Archive | The Marcellus Shale Documentary Project
April 20, 2013
China’s toxic harvest: A “cancer village” rises in protest | Marketplace.org
April 18, 2013
China’s toxic harvest: A “cancer village” rises in protest | Marketplace.org.
A hill of phosphogypsum rises above the village of Liuchong, in Hubei province. Dasheng chemical dumps the substance, a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer that contains cancer-causing chemicals like arsenic, chromium-6, and cadmium, above the river that feeds the village.
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues – Congressional Research Service
April 5, 2013
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues. Jan. 24, 2013
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhobnobblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2FR42611_2013_02_21_61p.pdf Keystone XL update Feb. 21, 2013
CRS Sees Bigger GHG Impacts From Tar Sands Than Draft Keystone Study By State Department
Handing environmentalists and congressional opponents of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline a new tool to fight the project, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is estimating significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions from the project than the State Department found in its recently issued draft analysis.
Environmental advocates are already pointing to the March 15 CRS report as being more “balanced” than the department’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS). Environmentalists welcome the research service’s methodology because, unlike the State Department, it does not assume that the oil sands will be developed regardless of whether the pipeline is built to transport the crude from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast.
But industry advocates of the pipeline say the CRS report is flawed compared with the draft EIS because of this assumption, suggesting they will push back on any effort to use the study to argue against Keystone.
The dispute over the study all but ensures the CRS report will play a role in renewed debate over the pipeline once Congress returns April 8. The House Energy & Commerce Committee has scheduled an April 10 hearing in the power subcommittee to discuss H.R. 3, a bill that would approve the pipeline and limit legal challenges.
Meanwhile, Senate environment committee ranking member David Vitter (R-LA) and Sens. James Inhofe (R-OK), Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) are urging EPA to fight any effort by environmentalists to force a settlement setting binding deadlines for the agency to craft greenhouse gas trading rules should environmentalists sue over a lack of a response to their petition asking EPA to use various Clean Air Act powers to create climate trading programs.
Sierra Club v. Painted Post water withdrawal suit
March 25, 2013
Dear Petitioners,
Judge Fisher has issued his opinion. Richard has read the case and reports that we have won pretty much across the board. An injunction has been issued to stop the water withdrawals until a proper SEQRA review is completed and the water sale agreement and the lease have been voided. The judge agreed with us that a water sale is not a Type II action under SEQRA and that respondents improperly segmented their review. On standing, he found that only John Marvin had standing so we are lucky that John joined our case. Since he found that John did have standing, he said that he would regard all the petitioners as having standing.
We should talk about next steps–press release and possible press conference.
Rachel
SierraClubv.PaintedPost-MeritsDEC (1)
TENTATIVE PRECEDENT. S.
March 26, 2013
Judge Enjoins Painted Post Water Sales
As the Corning Leader reports this morning, Judge Kenneth Fisher issued his rulling yesterday in Sierra Club v. Painted Post, Index No. 2012-0810, a legal challenge to the agreement made by the Village of Painted Post in Steuben County, New York to sell water to SWEPI, LP (an affiliate of Shell Oil Company) for gas drilling in Pennsylvania. I worked with attorney Richard J. Lippes from Buffalo to represent the petitioners in the case.
Petitioners are gratified that the relief they sought has been granted. In a learned and scholarly opinion, the court determined:
“In sum, the Village Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it classified the Surplus Water Sale Agreement as a Type II action and failed to apply the criteria set out in the regulations to determine whether an EIS should issue, and when 11 it improperly segmented the SEQRA review of the Lease from the Surplus Water Sale Agreement. . . . Accordingly, searching the record, summary judgment is granted to petitioners as follows: The Village resolutions designating the Surplus Water Agreement as a Type II action is annulled. Similarly, the Negative Declaration as to the Lease Agreement must be annulled, as in reaching the decision as to a negative declaration, the Village Board improperly segmented its review of the Lease from the Surplus Water Sale Agreement.
Petitioners also seek the annulment of the Village approvals of the Surplus Water Sale agreement and the Lease. . . . [H]ere . . . the Village short circuited the SEQRA process as to the Surplus Water Sale Agreement by an improper Type II designation and failed to consider the Surplus Water Sale Agreement when issuing its negative determination as to the Lease due to improper segmentation. Accordingly, the Village Board resolutions approving the Surplus Water Sale Agreement and Lease agreement of February 23, 2012, are annulled.
Petitioners are granted an injunction enjoining further water withdrawals pursuant to the Surplus Water Sale Agreement pending the Village respondent’s compliance with SEQRA.
In reaching its decision, the court noted that “it is not necessary to decide, and the court does not reach, the parties’ arguments related to SRBC except to hold that compliance with SEQRA is not excused by the fact that the Susquehanna River Basin Commission must issue a permit for the subsequent water withdrawal. Neither the Susquehanna River Basin Compact (ECL 21-1301) or its regulations (21 NYCRR §1806-8) provide for preemption of SEQRA.”
The court noted also that it did not “address whether compliance with SEQRA in this case means that the kind of comprehensive ‘cumulative impact study’ proposed by petitioners is necessary.” A copy of the judge’s decision and the other papers filed in the case are posted on my law office website.
Posted by Rachel Treichler at 03/26/13 4:00 PM
__._,_.___
Putting Local Aquifer Protections in Place in New York
March 16, 2013
Putting Local Aquifer Protections in Place in New York.
March 16, 2013Putting Local Aquifer Protections in PlaceA USGS report released this week on the hydrogeology of the aquifer system in the Susquehanna River Valley in parts of Broome and Chenango Counties, New York highlights the role of aquifer protection in the context of gas drilling impacts. In the section, “Considerations for Aquifer Protection,” the report states:
In the press release accompanying the report, the author of the report, USGS scientist Paul Heisig, states,”This study is intended to put basic facts into the hands of those tasked with making decisions on future groundwater use and protection. We have identified and mapped a variety of aquifer types and described their current use and their potential as groundwater sources.” Local officials and concerned citizens in the study area now have excellent information to assist efforts to put appropriate aquifer protections in place. Because the study area is located in an area that is likely to be the target of some of the first high volume horizontal hydrofracking (HVHF) activity in New York if HVHF is allowed to go forward in the state, if local aquifer protections are sought in the area, such efforts should be initiated quickly. The report and accompanying maps are among the most detailed and comprehensive reports and maps yet produced in the ongoing effort of USGS and the DEC to issue detailed maps of New York’s aquifers. The report fills a gap in that effort. The report maps the section of the Susquehanna River Valley shown between sections 10 and 33 on the map below of the detailed reports produced so far. Another report recently released by USGS on the Cayuta Creek and Catatonk Creek valley aquifers, fills the gap above sections 32 and 27 on the map below.  One of the most important aspects of the newly released Susquehanna River valley aquifer report is the detailed consideration given to the upland watersheds and the fractured bedrock aquifers in those watersheds. The report points out the close connections between the uplands and the valley aquifers:
While a number of communities in New York have put aquifer protection strategies in place, many more communities are becoming aware of the need to do so and are looking at protection options. I spoke about watershed protection options recently at a program in Elmira on Feb. 22, 2013, and am scheduled to speak again on the topic at a program in Candor on March 27, 2013. Some of the options I discussed were zoning to create aquifer protection districts, establishing critical environmental areas under the State Environmental Quality Review Act regulations, obtaining sole source aquifer status from the federal EPA, establishing municipal compacts and setting up watershed protection associations. Slides and notes from my presentation in Elmira are posted on my law office website. Posted by Rachel Treichler at 03/16/13 12:30 PM
Copyright 2013, Rachel Treichler |
GDACC 
