Saturday, March 1, 2008

Thursday 2/28 Village Board Meeting - WD5

Last Thursday 2/28/08, the Village Board held a special meeting to discuss, inform, and vote, on WD5. I have been, until now, in agreement with the Board, in that they have resisted pressure from the Town Supervisor to cooperate and support his ill conceived plans. I am disappointed that they have now passed a resolution which states that the Village is willing to pay $500,000 for any connection to any pipe that can provide 250,000 gallons of water per day to the village. Lucia Tyler (Town Council person) was present and stated that she had a letter from the Town of Ithaca that essentially says that this amount of water from Bolton Point is impossible at this time. The vote on this resolution was unanimous, but David Filiberto was not present. The Village Board's position is now proactive. They have reservations about WD5, but they claim that their resolution is not tied to any infrastructure project in particular. This seems odd. We are not operating in a vacuum here. We know who's system we are discussing, and we know that there are many drawbacks.

David Filiberto (the Village Trustee for whose spot I am a candidate) wrote a letter prior to the meeting and sent it to the Board and Finding Ulysses. Someone should have read it at the meeting. Here it is,


After review of the newly proposed WD5 which plans to lay 25 miles of water infrastructure around the Village of Trumansburg and up Route 89, similar concerns exist as with the previous incarnation of the plan: there has been little regard to the impact such a project would have on the Village, Town and surrounding environs notably Cayuga Lake, Trumansburg Creek, agriculture districts, now and into the future.
In any large public development project all relevant costs and benefits should be ascertained in order to decide if a project is feasible and beneficial.
Points that have not been adequately considered now or previously include:
The estimated capital cost has risen from $4.9 million to $9.8 million according to the engineering firm Barton and Loguidice. The Ithaca Journal has quoted the Town of Ulysses Supervisor placing the cost at $14 million. The annual estimated cost borne by an EDU (a user in the district) has risen from $570 to $613. The estimated contribution from the Village for this plan has risen from $330,000 to $500,000. If these numbers are accurate, how can municipal officials expect residents in the proposed water district to afford such an increase and why would the Village which rejected the previous plan pay more for this plan?


As importantly the long term economic and environmental impacts from such a development project have yet to be ascertained. The newly proposed project runs through agricultural lands to the north and west, runs by a unique natural area (Taughannock Creek) and runs up Route 89 a potentially desirable place to develop housing because of the proximity to Cayuga Lake and its view shed. What impact will an increase in housing, commercial farming and other business lured by water infrastructure have on the area? If developed appropriately the impact would be positive, haphazardly potentially disastrous.
This new plan requires support from the Village of Trumansburg and from Taughannock State Park. The Village would only get an emergency source of water from this plan, not the desirable second source it seeks, and depending on who is the judge, is mandated to have. Furthermore, an independent study by Dr. Robert Howarth of the situation at Taughannock State Park finds that the influence of groundwater contamination is most likely due to a local source (proximity of park rest rooms to well) rather than from its shallow well near the lake.
The Village has just passed a Comprehensive Plan which advocates careful and thoughtful planning for the Village. The Town of Ulysses has a Comprehensive Plan Committee hard at work considering the best options for future growth in the Town. Recently the Town appointed a new Water Committee to take a closer look at future water needs and options. In spite of this the Village is asked to lend its support for this newly proposed project. Support from the Village for this project at this time would not only discredit and de-legitimize these efforts it would go against the will of previous decisions voted by each Board not to pursue a similar plan. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the February 28th meeting in person but I encourage the Village Board and residents of the Town and Village to reaffirm previous votes and reject support for this project or any incarnation of it until the necessary costs and benefits are ascertained correctly.
David Filiberto, Village of Trumansburg Trustee