by Platt. Green was very upset, though, that these concerns weren’t expressed earlier.

Public Hearing: Letter from William Steidle

Orange County Open Space Alliance speaks on Browns Pond

John Platt, Newburgh Water Dept., speaks about Browns Pond

Pictures reubuttal – Supervisor George Green

Supervisor George Green rebuts a letter by William Steidle and expresses about Browns Pond that “I don’t know how viable in the future it will be as a reservoir but it will always be valuable as a natural resource.”

Why these parcels included – Supervisor George Green

Town of New Windsor Supervisor George Green provides a brief history of the land in the proposed amended zoning surrounding Browns Pond.

Supervisor George Green expresses his disturbance with the City of Newburgh for providing information during a public hearing on zoning surrounding Browns Pond, a city of Newburgh reservoir.

Supervisor George Green tables resolution