Ulysses board votes to ban fracking | Press & Sun-Bulletin | pressconnects.com
August 14, 2011
Ulysses board votes to ban fracking | Press & Sun-Bulletin | pressconnects.com.
Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County
August 4, 2011
Dryden confirms ban on hydraulic fracturing | The Ithaca Journal | theithacajournal.com.
DRYDEN — Applause erupted from most of the 50 or so residents in attendance when the town board unanimously voted to ban hydraulic fracturing in Dryden.
“I’m overjoyed (by the decision),” said resident Hilary Lambert, a member of the Dryden Resource Awareness Coalition, the group that gathered 1,700 residents’ signatures asking the board to ban hydraulic fracturing in town. “I’m hoping that the example set by the Town of Dryden will be paid attention to by other towns state-wide.”
By Tuesday night’s action, Dryden became the second town in Tompkins County after Ithaca
to ban the gas drilling technique, and at meetings over the past several months, it appeared that at least three quarters of residents in attendance supported a ban. Ulysses, whose residents also circulated a petition asking for a ban, is widely expected to also vote into law its own drilling ban on Aug. 10.
Dryden Supervisor Mary Ann Sumner said that the heavy industry and pollution associated with hydraulic fracturing for naturalgas
is at odds with the town’s comprehensive plan and many residents’ way of life.
“Sometimes we’re not able to do things that the majority wants, but this time we can,” she said.
The board’s decision, she said, was not a ban so much as a clarification of existing zoning, which “prohibits all uses which are not expressly permitted,” and does not permit extractive industry, she said.
“It removes any doubt that extractive activities are permitted,” said board member Jason Leifer, who co-authored the legislation.
In addition, the ban will be added only to the current zoning, not the proposed new zoning code that town officials have been working toward completing in coming months, though Leifer said they plan to add the ban to the proposed zoning as well. As with any legislation, board members said in the event that the town decides hydraulic fracturing has become safer, or if citizens elect a new town board, the ban can be overturned.
Sumner and each town board member explained their feelings on the vote
, with all stating that they felt a ban was the only way to represent the electorate and keep their consciences clean.
While town officials have said previously that they could face legal action as a result of a blanket ban, Sumner said the recent Draft Generic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement released by the state Department of Conservation regarding hydraulic fracturing proposes that drilling applications conform to local zoning, which she said reaffirms the town’s ban.
“It’s one more way of hearing from the state that local land use authority may be respected,” she said.
There were a few opponents in attendance, who were displeased by the board’s vote.
“The town board didn’t look at the economic risk of this,” said Henry Kramer, a resident and member of the newly created Dryden Safe Energy Coalition, which supports regulated gas drilling in the area. “They assumed power they didn’t have. This will not end here. There’s the possibility of an appeal, and litigation.”
Resident Ron Szymanski, who is opposed to a blanket ban on gas drilling, said he presented town board members with questions he wanted answered about how drilling would affect the town’s tax base and residents’ right to their mineral rights, and he hasn’t heard back.
“They said ‘we’ll get to it when we can,’ but that’s not acceptable,” he said.
August 3, 2011
Interesting that IOGA is meeting with local editorial boards.
July 29, 2011
For example: Town of Spafford – Skaneateles watershed – very small portion of town within watershed and setback bounds ‘protected’ by DEC ban- Town has lakefront on Skan and Otisco Lakes.
At five Town Board meetings locals have spoken to the Board and asked for protections. No response. This month they agreed to “look” at a moratorium – asked for examples, engaged in conversation with the sixty people in attendance who spoke against fracking, non-comittal but paying attention.
Two local women organized a public meeting at the Grange – last night July 28th, and are going to form a committee to work on a ban. I lost count at 85 in the room last night. Handful of local farmers that sat together, wanted to talk after about leasing.
Local MD presented overview and major issues. I spoke briefly on DEC, watershed, leases (don’t blame farmers – who knew back then?) fielded questions. Lots of info taken from the table. Lots of new faces, hands in the air when Dr. Carlberg asked “Who knows very little or nothing about fracking?”
Petition launched, folks took paper copies to gather signatures, will be online at our local site fivetownwatershed.wordpress.com. Next grassroots-organizing-a-local-committee meeting for Spafford residents – August 17th. Contact Anne McElroy – mcelroys71@gmail.com .
Town Board and attorney were personally asked to come – no one showed – someone pointed that out loud and clear. Next TB meeting – August 9th at 7pm Town Hall. We’ll see.
This meeting was organized in two weeks and really successful -folks that were concerned came outta the woodwork because two women stepped up and organized. And they found kindred spirits right away with folks who are willing to work on it
If there’s not a public conversation in your town – show up and speak with your officials – they’re likely already talking about but may not be moving on it and won’t unless they hear from you.
The Case for a Ban on Fracking – foodandwaterwatch.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/fracking-action-center/local-action-documents/
Lots of general information at gdacc.wordpress.com and specific info on towns at:
I’d be happy to speak to anyone who’s considering they ought do this in their town- I’d never been in front of a Town Board before last year. It’s only hard the first time. Only takes one person to get it going. Time is running out before drilling permits can be granted.
Mary M
—
July 28, 2011
download.do (application/pdf Object).
RECOMMENDATIONS
There is no comprehensive directive providing for a European mining law. A publicly
available, comprehensive and detailed analysis of the European regulatory
framework concerning shale gas and tight oil extraction is not available and should
be developed.
The current EU regulatory framework concerning hydraulic fracturing, which is the
core element in shale gas and tight oil extraction, has a number of gaps. Most
importantly, the threshold for Environmental Impact Assessments to be carried out
on hydraulic fracturing activities in hydrocarbon extraction is set far above any
potential industrial activities of this kind, and thus should be lowered substantially.
The coverage of the water framework Directive should be re-assessed with special
focus on fracturing activities and their possible impacts on surface water.
In the framework of a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), a thorough cost/benefit analysis
could be a tool to assess the overall benefits for society and its citizens. A
harmonized approach to be applied throughout EU27 should be developed, based on
which responsible authorities can perform their LCA assessments and discuss them
with the public.
It should be assessed whether the use of toxic chemicals for injection should be
banned in general. At least, all chemicals to be used should be disclosed publicly,
the number of allowed chemicals should be restricted and its use should be
monitored. Statistics about the injected quantities and number of projects should be
collected at European level.
Regional authorities should be strengthened to take decisions on the permission of
projects which involve hydraulic fracturing. Public participation and LCAassessments
should be mandatory in finding these decisions.
Where project permits are granted, the monitoring of surface water flows and air
emissions should be mandatory.
Statistics on accidents and complaints should be collected and analysed at European
level. Where projects are permitted, an independent authority should collect and
review complaints.
Because of the complex nature of possible impacts and risks to the environment and
to human health of hydraulic fracturing consideration should be given to developing
a new directive at European level regulating all issues in this area comprehensively
July 28, 2011
European Union report says ban fracking | Scoop News.
European Union report says ban fracking
“It is ironic that the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association (PEPANZ) issued a position paper glorifying fracking as the saviour of the world’s energy problems within hours of a European Union requested study that considers banning the practice outright across Europe” says Emily Bailey, a member of Climate Justice Taranaki.
“While industry PR agents try to convince the public that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are similar to many found in other commercial uses or in the household, they fail to mention that a recent Taranaki Regional Council report stated the use of highly toxic chemicals including Xcide 102 – a biocide toxic to humans, domestic animals, fish and wildlife; Inflo-150 – a friction reducer containing methanol and ethylene glycol, both highly toxic, hazardous substances; and GBW-41L (Hydrogen peroxide) – an animal carcinogen harmful to humans even at low concentrations in vapour form. Environmental agencies in the US and elsewhere now admit these chemical cocktails have not been tested properly and even minute quantities can cause serious health impacts. Although the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms (HSNO) Act requires any hazardous substance manufactured or imported into NZ to have an approval from Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), there is no requirement under the regulations for ERMA to be notified when the substance is being used.” says Bailey.
In a study requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, scientists conclude that “at a time when sustainability is key to future operations it can be questioned whether the injection of toxic chemicals in the underground should be allowed, or whether it should be banned as such a practice would restrict or exclude any later use of the contaminated layer… and as long-term effects are not investigated.”
Bailey further explains “while the toxic chemical input is of major concern, the industry fails to respond sufficiently on the many other problems of oil and gas exploration and production, which is becoming more risky as resources run out. These problems include leaks or failures of steel and cement drill casings, deep-well injection of toxic waste which may also increase seismic activity, the storage of explosives on farms and in communities during seismic surveying, increased green house gas emissions, offshore and onshore oil spills that damage fisheries, and waste product contamination of air, water and soils.”
“The industry’s failures are backed up by insufficient laws that often do not require resource consent, do not provide adequate testing or follow-up procedures and rarely allow for public input. The levels for determining who is an affected party are ridiculously low and those parties have little power to change the activities anyway. Landowners have legal rights to refuse entry but are often bullied or coerced into submission as can be seen in the US and Australia.”
“The public doesn’t need industry spin when it comes to fracking. What we demand is that our government follow several US states and France’s lead and ban this dangerous extraction method. Meanwhile landowners can follow Australian farmers and ‘Lock the Gate’ while our communities continue being pro-active and finding solutions to reduce our use of fossil fuels” concludes Bailey.
ENDS
July 28, 2011
Money-Loser: Wastewater ban will cost Auburn’s ratepayers next year | syracuse.com.
Wow! Auburn rocks! The council sure struck a blow against hydrofracking, didn’t it, when it voted July 7 to ban accepting wastewater from natural gas wells at the municipal sewage treatment plant?
Well, not exactly. Not at all, in fact.
What do you mean? It voted to stop treating the polluted wastewater from those controversial wells, right?
Uh, no. The water isn’t coming from horizontal-well hydrofracking — which isn’t going on in New York. It’s from conventional, vertical gas wells that have been operating in Upstate New York for years.
But the Cayuga Anti-Fracking Alliance says the Auburn plant isn’t equipped to handle the high salt concentrations, the radioactive agents and cancer-causing chemicals in the wastewater.
The plant employs a certified laboratory to sample effluent during both high-flow and normal-flow days. Vicky L. Murphy, director of municipal utilities, wrote last month that sampling for 33 “volatiles” (including benzene and toluene) and 13 metals detected no traces of volatiles on a normal flow day. Traces of Radium-226 and the metal barium were detected — in concentrations well below permissible state levels. High-flow testing detected three volatiles, three metals and Radium-226 — all below DEC permissible levels, Murphy said. She also noted that the Auburn plant complies with all state and federal regulations.
How can you be so confident it’s safe?
Auburn has been treating the water for 10 years. The wastewater amounts to less than 1 percent of the plant’s total water flow.
Then why did the council members vote for the ban?
Ask them. Some speculation: Democratic Mayor Mike Quill, a voting member, is up for re-election this year, and anti-fracking advocates have raised quite a fuss. Plus, his opponent is for the ban.
Anyway, what harm can a ban do?
Well, there’s the small matter of the $600,000 or so the city earns each year from the drillers — about one-fifth of the sanitation department’s budget. City residents will have to make it up somehow.
Indeed, on Wednesday, Auburn property owners learned they will be getting an increase in sewer rates. City Manager John Rossi said the unspecified increase was included in next year’s budget because of the anticipated shortfall in revenue from natural gas drillers.
@#$%&*! Can we have a do-over, please?
Exactly tax…they are politicians first and they will do ANYTHING to get reelected, it matters not if they are small hamlet politicians or Albany or DC they are all first and formost concerned ONLY with getting their sorry butts to stay in office and it doesnt matter what party they are from, vote them all out. As Will Buckley once said ( I’ll paraphrase) he’d rather be governed by the first 200 names in the phonebook than by the current thieving thugs. Politicians are overpaid ( mostly millioniare lawyers) maggots living off the common man.
and what Congel has done or has not done at the Carousel Center Mall expansion, AKA Destiny USA phase one, Brownfield Cleanup program participant, the The Post-Standard Editorial Board is OK with that?
I only ask because it seems that the The Post-Standard Editorial Board is more interested in the money side of stories than the public health issues side of the stories…
Here is a little hint for the The Post-Standard Editorial Board ‘it ain’t always about the money’…..
The plant would still be dumping, not treating, the salt ultimately into the Seneca River. The plant, designed for treating biological waste, was essentially relying on dilution since running the water through the plant did little or nothing to the waste water. The Seneca is used by farmers for irrigation and by many others for various purposes. It also flows very near some important wells which provide drinking water to considerable numbers of people.
I would have thought the editorial board of the post standard would have done a little more research into the issue. For example the total revenue this year from the waste water was $150k – much small than 600K. But hey why left the facts stand in the way of a good story?
@#$%&*! check your facts please. the gas companies left because they were out of compliance- before the city council had the chance to prohibit them, they were already gone because they broke regulations- the money was already gone- if auburn counted on that money being in the budget they would be screwed because they cannot count on the gas companies to be in compliance with regulations- how many ways do i have to say this? did an actual “reporter” write this editorial piece? because it failed the research test. there is VIDEOTAPE of vicki murphy explaining this to the city council in auburn. go check it out before you write again on this subject, please.
The misguided Auburn City council acted with total disregard to the consequences in their vote on an issue they did not understand and without regard to the recommendations of the city engineer. Instead they responded to the outside non taxpaying mob that invaded the city council meeting. Their lack of knowledge about what they voted on is deplorable. They have not acted in the best interest of Auburn’s taxpayers and they should be ashamed of their cavalier attitude to the taxpayers. Their actions will be remembered both for the added burden they have placed on the taxpayers and the jobs they have put at risk. Just my opinion.
The three members of council cast their votes after recognizing that the city’s wastewater treatment plant was neither designed, maintained nor constructed to accept such water. They recognized that the natural gas drilling companies could not meet the rules and regulations of the plant. In April, the city cited six firms for failing to submit any monitoring reports for some of 2009 and all of 2010. During that time 16 million gallons of flowback fluid was discharged into the plant. Once the city workers started calling their attention to it (spurred on by an article in the NY Times), many stopped delivering–what does that say? The three remaining firms continued to be out of compliance either by continuing their practice of not submitting the required reports or that the wastewater contained pollutant levels that were unacceptable at the plant. All stopped bringing the wastewater before the ban–at Vicky Murphy’s insistence. By that time, the city was making $150,000 over a six-month period. The $600,000 figure is complete conjecture and not rooted in fact. I contend that the three councilors absolutely acted with the interests of their citizens in mind. This money could not be counted upon.
Also, I resent being referred to as a member of an outside non taxpaying mob. I brought my check to pay my city taxes to the comptroller’s office a month ago. In this case, common sense, reason and logic trumped tainted money and corporate greed. It’s about time someone stood up for the people. I commend Mayor Michael Quill and councilors Gilda Brower and Thomas McNabb for making their decisions based on facts and not emotion.
July 26, 2011
Citizens demand Marcellus drilling ban in W.Va. – GreenwichTime.
The Auburn Mayor and City Council caved to the enviro-wacko crowd. Their vote to ban wastewater had nothing to do with the facts or the impact on taxpayers, but instead with their fear of the (largely from Ithaca) protestors and other squeaky wheels. Its unfortunate for taxpayers and people looking for jobs, but not surprising — they are politicians after all.
Reply Post new