Benefits too often ignored

To the editor:

We commend The River Reporter for publishing Dave Jones’ positive thoughts on drilling in the Marcellus Shale in the January 7 issue. There is so much in the negative comments on drilling that is conjecture and exaggeration as to the volume and the likelihood of accidents and pollution, and so little said about the economic benefits that accrue. This is to say nothing of the cleaner-burning advantage of natural gas over the other fossil fuels.

How fitting that, in the same issue, Sandy Long reported that several of the gas companies involved in Wayne County are investigating the possibility of using the local railroad. A Luzerne County business, D & I Silica, will construct new facilities for trans-loading silica sand from rail cars to trucks for local gas well production. This is but one example of the benefits that can add and multiply in the economy as a result of drilling. But opponents of drilling in New York State seem not to see all around us the signs of the terrible state of the region’s and the state’s economy.

It should be mentioned that in a recent poll conducted by a Middletown paper asking the question “Do you support drilling for gas in Sullivan County?,” of the 266 people queried, 75.6 percent said “yes,” 18.4 percent said “no” and six percent replied that they did not care.

It must be said that it is so much easier to be in opposition to something because it is possible to use conjecture, rumor, fear and select facts that suit the purpose. Meanwhile, the silent majority is silent and not heard by the politicians.

Far from everyone will benefit

To the editor:

I read your recent story, “Drilling advocate says ‘everyone will benefit,’” with both fascination and disgust. Dave Jones, who has property under lease with Hess Corp., is apparently biased, and more concerned about lining his own pockets than he is with protecting the long-term interests of his business (Kittatinny Canoes), his employees, business partners and neighbors.

I could pick apart Jones’ perspective on natural gas extraction, but why bother? If Mr. Jones is so willing to welcome natural gas drilling into the community even after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to conduct a more thorough review of SGEIS and the impact of horizontal hydro-fracturing in the Marcellus, then Mr. Jones is no longer going to be receiving my hard-earned money. Moving forward, I will only patronize canoe and rafting businesses that understand the importance of maintaining our environment, not raping it for personal gain.

Follow-up letter to the DEC

To the editor:

Noel van Swol wants his money and he wants it now [in his letter to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), printed as a My View in the January 14-20 TRR]. So, get on with it. Approve the SGEIS and drill, baby, drill.

The DEC says a ban would be illegal (even though the courts have always ruled that regulation for public protection overrides landowner rights, and a ban would not be on mineral extraction, just on polluting practices like hydrofracking). NYC should pay landowners for lost leasing and royalty revenue (which will never, ever happen). These regulations have been studied to death (and shown to be inadequate by multiple agencies, including the NYC Department of Environmental Protection’s Hazen and Sawyer Final Impact Assessment, which concluded that hydrofracking is inherently polluting).

So who are you going to believe, actual scientists doing actual research or Noel van Swol? The New York Post says drill, baby, drill (uh, it’s the New York Post....duh!) Noel told Andrew Cuomo how things stand (Cuomo might not listen to Noel van Swol if he wants a future in politics). Finally, your 809-page document is a monument to the hard work and professionalism of the DEC (although the union representing those DEC workers asked that the moratorium on drilling be extended until more study and preparation could be done). But never mind what anyone says. Noel van Swol wants his money, so do your job, which is to let him have his money. Now!

A step backward in citizen participation

To the editor:

Democracy is dependent on civic engagement. Inclusiveness, transparency and responsiveness are integral to the process.

I observe with sadness that it is apparently “back to the future” for the Town of Callicoon in 2010. At the organizational meeting on January 11, newly elected supervisor Tom Bose and the board chose to revert to the pre-2008 meeting format that allows public comment/question only after the conclusion of all business. This format precludes any meaningful public participation. Stakeholder inclusion has been effectively eliminated.

Decisions made for the Youngsville Water District, capital funding for parks, and the long-overdue updating of the town’s comprehensive plan were announced with no open discussion or indication of how the councilmen reached the decisions they did. How are stakeholders to know how they are being represented? It appears that transparency in government has been effectively eliminated.

Questions regarding possible cost saving changes to health insurance for the Town of Callicoon’s elected and appointed officials were answered with a politicians’ old standard, “to be taken under consideration at a later date,” despite the current cost to taxpayers.

A flood mitigation problem in North Branch was properly delegated to the Sullivan County Soil and Water Conservation District as a first response, but with no verbal commitment from the town on the issue of flood mitigation. Good governance requires not only responsibility, but responsiveness.

Stakeholder participation is key to vibrant, sustainable communities. Remaining optimistic, I look to the Town of Callicoon Town Board to encourage civic engagement by providing stakeholders with avenues for inclusion.