Local Leaders Concerned Over Brine Facilty and Fracking Link – Genesee Sun

September 18, 2013

Local Leaders Concerned Over Brine Facilty and Fracking Link – Genesee Sun.

 AVON — The Town of Avon passed a resolution Thursday evening to resume action  on a 12-month moratorium on natural gas exploration and extraction, or  hydrofracking. The development came after representatives from the New York  State Attorney General’s Office and the New York State Department of  Conservation office (DEC) approached local leaders with a proposal to shut down  the brine processing plant currently operating in Leicester.
The Leicester brine processing plant exists to treat brine that is being  pumped from the Azko salt mine, which collapsed in 1994. According to officials,  the plant operates at a cost of $200,000 per month, currently being paid by  Azko’s insurance company, Zurich.
A number of local Town Board officials were present at earlier meetings,  including Supervisors from the Towns of Avon, Geneseo, Leicester, Mount Morris  and York. At those meetings they were reportedly asked by Tim Hoffman, from the  State Attorney General’s Office, and by other state officials, to keep the  matter private. However, citing concerns for public safety, the issue was  brought to the public’s attention this week in the Avon, Leicester and York Town  Board meetings.
According to Town of Avon Supervisor David LeFeber, the old salt mine is  still producing 15 gallons of brine, or water with very high concentrations of  salt, per minute. The plant treats the brine and releases the treated water into  Little Beards Creek. Without the processing plant, brine may spill into natural  water sources in the region, contaminating natural water sources and potentially  impacting drinking water and agriculture.
“Since we talked about this operation [hydrofracking], we thought the State  was going to issue permits, the State was going to monitor things, the State was  going to make sure that our resources are protected.” said Avon Town Supervisor  David Lefeber. “Businesses come and go, but our ability to produce food and have  fresh water is a huge thing and somebody’s got to protect that.”
The Town of Avon passed a resolution 3-2 Thursday to have Town Lawyer James  Campbell begin drafting a new moratorium on hydrofracking. Board members Dick  Steen and Bob Ayers voted against the resolution; David LeFeber, Tom Maiers, and  Jim Blye voted for the motion.
A source with close knowledge of the situation, speaking on condition of  anonymity, told theGeneseeSun.com that the DEC was recently involved in a  temporary shut down of the brine processing plant, during which tests were  conducted to process fracking fluid trucked up from Pennsylvania. According to  the source, if successful, the plant could serve as a potential future site for  processing fracking fluids.
The plant was built in 2005 and cost $8.2 million, which was paid for by  Zurich, presumably as part of Akzo’s mitigation requirements.
At a Town of York Board meeting held later Thursday after the Avon meeting,  the same concerns were raised.  Board members expressed strong interest in  obtaining independent geological and scientific surveys before even considering  a shut down of the brine processing facility.
“Our job is to protect our community,” said York Deputy Supervisor Lynn  Parnell.
“These towns are justifiably concerned that the State and the DEC are  attempting to delay this information from being made available to the public,”  said Attorney Jim Campbell, who represents the Towns of Avon, Leicester and  York. “Our concern is that the ink might already be dry on a deal between the  New York State Attorney General, the DEC, and Zurich. Such a deal could have  profound impacts for Livingston County and should only be considered after  adequate dissemination of the facts and an opportunity for public input.”

 

 

 

Filed under DEC, Local Control, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Waste Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Notice of Proposed New 6 NYCRR Part 570, Liquefied Natural Gas – Public Comment Period, Availability of Documents, Public Meetings and Public Hearing

September 11, 2013

ENB – Statewide Notices 9/11/2013 – NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

Notice of Proposed New 6 NYCRR Part 570, Liquefied Natural Gas – Public Comment Period, Availability of Documents, Public Meetings and Public Hearing

Notice is hereby given that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) is proposing to adopt 6 NYCRR Part 570 to implement a permitting program for the siting, construction, and operation of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities in New York State (NYS). LNG facilities are those that either store LNG in a tank system or convert LNG into natural gas through vaporization. The two types of facilities that NYS DEC expects to permit most frequently include facilities to fuel trucks and facilities that store LNG as a backup heating fuel.

Chapter 892 of the Laws of 1976 added Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 23 Title 17, “Liquefied Natural and Petroleum Gas” (the LNG statute). This statute requires NYS DEC to implement regulations with criteria for the safe siting, operation, and transportation of LNG throughout the State. An environmental safety permit must be obtained from NYS DEC prior to construction, operation, or modification of an LNG facility in the State. The LNG statute also directs that operation of LNG facilities must be carried out in conformance with permits and regulations issued by NYS DEC. This rulemaking will establish a program to address the siting, construction, and operation of LNG facilities. Part 570 will also address the transportation of LNG and the statutory requirement that intrastate transportation only occur along approved routes.

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available in the September 11, 2013 issue of the State Register. Written public comments will be accepted by NYS DEC until November 4, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Additional details are provided below.

Availability of documents for review: The proposed Part 570 and supporting rule making documents are available on NYS DEC’s web site at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/93069.html.

These documents may also be inspected at the following NYS DEC offices (call the noted contact for an appointment):

  • NYS DEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233, Attention: Russ Brauksieck, Phone: (518) 402-9553.
  • NYS DEC – Region 1 Office, SUNY, Building #40, Stony Brook, NY 11790, Attention: Karen Gomez, Phone: (631) 444-0320.
  • NYS DEC – Region 2 Office, Hunters Point Plaza, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, NY 11101, Attention: Leszek Zielinski, Phone: (718) 482-6455.
  • NYS DEC – Region 3 Office, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561, Attention: Ed Moore, Phone: (845) 256-3137.
  • NYS DEC – Region 4 Office, 1150 North Westcott Road, Schenectady, NY 12306, Attention: Keith Goertz, Phone: (518) 357-2399.
  • NYS DEC – Region 5 Office, 1115 NYS Route 86, Ray Brook, NY 13601, Attention: Russ Huyck, Phone: (518) 897-1242.
  • NYS DEC – Region 6 Office, State Office Building, 317 Washington Street, Watertown, NY 13601, Attention: Gary McCullouch, Phone: (315) 785-2513.
  • NYS DEC – Region 7 Office, 615 Erie Boulevard West, Syracuse, NY 13204, Attention: Dick Brazell, Phone: (315) 426-7523.
  • NYS DEC – Region 8 Office, 6274 East Avon-Lima Road, Avon, NY 14414, Attention: Pete Miller, Phone: (585) 226-5427.
  • NYS DEC – Region 9 Office, 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14202, Attention: Greg Sutton, Phone: (716) 851-7220.

Public Meetings: NYS DEC will conduct public information meetings to present the proposed regulations and respond to questions prior to the public hearing. These meetings will be held as follows:

Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Time: 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Location: New York State Fairgrounds
581 State Fair Blvd, Martha Eddy Room
Syracuse, NY

Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Time: 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Location: NYS DEC – Central Office
625 Broadway, Room 129
Albany, NY

Public Hearing: A legislative public hearing to receive public comment about the proposed rule making will be held as follows:

Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: NYS DEC – Central Office
625 Broadway, Room 129
Albany, NY

This hearing location is accessible to persons with impaired mobility. Interpreter services will be made available to deaf persons, at no charge, upon written request at least five business days prior to the date of the hearing. Please address requests to: Russ Brauksieck, NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Remediation, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-7020.

NYS DEC invites all persons, organizations, corporations and governmental agencies to attend the hearing and submit either written or oral statements. At the hearing, persons who wish to make a statement will be invited to speak. It is requested that oral statements also be submitted in writing. NYS DEC will give equal weight to written and oral statements. Since a cumulative record will be compiled, it is not required for interested parties to attend the hearing.

Written comments: The public is invited to submit written comments about these proposed regulations until Monday, November 4, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Mail written comments to:

Russ Brauksieck
NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Remediation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-7020

Email written comments to: derweb@gw.dec.state.ny.us and please write “Comments on Proposed Part 570” in the subject line.

Contact: Russ Brauksieck, NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Remediation, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-7020, Phone: (518) 402-9553, E-mail: derweb@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

Filed under DEC, Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, Regulation, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking Tagged with , , , , ,

New York Imports Pennsylvania’s Radioactive Fracking Waste Despite Falsified Water Tests « DC BureauDC Bureau

August 14, 2013

New York Imports Pennsylvania’s Radioactive Fracking Waste Despite Falsified Water Tests « DC BureauDC Bureau.

Filed under DEC, Regulation, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Waste Tagged with , , , , , ,

At Industry’s Urging, Engineer Reverses Position on LPG Cavern Storage « DC BureauDC Bureau

August 2, 2013

At Industry’s Urging, Engineer Reverses Position on LPG Cavern Storage « DC BureauDC Bureau.

Filed under DEC, Environment, Industry claims Tagged with , , , , , ,

Salt Production in Syracuse, New York (“The Salt City”) and the Hydrogeology of the Onondaga Creek Valley The Salt Industry, Tully Farms, N

July 23, 2013

pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/0139/report.pdf.

Prepared in cooperation with Onondaga Lake Cleanup Corporation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 2,

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Salt Production in Syracuse, New York (“The Salt City”)

and the Hydrogeology of the Onondaga Creek Valley

The Salt Industry, Tully Farms, N

Brine from springs in and around the southern end of Onondaga Lake, from former brine wells dug

or drilled at the lakes’ edge, and from wells that tapped halite (common salt) beds near Tully, N.Y., 15

miles south of Syracuse, were used commercially from the late 1700’s through the early 1900’s for salt

production. The rapid development of this industry in tie 18th and 19th centuries led to the nicknaming

of Syracuse as “The Salt City.”

The brine originates from halite bed

Filed under DEC, Geology Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Solution Salt Mining in New York, with Emphasis on Operational, Regulatory and Plugging Innovations in the Tully Valley Brine Field Kathleen F. Sanford Division of Mineral Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

July 23, 2013

www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/tullyvalley96.pdf.

Solution Salt Mining in New York, 

with Emphasis on Operational, 

Regulatory and Plugging Innovations 

in the Tully Valley Brine Field 

Kathleen F. Sanford 

Division of Mineral Resources 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

50 Wolf Road, Room 290 

Albany, New York 12233-6500 

USA

 

Filed under DEC Tagged with , , , ,

Constitution Pipeline Interventions by legal non-profits 7-17-13

July 17, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 17, 2013

CONTACT

Stop the Pipeline, Anne Marie Garti, 718-316-0322

Earthjustice, Bridget Lee, 212-845-7379

Riverkeeper, Tina Posterli, 516-526-9371

Catskill Mountainkeeper, Wes Gillingham, 845-901-1029

Clean Air Council, Matt Walker, 215-567-4004 ext. 121

Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Andrew Mason, 607-652-2162

Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Maya van Rossum, 215-369-1188 ext. 102

Sierra Club, Atlantic Chapter, Roger Downs, 518-426-9144

Sierra Club, Pennsylvania Chapter, Thomas Au, 717-234-7445

Hundreds Intervene in Proceedings over Federal Review of Constitution Pipeline Project

120-mile natural gas pipeline through NY and PA attracts scrutiny and controversy

WASHINGTON, DC – A coalition of environmental groups, along with more than 300 residents are intervening in proceedings over a 122-mile natural gas pipeline proposed to run through portions of New York and Pennsylvania, subjecting the already unpopular project to an added layer of controversy.

The flurry of intervention filings is the latest sign that residents and advocates are prepared to fiercely challenge infrastructure projects that will allow more fracking-enabled gas development in the region.

“The people who live here do so by choice — for the rural lifestyle, clean air, pure water, and abundant wildlife. They understand this pipeline will lead to an industrialization of the area, and they are not going to give up their land — and everything else they love about country living — without a fight,” said Anne Marie Garti, a founder of Stop the Pipeline, a grassroots organization formed by landowners and citizens who oppose the pipeline.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which has raised concerns over the environmental impacts of the project, has also intervened in the federal proceedings, indicating that the state agency intends to scrutinize the federal approval process.

The Constitution Pipeline Project — a joint venture between oil and gas company subsidiaries Williams Partners Operating, Cabot Pipeline Holdings, Piedmont Constitution Pipeline Company, and Capitol Energy Ventures — is proposed to transport natural gas from Susquehanna County in Pennsylvania through Broome, Chenango, Delaware, and Schoharie Counties in New York to two existing interstate pipelines. Concerned about their property rights, as well as environmental and public health impacts of the project, approximately 1000 people submitted comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) last year opposing the proposed project, and 35 percent of the property owners along the pipeline route have refused to allow project personnel onto their land.

“My wife and I bought land, and built our house by hand, in order to enjoy the tranquility of the countryside,” said Dan Brignoli, a lifelong resident of Delaware County. “Last year they wanted to put the pipeline 200-feet from our home, but we wouldn’t let them on our land. Now they’ve moved it up the hill a hundred feet, just over the property line, but it could still pollute our water, or kill us if there were to be an explosion. The government shouldn’t let them take our land when there isn’t a real need for this pipeline. They just want to make more money — and lay down the infrastructure for fracking in New York State.”

But in spite of local objection, the companies proposing the project are pushing forward with plans, and filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in June. Today is the deadline to intervene in the FERC proceedings, resulting in filings by more than 300 residents; Stop the Pipeline, represented by the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic; Riverkeeper; and a coalition of environmental groups — Catskill Mountainkeeper, Clean Air Council, Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and the Pennsylvania and Atlantic Chapters of Sierra Club — represented by the nonprofit environmental law organization Earthjustice.

“This 122-mile Constitution pipeline, planned to run through five counties and two states, is the sort of massive infrastructure project that will lock the region into continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels at a time when we need instead to be speeding the transition to clean renewable energy,” said Earthjustice attorney Bridget Lee. “The law requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to give careful consideration to the pipeline’s impacts on people, communities, and the environment. Foresight and common sense dictate that FERC officials consider foregoing the project altogether.”

“Pipelines that have cut through our region have inflicted incredible damage — destroying forests, cutting through creeks, irreparably transforming wetlands, causing more polluted runoff, and decimating habitat critical to creatures in our region, said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper. “The harms to the ecology of the region are devastating, but so are the harms to the people — damaging ecotourism, harming recreation such as hunting and boating, destroying the peace and beauty of communities during and after construction, forever changing what it means to live in these communities, and increasing the drilling and fracking that are destroying communities elsewhere and making this country even more dependent on dirty fossil fuels.”

The 122 miles of pipeline and additional miles of access roads will cut across forests and watersheds.

“The proposed project poses a substantial threat to ground and surface water resources in both New York and Pennsylvania. The 122 mile pipeline has the potential to impact and potentially contaminate multiple public drinking water sources and an untold number of private drinking water wells that lie within the Project area. The pipeline itself proposes to cross hundreds of streams and wetlands by literally digging a hole through them,” said Kate Hudson, Watershed Program Director at Riverkeeper. “These impacts alone demand that FERC take a hard look at the project’s environmental effects. Any project that jeopardizes multiple water resources in two states is clearly against the public’s interest.”

The project also includes two compressor stations, posing a threat to air quality and public health.

“The so-called Constitution Pipeline could emit hundreds of tons of harmful and climate-disrupting air pollution in Pennsylvania and New York each year, yet the Application ignores these real threats to public health,” said Matt Walker of the Clean Air Council. “The Project also is likely to create more demand for increased fracking and transmission infrastructure, all of which will cause even more air pollution and more health impacts for the people who call the surrounding communities home. Given the potentially serious risks to public health and air quality, the Council urges FERC to deny the Application for this ill-advised project.”

The project will disturb hundreds of acres of land — with access roads and industrial equipment cutting across forests and watersheds. The project potentially will affect both threatened and endangered species, including the Indiana Bat, migratory birds, and special protection waters.

“The pipeline as planned will fragment some of the best remaining bird habitat in the region,” said Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society Co-President Andrew Mason. “Many species already in decline will suffer further losses from this corridor that will break up their breeding territories and allow predators and nest parasites into the forests.”

Aided by the controversial high volume hydraulic fracking process and state and federal deregulation, gas drilling in Pennsylvania has increased exponentially in recent years and New York residents are fighting to protect their state from an impending gas drilling rush.

“If this project goes forward, the big winners will be the stockholders of the natural gas companies and the big losers will be the rest of us, said Wes Gillingham, Program Director of Catskill Mountainkeeper. “There is no public necessity for this project. This is clearly a case of the gas industry trying to push through a project to increase their profit margin at the expense of the people along the route. This is the start of a massive web of gas infrastructure — the beginning of the industrialization of New York we have all been warned about.”

The pipeline will spur the already frantic pace of gas drilling and fracking in Pennsylvania — along with the air, water, and climate pollution that accompanies such development — and would lay the groundwork for industry to operate in New York. The impacts associated with this industrial activity include: spills of diesel fuel and fracking chemicals, methane migration into groundwater; contamination of major rivers with fracking wastewater, forested landscape pockmarked with well pads and access roads and pipelines cutting through forests and fields.

“FERC must acknowledge that the proposed Constitution Pipeline is not primarily a natural gas conveyance from point A to point B but a facilitator of fracking along the way,” said Roger Downs, Conservation Director for the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter. “The Western Slope of the Catskills and the Upper Susquehanna River Basin are protected from fracking simply because there is no infrastructure to transport the gas to market. The Constitution Pipeline will be just that inducement — transforming this storied landscape into an industrial grid work of well pads and gathering lines.”

Attached is a press release announcing the entrance of the legal nonprofits into this battlefield.

Below a list of some of the public interest, nonprofit interventions and comments filed as of 4 pm. The positions of the NYS DEC, US Army Corp of Engineers, and Department of the Interior (US Fish and Wildlife) are currently aligned with the public interest law firms, and nonprofits.

Anne Marie

Motion to Intervene by Stop the Pipeline. Submitted by the PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION CLINIC under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130717-5045

Motion to Intervene of Earthjustice on Behalf of Catskill Mountainkeeper, Clean Air Council, Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and Sierra Club in CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130717-5273

Comments of Catskill Mountainkeeper, Clean Air Council, Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Sierra Club, and Riverkeeper, Inc. under CP13-499-000.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130717-5249

Motion to Intervene of Riverkeeper, Inc. under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130717-5205

New York State Council of Trout Unlimited submits Petition to Intervene re the Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130715-0019

Motion to Intervene of Center for Sustainable Rural Communities under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130710-5164

Motion to Intervene of Otsego 2000, Inc. under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130717-5244

Motion to Intervene of Town of Davenport, New York under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130717-5133

Motion to Intervene by the Town of Meredith under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130717-5217

Motion to Intervene of Town of Franklin, New York under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130716-5118

Motion to Intervene of New York Public Service Commission under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130701-5138

Motion to Intervene of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation under CP13-499.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130710-5194

Motion to Intervene of U.S. Department of the Interior under CP13-499, et. al..
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130717-5222

Comments of the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Constitution Pipeline Project under PF12-9.
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130716-0001
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130716-0002
 

###

Filed under Community Impacts, Pipelines Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Registered Water Withdrawals in New York State

July 15, 2013

Registered Water Withdrawals in New York State

– JULY 14, 2013POSTED IN: ARTICLES, DATA AND ANALYSIS

By Karen Edelstein, NY Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

As of April 1, 2013, new regulations 6 NYCRR Parts 601 and 621 in New York State have been in effect that require users of large quantities of water to apply for withdrawal permits. The largest users of water—those with withdrawals of more than 100 million gallons per day—are the first group required to apply. The permit system then adds users on a yearly basis, targeting systems with decreasingly need. In 2014, the target group is users of 10-100 million gallons/day; in 2015, it is 2-10 million gallons/day, and so on. The full schedule is in Table 1, below. There are no fees associated with this permitting process.

In order to assess the geographic impacts of these varying uses, attorney Rachel Treichler submitted a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. FracTracker Alliance assisted her in this effort by visualizing the data. Treichler believes that the new regulations make it virtually impossible for DEC to balance competing needs between large and small users.

In this interactive map, larger dots signify larger withdrawal. Click on each dot in the map to get more information.

Yellow: 0.0001-0.5 million gal/day
Light green: 0.5001-2 million gal/day
Dark green: 2.001-10 million gal/day
Medium blue: 10.001-100 million gal/day
Dark blue: >100 million gal/day

Until the adoption of these permitting requirements, water withdrawals in New York were governed by riparian rights determined by case law. Riparian rights are correlative–they fluctuate depending on the needs of other users and the amount of water available. Although the new regulations affirm that riparian rights will not be affected by the granting of permits, there is concern that users granted permits for stated amounts of water usage may be reluctant to adjust to the needs of other users in times of water scarcity. In New York State, both the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) have strong regulatory authority over withdrawals, and the new New York regulations provide that withdrawals subject to permitting by these commissions are exempt from the permitting requirements of the regulations. Comparable commissions with authority to regulate water withdrawals do not exist in the Great Lakes watershed, which includes the Finger Lakes Region, or in the other watersheds in the state, and in these watersheds, the permitting requirements of the regulations are the only generally-applicable water permitting requirements.

Currently, New York State has an abundance of water—there is certainly enough to go around to meet domestic and commercial uses. However, with climate change, continued population growth, and the potential for an uptick in hydrofracking throughout the Marcellus and Utica Shale region, the possibility for New York State being asked to sell or export our water increases considerably.

Under the current system, even by 2017, withdrawal permits will not be required for daily use under 100,000 gallons. While cumbersome, it would not be difficult for a typical hydrofracked site to sidestep any withdrawal permitting process if the water were removed over the course of several days by several different private haulers, particularly if the water were hauled any distance. It is conceivable that the gas drilling industry could readily exploit this loophole in the regulations.

Table 1. Dates by which Application for Initial Permit Must Be Completed

June 1, 2013 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume of 100 million gallons per day (mgd) or more
Feb. 15, 2014 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 10 mgd but less than 100 mgd
Feb. 15, 2015 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 2 mgd but less than 10 mgd
Feb. 15, 2016 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 0.5 mgd but less than 2 mgd
Feb. 15, 2017 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 0.1 but less than 0.5 mgd

Filed under DEC, Environment, Maps, Water Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

DEC puts limits on pipeline construction » Local News » The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY – otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports

May 30, 2013

DEC puts limits on pipeline construction » Local News » The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY – otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports.

Filed under DEC, Environment, Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, Pipelines, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , , , , ,

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

 

__._,_.___

 

Filed under Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →