Clear sky
Clear sky
30.2 °F
April 16, 2014
River Reporter Facebook pageTRR TwitterRSS Search Login
news

Reservoir plan irks Ulster residents; The issue is turbidity


The situation was also criticized by Kate Hudson, the watershed program director at Riverkeeper: “The elimination of provisions in DOH and EPA’s earlier draft FAD, that would provide $2 million to address impacts of the city’s past muddy water releases to the Lower Esopus and require DEP to fund an independent study of alternatives to those releases in the future, is a shocking betrayal of the public trust and of these communities by regulators who have an obligation to protect all New Yorkers, not just those who live in New York City.

“This irresponsible capitulation to the city undermines confidence in the FAD revision process, because it shows that the current public comment period is simply for show and that the real deliberations took place behind closed doors before the public ever got to see the document.”

Officials of the DOH have defended the removal of the language, saying that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is the agency that should be dealing with the turbidity of the lower Esopus Creek because it is technically not located in the New York City watershed.

They also said the NYC DEP has agreed to address the Lower Esopus Creek matter in a separate consent order.