(Liz Thomas is a Ulysses Town Council-person)
Pros and Cons of Public Water in Ulysses
Recently the New York State Department of Health notified the Town of Ulysses of the potential for the proposed Water District 5 to move ahead with 0% interest loan funding despite the removal of Auble’s Mobile Home Park from the plan. However, in order for this to happen, the town needs to find an equivalent number of new water users to meet the annual target cost per user of $613. Going above this number would disqualify the project for 0% interest funding. To meet this goal, Eric Pond from the engineering firm of Barton and Loguidice, proposed a reconfiguration of the system (see map below). The only alternative provided that fits the $613 target cost encompasses large areas of land zoned for the lowest residential density and also includes Route 89 from Taughannock Park to Glenwood Road resulting in a full 25 miles of pipelines and escalating the project cost to somewhere near $10 million, up from the original $4.6 million. These costs would be paid for by those within the water district whether they hook up to the water system or not.
The Village of Trumansburg is under a restriction from the Tompkins County Department of Health preventing extension of their water mains until they have a back-up source of water, in spite of the enormous water capacity of their well and their redundant pumping system. Due to this restriction, local residents and municipal officials are working to develop a back-up source to the Village.
Based on speaking with residents and municipal officials, there is also support for Taughannock Park’s desire to connect to the municipal water. Where controversy arises is in the placement of pipelines through areas of the town that are not zoned for high residential densities; in fact much of the northwestern area of the town where the pipes will be installed is zoned for the lowest possible densities. Zoning is intended to encourage growth in certain areas and discourage growth in others. While the newly proposed (on 2/21/08) Water District 5 design runs through land currently being used for agriculture, it skips land near Ithaca with the highest density zoning. Why? Based on Tompkins County Department of Health information, since 1985, seven wells have a documented problem within the area of proposed Water District 5. However, wells outside the proposed water district also have documented troubles. An accurate town-wide survey of well water quality and quantity has never been completed, but a water committee is now formed to do just that. Once completed, a water plan can be designed to meet the actual needs of the most residents.
On February 20, 2008, a report from Environmental Advocates of New York was released highlighting the negative impacts of sprawl on rural communities resulting from misuse of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF is the funding source for Water District 5) managed by the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) and the New York State Department of Health. The article is available on line at http://www.eany.org/reports/Wasted%20Green_02202008.pdf (beginning at the bottom of page 9) and states in part, “the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, created with the best of intentions, may be working at cross-purposes to efforts to fight sprawl.” The article goes on to say, “The Department of Health reviews proposals to ensure they are technically sound. However, there is no evidence of a mechanism in place to ensure that the project is the most appropriate remedy to a public health or environmental problem. And the EFC simply looks at the applicant’s finances to determine if the municipality has the fiscal capacity to repay the loan.”
The scoring used by EFC gives 40 “points” to projects that address well contamination, whether there is one contaminated well or 100. To date the Tompkins County Department of Health has provided data on well contamination in only 7 wells in the project area over 22 years to determine the severity of the need. While water contamination is a serious issue, many homeowners already manage many water problems through home treatment and filtering systems. These methods may be inconvenient for homeowners, but in most cases are less expensive in the long run than a municipal water system in an area of low residential density.
Finally, the Town of Ulysses is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. Based on the recent Comprehensive Plan survey, over 90% of residents of Ulysses rate the following three qualities as important or extremely important: open space, rural character, and Taughannock Park. Historically, where water flows, so does development. Should we proceed with a water district that encourages growth in rural and open space? Should we rush to pass this project before the Comprehensive Plan is being updated? Do we want to encourage development along the highly erodable steep slopes along Route 89? Infrastructure, such as water lines, should be preceded by thoughful planning, and be built according to those plans. Working together, let’s identify the water needs more clearly, and build a system that addresses the real needs while preserving the rural character of Ulysses that we all hold so dear. The deadline for making a decision on this plan is NOW, so if you have an opinion, please let it be heard.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Water District 5
The Ulysses Town Supervisor and (long time proponent of WD5) has called a second meeting in two weeks (outside of regular town board meetings) in-order to discuss WD5. Apparently we are again coming up on a deadline within which to apply for a loan. I wish that he would go a little slower on this. I am not convinced that this plan is good for Trumansburg or Ulysses as a whole. These weekday, daytime meetings are nearly impossible for many of us to attend, including some of the town board members that have regular jobs.
The meeting is tomorrow (Thursday) at the town hall (I assume - it's not on their website) at 8:30 am
I am running for a trustee position on the village board. It is my understanding that a "Memorandum of Understanding" from the Trumansburg Village Board, would be required for the town of Ulysses to go forward with this WD5 plan. I would be in favor of a water infrastructure project, if everyone was informed every step along the way in a very open process, and we then voted upon the project, with all members present. Calling these weekday, daytime meetings is not conducive to the kind of process that I would like to see. (I'd like to go tomorrow, but I've got work to do and bills to pay) If the supervisor is in a rush because low interest money is available for a limited time only, I'd say no thanks. Let's be sure this is what we want before worrying about the loan.
I'm going to write to my representatives. If you care to join me, here is their contact information,
Rod Ferintino----------rodf@twcny.rr.com
Lucia Tyler------------Tyler.lucia@gmail.com
Doug Austic-----------tousuper@twcny.rr.com
Liz Thomas------------egt3@cornell.edu
Dave Kerness----------djkerness@gmail.com
Below is a very informative letter that Dr. Robert Howarth sent to the supervisor after the first of these special meetings. Dr. Howarth is a biogeochemist and aquatic ecosystem scientist with more than 30 years of experience in water quality issues. He is a resident of Ulysses.
Dear Mr. Austic:
I have learned that at yesterday's special meeting of the Ulysses Town Board, you criticized my statement that the proposed ethanol plant in Seneca County poses a significant threat to water quality in Cayuga Lake, calling it a scare tactic. I could not attend the meeting yesterday due to work commitments, and so I am hearing of your criticisms only second hand. However, I note that you have never communicated any such concerns directly to me, despite my repeated offers to meet with you and the Board and despite my openly providing written information to you.
I write now in response to the comments you made, which include some major errors and some highly questionable statements. I am copying members of the Town Board and the chairs of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, the Planning Board, and the new Water Committee for their information.
Error #1: You apparently stated that the proposed plant is "way more than 20 miles away" from any area in the Town of Ulysses. You are dead wrong, as anyone with a local map can verify. The proposed site is in the southern part of the old Seneca Army Depot in the Town of Romulus. All of the Village of Trumansburg and approximately half of the land area in the Town of Ulysses is within 20 miles. And of course 20 miles is not a physical barrier to moving dried brewer's grain or manure; rather, the economics become less favorable as the distance increases, and most economic models suggest the greatest risk is within 20 miles. All of the Town of Ulysses is close enough to be at some risk.
Error #2: You apparently stated that a large CAFO could not be built in the area because there is not enough land to spread the resulting manure. While it is true that there are constraints on how much manure can be spread, it is not true that this constraint would prevent the construction of one or more new CAFOs. CAFOs now require a SPDES permit, and as part of the application process, the owner needs to certify to the DEC that they have a "comprehensive nutrient management plan" (CNMP). In turn, the CNMP would include specifications on the spreading of manure. Interestingly, the CNMP is not filed with the DEC; rather, only the certification that there is a CNMP is filed. Spreading manure on land owned by the CAFO is one option for disposing of the waste. Another option is to sell the manure to another farmer; if that farmer does not also own a CAFO, they do not need to have a SPDES permit or CNMP. Other options are to landfill the manure, to digest it, or to compost it. Of these, the best environmentally would be to digest the manure to produce natural gas for energy, and then convert the waste from that in dried, pelletized fertilizer. But there is no guarantee that new CAFOs would follow that path. The most likely path is that the manure be spread to the maximum amount allowed by nutrient management plans, with the rest disposed of in some other fashion. This means there is significant risk of much greater spreading of manure in the Town of Ulysses than occurs at present, and this poses a potentially significant water quality risk to Cayuga Lake (not to mention odors, etc.), as well as local streams and groundwater supplies. I note that the business plant for the proposed ethanol plant calls for selling large amounts of distiller' grain, and this makes economic sense only if CAFOs are built relatively nearby (see below for more information).
Questionable statement #1: You apparently stated that no one knows if the ethanol plant will actually be built. The momentum behind building the plant is great, with support from the State, from Seneca County, and from the Town of Romulus. Tax breaks and government incentives are in place ( https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/news/press-releases/2006/2006 ). And according to the Seneca County Chamber of Commerce, $115 million in private funding has been identified; 100 investors have partnered with the owner, a California based company ( http://www.senecachamber.org/pages/advocacy/).
Questionable statement #2: You apparently stated that the population density is sufficiently high in Ulysses as to discourage CAFOs. There are no regulations in New York State against putting CAFOs into even heavily populated areas. As you are aware, local zoning cannot prevent CAFOs in agricultural areas in New York State; as you know, home rule applies to most Town actions, but not to any effort to exercise control over agricultural activities in State-designated agricultural areas (which encompasses much of the area of WD5 as currently proposed). Some CAFO owners undoubtedly favor locating in areas of low population, as this reduces complaints from the public. However, CAFOs frequently are built in relatively populated areas, including areas with greater population density than here. Drive down to Lancaster County in Pennsylvania for an example of this (I suggest doing so in the spring, when the pungent odor permeates the entire county).
I also am told that at yesterday's meeting, Rod Ferrentino pointed out that we already have at least one CAFO in the Town. I believe we have at least 3, perhaps more. According to the DEC, the only CAFOs in Ulysses are medium ones; for dairy farms, this means they have between 200 and 699 cows ( http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/36895.html). The farm that Roxanne and I own abuts one of these CAFOs, and for the past 22 years, I have considered them to be good neighbors. I also grew up next door to such a farm in New Hampshire. This scale of farming is a desirable aspect of rural life, in my opinion.
The concern I am raising regards a very different scale of operation -- with potential for much greater pollution -- when considering the waste from the ethanol plant proposed for Seneca County. After corn is digested to make ethanol, the waste material is called brewers grain or distillers grain. The business plan for the proposed plant calls for selling 175,000 tons (dry weight) of this material each year ( http://www.senecachamber.org/pages/advocacy/). That is enough to support 40,000 head of cattle in CAFOs, and these CAFOs are most likely to be within 20 miles of the plant because of the cost of transporting the distillers grain (Simpson, T. W., A. N. Sharpley, R. W. Howarth, H. W. Paerl, and K. R. Mankin. 2008. The new gold rush: Fueling ethanol production while protecting water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality, in press). This is a scale of operation that is 50- to 100-fold greater than our community has ever experienced, and I would think there might be a high probability that these facilities would be run by absentee owners (as no one is likely to want to live near them).
Putting municipal water into agricultural areas in Ulysses increases the risk that these CAFOs (and perhaps associated slaughter houses and meat processing plants) could be sited in our Town. I believe that this is an unnecessary and unacceptable risk, and one that should be given serious consideration as part of the Comprehensive Planning process for land use and development of municipal water in the Town.
I ask that you set the record straight at the next meeting of the Ulysses Town Board, with a retraction of your incorrect statements.
Thank you,
Bob Howarth
The meeting is tomorrow (Thursday) at the town hall (I assume - it's not on their website) at 8:30 am
I am running for a trustee position on the village board. It is my understanding that a "Memorandum of Understanding" from the Trumansburg Village Board, would be required for the town of Ulysses to go forward with this WD5 plan. I would be in favor of a water infrastructure project, if everyone was informed every step along the way in a very open process, and we then voted upon the project, with all members present. Calling these weekday, daytime meetings is not conducive to the kind of process that I would like to see. (I'd like to go tomorrow, but I've got work to do and bills to pay) If the supervisor is in a rush because low interest money is available for a limited time only, I'd say no thanks. Let's be sure this is what we want before worrying about the loan.
I'm going to write to my representatives. If you care to join me, here is their contact information,
Rod Ferintino----------rodf@twcny.rr.com
Lucia Tyler------------Tyler.lucia@gmail.com
Doug Austic-----------tousuper@twcny.rr.com
Liz Thomas------------egt3@cornell.edu
Dave Kerness----------djkerness@gmail.com
Below is a very informative letter that Dr. Robert Howarth sent to the supervisor after the first of these special meetings. Dr. Howarth is a biogeochemist and aquatic ecosystem scientist with more than 30 years of experience in water quality issues. He is a resident of Ulysses.
Dear Mr. Austic:
I have learned that at yesterday's special meeting of the Ulysses Town Board, you criticized my statement that the proposed ethanol plant in Seneca County poses a significant threat to water quality in Cayuga Lake, calling it a scare tactic. I could not attend the meeting yesterday due to work commitments, and so I am hearing of your criticisms only second hand. However, I note that you have never communicated any such concerns directly to me, despite my repeated offers to meet with you and the Board and despite my openly providing written information to you.
I write now in response to the comments you made, which include some major errors and some highly questionable statements. I am copying members of the Town Board and the chairs of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, the Planning Board, and the new Water Committee for their information.
Error #1: You apparently stated that the proposed plant is "way more than 20 miles away" from any area in the Town of Ulysses. You are dead wrong, as anyone with a local map can verify. The proposed site is in the southern part of the old Seneca Army Depot in the Town of Romulus. All of the Village of Trumansburg and approximately half of the land area in the Town of Ulysses is within 20 miles. And of course 20 miles is not a physical barrier to moving dried brewer's grain or manure; rather, the economics become less favorable as the distance increases, and most economic models suggest the greatest risk is within 20 miles. All of the Town of Ulysses is close enough to be at some risk.
Error #2: You apparently stated that a large CAFO could not be built in the area because there is not enough land to spread the resulting manure. While it is true that there are constraints on how much manure can be spread, it is not true that this constraint would prevent the construction of one or more new CAFOs. CAFOs now require a SPDES permit, and as part of the application process, the owner needs to certify to the DEC that they have a "comprehensive nutrient management plan" (CNMP). In turn, the CNMP would include specifications on the spreading of manure. Interestingly, the CNMP is not filed with the DEC; rather, only the certification that there is a CNMP is filed. Spreading manure on land owned by the CAFO is one option for disposing of the waste. Another option is to sell the manure to another farmer; if that farmer does not also own a CAFO, they do not need to have a SPDES permit or CNMP. Other options are to landfill the manure, to digest it, or to compost it. Of these, the best environmentally would be to digest the manure to produce natural gas for energy, and then convert the waste from that in dried, pelletized fertilizer. But there is no guarantee that new CAFOs would follow that path. The most likely path is that the manure be spread to the maximum amount allowed by nutrient management plans, with the rest disposed of in some other fashion. This means there is significant risk of much greater spreading of manure in the Town of Ulysses than occurs at present, and this poses a potentially significant water quality risk to Cayuga Lake (not to mention odors, etc.), as well as local streams and groundwater supplies. I note that the business plant for the proposed ethanol plant calls for selling large amounts of distiller' grain, and this makes economic sense only if CAFOs are built relatively nearby (see below for more information).
Questionable statement #1: You apparently stated that no one knows if the ethanol plant will actually be built. The momentum behind building the plant is great, with support from the State, from Seneca County, and from the Town of Romulus. Tax breaks and government incentives are in place ( https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/news/press-releases/2006/2006 ). And according to the Seneca County Chamber of Commerce, $115 million in private funding has been identified; 100 investors have partnered with the owner, a California based company ( http://www.senecachamber.org/pages/advocacy/).
Questionable statement #2: You apparently stated that the population density is sufficiently high in Ulysses as to discourage CAFOs. There are no regulations in New York State against putting CAFOs into even heavily populated areas. As you are aware, local zoning cannot prevent CAFOs in agricultural areas in New York State; as you know, home rule applies to most Town actions, but not to any effort to exercise control over agricultural activities in State-designated agricultural areas (which encompasses much of the area of WD5 as currently proposed). Some CAFO owners undoubtedly favor locating in areas of low population, as this reduces complaints from the public. However, CAFOs frequently are built in relatively populated areas, including areas with greater population density than here. Drive down to Lancaster County in Pennsylvania for an example of this (I suggest doing so in the spring, when the pungent odor permeates the entire county).
I also am told that at yesterday's meeting, Rod Ferrentino pointed out that we already have at least one CAFO in the Town. I believe we have at least 3, perhaps more. According to the DEC, the only CAFOs in Ulysses are medium ones; for dairy farms, this means they have between 200 and 699 cows ( http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/36895.html). The farm that Roxanne and I own abuts one of these CAFOs, and for the past 22 years, I have considered them to be good neighbors. I also grew up next door to such a farm in New Hampshire. This scale of farming is a desirable aspect of rural life, in my opinion.
The concern I am raising regards a very different scale of operation -- with potential for much greater pollution -- when considering the waste from the ethanol plant proposed for Seneca County. After corn is digested to make ethanol, the waste material is called brewers grain or distillers grain. The business plan for the proposed plant calls for selling 175,000 tons (dry weight) of this material each year ( http://www.senecachamber.org/pages/advocacy/). That is enough to support 40,000 head of cattle in CAFOs, and these CAFOs are most likely to be within 20 miles of the plant because of the cost of transporting the distillers grain (Simpson, T. W., A. N. Sharpley, R. W. Howarth, H. W. Paerl, and K. R. Mankin. 2008. The new gold rush: Fueling ethanol production while protecting water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality, in press). This is a scale of operation that is 50- to 100-fold greater than our community has ever experienced, and I would think there might be a high probability that these facilities would be run by absentee owners (as no one is likely to want to live near them).
Putting municipal water into agricultural areas in Ulysses increases the risk that these CAFOs (and perhaps associated slaughter houses and meat processing plants) could be sited in our Town. I believe that this is an unnecessary and unacceptable risk, and one that should be given serious consideration as part of the Comprehensive Planning process for land use and development of municipal water in the Town.
I ask that you set the record straight at the next meeting of the Ulysses Town Board, with a retraction of your incorrect statements.
Thank you,
Bob Howarth
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Talked to Ambulance/EMS Volunteer Feb. 2
I just met with a neighbor of mine, who was an active member of the Trumansburg Volunteer Fire Department and part of the volunteer staff of the Ambulance/EMS for several years. I explained my concerns about the privatization of the Ambulance/EMS. He disagreed with my use of the word privatization because he doesn't believe that this is the first step on the road to a fully private for profit Ambulance service. He may be right, but until I find a better word, I will continue to use "privatization". I consider every step in that direction to be a step in the wrong direction wether it results in a fully private company or not.
I told my neighbor that if I were a volunteer with the Ambulance/EMS service in it's current form (fully taxpayer funded) I would feel proud to be a part of a group that devoted time to helping their neighbors in times of need, and I would feel good about being able to say "there's no charge for this". If my Ambulance company then entered a relationship with private for profit insurance companies and billing companies, and I was now required to get customer's social security numbers and insurance company information, this would change how I felt about the work.
My neighbor informed me that the number of volunteers in Trumansburg is relatively high presently. We are not having nearly as much trouble maintaining sufficient numbers of volunteers as neighboring communities are. Perhaps this is because a fully taxpayer funded service is good for morale. My neighbor felt that some people might be less apt to continue to serve if we took this step towards privatization.
My neighbor told me that he was at the meeting with the representative from Professional Ambulance Billing, and Chris Thomas, and was told that a bill would be sent to care recipients regardless of health insurance status. There are 47 million Americans currently without health insurance. Most of these people don't have a lot of spare cash. Most of these people are honest, hard working, tax paying folks who helped pay for the equipment and facility that houses our Ambulance/EMS. They don't have health insurance because our government doesn't have the foresight and concern for their citizenry that the governments in the rest of the industrialized world has. Yet these people would be hit with a big bill from our ambulance service on top of a big bill from the hospital if they had a serious medical emergency. Most bankruptcies are caused by medical emergencies, and the bankruptcy laws were recently changed in favor of big corporations.
I told my neighbor that if I were a volunteer with the Ambulance/EMS service in it's current form (fully taxpayer funded) I would feel proud to be a part of a group that devoted time to helping their neighbors in times of need, and I would feel good about being able to say "there's no charge for this". If my Ambulance company then entered a relationship with private for profit insurance companies and billing companies, and I was now required to get customer's social security numbers and insurance company information, this would change how I felt about the work.
My neighbor informed me that the number of volunteers in Trumansburg is relatively high presently. We are not having nearly as much trouble maintaining sufficient numbers of volunteers as neighboring communities are. Perhaps this is because a fully taxpayer funded service is good for morale. My neighbor felt that some people might be less apt to continue to serve if we took this step towards privatization.
My neighbor told me that he was at the meeting with the representative from Professional Ambulance Billing, and Chris Thomas, and was told that a bill would be sent to care recipients regardless of health insurance status. There are 47 million Americans currently without health insurance. Most of these people don't have a lot of spare cash. Most of these people are honest, hard working, tax paying folks who helped pay for the equipment and facility that houses our Ambulance/EMS. They don't have health insurance because our government doesn't have the foresight and concern for their citizenry that the governments in the rest of the industrialized world has. Yet these people would be hit with a big bill from our ambulance service on top of a big bill from the hospital if they had a serious medical emergency. Most bankruptcies are caused by medical emergencies, and the bankruptcy laws were recently changed in favor of big corporations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)