Building a broader coalition

After an initial brave round of proposals for moratoria on gas drilling, local towns in Sullivan County (with the exception of Highland) now seem to be wavering. Some are persuaded that they don’t have the authority to exert that kind of control over their own territory—or can’t afford to prove that they do in court. Others question the effectiveness of the move. And it can be argued that some developments at the state level, like Governor David Paterson’s ordering of a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Study (GEIS) on horizontal drilling, will effectively delay the issuance of permits and the onset of drilling in any case.

We are not expert enough on the legalities, or sure enough about the likely timetable at the state level, to know whether a moratorium is necessarily the best way to go. But we do believe that local municipalities would open up their choices, and increase their power, if they could form a broader coalition than any that seems to be currently under consideration.

One angle would be to form a group analogous to the Coalition Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), which includes seven New York counties and five community-interest organizations, and has proved powerful and effective in the fight against the proposed power line. Maps of the Marcellus Shale show that it covers roughly a third of upstate New York and over two thirds of Pennsylvania. Since in the end it is the two state governments that will have much of the say over drilling activity, the effectiveness of an interstate coalition poses some challenges on a political level. But within each state, there is the possibility of mustering coalitions that wield a huge amount of political clout in their respective capitals. They might even have the resources to defend a test-case moratorium, for example, in court. In terms of social fabric and other more localized governmental affairs, political borders mean nothing when it comes to regional hospital use and emergency response.

But the real sleeping giant in this affair may be New York City. In her excellent op-ed published on these pages on July 17, “What New Yorkers Need to Know,” Carol Roig pointed out a neglected but highly important point: New York City’s drinking water is imperiled by gas drilling. In fact, the water supply for the entire metropolitan area is in danger. It’s our guess that if downstate representatives had been thinking in those terms, the recent bill expediting gas drilling in New York State would not have passed with such a lopsided margin—and maybe not at all.

The city probably cannot simply rely on the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to protect its interests in this regard. True, no party is allowed to draw more than 100,000 gallons a day from the watershed without obtaining a DRBC permit, and the DRBC has sent a notice to companies drilling in Pennsylvania to that effect. But it is not yet clear what conditions will have to be met for a permit to be granted, or whether there are circumstances under which it can be refused. Matters in New York appear to be at an even more formative stage than in Pennsylvania.

And it is not only the quantity of water withdrawn, but the quality, that is of concern. As many have noted, even 45 days in an open pit for toxic fracking fluids could be too much in an area prone to flooding. Now picture such a pit within runoff distance of the New York City reservoirs—as most in Delaware County and some in Sullivan would be.

About a year ago, the city breathed a sign of relief when it received a 10-year extension on its exemption from having to build a filtration plant that would have cost some $8 billion up front plus millions a year to operate. It’s our guess that $8 billion will look like peanuts compared to the cost of cleanup if toxic chemicals get into the reservoirs from gas drilling. We know that the city is willing to fight tooth and nail for its water; all we have to do is to be sure its residents know it’s under threat.

One place to start is by writing letters to the New York City newspapers. You can research facts for your letters by clicking “Archives” on the navigation bar at riverreporter.com for our search engine, or visit google.com and put in words like “fracking toxic” or “Theo Colburn” (the name of the leading authority on dangers of fracking fluids) in the search box. Papers like The New York Times, New York Post and Daily News accept letters from all over the nation, so even living in Pennsylvania is no barrier.

If you’re interested in participating, see the sidebar below for some addresses to get you started.

How to send letters to New York City papers

The New York Times: letters@nytimes.com or mail to Letters to the Editor, The New York Times, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018. Limit 150 words. Letters must refer to a New York Times article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer’s name, address and phone numbers.

New York Post: letters@nypost.com or Letters to the Editor, New York Post, 1211 Avenue of the Americas. New York, NY 10036-8790. Limit 200 words. Include your name, address and phone number.

Daily News: voicers@edit.nydailynews.com. Include your full name, address and phone number. No word limit listed, but their printed letters appear to be 150 words or under.

Weekly Community Newspapers: Visit nynewspapers.com/content/newspapers-county for addresses of individual weekly community newspapers, listed by county.

Note that no newspaper will print your street address or phone number, but they do need it for verification purposes.

Also in this issue:

• Misrepresentative Rohrer on natural gas
• Let’s hear it for the visitors’ center

Dr. Punnybone

Patients Rewarded