DEC announcement not all that it seems

To the editor:

Fancy footwork on the part of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has led to more confusion, while ironically making it easier for gas drilling to move ahead without needed protections in our region.

Although protections of drinking water are essential, DEC’s announcement does not provide any regulatory protections for the two watersheds that serve New York City and Syracuse, and does not explain how the Environmental Protection Agency’s filtration avoidance determinations (FADs) that apply to both cities would be preserved by the DEC’s stated efforts, although they cite the FADs as the reason for this exclusionary review. Further, the only specific aspects of watershed management that DEC mentions as being unique in NYC and Syracuse are “land disturbance and usage issues,” and there is no mention of the dangers of hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, air pollution or toxic wastewater production that has no place to be safely treated. Whether each proposed gas well would have to seek approval through an individual environmental impact statement is equally unclear.

Being wrongly billed as a “ban on drilling in the watershed” by many media outlets, DEC’s action is not in any way a ban; it simply implies that more scrutiny would be given to gas wells located on the land area that drains to these two water supplies without putting any meat on the bone. The lack of substance amplifies the need for clarity and forthright action to protect the public and the environment from the adverse impacts of the dangerous methods used in natural gas development.

The big problem: if DEC’s generic environmental impact statement for gas drilling does not provide enough protection for the city’s drinking water, what about the rest of the state and the rest of the Delaware River Watershed? If it’s not good enough for NYC, it’s not good enough for any of us who drink water. We all live in a watershed that requires protection.

False balance

To the editor:

In your letters section from the April 15 issue, one writer indicates that he “may have it wrong but… The River Reporter only has left-leaning writers.” I believe the writer is right: he does have it wrong. From my perspective, The River Reporter goes out of its way to present both sides of important stories. If a reader comes to the conclusion that there are a lot of negatives being presented, maybe that’s because there are lots of negatives to report. Real news organizations don’t try to “balance” facts by giving equal coverage to proven falsehoods.

At first I thought the writer was going to set forth facts he felt had been omitted from the paper’s coverage of the gas drilling issue—a constructive and positive response that might have been worth reading. Instead, he calls people names, makes blanket (unsubstantiated) claims about the Obama administration, insinuates that The River Reporter’s writers are all millionaires paid by the government, and even says that anyone who disagrees with him is just plain lazy. He then plugs the “Tea Party” and taunts a River Reporter journalist as a coward.

With that sort of writing, it’s no wonder Tea Partiers are often portrayed as angry uneducated mobs. A few more facts and a lot more civility might help them make their case.

P.S. Since the original letter to the editor initially appeared to concern gas drilling, let me add this: The “but we need the money” argument in favor of drilling is getting old. If we spent half as much effort supporting our existing farms, businesses and industries as we did chasing after get-rich-quick schemes like gas and casinos, we wouldn’t need to argue about the need to drill for cash in the first place.

Something for everyone?

To the editor:

In the April 15 edition of The River Reporter, a letter addressed to “flat land transplants” argues that “You people already have yours. Local people need something to generate an income.” I am one of those transplants. I’ve been a permanent resident in Sullivan County for 10 years, and had been a weekender for the previous 20. Perhaps a new category is required: flatlander transplant? permanent weekender? Too negative. How long does one have to love and aim to share in beautiful Sullivan County before one can be considered almost local?

As for “making mine:” I worked in New York City for 38 years in the publishing industry. We didn’t get paid like Wall Street. And what I made didn’t cost anyone anything if they didn’t buy a book and, then, they got a book for it. But what Mr. “high land” proposes for “Local people… to generate an income” has the potential to cost anyone who isn’t drilling a great deal. I won’t rehearse all of it, real estate values, etc, but the potential to having your water ruined should be enough to mention. And not all the farmers and other local folks are in favor of drilling. Many would rather continue farming, and I know several who say they just want the county to remain rural and not become an industrial complex.

But I agree with the letter writer that the weekenders should do more for the farmers. Perhaps a group to lobby for the local farmer against the big coops is overdue. But if the folks who say there’s something in the drilling for everyone really mean what they say, why don’t they pool a third of the fortune they may reap and share that with the farmers who decide not to drill?

Kudos to Newfield

To the editor:

Thank you to the Damascus Supervisors and Northern Wayne Property Owners Association for arranging to have Newfield make a presentation regarding seismic testing at this week’s monthly meeting. The presentation was very informative. I think the representative made a good case that both the supervisors and Newfield are firmly committed to moving forward in a responsible manner that is sensitive to the community. I was particularly impressed by the openness of the Newfield presenter and his willingness to answer any and all questions posed to him—including cases where he noted that he would have to go back to his office and get definitive information or clarification. I think that presentations of this kind go a long way toward dispelling unfounded fears, e.g., clear statements regarding the non-use of explosives and the fact that the vibrations from the “thumpers” are essentially imperceptible. Keep up the good work.