Auburn City Council votes to ban drilling waster water | Shaleshock Media

Auburn City Council votes to ban drilling waster water | Shaleshock Media.

Auburn votes to ban accepting wastewater from natural gas drilling companies | syracuse.com

Auburn votes to ban accepting wastewater from natural gas drilling companies | syracuse.com.

Ulysses town adopts industrial ban

Town of Ulysses local law public hearing

100% of speakers in favor of prohibition of gas drilling industrialization June 29, 2011, Trumansburg, NY

Summary by Krys Cail The hearing for the Town of Ulysses new local law regarding gas drilling was held last night. Our law is a bit different than some others, in that it asserts that Town zoning law, which has a limited area in which only light industrial uses are allowed, has always prohibited heavy industrial uses such as those associated with HVSW hydrofracking. Our proposed local law clarifies this existing prohibition. The Elementary School auditorium was definitely necessary to accommodate the large turnout. Speaker after speaker after speaker got up to address the board. After an hour and a half of testimony, the relieved crowd left in a jubilant mood– not a single speaker had failed to completely support the Board’s proposed law. In my 25 years of active involvement as a citizen in Town issues, I have never seen an issue about which there was such unanimous opinion. This in a town with deep, contentious divisions between Democrats and Republicans, rural people of limited means and wealthy academics and lakeshore second home owners. For one evening, we put our differences aside and spoke clearly: if there is one thing we agree about, it is that we love where we live and we don’t want it fracked. WHAT are you waiting for? Give your town’s residents a chance to stand up for the worth of their town! Start that petition today! How to submit comments

Middlefield Land Use Analysis.5.4.11.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Middlefield Land Use Analysis.5.4.11.pdf (application/pdf Object).

Preliminary Revised Draft of the Supplemental General Environmental Impact Statement on High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing prepared by the NY DEC

Read the Preliminary Revised Draft of the Supplemental General Environmental Impact Statement on High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing prepared by the NY DEC

Newsvine – The Fracking Unknown

Newsvine – The Fracking Unknown.

The Fracking Unknown

advertisement

There are many things the citizens of New York State don’t know about the Fracking for NG (natural gas) which is about to over-run the south central part of NYS known as the Southern Tier. But there is one thing which we do know; Governor Andrew Cuomo doesn’t think he can be elected President of the United States in 2016 if he is opposed by Big Oil & Gas. So he is bowing to the power of Big O & G by lifting the current ban on Fracking. Cuomo must feel that the huge amount of money America’s biggest dollar industry will throw against him will defeat him as it did Al Gore in 2000; if he stands in the way of their Fracking in the Southern Tier of New York State.

In 2000 Big O & G took George W. Bush, an unimpressive Governor of Texas, who was considered a political light weight and pretty much of a joke; and made him POTUS with their hundreds of millions of dollars. They conveniently provided him with Vice-President Dick Cheney, formerly the head of Halliburton the country’s largest G & O service company. After Cheney’s secret meetings with O &G executives, with Cheney in charge of American energy policy, Big O & G had the Republican Congress pass the 2005 changes to Clean Air and Safe Drinking Water Acts; exempting the O & G industry from key section and severely limiting the EPA’s investigative and enforcement powers. About a year later they announced the High Volume Slick Water Hydraulic Fracturing technique commonly known as Fracking. Big O & G needed the 2005 exemptions because Fracking uses millions of gallons of water mix with Fracking fluid which contains dozens of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. This Fracking fluid is injected in horizontal shafts running through the shale beds in order to crack open the rock and allow NG to be pumped out, along with some of the Fracking fluid. A lot of the Fracking fluid remains in the ground; where it can flows to anywhere. The drilled vertical shafts which connect up to a dozen or more horizontal shafts run up and through the drinking water aquifers above the shale beds. Any leak or accident in the vertical shafts can contaminate the aquifer with Fracking fluid or methane (NG) which they pass through. When and if this contamination is detected the cost and/or technology to clean the water could be beyond our abilities.

Big O & G then went on to Frack in Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, Wyoming, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. In each place they Fracked there have been serious environmental problems. The wide range of these problems include; contamination of drinking water by methane or Fracking fluid; earthquakes and earth movement caused by the voids created and/or waste Fracking fluid injected under extreme pressure; surface infrastructure destruction; air pollution; gas explosions and a long list of other dangerous environmental, safety and health incidents.

Now Big O & G have their eyes set on the Marcellus Shale Play that underlies NYS’s Southern Tier. NYS has had a moratorium in place for over two years while it has been trying to update its 20 year old Environmental Impact Study to accommodate what is becoming known about Fracking techniques and chemicals. Unfortunately Big O& G won’t disclose the chemicals used in Fracking fluid, claiming they are “proprietary information”, despite calls for disclosure from the Federal EPA. Absent the public knowing the contents of Fracking fluid, it is impossible to test water sources for the chemicals in advance of Fracking. This enables the Frackers to use their standard “they were there before” defense when toxins or NG components are discovered in water supplies. This not being able to know the details of the dangers is the catch 22 of Fracking.

Among the other many things NYS citizens don’t know are; if as required in new DEC Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Study or SGEIS, the Fracking companies will comply with any mandatory (but not public) discloser of ingredients in their Fracking fluid to the DEC or lie as they did to the EPA in Texas. For twenty years Big O & G falsely told the EPA they were not using and dumping diesel fuel (which was banned) as part of the Fracking process. But when they were finally caught they confessed they were using it, dumping it and lying about it. Instead of paying a fine and decease from continuing the illegal use and dumping; Big O & G has used their economic influence with some Congress members to try and have the use and dumping of diesel fuel allowed by proposing more increasingly lax Clean Air and Safe Drinking Water Acts exemptions.

Another thing New Yorkers don’t know is; why Fracking is absolutely banned in the watersheds of New York City and Syracuse, which also have the Marcellus beneath, while in the Southern Tier the Fracker will be able to drill O & G industry proposed 5 to 10 thousand wells? Are the men, women and children of the Southern Tier less valuable, important or blessed than those in NYC or Syracuse? Or are there just fewer voters and mostly Republicans to boot. By banning Fracking in some water supplies the DEC and Cuomo is acknowledging the danger that Fracking poses to the water supply. What are they saying by allowing it other water supplies; that they don’t care about the health, safe or well being of some citizens of NYS? And when the greed of Big O & G puts up more money; will the rights and property of the residents of Onondaga, Delaware, Sullivan and Ulster Counties and even NYC be offered as expendable for political or career reasons?

When the first SGEIS was released by the DEC about two years ago, it would have allowed the issuing of drilling permits under the 20 year old rules; despite the fact that the DEC had only 17 inspection personnel for the proposed 5 to 10 thousand wells. In a NYS which has twisted its budget into a pretzel, cutting or limiting in almost every area of public employment to try to make it balance; how realistic is the likelihood that the necessary number of the hundreds (or even thousands) of new inspectors and other personnel will be hired and trained in order to adequately monitor the activities at 5 to 10 thousand wells? When it come to an industry which is notorious for playing fast, loose and dirty for quick profits, having the appropriate investigation, enforcement and oversight structure in place and well funded is paramount; but NYS ability and motivation is this regard is unknown.

A reasoned consideration of all the unknowns about the consequences of allowing Fracking should have lead to Cuomo extending the moratorium, if not announcing an outright ban on Fracking until at least the Federal EPA completes its comprehensive investigation and report on the dangers of Fracking, which is currently underway. However it looks like Cuomo’s political plans are in conflict with his sworn duty to protect the people of NYS; and his political aspirations have overwhelmed his moral compass. Cuomo has abandoned the vast majority of New Yorkers and have left us to defend and protect ourselves from those who would destroy our communities and way of life.

Fortunately the final chapter(s) of the struggle of the people of NYS to stop the Frackers and their allies from having their way is still unknown. We still have the right to vote and that enables us to do what we need to keep Fracking from ruining NYS. We can find fellow citizens to vote for who will respect and serve the citizens of their communities. Who, as representatives of their constituency in the State Legislature, can put into effect a moratorium or ban on Fracking, at least until we all know the results of complete and comprehensive studies. We can also replace Cuomo as Governor with someone who is only beholding to the citizens of NYS and not out to curry favor with, get contributions from and do the bidding of the likes of Big O &G and Wall Street Gangs. After a well deserved defeat in his re-election campaign, because of his turning his back on the well being of his constituents; Cuomo’s prospect of achieving his goal of becoming POTUS will be appropriately about nil. The one thing the people all across New York need to know and do know is that; if there is the will, there is a way to protect and save ourselves and our state!

Cornell Expert Says Hydrofacking Already Affecting New York State

(((THIS INFORMATION DISTRIBUTED ON BEHALF OF THE TOMPKINS COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS)))
(Released June 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM)
 

Cornell Expert Says Hydrofacking Already Affecting New York State

 
Reflecting on lessons learned and questions yet to be answered about the hydrofracking and the economy, a Cornell expert today told members of the Tompkins County Council of Governments (TCCOG) that New York State is already being affected by such shale gas drilling, even though wells are not yet permitted here.
 
Economic Geographer Susan Christopherson, of Cornell’s Department of City and Regional Planning, has been studying the economic effects of hydrofracking, looking at the experience in nearby Pennsylvania and effects in New York.  Since there is “no border fence between New York and Pennsylvania,” she said, drilling produces a regional industrial effect, and cautioned there will be “important impacts to Tompkins County”—from such aspects as heavy truck traffic, water resources, and waste disposal— even if a single well is not drilled here.  She maintained State officials are showing “willful ignorance and disinterest” in failing to  address those issues and, because of that, the state is unprepared.
 
Based on her own research and review of other studies, Christopherson reported findings including the following:
  • The Elmira area is already feeling pressure on its housing stock and is experiencing some increase in sales tax revenue.
  • In Pennsylvania, jobs are being created, but impact is inflated since measures are based on new hires, not permanent jobs, with only 70% going to in-state residents.  She predicted employment growth here would be “modest,” with several hundred of the best jobs created for functions such as well monitoring when drilling is in process, but a significant decline once it’s completed.
  • Other industries will be affected, with tourism and the dairy industry most affected in PA.
Among questions that remain to be answered, according to Christopherson:
  • How long the drilling phase will last.  Where, when, and how many wells are drilled, she said, will be affected by natural gas prices, currently too low to make much drilling economically viable—the more wells that are drilled, and the faster they’re drilled, the greater the impact.
  • How the federal government’s recent approval of export of natural gas will affect gas prices.
  • Information on who owns land currently in PA and where proceeds from royalty payments are spent.
Christopherson said a New York State severance tax could help support costs related to shale gas drilling, and that such taxes exist in most states where such extraction takes place.  She said the level of such taxes varies widely state-to-state, as does the extent to which that tax is distributed to municipalities.  She assessed the 3% severance tax being proposed by some in New York State, however, as inadequate to meet the need.
 
Media contact:  TCCOG Co-Chair:  Ithaca Town Supervisor Herb Engman, 607-273-1721.
 
 
——
Marcia E. Lynch
Public Information Officer
Tompkins County
125 E. Court Street
Ithaca, NY  14850

Gas drilling debated, discussed in Norwich June 16, 2011

Gas drilling debated, discussed in Norwich

By: Melissa deCordova, Sun Staff Writer (Evening Sun)
Published: June 17th, 2011

NORWICH – Yesterday afternoon’s meeting of a regional natural gas group to discuss government regulations on road use and pipeline infrastructure went off without a hitch despite a large crowd of anti-gas drilling activists who attended and later proceeded to rally in West Park afterwards.

The approximately 85 attendees at the County Office Building meeting were given a set of guidelines and asked to sit in designated areas for government officials, department directors, regulators, the general public and the press. Following a presentation from four speakers, Chenango County’s economic development consultant within the natural gas industry, Steven Palmatier fielded questions first from municipal leaders and from the public second.

Responding to a question from Adrian Kuzminski, moderator for a network of environmental Otsego County activists, who suggested that the group should be discussing the dangers of hydraulic fracturing and threats to the state’s drinking water supplies, Palmatier said the meeting was “not intended nor ever intended to be a debate of hydraulic fracturing.”

“We are dealing with the regulatory structure for our county to deal with the natural gas industry we have and to prepare for what we could have in the future,” he said.

Coventry resident Kim Michels asked about right-of-way set backs and surface and subsurface rights, particularly as they pertained to a natural gas pipeline company currently seeking a franchise in the towns of Sidney, Bainbridge and Coventry. A planning consultant, Chris Kale, asked about New York Department of Environmental Conservation set back requirements that she said don’t comply with Federal Housing Administration title insurance requirements and is causing problems in the secondary mortgage market.

At the rally, Kuzminski characterized the multi-county meeting as “outrageous” and told the about 40 in attendance, “I hope you don’t let them get away with that.”

“It’s important to work on the federal level, important to work on these issues in Albany, but we probably aren’t going to get bailed out by either. The only place to make things happen is on the ground level, through grassroots efforts like this. We have leverage at the local level,” he said.

Other speakers called for a complete ban on high water volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, a 60-year-old energy stimulation technology that uses high-pressure water mixed with chemicals and sand to crack open shale formations.

Town of McDonough Supervisor Arrington Canor, one of eight elected officials who attended the Regional meeting, said not knowing the facts about natural gas drilling is making people afraid.

“We aren’t here to argue. We officials need to know what the rules are and how we can work within them. It’s the only industry that we have that is promising jobs. We’re not hear to argue. We’re here to get the facts,” he said.

One of the meetings speakers, Gregory H. Sovas, of XRM, LLC, said the practice would require very minimal land disturbance. He pointed to the estimated 15,000 to 18,000 jobs that would be generated in the Southern Tier by 2015 if the state allows gas companies to drill into the massive Marcellus Shale formation.

“I get emotional even thinking about the landowner. Who is speaking up for them? I get emotional when others tell landowners what to do with their land,” he said.

The pending natural gas industry is also expected to result in $11.4 billion in economic output by 2020 and $1.4 billion in tax revenues for state and local governments over the next nine years.

The DEC is preparing to release an environmental impact statement in July that would outline new permit guidelines for natural gas exploration using horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracture stimulation.

Auburn WTP June 9 at 4:30 pm City Hall Budget hearing

Dear Cayuga Anti-Fracking Alliance & Associates,

Thank you to all of you who came out yesterday to support us in our common cause – to stop natural gas drilling wastewater from entering the Auburn WWTP.
Almost 200 people showed up at the rally and city council meeting. Petitions with almost 800 signatures were presented to the Auburn City Council (bringing the total count to about 1,300).  We had a great  public-to-be-heard session (an hour and 10 minutes long) – with a couple dozen speaking out against taking in this wastewater.
BUT, there is cause for concern:
• The proposed 2011-2012 Auburn budget reflects $1.2 million on projected revenue from natural gas drilling wastewater. This is odd because plant officials say they are receiving less  natural gas drilling wastewater year-after-year (to the tune of $300,000 this year).
• Auburn WWTP Director, Vicki Murphy, stated that only two natural gas drilling companies are currently bringing drilling water into the plant – Talisman and Anshutz. Why is the projected income so much in 2012? How much do they expect to take in this upcoming year even amidst current public support for Mayor Quill’s proposed moratorium?
News clips and articles:
The Citizen
The Post-Standard
What is next?
Next Thursday at 4:30 pm the city council is having a public hearing on the budget so we are going to address the prospective wastewater income in the budget.
We are also going to cite the clause in the permits that state the city reserves the right to stop taking in the gas drilling wastewater.
So continue to write letters to the editor, call the city councilors, continue to press them to make the right choice for Auburn and those downstream.
Mayor and Councilors office number at City Hall: 315.255.4104 – Let them know that you oppose the practice of taking in natural gas drilling wastewater and they must  adopt Mayor Quill’s proposed moratorium immediately.
Sincerely,
Terry

Cortland Homer Preble Sole-Source Aquifer System

Water | Region 2 | US EPA.

Cortland Homer Preble Sole-Source Aquifer System

Support Document

  Cortland and Onondaga Counties New York

June 1988

I. Introduction

A. Statement of Section 1424 (e)

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Public Law 93-523, of December 16, 1974 contains a provision in Section 1424(e), which states that:

If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative or upon petition, that an area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if contaminated, would create significant hazard to public health, he shall publish notice of that determination in the Federal Register. After the publication of any such notice, no commitment for Federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Administrator determines may contaminate such aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health, but a commitment for Federal financial assistance may, if authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it will not so contaminate the aquifer.

This section allows for the specific designation of areas which are dependent upon ground water supplies. Following designation, the review process will ensure that federal agencies will not commit funds toward projects which may contaminate these ground water supplies.

B. Receipt of Petition

On September 15, 1987 the Cortland County Legislature petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator to declare the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System, as defined in the petition (Appendix A), a sole source aquifer (SSA) under the provisions of the SDWA.

C. Area of Consideration

The boundary of the area specified in the petition submitted by the Cortland County Legislature was defined as portions of five valleys that meet in the vicinity of the City of Cortland. The entire petitioned area is within Cortland County, New York. However, based on EPA’s review of the hydrogeologic information, the final SSA designation area has been extended into Onondaga County. The Agency has amended the area for designation because the aquifer extends into Onondaga County. It has beenAgency policy to designate sole source aquifers based on hydrogeologic criteria rather than political boundaries whenever possible, because contamination of a portion of the aquifer can affect the down gradient portion of the aquifer.

D. Topography

The Cortland-Homer-Preble area is located within the Allegheny Plateaus Province of central New York State (Miller, 1982). Altitudes range from approximately 1,100 to 2,000 feet above sea level.

The entire area was affected by the Wisconsin Stage glaciation (Buller et.al., 1978), ending approximately ten-thousand years (10,000 yrs.) ago (Muller, 1965). The glaciers altered the existing topography and surface water drainage patterns. The resulting terrain consists of relatively flat, sedimentfilled valleys bounded by tillmantled bedrock hills that rise up to nine-hundred (900) feet above the valley floors (Buller et.al., 1978; Miller, 1982).

E. Climate

Precipitation in the Cortland-Homer-Preble area averages approximately forty inches (40″) per year (Buller et.al., 1978), evenly distributed throughout the year (McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1982). Winters are harsh, with an average temperature of approximately twenty-four degrees degrees Fahrenheit (McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1982) and average snowfall of sixty inches (60″) (Buller et.al., 1978). Temperatures in summer average approximately sixty-six degrees Fahrenheit (McFarland Johnson Engineers, Inc., 1982).

II. Hydrogeology

A. Geologic Framework

The bedrock of the Cortland-Homer-Preble area is predominantly shale, with minor siltstone and fine grained sandstone (Corner and Harsh, 1978; Miller, 1982). These rocks are part of the Genesee Group (Reynolds, 1985) and are Upper Devonian in age (Buller et.al., 1978). The beds are nearly flatlying, with a less than one degree to the southsouthwest (Bul..al.. 1978).

Depth to bedrock ranges from zero to five-hundred feet (0-500′) below the land surface (Corner and Harsh, 1978; Miller, 1982). The bedrock is nearest the surface in the hills and deepest in the valleys. When exposed at the surface, the shale is weathered and jointed (Corner and Harsh, 1978). Joints and bedding planes provide the only storage areas for significant amounts of water in the bedrock. Because the size and number of joints decrease with depth (Corner and Harsh, 1978) and are open to depths less than one-hundred feet (100′) below land surface (McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1982), wells drilled into the bedrock are lowyielding (generally ten to fifty gallons per minute (Buller, 1978: McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1985)).

B. Geologic Setting

The area was subjected to glaciation to glaciation during the Wisconsin Stage Pleistocene Epoch. Much of the bedrock is concealed under the glacial deposits. These deposits are thickest in the valleys.

Several types of deposits were left by the glaciers. Each is described below (descriptions from McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1982):

Stratified Drift: The aquifers that can support public water supply wells are composed of stratified drift and outwash deposits. Stratified drift is the fairly wellsorted sand and gravel found along the valley walls. It was deposited by streams flowing between the glacier and the bedrock hills.
Outwash Deposits: Outwash is sand and gravel deposited by streams flowing from the face of the melting glacier. It is extensive in the Cortland-Homer-Preble area, filling the valleys with continuous deposits up to two-hundred feet (240′) thick. Outwash deposits comprise the most productive aquifers in the area.
Till: The most widespread glacial deposit is till, an unsorted mixture of silt, clay, sand, gravel, and rock fragments. In Cortland County, the till is mainly silt and clay, and has low permeability. The till therefore enhances runoff from the upland areas and limits recharge to the bedrock. Till is exposed in the uplands portion of the area.
Moraine: Material pushed in front, or to the side of the advancing glacier forms a moraine. Moraines generally represent the furthest advance of a glacier. In the Cortland-Homer-Preble area, moraines are found at valley heads. They are comprised of the redeposited material left by previous glacialactivity, and consist of stratified sand and gravel interbedded with poorly sorted silt and clay. Because of low permeability, the moraines act as ground water divides.
Glacial Lake: Glacial lakes were formed in the valleys as the glacier retreated, because the existing drainage outlet had become closed by moraine deposition. Lake sediments, consisting of finegrained sand, silt and clay were deposited. These sediments, which range from ten to three-hundred feet (10-300′) thick, have low permeability and act as a confining unit between aquifers.

C. Ground Water Hydrology

Ground water moves through inter-granular openings in the unconsolidated deposits and through cleavage planes, joints and fractures in the consolidated rocks of the area. As stated above, the yield from bedrock wells in the Cortland-HomerPreble area is low. However, the yield is sufficient for domestic supplies and upland wells are completed into bedrock (Buller, 1978).

The most productive aquifers in the area are the outwash sands and gravels found in the major stream valleys. In the HomerPreble valley, it is the surficial outwash aquifer that provides the majority of drinking water. Its saturated thickness averages fifty-five feet (55′) (Buller et.al., 1978) and yields may exceed one-thousand gallons per minute (1,000 gpd) (Miller, 1982). The base of the aquifer is defined by a lacustrine clay layer at a depth of approximately sixty feet (60′) below the land surface (Buller, 1978). There is a thin layer of sand between the clay and bedrock; its potential as a source of water is unknown (Miller, 1982).

In the southern portion of the area, there is a confined outwash aquifer as well as a surficial outwash aquifer. Both are present within the City of Cortland and the valleys of the East and Main Branches of the Tioughnioga River (Reynolds, 1987). Current well yields are as high as four-hundred gallons per minute (400 gpm) (McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1985).

Southwest of the City of Cortland, the sands and gravel of the aquifer have been interpreted to represent kame terraces and icedisintegration deposits (Miller, 1982).

The water table in the Cortland-Homer-Preble area generally occurs at depths less than twenty-five feet (25′) below the land surface in the major stream valleys (Buller, 1978; Buller et.al., 1978; Miller, 1982; McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc. 1985). In the upland areas, the water table may be as deep as one-hundred feet (100′) below the land surface (McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1985), although this is still well above the valley floors.

Although the relatively impermeable till limits infiltration, recharge to the upland ground water system is derived from precipitation (McFarland-Johnson Engineers, Inc, 1985). In the valleys, the surficial aquifer is recharged by infiltration of precipitation, infiltration from losing streams, and upland sources (Buller et.al., 1978), such as runoff and streams from the hills (McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1985; Reynolds, 1987) and very minor recharge from the bedrock (Buller et.al., 1978; Miller, 1982. According to Reynolds (1987), the confined aquifer (where present) is recharged by the surficial aquifer wherever they are in hydraulic contact. This occurs through the stratified drift deposits along the valley walls, which connect the two aquifers, and wherever the confining lacustrine unit is absent.

In the upland areas, the ground water flow is toward and into the streams (Buller et.al., 1978; McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1985). Upland streams are gaining (i.e., they act as ground water sinks) (McFarland-Johnson Engineers, Inc., 1985). Once they reach the valley floors, however, some of the water recharges the aquifer (Buller et.al., 1978).

In the major valleys, ground water flows toward the center from the valley walls (Buller et.al., 1978). There is also flow in the river’s downstream direction (Buller et.al., , 1978; 1978; Corner and Harsh Inc., 1985; Reynolds, 1987). After the valleys meet near the City of Cortland, flow is southeast, following the Tioughnioga River valley out of the area (Buller et.al., 1978).

1. Recharge
The recharge area is delineated by the designated valleys and the upland area which drain into them. All precipitation within these boundaries has the possibility of recharging the aquifer system.

2. Discharge

Discharge from the aquifer system is by seepage into gaining reaches of streams, evapotranspiration, flow to pumping the area wells and flow out of the area (Buller et.al., 1978; McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1985; Reynolds, 1987).
3. Streamflow Source Zone
The streamflow source zone is the upstream area of losing streams which flow into the recharge area. For the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System, this area is defined as the portion of the Tioughnioga River basin upstream of the southeastern end of the designated area (near Blodgett Mills), as shown on Figure 1. The project review area is coincident with the designated aquifer area, its recharge area, and streamflow source zone.
D. Ground Water Quality

Data provided by the Cortland County Health Department (CCDH) in the petition indicate that all of the ground water in the area contains less than three-hundred milligrams per liter (300 mg/l) total dissolved solids and ranges in temperature from three to nine degrees Centigrade. The pH ranges from slightly acidic to slightly alkaline water varies from moderately to very hard (6.5 to 8.0). The water varies from moderately to very hard (85 to 250 mg/l).

The overall quality of the ground water is good, although there has been contamination of several private wells in the southwestern portion of the area by organic solvents (up to (200 parts per billion). All public water supply wells meet or exceed the appropriate State and Federal drinking water standards.

E. Designated Areas

The area that has been designated as the Sole Source Aquifer is defined as the stratified drift and glacial outwash within the valleys. This area is coincident with that identified as a Primary Water Supply Aquifer by New York State Department of Health (1981) and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1987). The aquifer service area is the same as the aquifer area. Figure 1 shows the location and boundaries of the designated area.

F. Ground Water Use

Table 1 shows the population served and the amount of water withdrawn by public water suppliers within the Aquifer Service Area (ASA). Table 2 shows the estimated population within the ASA relying on private wells. Water use for the population using private wells is estimated based on one hundred gallons per day per person. All information was provided by the Cortland County Health Department.

Table 3 highlights the dependence of the SSA on the petitioned aquifer system. As shown, the area obtains 100% of its drinking water (5,599,813 gallons per day) from the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System.

III. Susceptibility to Contamination

The Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System is highly vulnerable to contamination, due to highly soil permeability and shallow depth to ground water. The following is a discussion of potential sources of contamination, many of which may receive Federal financial assistance through agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Transportation Routes and Facilities

A major interstate highway runs through the proposed designation area. The potential exists for accidental spills on the land overlying the aquifer which could result in serious contamination of the water supply.

On-site Septic Disposal

There are many areas that depend upon on-site septic-systems for waste disposal. These systems, depending on design and soil conditions, may lead to the contamination of the ground water.

Storm Water Runoff

Rain and snowmelt runoff can carry potential contaminants as it enters the aquifer. These include deicing salts, animal excrement, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products, bacteria and particulates from air pollutants.

Commercial and Industrial Facilities

There are various commercial and industrial facilities located within the aquifer system borders. Several of these facilities make, use or store chemicals and substances that could be hazardous if allowed to enter the ground water system. A common example is the storage of heating oil and gasoline, often in underground tanks. Leakage and/or accidental spills from tanks is not uncommon. Dense commercial, industrial, or residential development may also present a potential source of contamination to the aquifer.

Agricultural Practices

Much of the land in the designated area is used for agricultural purposes. Agricultural practices, such as chemical fertilizer application, pesticide and herbicide use, and disposal of animal wastes, can contribute to ground water contamination. This can occur through direct recharge or surface runoff.

Future Development

Future commercial, industrial, and residential development is also a potential source of contamination to the aquifer. The Cortland-Homer-Preble area is under intensive development pressure. It is unlikely to ease in the future. Therefore, projects should be designed to avoid significant increases in contaminant loading to the aquifer system.

IV. Alternative Sources of Drinking Water

There are no alternate sources that can provide the same quantity of drinking water as the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System at a reasonable cost. Nearby surface water sources are the Tioughnioga River System (including several lakes north of the Town of Preble) and Skaneateles Lake. The Tioughnioga River System is hydraulically connected to Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System, and therefore is not a potential alternate source.

According to a letter received from the City Engineer of Syracuse, the City of Syracuse has the legal authority to use Skaneateles Lake as a water supply. During critical dry periods the lake is not able to meet the needs of Syracuse. Due to these institutional and capacity restrictions, Skaneateles Lake cannot be considered an alternate source of drinking water to the petitioned aquifer system.

There are four community water supply systems within Cortland County that are outside the petitioned area. Each uses ground water. Capacity (McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc., 1982) and current use information were used to determine the quantity of water potentially available from each. This is shown in Table 4. As seen, the total excess capacity of these systems (622,700 gpd) is inadequate to replace the water supplied by the petitioned aquifer (approximately 5.6 Mgpd).

In addition, there are two public water suppliers west of the petitioned area in Tompkins County that can be considered potential alternate sources. The Village of Dryden obtains drinking water from ground water and the Village of Groton utilizes both ground water and surface water. Data supplied by John Anderson of the Tompkins County Department of Health (shown in Table 5) indicate that the excess capacity of these systems (330,000 gpd) is also inadequate to replace the water from the petitioned aquifer system.

To summarize, the total excess capacity of nearby public water supply systems is approximately 950,000 gpd. This volume is insufficient to supply drinking water for the ASA should the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System become contaminated.

V. Summary

Based upon the information presented, the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System meets the technical requirements for SSA designation. More than fifty percent (50%) of the drinking water for the aquifer service area is supplied by the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System. In addition, there are no economically feasible alternative drinking water sources which could replace the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System. It is therefore recommended that the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System be designated a SSA. Designation will provide an additional review of those projects for which Federal financial assistance is requested, and will ensure ground water protection measures, incorporating state and local measures whenever possible, are built into the projects.

VI. Selected References

1. Buller, W. (1978). Hydrologic Appraisal of the Water Resources of the HomerPreble Valley, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigation OpenFile Report 7894. 31 pp.

2. Buller, W., W.J. Nichols and J.F. Harsh (1978). Quality and Movement of Ground Water in Otter Creek-Dry Creek Basin, Cortland County, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Investigation Open-File Report 78-3. 63pp.

3. Corner, Oliver J. and J.F. Harsh (1978). Digital-model Simulation of the Glacial Outwash Basin, Cortland County, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigation Open-File Report 78-71. 34 pp.

4. McFarlandJohnson Engineers, Inc. (1982). Central New York Ground Water Management Program for Cortland County – Task I Report on Ground Water Resources. 99 pp.

5. Milller, Todd S. (1982). CortlandHomerPreble Area, in Atlas of Eleven Selected Aquifers in New York State (R. Waller and A. Finch, compilers). U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigation OpenFile Report 82553. pp. 149172.

6. Milller, Ernest (1965). Quaternary Geology of New York, in Quaternary Geology of the United States (H.E. Wright and E.G. Frey, eds.). Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 922 pp.

7. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1987). Upstate Ground Water Management Program. 232 pp.

8. New York State Department of Health (1981). Report of Ground Water Dependence in New York State. 49 pp.

9. Reynolds, Richard J. (1987). Hydrogeology of the Surficial Outwash Aquifer at Cortland, Cortland County, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigation Report 85-4090. 43 pp.

VII. Tables

Table 1. Community Water Suppliers Within Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System

Supply Population
Served
Water Usage
(gallons per day)
City of Cortland 20,100 3,792,000
Cortlandville 2,700 413,600
Homer 4,250 717,800
McGraw 1,300 87,900
Scott 154 9,341
Preble 51 3,200
Green Acres MHP 32 2,000
McBride MHP 54 3,400
Mountainview MHP 86 5,400
Parker Manor MHP 64 4,000
Pine Hill MHP 253 16,000
Ripley Hill MHP 64 4,000
Tully MHP 333 13,672
TOTAL 29,441 5,072,313

MPH = Mobil Home Park
Source: Cortland County Health Department.

Table 2. Private Well Information within Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System

Town Estimated
Population
Estimated Water
Usage (gal/day)
Cortlandville 2,700 270,000
Homer 1,575 157,500
Preble 860 86,000
Scott 140 14,000
TOTAL 5,275 527,500

Estimate of water usage based on 100 gallons per day per person.
Source: Cortland County Health Department.

Table 3. Current Drinking Water Sources for the Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System Service Area and Percentage of Water Obtained from Each Source

Source \ Use Public
Water
Supply
Private
and
Other
Total
Petitioned Aquifer System 90.4 9.6 100%
Other Aquifers —- —- —-
Surface Water —- —-
Transported from the Outside —- —- —-
Total 90.4 9.6 100%

Table 4. Alternate Water Sources within Cortland County

(All volumes are gallons per day)
Supplier Capacity * Current Usage # Excess Capacity
Cincinnatus 270,000 189,500 80,500
Harford 100,000 4,000 96,000
Marathon 490,000 203,800 286,200
Greek Peak 170,000 10,000 160,000
TOTAL 1,030,000 407,300 622,700

* McFarland-Johnson Engineers, Inc., 1982, Table 6-6.
# Source: Cortland County Health Department.

Table 5. Alternate Water Sources within Tompkins County

(All volumes are gallons per day)
Supplier Capacity Current Usage Excess Capacity
Dryden 300,000 200,000 100,000
Groton 610,000 380,000 230,000
TOTAL 910,000 580,000 330,000

Source: John Andersson, Tompkins County Department of Health.

VIII. Figure

Figure 1. Cortland-Homer-Preble Aquifer System Designated Area

(Displayed USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Sheets)

USGS Quads