Current Events

On June 13 The New York Times published an article entitled “Cuomo Proposal Would Restrict Gas Drilling to a Struggling Area.” Although not official policy at this time, many felt the Governor ‘s office had floated the information to the Times to judge public opinion and reaction. The proposal was to allow limited, horizontal, high volume, slick water, hydrofracking in five counties of the Southern Tier: Broome, Chemung , Chenango, Tioga and Steuben. Drilling would be permitted only in towns that agreed to it. The Catskill Park and New York City watersheds would be protected. According to the Times, “since the announcement, the Cuomo administration has been deluged with tens of thousands of emails and letters mostly objecting to the process.” Reaction was quick and strong. A statement by biologist Sandra Steingraber of New Yorkers Against Fracking said in part,

"The pregnant mother who drinks unfiltered water from a rural well in the Susquehanna River valley has the same right to environmental protection as the mother in Manhattan who drinks unfiltered water brought to her from the off-limits New York City watershed….Partitioning our state into frack and no-frack zones based on economic desperation is a shameful idea, and we will actively oppose its implementation. Demonstration projects are another name for sacrifice zones.  And there are no children and counties in our beloved state that we are willing to sacrifice."

CPNY (Coalition to Protect New York) stated, “CPNY adamantly opposes the governor’s plan, which is undemocratic. Sectioning off parts of the state to use as sacrifice zones pits region against region and betrays a wonton disregard for the lives of people in more rural areas, as opposed to urban and suburban areas….. It gives all the power to town board members in the Southern Tier who, along with ‘landowner coalitions’ and industry lawyers, are pushing an agenda that benefits a few but will have far-reaching negative consequences for many,” said CPNY cofounder and spokesperson Jack Ossont.

Kate Hudson of Riverkeeper, an environmental group, commented, "Just limiting the geographic scope of fracking does not make it safer."

In the press release and map reproduced last week in this paper, some Town Supervisors issued an appeal for “ responsible gas drilling.” What disturbs me about this appeal is that there are many town board members across western New York that are also members of landowner coalitions looking to reap the financial benefits of hydrofracking. The above mentioned article in the New York Times featured one such supervisor from Sanford, NY. These dual roles strike this author as an unconscionable conflict of interest.

More than 100 New York State towns have passed bans and moratoria on hydrofracking and almost 100 more are in the process of discussion and consideration of protective laws. One might look at the attached map and ask – Why Buffalo? Why Rochester? Why is there so much ban activity north of the five aforementioned counties in the Southern Tier? This is because many concerned citizens across the State feel that drilling in the Southern Tier and the Marcellus shale is only a preliminary “foot in the door” for drilling in the Utica shale, a deeper layer that lies under all of western New York State – from the Pennsylvania border to the Great Lakes. The bans and moratoria are aimed at a much more far reaching protection than just the targeted locations over the Marcellus shale gas.

On June 18 Town Board members, Supervisors and other elected officials from across the State gathered in Albany to highlight the municipalities that have enacted home rule. Mayor Matt Ryan of Binghamton said his city used its police powers to enact a ban to protect its sole source aquifer after “determining that fracking, using current technology cannot be done safely." He called on the state legislature to pass legislation that will provide protection to all New Yorkers, and criticized the Cuomo administration for possible plans to permit drilling in a five county "sacrifice zone" in the Southern Tier. Town of Middlefield Supervisor, David Bliss, said his town was forced to enact a ban in order to protect vital economic sectors including tourism and agriculture.  This theme was echoed by James Dean, Trustee of the village of Cooperstown, who said hydrofracking "would bring incalculable economic devastation to our historic village.” Don Barber, Supervisor from the Town of Caroline, justified enacting a ban because "everyone experiences the effects of natural gas fracking, but only a few reap the benefits."

Adrian Kuzminski, moderator, opened the press conference by noting that, "In a little more than a year, an unprecedented, astonishing, and largely unreported grassroots resistance to fracking for natural gas has developed across NYS. In municipality after municipality,

citizens have organized to oppose fracking in their communities, and their elected representatives have responded by exercising their powers under

home rule to pass moratoria and outright bans on fracking."  Kuzminski also said that the movement "cut across party lines, bringing together Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike in defense of their

communities"

 Last week brought another interesting development regarding this movement towards home rule. Many readers will remember an earlier column in which I summarized the legal challenges brought against the towns of Dryden (Tompkins Co.) and Middlefield (Otsego Co.). Both towns used zoning to ban fracking within their jurisdictions and both towns were sued, each by different plaintiffs. In two separate decisions, two State Supreme Court judges ruled in favor of the towns, strongly affirming home rule. Both decisions acknowledged that state law regulates how the gas industry operates, but that it is the right of municipalities to determine land use and where the gas industry may or may not operate. Tom West, an attorney representing gas interests claimed that he had new legal information that showed in fact that New York State can indeed override home rule when it comes to the gas industry. He petitioned Judge Cerio, who ruled in the original Middlefield case to reopen the case. Judge Cerio ruled against Mr. West’s petition stating in the legal summary, “Upon a review of the submissions of plaintiff such do not serve to support a basis upon which this court may change its prior determination that local municipalities are vested with the authority to either permit or prohibit oil, gas, and solutions mining or drilling, within their geographical jurisdiction.”

I have recently returned from a tour of communities in Pennsylvania where hydrofracking has been occurring for a few years now. I saw many drilling sites for myself, experienced the high levels of truck traffic, and visited with a number of families whose water has been poisoned by nearby fracking activities. I will save the details for a future column, but one thing the trip made abundantly clear is that in light of the Governor’s proposal that drilling would be permitted only in the towns that agreed to it, home rule is an essential measure of self defense if the gas corporations are allowed to cross the border.