Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Fracking Fluids Used on Roads

From your viewpoint, maybe it's not an interesting question.

From mine, your answer is MORE than interesting; I feel it is honest and representative of what most environmentally minded people would say...

I want to point out, I never said they had to buy up ALL of the land they find special. I posed the question as to why A conservationist would NOT want to sell his real estate in a environmentally spoiled area for the chance to save a piece of this "special" place.

As you stated, the reason YOU don't, is an economic one.

Is that a fair representation of your answer?


Oh the hook is about to be set!!!
 
Let's set the hook, then, why don't we.

So, if I say my decision to be in nyc is an economic one, you are going to say that your decision to be in the catskills is also an economic one? And that if I can make choices that accrue to my benefit financially, that you too should have the same right?

I agree, that you and I have the same rights. But we live under a system of laws.

In the Catskills, you can hunt in your backyard. In nyc, you can't. This isn't a double standard. It isn't unfair.

You gotta follow the rules, wherever you are.

If the rules say no drilling in the catskills, you gotta follow the rules. Until the rules change, you have the choice to use your land as you see fit. But it is my right to hope that the rules do change, so that drilling is prevented to the extent that it poses a threat to the environment.
 
Let's set the hook, then, why don't we.

So, if I say my decision to be in nyc is an economic one, you are going to say that your decision to be in the catskills is also an economic one? And that if I can make choices that accrue to my benefit financially, that you too should have the same right?

I agree, that you and I have the same rights. But we live under a system of laws.

In the Catskills, you can hunt in your backyard. In nyc, you can't. This isn't a double standard. It isn't unfair.

You gotta follow the rules, wherever you are.

If the rules say no drilling in the catskills, you gotta follow the rules. Until the rules change, you have the choice to use your land as you see fit. But it is my right to hope that the rules do change, so that drilling is prevented to the extent that it poses a threat to the environment.

He said as he avoided answering the question...again:)
 
Gonzo, we are awaiting your reply. Please keep in mind that my opponents have effectively established that the issue at hand is about economics, and, therefore, that from a legal standpoint any regulation of drilling activity in the catskills would properly be deemed a regulation of commerce.

How would you describe the power of the federal government to regulate commerce? Does the word "plenary" mean anything to you, Mr. Lawyer?

If congress does not choose to regulate, do the states not also have such power to regulate commercial activity?

I believe the answer is yes, that the power of government to regulate commerce is plenary, and that a rational relation of the regulation to a legitimate state interest is all that's needed to establish the constitutionality of such regulation. By now, you should agree that such governmental power is pretty much a given.

Whatsayyou?
 
I believe the answer is yes, that the power of government to regulate commerce is plenary, and that a rational relation of the regulation to a legitimate state interest is all that's needed to establish the constitutionality of such regulation. By now, you should agree that such governmental power is pretty much a given.

Whatsayyou?


Spoken like a true lawyer. There's only one magic word you forgot and that's "interstate" - the Commerce Clause of the constitution give Congress plenary power to regulate interstate commerce. I don't think there's any question that gas drilling is considered interstate commerce so there should be no argument on that issue.

As to the 5th Amendment issue - you're getting a little confused, but its a confusing subject. So the 5th amendment always guaranteed people's rights against the Feds, the 14th amendment applies the 5th to the State Governments and the 5th Amendment applies the 14th Amendment to the to the Feds - that's how you get federal legislation like the Americans With Disabilities Act etc.

So the state governments have to satisfy the 5th amendment takings clause as much as the Federal Gov't does - in fact the most recent Supreme Court case on the issue involved the state of connecticut taking land from private citizens in New London CT to give to a private corporation for a "public purpose."

Also, you can't take life or liberty without "due process of law" - you can't take property without "just compensation" - those are 2 different clauses of the 5th Amendment and I think you might be confusing the two. The state's deliberation doesn't satisfy your right to just compensation if the result is that your property is taken away.

However if you read the paragraph of mine that FF quoted, you'll notice that I never said that this particular case would actually be a "taking." I really don't know the answer and I haven't really studied the issue in a long time but I'd be surprised if such a case would win.

This would have to be a regulatory taking - where a regulation is so restrictive that it amounts to a taking of the property by the state. These cases are very hard to win - you have to show a total devaluation of the property. In this case, losing the right to drill on your property is not a total devaluation - it still has value as a residential property or whatever other uses are permissible according to local regulations. Loss of the right to exploit the minerals underneath the land is probably not a taking.
 
Spoken like a true lawyer.

However if you read the paragraph of mine that FF quoted, you'll notice that I never said that this particular case would actually be a "taking." I really don't know the answer and I haven't really studied the issue in a long time but I'd be surprised if such a case would win.

Funny you should mention the idea of "Spoken like a true lawyer".... :)

In October of last year you wrote:

If the state argues that the regulation confers a public benefit (e.g. preservation of open land) then the regulation is subject to a takings analysis.

One relevant factor is the degree to which it diminishes the value of the property. If a government regulation drastically reduces the value of a parcel, then it could constitute a taking. There is no bright line rule on this topic but usually a regulation that causes a 65-85% diminution of value will be considered a taking. So for instance, if a piece of property is worth $500k with drilling rights or $50k without, this could be a taking (as a 90% reduction in value).

The value of the gas beneath ones property is often "estimated", and I have heard a round figure of $10,000 per acre if ones land is actually drilled upon and gas found. If ones acreage has a value of $2,000 per acre as a piece of property without being able to access the gas but $12,000 per acre with access to the gas, how would this NOT fit as a taking with a 83% loss in value?

Dr. Gonzo, what would be the likelihood that NYS would BAN drilling in a particular region privately and publicly held?

Macfly, I'm relishing the moment before the "strike". It's like hungry catfish in a barrel and the choice as to which bait to use... well, there are so many ways to go...
 
Regarding State regulation of privately owned resources....
Perhaps there's a precedent that the "lawyer types" can research.

When I fished Lake George in the '60s & '70s, many landowners were quite "upset" with the Adirondack Park Agency.

Farmers couldn't subdivide and sell unprofitable farms... A lumber mill sold "rough cut" lumber because the APA wouldn't let them install planing equipment, etc. There were lots of lawsuits... I don't know the results.

I know that Wikipedia, and rumors I hear 30 years ago, aren't considered a scholarly sources, but a lawyer may know better sources.
 
Last edited:
The state might be able to bring a public nuisance action to prevent the drilling. If the state was successful I don't think that there would be a taking.
 
Gonzo, we are awaiting your reply. Please keep in mind that my opponents have effectively established that the issue at hand is about economics, and, therefore, that from a legal standpoint any regulation of drilling activity in the catskills would properly be deemed a regulation of commerce.

How would you describe the power of the federal government to regulate commerce? Does the word "plenary" mean anything to you, Mr. Lawyer?

If congress does not choose to regulate, do the states not also have such power to regulate commercial activity?

I believe the answer is yes, that the power of government to regulate commerce is plenary, and that a rational relation of the regulation to a legitimate state interest is all that's needed to establish the constitutionality of such regulation. By now, you should agree that such governmental power is pretty much a given.

Whatsayyou?

WoW nice use of artistic license...BTW the idea that the federal government needs a constitutional basis to regulate something is laughable. The constitution..sad to say...has been used and abused since I dont know its inception. If the government wants to regulate it they will make up a reason and do it and the states can go pound sand...Your a funny guy..
 
This is beginning to sound like Monty Python’s Argument Clinic

Clearly most of you care about the resource and want it protected. My advice is rather than argue about it here, write the DEC and tell them that that their draft environmental impact statement is awful, and that they need a do-over to get this right. The comment period ends on Dec. 31st so the time to act is now.

Here’s how you do it (it’s easy and fun). Go to Delaware Riverkeeper’s action alert and send an email to the DEC. Takes two minutes. Here’s the link:
Urgent Help Needed

Here’s to a clean, healthy, trout-filled and frack-free Delaware watershed in 2010.
 
On what bases do you want a due over? Can you give specifics on how it doesn't protect the environment?

Exactly how are you going prove that it is a public nuisance and action to prevent the drilling is required? Please be specific so I understand your reasons.
 
Funny you should mention the idea of "Spoken like a true lawyer".... :)

In October of last year you wrote:

Yes exactly, I said - it could be a taking, not that it would be a taking. Very big difference there. I don't know much about regulatory takings but it looks like they are very difficult cases to win and a showing that the land can be used for other benefits - residential, agricultural, or other use is probably fatal to the argument that a No-Drill provision constitutes a taking. Also a law that affects a wider geographical area (e.g Zoning Laws in a city) is less likely to be a taking than one that affects an individual parcel - so that weighs in favor of a Catskills-wide ban.

As to your question, 83% might not be enough for it to be considered a taking - the issue is pretty unclear and the Supreme Court hasn't really cleared it up yet. It's also not clear if that even matters in a regulatory taking. The Court seems to indicate that a regulation is a taking only "if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests ... or denies an owner economically viable use of his land," Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980).

I have no idea how likely it is that they'll ban it, but my guess is that won't happen and I don't personally favor an outright ban - except maybe in the watershed. We need the gas, energy demand is only on the rise - but the demand for water is just as important. We can live without lights but not without water.
 
Last edited:
I read a very interesting article int he NYT the other day

New York Times.

November 23, 2009

As Sewers Fill, Waste Poisons Waterways
By CHARLES DUHIGG

It was drizzling lightly in late October when the midnight shift started at the Owls Head Water Pollution Control Plant, where much of Brooklyn’s sewage is treated.

A few miles away, people were walking home without umbrellas from late dinners. But at Owls Head, a swimming pool’s worth of sewage and wastewater was soon rushing in every second. Warning horns began to blare. A little after 1 a.m., with a harder rain falling, Owls Head reached its capacity and workers started shutting the intake gates.

That caused a rising tide throughout Brooklyn’s sewers, and untreated feces and industrial waste started spilling from emergency relief valves into the Upper New York Bay and Gowanus Canal.

“It happens anytime you get a hard rainfall,” said Bob Connaughton, one the plant’s engineers. “Sometimes all it takes is 20 minutes of rain, and you’ve got overflows across Brooklyn.”

One goal of the Clean Water Act of 1972 was to upgrade the nation’s sewer systems, many of them built more than a century ago, to handle growing populations and increasing runoff of rainwater and waste. During the 1970s and 1980s, Congress distributed more than $60 billion to cities to make sure that what goes into toilets, industrial drains and street grates would not endanger human health.

But despite those upgrades, many sewer systems are still frequently overwhelmed, according to a New York Times analysis of environmental data. As a result, sewage is spilling into waterways.

In the last three years alone, more than 9,400 of the nation’s 25,000 sewage systems — including those in major cities — have reported violating the law by dumping untreated or partly treated human waste, chemicals and other hazardous materials into rivers and lakes and elsewhere, according to data from state environmental agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency.

But fewer than one in five sewage systems that broke the law were ever fined or otherwise sanctioned by state or federal regulators, the Times analysis shows.

It is not clear whether the sewage systems that have not reported such dumping are doing any better, because data on overflows and spillage are often incomplete.

As cities have grown rapidly across the nation, many have neglected infrastructure projects and paved over green spaces that once absorbed rainwater. That has contributed to sewage backups into more than 400,000 basements and spills into thousands of streets, according to data collected by state and federal officials. Sometimes, waste has overflowed just upstream from drinking water intake points or near public beaches.

There is no national record-keeping of how many illnesses are caused by sewage spills. But academic research suggests that as many as 20 million people each year become ill from drinking water containing bacteria and other pathogens that are often spread by untreated waste.

A 2007 study published in the journal Pediatrics, focusing on one Milwaukee hospital, indicated that the number of children suffering from serious diarrhea rose whenever local sewers overflowed. Another study, published in 2008 in the Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, estimated that as many as four million people become sick each year in California from swimming in waters containing the kind of pollution often linked to untreated sewage.

Around New York City, samples collected at dozens of beaches or piers have detected the types of bacteria and other pollutants tied to sewage overflows. Though the city’s drinking water comes from upstate reservoirs, environmentalists say untreated excrement and other waste in the city’s waterways pose serious health risks.

A Deluge of Sewage

“After the storm, the sewage flowed down the street faster than we could move out of the way and filled my house with over a foot of muck,” said Laura Serrano, whose Bay Shore, N.Y., home was damaged in 2005 by a sewer overflow.

Ms. Serrano, who says she contracted viral meningitis because of exposure to the sewage, has filed suit against Suffolk County, which operates the sewer system. The county’s lawyer disputes responsibility for the damage and injuries.

“I had to move out, and no one will buy my house because the sewage was absorbed into the walls,” Ms. Serrano said. “I can still smell it sometimes.”

When a sewage system overflows or a treatment plant dumps untreated waste, it is often breaking the law. Today, sewage systems are the nation’s most frequent violators of the Clean Water Act. More than a third of all sewer systems — including those in San Diego, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Philadelphia, San Jose and San Francisco — have violated environmental laws since 2006, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. data.

Thousands of other sewage systems operated by smaller cities, colleges, mobile home parks and companies have also broken the law. But few of the violators are ever punished.

The E.P.A., in a statement, said that officials agreed that overflows posed a “significant environmental and human health problem, and significantly reducing or eliminating such overflows has been a priority for E.P.A. enforcement since the mid-1990s.”

In the last year, E.P.A. settlements with sewer systems in Hampton Roads, Va., and the east San Francisco Bay have led to more than $200 million spent on new systems to reduce pollution, the agency said. In October, the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said she was overhauling how the Clean Water Act is enforced.

But widespread problems still remain.

“The E.P.A. would rather look the other way than crack down on cities, since punishing municipalities can cause political problems,” said Craig Michaels of Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy group. “But without enforcement and fines, this problem will never end.”

Plant operators and regulators, for their part, say that fines would simply divert money from stretched budgets and that they are doing the best they can with aging systems and overwhelmed pipes.

New York, for example, was one of the first major cities to build a large sewer system, starting construction in 1849. Many of those pipes — constructed of hand-laid brick and ceramic tiles — are still used. Today, the city’s 7,400 miles of sewer pipes operate almost entirely by gravity, unlike in other cities that use large pumps.

New York City’s 14 wastewater treatment plants, which handle 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater a day, have been flooded with thousands of pickles (after a factory dumped its stock), vast flows of discarded chicken heads and large pieces of lumber.

When a toilet flushes in the West Village in Manhattan, the waste runs north six miles through gradually descending pipes to a plant at 137th Street, where it is mixed with so-called biological digesters that consume dangerous pathogens. The wastewater is then mixed with chlorine and sent into the Hudson River.

Fragile System

But New York’s system — like those in hundreds of others cities — combines rainwater runoff with sewage. Over the last three decades, as thousands of acres of trees, bushes and other vegetation in New York have been paved over, the land’s ability to absorb rain has declined significantly. When treatment plants are swamped, the excess spills from 490 overflow pipes throughout the city’s five boroughs.

When the sky is clear, Owls Head can handle the sewage from more than 750,000 people. But the balance is so delicate that Mr. Connaughton and his colleagues must be constantly ready for rain.

They choose cable television packages for their homes based on which company offers the best local weather forecasts. They know meteorologists by the sound of their voices. When the leaves begin to fall each autumn, clogging sewer grates and pipes, Mr. Connaughton sometimes has trouble sleeping.

“I went to Hawaii with my wife, and the whole time I was flipping to the Weather Channel, seeing if it was raining in New York,” he said.

New York’s sewage system overflows essentially every other time it rains.

Reducing such overflows is a priority, city officials say. But eradicating the problem would cost billions.

Officials have spent approximately $35 billion over three decades improving the quality of the waters surrounding the city and have improved systems to capture and store rainwater and sewage, bringing down the frequency and volume of overflows, the city’s Department of Environmental Protection wrote in a statement.

“Water quality in New York City has improved dramatically in the last century, and particularly in the last two decades,” officials wrote.

Several years ago, city officials estimated that it would cost at least $58 billion to prevent all overflows. “Even an expenditure of that magnitude would not result in every part of a river or bay surrounding the city achieving water quality that is suitable for swimming,” the department wrote. “It would, however, increase the average N.Y.C. water and sewer bill by 80 percent.”

The E.P.A., concerned about the risks of overflowing sewers, issued a national framework in 1994 to control overflows, including making sure that pipes are designed so they do not easily become plugged by debris and warning the public when overflows occur. In 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to crack down on overflows.

But in hundreds of places, sewer systems remain out of compliance with that framework or the Clean Water Act, which regulates most pollution discharges to waterways. And the burdens on sewer systems are growing as cities become larger and, in some areas, rainstorms become more frequent and fierce.

New York’s system, for instance, was designed to accommodate a so-called five-year storm — a rainfall so extreme that it is expected to occur, on average, only twice a decade. But in 2007 alone, the city experienced three 25-year storms, according to city officials — storms so strong they would be expected only four times each century.

“When you get five inches of rain in 30 minutes, it’s like Thanksgiving Day traffic on a two-lane bridge in the sewer pipes,” said James Roberts, deputy commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection.

Government’s Response

To combat these shifts, some cities are encouraging sewer-friendly development. New York, for instance, has instituted zoning laws requiring new parking lots to include landscaped areas to absorb rainwater, established a tax credit for roofs with absorbent vegetation and begun to use millions of dollars for environmentally friendly infrastructure projects.

Philadelphia has announced it will spend $1.6 billion over 20 years to build rain gardens and sidewalks of porous pavement and to plant thousands of trees.

But unless cities require private developers to build in ways that minimize runoff, the volume of rain flowing into sewers is likely to grow, environmentalists say.

The only real solution, say many lawmakers and water advocates, is extensive new spending on sewer systems largely ignored for decades. As much as $400 billion in extra spending is needed over the next decade to fix the nation’s sewer infrastructure, according to estimates by the E.P.A. and the Government Accountability Office.

Legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill contains millions in water infrastructure grants, and the stimulus bill passed this year set aside $6 billion to improve sewers and other water systems.

But that money is only a small fraction of what is needed, officials say. And over the last two decades, federal money for such programs has fallen by 70 percent, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which estimates that a quarter of the state’s sewage and wastewater treatment plants are “using outmoded, inadequate technology.”

“The public has no clue how important these sewage plants are,” said Mr. Connaughton of the Brooklyn site. “Waterborne disease was the scourge of mankind for centuries. These plants stopped that. We’re doing everything we can to clean as much sewage as possible, but sometimes, that isn’t enough.”


I think NYC needs to clean their own house before they start preaching to upstate on the virtues of clean water.
 
I have no idea how likely it is that they'll ban it, but my guess is that won't happen and I don't personally favor an outright ban - except maybe in the watershed. We need the gas, energy demand is only on the rise - but the demand for water is just as important. We can live without lights but not without water.

I don't see how they could make the argument to do that. If it is NOT SAFE then why are they willing to risk the health of millions of people in other parts of the state but not the millions in NYC? OR if it is safe, why is it NOT safe in the watershed? I'd not like to be the one having to justify that.

There are a few companies working on a way to frac gas wells with propane. Under high pressure it is a liquid (to carry the sand) and then it is "retrieved" as a gas. It seems that they are utilizing this in conjunction with a traditional fracking process at the moment. I hope it pans out... but what will all the gloom and doomers do when there are no chemicals to fight about?
 
I read a very interesting article int he NYT the other day

New York Times.

November 23, 2009

As Sewers Fill, Waste Poisons Waterways
By CHARLES DUHIGG

It was drizzling lightly in late October when the midnight shift started at the Owls Head Water Pollution Control Plant, where much of Brooklyn’s sewage is treated.

A few miles away, people were walking home without umbrellas from late dinners. But at Owls Head, a swimming pool’s worth of sewage and wastewater was soon rushing in every second. Warning horns began to blare. A little after 1 a.m., with a harder rain falling, Owls Head reached its capacity and workers started shutting the intake gates.

That caused a rising tide throughout Brooklyn’s sewers, and untreated feces and industrial waste started spilling from emergency relief valves into the Upper New York Bay and Gowanus Canal.

“It happens anytime you get a hard rainfall,” said Bob Connaughton, one the plant’s engineers. “Sometimes all it takes is 20 minutes of rain, and you’ve got overflows across Brooklyn.”

One goal of the Clean Water Act of 1972 was to upgrade the nation’s sewer systems, many of them built more than a century ago, to handle growing populations and increasing runoff of rainwater and waste. During the 1970s and 1980s, Congress distributed more than $60 billion to cities to make sure that what goes into toilets, industrial drains and street grates would not endanger human health.

But despite those upgrades, many sewer systems are still frequently overwhelmed, according to a New York Times analysis of environmental data. As a result, sewage is spilling into waterways.

In the last three years alone, more than 9,400 of the nation’s 25,000 sewage systems — including those in major cities — have reported violating the law by dumping untreated or partly treated human waste, chemicals and other hazardous materials into rivers and lakes and elsewhere, according to data from state environmental agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency.

But fewer than one in five sewage systems that broke the law were ever fined or otherwise sanctioned by state or federal regulators, the Times analysis shows.

It is not clear whether the sewage systems that have not reported such dumping are doing any better, because data on overflows and spillage are often incomplete.

As cities have grown rapidly across the nation, many have neglected infrastructure projects and paved over green spaces that once absorbed rainwater. That has contributed to sewage backups into more than 400,000 basements and spills into thousands of streets, according to data collected by state and federal officials. Sometimes, waste has overflowed just upstream from drinking water intake points or near public beaches.

There is no national record-keeping of how many illnesses are caused by sewage spills. But academic research suggests that as many as 20 million people each year become ill from drinking water containing bacteria and other pathogens that are often spread by untreated waste.

A 2007 study published in the journal Pediatrics, focusing on one Milwaukee hospital, indicated that the number of children suffering from serious diarrhea rose whenever local sewers overflowed. Another study, published in 2008 in the Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, estimated that as many as four million people become sick each year in California from swimming in waters containing the kind of pollution often linked to untreated sewage.

Around New York City, samples collected at dozens of beaches or piers have detected the types of bacteria and other pollutants tied to sewage overflows. Though the city’s drinking water comes from upstate reservoirs, environmentalists say untreated excrement and other waste in the city’s waterways pose serious health risks.

A Deluge of Sewage

“After the storm, the sewage flowed down the street faster than we could move out of the way and filled my house with over a foot of muck,” said Laura Serrano, whose Bay Shore, N.Y., home was damaged in 2005 by a sewer overflow.

Ms. Serrano, who says she contracted viral meningitis because of exposure to the sewage, has filed suit against Suffolk County, which operates the sewer system. The county’s lawyer disputes responsibility for the damage and injuries.

“I had to move out, and no one will buy my house because the sewage was absorbed into the walls,” Ms. Serrano said. “I can still smell it sometimes.”

When a sewage system overflows or a treatment plant dumps untreated waste, it is often breaking the law. Today, sewage systems are the nation’s most frequent violators of the Clean Water Act. More than a third of all sewer systems — including those in San Diego, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Philadelphia, San Jose and San Francisco — have violated environmental laws since 2006, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. data.

Thousands of other sewage systems operated by smaller cities, colleges, mobile home parks and companies have also broken the law. But few of the violators are ever punished.

The E.P.A., in a statement, said that officials agreed that overflows posed a “significant environmental and human health problem, and significantly reducing or eliminating such overflows has been a priority for E.P.A. enforcement since the mid-1990s.”

In the last year, E.P.A. settlements with sewer systems in Hampton Roads, Va., and the east San Francisco Bay have led to more than $200 million spent on new systems to reduce pollution, the agency said. In October, the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, said she was overhauling how the Clean Water Act is enforced.

But widespread problems still remain.

“The E.P.A. would rather look the other way than crack down on cities, since punishing municipalities can cause political problems,” said Craig Michaels of Riverkeeper, an environmental advocacy group. “But without enforcement and fines, this problem will never end.”

Plant operators and regulators, for their part, say that fines would simply divert money from stretched budgets and that they are doing the best they can with aging systems and overwhelmed pipes.

New York, for example, was one of the first major cities to build a large sewer system, starting construction in 1849. Many of those pipes — constructed of hand-laid brick and ceramic tiles — are still used. Today, the city’s 7,400 miles of sewer pipes operate almost entirely by gravity, unlike in other cities that use large pumps.

New York City’s 14 wastewater treatment plants, which handle 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater a day, have been flooded with thousands of pickles (after a factory dumped its stock), vast flows of discarded chicken heads and large pieces of lumber.

When a toilet flushes in the West Village in Manhattan, the waste runs north six miles through gradually descending pipes to a plant at 137th Street, where it is mixed with so-called biological digesters that consume dangerous pathogens. The wastewater is then mixed with chlorine and sent into the Hudson River.

Fragile System

But New York’s system — like those in hundreds of others cities — combines rainwater runoff with sewage. Over the last three decades, as thousands of acres of trees, bushes and other vegetation in New York have been paved over, the land’s ability to absorb rain has declined significantly. When treatment plants are swamped, the excess spills from 490 overflow pipes throughout the city’s five boroughs.

When the sky is clear, Owls Head can handle the sewage from more than 750,000 people. But the balance is so delicate that Mr. Connaughton and his colleagues must be constantly ready for rain.

They choose cable television packages for their homes based on which company offers the best local weather forecasts. They know meteorologists by the sound of their voices. When the leaves begin to fall each autumn, clogging sewer grates and pipes, Mr. Connaughton sometimes has trouble sleeping.

“I went to Hawaii with my wife, and the whole time I was flipping to the Weather Channel, seeing if it was raining in New York,” he said.

New York’s sewage system overflows essentially every other time it rains.

Reducing such overflows is a priority, city officials say. But eradicating the problem would cost billions.

Officials have spent approximately $35 billion over three decades improving the quality of the waters surrounding the city and have improved systems to capture and store rainwater and sewage, bringing down the frequency and volume of overflows, the city’s Department of Environmental Protection wrote in a statement.

“Water quality in New York City has improved dramatically in the last century, and particularly in the last two decades,” officials wrote.

Several years ago, city officials estimated that it would cost at least $58 billion to prevent all overflows. “Even an expenditure of that magnitude would not result in every part of a river or bay surrounding the city achieving water quality that is suitable for swimming,” the department wrote. “It would, however, increase the average N.Y.C. water and sewer bill by 80 percent.”

The E.P.A., concerned about the risks of overflowing sewers, issued a national framework in 1994 to control overflows, including making sure that pipes are designed so they do not easily become plugged by debris and warning the public when overflows occur. In 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to crack down on overflows.

But in hundreds of places, sewer systems remain out of compliance with that framework or the Clean Water Act, which regulates most pollution discharges to waterways. And the burdens on sewer systems are growing as cities become larger and, in some areas, rainstorms become more frequent and fierce.

New York’s system, for instance, was designed to accommodate a so-called five-year storm — a rainfall so extreme that it is expected to occur, on average, only twice a decade. But in 2007 alone, the city experienced three 25-year storms, according to city officials — storms so strong they would be expected only four times each century.

“When you get five inches of rain in 30 minutes, it’s like Thanksgiving Day traffic on a two-lane bridge in the sewer pipes,” said James Roberts, deputy commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection.

Government’s Response

To combat these shifts, some cities are encouraging sewer-friendly development. New York, for instance, has instituted zoning laws requiring new parking lots to include landscaped areas to absorb rainwater, established a tax credit for roofs with absorbent vegetation and begun to use millions of dollars for environmentally friendly infrastructure projects.

Philadelphia has announced it will spend $1.6 billion over 20 years to build rain gardens and sidewalks of porous pavement and to plant thousands of trees.

But unless cities require private developers to build in ways that minimize runoff, the volume of rain flowing into sewers is likely to grow, environmentalists say.

The only real solution, say many lawmakers and water advocates, is extensive new spending on sewer systems largely ignored for decades. As much as $400 billion in extra spending is needed over the next decade to fix the nation’s sewer infrastructure, according to estimates by the E.P.A. and the Government Accountability Office.

Legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill contains millions in water infrastructure grants, and the stimulus bill passed this year set aside $6 billion to improve sewers and other water systems.

But that money is only a small fraction of what is needed, officials say. And over the last two decades, federal money for such programs has fallen by 70 percent, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which estimates that a quarter of the state’s sewage and wastewater treatment plants are “using outmoded, inadequate technology.”

“The public has no clue how important these sewage plants are,” said Mr. Connaughton of the Brooklyn site. “Waterborne disease was the scourge of mankind for centuries. These plants stopped that. We’re doing everything we can to clean as much sewage as possible, but sometimes, that isn’t enough.”


I think NYC needs to clean their own house before they start preaching to upstate on the virtues of clean water.


All I can say is this is a crappy situation all around:)

THat must be one powerful digester if it can break down a chicken head
 
On what bases do you want a due over? Can you give specifics on how it doesn't protect the environment?

Exactly how are you going prove that it is a public nuisance and action to prevent the drilling is required? Please be specific so I understand your reasons.

Here are 15 reasons: 15 REASONS WHY THE DEC DRAFT SEGEIS REPORT (THE DRAFT) RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN | Catskill Mountainkeeper

Yet for those who have already been bought off by the gas companies or are looking to be bought off, these reasons won't be enough. Nothing will be enough except a big, fat check with lots of $$$$$$$$$. God love these folks.

For the rest of us, please write the DEC NOW!!
 
Here are 15 reasons: 15 REASONS WHY THE DEC DRAFT SEGEIS REPORT (THE DRAFT) RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN | Catskill Mountainkeeper

Yet for those who have already been bought off by the gas companies or are looking to be bought off, these reasons won't be enough. Nothing will be enough except a big, fat check with lots of $$$$$$$$$. God love these folks.

For the rest of us, please write the DEC NOW!!

Hey Uncrowded...I think FF has a piece of land you can buy. It will be your only little personal screw you to those big nasty energy companies:)
 
I don't see how they could make the argument to do that. If it is NOT SAFE then why are they willing to risk the health of millions of people in other parts of the state but not the millions in NYC? OR if it is safe, why is it NOT safe in the watershed? I'd not like to be the one having to justify that.

The argument for a ban in the watershed has nothing to do with whether the fracking process is unsafe. It has to do with the sedimentation caused clearing trees for roads, pipelines and well pads as well as other associated activities that will negatively impact the water quality of the streams in the watershed. It also has to do with the possibility that a spill could potentially have a massive impact on the water supply for millions of people. It's not that the process is any less safe there than elsewhere, but that the potential impacts of the inherent risks of the process are greater.
 
I already own land in Delaware County and was offered a phat lease, which I of course turned down. I want to leave a clean piece of land to my kids, not a hazardous waste dump. No brainer there. Thanks for the offer, though.
 
I already own land in Delaware County and was offered a phat lease, which I of course turned down. I want to leave a clean piece of land to my kids, not a hazardous waste dump. No brainer there. Thanks for the offer, though.

Well, ya see, it all makes MUCH more sense now! You bought your little place along the West Branch somewhere and you just expected that everyone there, would keep their places exactly like you wanted them to. That makes SO much more sense that the whole "I care about the drinking water thing..."

But don't you think that your kids would be much healthier growing up in Delaware County than downstate? Jeez, breathing that industrial waste and vehicle exhaust all day... It's like a hazardous waste dump 24 hours a day down there...
 
Well, ya see, it all makes MUCH more sense now! You bought your little place along the West Branch somewhere and you just expected that everyone there, would keep their places exactly like you wanted them to. That makes SO much more sense that the whole "I care about the drinking water thing..."

But don't you think that your kids would be much healthier growing up in Delaware County than downstate? Jeez, breathing that industrial waste and vehicle exhaust all day... It's like a hazardous waste dump 24 hours a day down there...

This is boring. Nice try to pigeon hole this into the upstate/downstate thing. Bunch of neighbors are lifelong residents who haven't signed either. Some of them are in their 80s. Old farmers, loggers and the like. Could really use the money, too. Don't want their land and water f'd. And thanks for continuing to breathe life into this thread. We're up to 1400 views. Hopefully, more and more people are reading this, learning the issues, and writing the DEC.
 
His kids will be educated. Education options and cultural opportunities are what keeps many of reproducers from moving upstate.

UC is doing what you keep preaching (buy the land of you love it so much) and you're blasting him for it. Your credibility takes another BIG hit with that move.
 
Here are 15 reasons: 15 REASONS WHY THE DEC DRAFT SEGEIS REPORT (THE DRAFT) RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN | Catskill Mountainkeeper

Yet for those who have already been bought off by the gas companies or are looking to be bought off, these reasons won't be enough. Nothing will be enough except a big, fat check with lots of $$$$$$$$$. God love these folks.

For the rest of us, please write the DEC NOW!!

AHHH Yes, the Mountainkeeper, the authority on the GEIS, so you think.. Do yourself a favor and read the GEIS yourself rather than taking the word of a group with a specific agenda. Draw your own conclusions and think for yourself after you have all the facts.

Don't use someone elses sound bites to promote half-truths and incomplete conslutions of the facts.

The science is and has been proven to be safe. We need more oversight to protect against human error.

Thank god the DEC and State use science instead of emotions to protect the environment.

KF
 
His kids will be educated. Education options and cultural opportunities are what keeps many of reproducers from moving upstate.

UC is doing what you keep preaching (buy the land of you love it so much) and you're blasting him for it. Your credibility takes another BIG hit with that move.

You should cut the guy a break. The nonsense that he posts has convinced me (and hopefully others) to oppose drilling in the Catskills no matter what. I was somewhat on the fence when I first heard about the drilling. Now I would oppose drilling in the Catskills even if they were drilling for marshmallows and using hot fudge for fracking fluid.
 
His kids will be educated. Education options and cultural opportunities are what keeps many of reproducers from moving upstate.

UC is doing what you keep preaching (buy the land of you love it so much) and you're blasting him for it. Your credibility takes another BIG hit with that move.

I thought you were on vacation or something... you never responded to my answers to your questions... ?

I didn't Blast him...
I just figured if he was concerned about his kids and a possible waste dump that his place in Delaware County would be HEALTHIER.

One of my friends graduated from Cornell. Another from Dartmouth. Another from the University at Albany. They've done OK.

We have these things called tractors up here that can get us to a museum or a zoo if we care to. We've even got one of the durn opry houses up in Cooperstown!

Mother Nature provides us with some good times, too.

Credibility... isn't that based on facts?
 
You should cut the guy a break. The nonsense that he posts has convinced me (and hopefully others) to oppose drilling in the Catskills no matter what. I was somewhat on the fence when I first heard about the drilling. Now I would oppose drilling in the Catskills even if they were drilling for marshmallows and using hot fudge for fracking fluid.

Solid thought process there, CD.
What other important decisions do you leave to it?
 
MR Fanatic. I've reviewed this wonderful thread and don't see any open questions for me. If you'd like to know something from my POV, please ask or ask again. I'd be happy to oblige.

On another note, I am not trying to be condescending regarding your community. I'd move in a heart beat if I did not think is was net reduction in opportunities for the kiddies.
 
Back
Top