A solution that works for all

To the editor:

By supporting the Phase II Landfill expansion, 14 of 15 towns in Sullivan County are really saying they don’t want the landfill in their own back yard. And for very good reason. They don’t want women living near the landfill exposed to four times the risk of developing bladder and blood cancer (New York State Department of Health, “Investigation of Cancer Incidence and Residence Near 38 Landfills with Soil Gas Migration Conditions, 1980-1989”). Nor do they want to live with the time bomb of landfill liners leaking contaminants (Federal Register, February 5, 1981, pages 11128 and 11129. Note EPA statement). Needless to say, property surrounding the landfill is devalued as well. Is it somehow thought the residents of Monticello, Town of Thompson and some of their own constituents want the expansion? Not according to 5,124 signatures.

For the good of all the people of Sullivan County, let’s join together, focusing on viable options of prevention, minimization, exportation, reuse, recycling and composting. This is being done elsewhere. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Sullivan County, as our legislators have said, is committed to going green. With time running out, let’s stop talking the talk. It’s time to walk the walk.

Gene Weinstein, Vice President

Special Protection of the Environment for the County of Sullivan

Monticello, NY

Common sense

To the editor:

I saw the big gas company ad, “Talking Business” for the Chesapeake gas drilling company being printed in various publications in the area, and wanted to respond with a letter to the editor, since I can’t afford an ad for “Common Sense.”

Think before you lease.

The natural gas drillers are moving in and the big land owners are leasing out.

I guess it’s a done deal. The gas companies are going to drill in Damascus Township, despite some protest from concerned local property owners. It seems the smaller land and property owners don’t have much say in what may contaminate their water and destroy their property values. Not to mention the noise and disturbance that will be going on 24/7 during the drilling process.

So what is one to do? When the drilling contaminates the water, damages the environment and destroys property values, who is liable: the big landowners or the drilling company? And what about a settlement, how much is clean air and water worth?

But let’s not worry about the future. Let’s just take the fast bucks from the gas drillers and who cares what happens “down the road.” So what if my actions destroy our water table, make my land worthless and destroy my children’s inheritance? No one can stop me now and when I’m dead, who cares? This seems to be the attitude of many of those hungry for a quick buck.

This is wrong. This is a time for common sense and a sense of responsibility for our neighbors, our environment and ourselves.

Please consider the results of your actions and its effect on our environment before you sign away your property and the future of this beautiful place in America to the gas companies.

Bruce White

Damascus, NY

A collective moral obligation

To the editor:

In the Visioning column in your last issue, Mike Uretsky stated, “we do not have a legal or moral right to impose our values on our neighbors.” Below, I will discredit his medieval view regarding morality. However, I will prove him correct regarding the legal issues involved in the possibility of extensive gas drilling in our pristine river basin.

We unequivocally do have the moral right to address collective values. For example, it is true to say that a property owner does not have the right to burn a toxic fire that pollutes our air (a collective resource). So it is also true to say that “property rights” do not allow the injection of millions of gallons of polluted water, diesel fuel, and other toxic chemicals into our water (a collective resource). We do have a “moral right” with regard to this form and scale of commercial activity.

But in 2005 the gas and oil industry gained exemption from the Clean Water Act. So Mr. Uretsky is indeed correct to point out that we no longer have the legal right to protect the purity of our community’s drinking water and the Upper Delaware’s regional water table. Hydraulic-fracture drilling was developed by Halliburton and their corrupt corporate and political partners. They make the equipment. And it is clear that they also make the law. But that will be challenged head on!

A culture that destroys its environment and its children is doomed. Gas drilling is simply the latest effort by the power elite to take away what is the birthright of our next generation. Some 2000 gas wells are projected for Damascus, PA alone, and Sullivan County is next. We will have an open wound in our beloved river valley. This will ruin the drinking water and river water for us all, and for 17 million people down river. Let them drink Coke!

Pat Carullo

Lackawaxen, PA

What happens when they find gas?

To the editor:

The arguments for and against gas drilling have merit, but the question remains: what happens if and when they find gas? Once they find the gas, how will it be transported to market? How many property owners will be affected by the decision of a few? Whose property will be the recipient of a pipeline if this is the method chosen?

These are some of the questions that I have not heard addressed yet. Everybody is eager to make money, but at what expense? If landowners refuse to grant easements to a major pipeline connection such as the Millennium pipeline project, what will happen? Will the states step in and grant eminent domain to meet the growing demand for energy? In the case with Pennsylvania, will the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission step in and grant a blanket permit, including eminent domain, to run the pipeline across the Delaware River to meet the Millennium pipeline in New York, which runs very close to the river?

It seems to me these gas companies have had this in mind since the Millennium pipeline was proposed in the mid 1990s. As was the case with New York Regional Interconnection, they waited for the opportunity to present itself, and then hit everyone as hard and fast as possible. They’re getting people to sign these leases without the people really understanding what the future ramifications are once gas is found.

I have yet to form an opinion as to whether or not this is good for the area. I do know that much more needs to be evaluated before an intelligent decision can be made. Once they find gas, they will move it. What remains is who will be the recipients, willing or unwilling, when a pipeline is run across our area?

Fred Peckham

Hancock, NY

New absentee ballot forms violate privacy rights

To the editor:

Privacy of healthcare information is not a partisan issue, although in this instance it involves data demanded and maintained by the Sullivan County Board of Elections.

Writing as an advocate for the mentally and physically disabled residents of Sullivan County who are entitled to vote by absentee ballot, I am also concerned as a taxpayer that, if adequate safeguards are not in place, the County of Sullivan opens itself to civil liability to a large class of potential plaintiffs. The Sullivan County Board of Elections has developed a practice of requiring details on the health conditions, including diagnoses and in some case the names of physicians, in order to allow disabled people who can not get to the polls their right to vote.

The Board of Elections claims that this information is required by New York State election law. However, even if such information is required under state Election Law, federal laws (e.g., the Health Insurance Portability Act, or HIPAA) take precedence and protect voters from required disclosure—especially when (as with applications for ballots) the record on which the information is contained is a public document. Since the county is requiring that this information be disclosed in order for disabled people to exercise a basic civil right, it is the duty of the county to ensure that health information privacy is preserved.

In October of 2007, my wife, Carmen Rue, sent a letter to the board of elections outlining the legal basis for these concerns. It has not yet been answered. I have sent a letter dated February 21 to the Sullivan County Manager David Fanslau. I plan on filing a complaint with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Office of Enforcement, to investigate this as a HIPAA violation. An investigation of this nature, properly conducted, would involve a review of all existing applications for absentee ballots on file at the Sullivan County Board of Elections, a determination of whether health information required on the form is protected under HIPAA, and what protection exists to maintain the privacy of such data.

Tom Rue

Monticello, NY