Switchboard, from NRDC › Eric Goldstein's Blog

New York State Acquires 1,200 Acres of Forest in Catskill Mountains

2011-12-07T19:25:59Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

Moving smartly to protect drinking water, conserve wilderness and control flooding, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation today announced the acquisition of a 1,200 acre forested parcel in the heart of the Catskills, just east of the state-owned Belleayre Ski Center in Ulster County.

The land transfer constitutes the state’s largest and most important acquisition within the Catskill Park in a decade and marks a first year environmental protection highlight for Governor Andrew Cuomo and Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens.

The property, owned until today by the Crossroads Ventures team headed by Dean Gitter, had been slated for intensive development since 1999. NRDC and our environmental allies mounted a long-running campaign to protect this magnificent parcel, to secure a smaller development project on property owned by Crossroads and to advance smart growth in the Catskills region.

Protecting this magnificent 1,200 parcel will directly benefit the downstate water supply of 9 million New Yorkers. Had this parcel been developed, as originally planned -- with a hotel, golf course, hundreds of time-share units, roads and other buildings on steeply sloping lands – stormwater runoff would have drained directly into streams that feed the already troubled Ashokan Reservoir, which supplies drinking water to New York City and Westchester County.

The state’s acquisition, which will insure that this land remains “forever wild,” will also safeguard the adjacent Slide Mountain Wilderness, a cherished section of the State’s Catskill Forest Preserve. And keeping intense development off of these steep slopes will reduce local flooding risks in a region that has already suffered unprecedented flooding problems earlier this year.

Many current and former elected officials and environmental leaders helped to secure this milestone in drinking water protection and conservation. In addition to Governor Cuomo and Commissioner Martens, we want to thank former Governors Spitzer and Paterson, former Environnmental Commissioner Pete Grannis and his deputy, Stu Gruskin and former Environmental Secretary to the Governor Judith Enck.

In addition, Congressman Maurice Hinchey played a leading role for years in pressing the developers to preserve the 1,200 acre parcel. We are enormously grateful to him. And congratulations and thanks to our environmental colleagues, starting with the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development’s former director, Tom Alworth, and former attorney Marc Gerstman. Congratulations as well to Riverkeeper, especially Marc Yaggi and Bill Wegman, as well as Trout Unlimited, Theodore Gordon Flyfishers, NYPIRG and the Zen Environmental Studies Institute. And thanks also to Hilary Meltzer, Robin Levine and their colleagues, on behalf of New York City Department of Environmental Protection.

The outlines of today’s acquisition were reached in 2007. That year, then Governor Spitzer, New York City, the developers and a coalition of environmental groups including NRDC, signed a conceptual agreement that provided for safeguarding the 1,200 acre parcel to the east of the Belleayre Ski Center and envisioning a smaller project on less sensitive lands to the west of the ski center.

To be sure, some of our friends, including the Catskill Heritage Alliance, remain concerned about the lower-build alternative that Crossroads still intends to advance, to the west of the Belleayre Ski Center. Fortunately, the developers have agreed to prepare a supplemental draft environmental study for the proposed lower-build project. That draft, which is expected to be released sometime in 2012, will be subject of full public review and comment, and no doubt continuing scrutiny.

As for today’s milestone, we appreciate the decision of Crossroads Ventures, ably represented by Dan Ruzow and his colleagues, to recognize the importance of protecting this magnificent parcel for future generations of New Yorkers.

"Fracking Express" Racing Down Fast-Track in NYS

2011-09-28T19:21:58Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

Despite repeated requests from residents, environmental groups and local officials to slow down the environmental review and rule-making processes related to the state’s proposal for high-volume hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in upstate New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) today rejected that path.

The DEC issued proposed rules for regulating industrial gas drilling throughout the state’s portion of the Marcellus Shale even before it has completed the legally required environmental review process on which future regulations are supposed to be based.

Under today’s proposal, comments on the highly technical rulemaking draft are due on December 12th - the same day as the deadline for public comments on the 1500 page draft environmental impact study.

But combining the environmental review process and the rule-making process for fracking undercuts the spirit and intent of the state’s landmark environmental review statute. Cuomo Administration officials understand the practical impact of this expedited schedule. But they have chosen to proceed nevertheless.

The premature release of the rule-making proposal also runs counter to the DEC’s own previously expressed plans. In July of this year, DEC released a preliminary draft of the revised environmental review in which it stated that the Department would revise regulations only after the environmental review process was complete, correctly concluding that “(f)ollowing the completion of the SGEIS, the Department would be in a position to rationally determine what additional measures or procedures should become fixed principles that would supplement and improve the Department’s existing regulatory framework."

Turning to the merits, the DEC’s new rulemaking proposal contains the same fundamental gaps and flaws as the draft environmental impact statement itself. For example, it contains only partial safeguards for public drinking water supplies, inadequate protections for the disposal of fracking-related hazardous wastes, and no effective mechanisms to shield communities from the impacts of industrialized landscapes.

New York City Council Environmental Protection Chairman, Jim Gennaro, a long-time champion of drinking water protection, released a statement today in which he warned that today’s draft regulations “bring us one step closer, in my opinion as both an environmental public policymaker and a geologist, to the possible unprecedented contamination of New York City drinking water and other drinking water supplies around the state ….”

The issue of fracking is the most significant environmental challenge facing New York State in recent memory. The environmental impact study reports that as many as 62,000 wells could be drilled in New York State in the first 30 years of fracking operations. Such a massive industrialization of the state’s rural communities would be unprecedented, and would likely be accompanied by significant adverse impacts to state water resources, declines in air quality and the transformation of rural landscapes.

In their efforts to fast-track the rule-making process for fracking, New York State officials have picked exactly the wrong issue on which to cut corners.

No Public Mandate to Fast-Track Fracking in New York, Opinion Polls Find

2011-09-21T20:32:56Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

Two recent opinion polls of New York State voters reveal a public that is deeply divided on the issue of industrial gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale.

The results would seem to undercut the State Department of Environmental Conservation’s current plans for fast-tracking the hydro-fracking environmental review and administrative rule-making processes here.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll released yesterday, upstate New Yorkers – “who have the most to gain in terms of jobs and the most to lose in terms of the environment” if fracking moves forward – are almost evenly split on the issue, with 47 percent opposed and 43 percent in support.

The survey also shows that while 51 percent of all NYS voters polled believe fracking will damage the environment, a slight plurality (45%-41%) support drilling. Voters living in the suburbs support drilling, this survey found, 56-31 percent, with New York City voters evenly split (41%-41%). (Ironically, the greater support for drilling by NYC and suburban residents may be due to their awareness of the state’s plan to prohibit drilling in the Catskill/Delaware watershed, which supplies drinking water to New York City and Westchester County residents.)

And just last month, a NY1/YNN-Marist poll found even less support for drilling: 37 percent of registered voters opposed drilling, versus 33 percent in support. Thirty percent were unsure.

(Meanwhile, the gas industry continues its misleading multi-million dollar publicity campaign to convince state residents that industrial gas drilling is already as safe as motherhood and apple pie.)

Taken together, these polls tell us that the people of New York have not given New York State Environmental Commissioner Joe Martens a mandate to fast-track drilling. If anything, they confirm that there’s still a lot of division over fracking around the state. And they reinforce the message that the Department would be well advised to stop rushing the process, to listen carefully to the public, and to rethink the direction it is heading in.

What’s at stake is nothing less than protection of the state’s water, air and land, and the quality of life in many communities for future generations.

We have a few ways you can keep up with our New York work online: Please visit our website at www.nrdc.org/newyork or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

First Impressions of New York's New Environmental Study of Fracking

2011-09-07T20:53:12Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation today released its long-awaited Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, detailing the Cuomo Administration’s controversial proposal for industrial gas drilling in the state’s portion of the Marcellus Shale, using the technique known as high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

As readers of my colleagues Frances Beinecke’s and Kate Sinding’s blogs already know, the fracking issue has generated great interest and concern in New York State. And poorly regulated fracking activities in Pennsylvania and across the country have been linked to a host of serious environmental woes.

With such a backdrop, the draft study released today is the most important environmental impact statement prepared by New York State in recent years. Recognizing the high stakes involved, NRDC will be scrutinizing the more than 1,500 page document with exceptional care, and we encourage concerned citizens across the state to do the same. In addition, NRDC and our experts will be preparing detailed comments on the draft EIS.

As previously noted, NRDC recognizes that elements of the state’s new proposal are stronger than the Paterson Administration’s fatally flawed 2009 draft analysis. But we continue to believe that fracking should not move forward in New York unless and until it is demonstrated that New Yorkers' health and environment would be protected.

Our first impression of the new draft environmental study is that it has left a boatload of unresolved issues and unanswered questions in its wake.

Here are four quick examples:

Fracking in Floodplains – The recent and tragic flooding in the Catskills and other parts of upstate New York following Tropical Storm Irene is further proof, if any is needed, that floodplains are no place for industrial activities, including gas drilling. While the state is correctly proposing to prohibit well-pad development in floodplains, it would apparently allow other fracking-related activities (infrastructure, holding ponds, etc) in and under such areas.

Impacts on Local Communities from Rapid Industrialization – The state’s draft study does not provide an effective mechanism to insure that local communities will be protected from the overwhelming industrial onslaught that comes with fracking (from heavy drilling and excavating equipment, to traffic, air and water pollution, and the like) should drilling proceed in a particular area.

Disposal of Hazardous Fracking Wastewaters – There are currently no wastewater treatment plants in New York State equipped to treat wastewaters from high-volume fracking operations. And the draft study is unacceptably vague on what will become of the tens of millions of gallons of toxic wastewaters produced in NYS if fracking operations move forward here.

Continuing Threats to NYC and Syracuse Water Supply Infrastructure – While wisely proposing to place the unfiltered New York City and Syracuse watersheds off limits to fracking, the draft study provides very limited protection, if any, to the critical aqueducts and tunnels that carry water from our reservoirs. From a public health and emergency preparedness standpoint, allowing risky drilling activities to occur near aging and vulnerable water supply infrastructure is an unreasonable risk.

Today’s release of the completed draft environmental study begins a 96 day public comment period, which will run until December 12th. Originally, the Department had planned for a 60 day comment period. But NRDC and our environmental colleagues, recognizing the complexity and importance of this proceeding, petitioned the agency to extend the time for public review.

In a troubling procedural development, the DEC revealed today that it will propose draft rules to govern the as-yet-to-be-determined fracking program even before the environmental review is complete. The proposed rules will apparently be released in October and the comment period is scheduled to conclude in December, at the same time as the comment period on the environmental study. But this is putting the cart before the horse. The core purpose of the EIS process is to inform the decision-making process before decisions are made. This rapid schedule places an unreasonable time burden on the public and seems to favor expedited rulemaking over the careful and measured approach to gas drilling that the DEC had been promising.

According to today’s announcement, four public hearings will be held around the state, including one in New York City.

Hold onto your hats, folks. The forthcoming public review process is going to be a wild and bumpy ride.

Water Rustlers Beware: Gov. Cuomo Signs Legislation to Help Safeguard NYS Rivers, Lakes, Streams and Aquifers

2011-08-17T20:15:01Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

Governor Andrew Cuomo closed a glaring loophole in New York State water law yesterday by signing legislation requiring companies that seek to withdraw large volumes of water from state water bodies to first obtain a permit. The newly enacted statute was championed in bipartisan fashion by Assemblyman Bob Sweeney and Senator Mark Grisanti, with critical support from Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos.

Under existing law, most high-volume water users in New York have been able to pump water from the state’s rivers, lakes, streams and aquifers, largely unregulated and without regard to the ecological and hydrological impacts of such activities.

The new law (Chapters 400-402, Laws of 2011) mandates that operators of power plants, golf courses, snow-making facilities, mining operations, oil and gas production facilities, water bottlers and other commercial and industrial entities seeking to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons-a-day must first secure a Department of Environmental Conservation permit.

Existing water users above the 100,000 gallon-a-day threshold will be entitled to an initial permit, which will be valid for up to ten years. But all new applicants for large-volume water withdrawals and all renewal applicants will be required to meet comprehensive regulatory requirements before their permits may be issued.

Forthcoming DEC regulations must require applicants to demonstrate that their proposed withdrawal will not result in significant adverse impacts on the quantity or quality of the water source or on water-dependent natural resources. Applicants will also need to show that they have put in place comprehensive water conservation and efficiency measures.

Although the statute was not drafted specifically to block gas drilling proposals that employ the controversial hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) technique in the upstate Marcellus Shale, such operations do in fact require millions of gallons of water for each separate well drill. Accordingly, persons or companies seeking to withdraw New York State waters for fracking operations will be subject to the new water withdrawal permit requirements.

In the Governor’s official press release, DEC Commissioner Joe Martens noted that the new law “will enable DEC to do its part to protect the valuable resources of the Great Lakes while also enhancing the state’s ability to manage water resources in response to climate change, droughts and future demands.” (The Great Lakes collectively contain more than 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water; and regulating large-volume water withdrawals from the Great Lakes watershed, as the new law also does, will be essential to protecting this world-class water resource.)

The critical next step for the Commissioner Martens and his staff will be to adopt comprehensive rules that set forth the substantive details of the new permitting program and outline the process for water withdrawal permit applications and reviews.

If strong new rules are adopted and aggressively enforced by DEC, the new statute will rightly be viewed as one Albany’s most significant environmental advances in 2011.

We have a few ways you can keep up with our New York work online: Please visit our website at www.nrdc.org/newyork or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Musical Chairs at the New York City Department of Environmental Protection

2011-08-05T19:20:47Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

It seems like the City’s Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) just can’t catch a break this summer.

Two weeks ago, a fire roared through the main engine room of the Department’s massive North River Wastewater Treatment Plant -- shutting down the facility and leading to the discharge of several hundred million gallons of raw sewage into the Hudson River and to the closing of city beaches and Riverbank State Park on several of the hottest days of the year.

Then, yesterday, Cas Holloway, the Department’s hard-charging Commissioner was summoned back to City Hall to assume the post of Deputy Mayor for Operations.

Commissioner Holloway’s return to the City Hall inner-circle comes less than two years after he took the reins at DEP. And while it is understandable that Mayor Michael Bloomberg would want this effective public servant to replace the departing Stephen Goldsmith, Holloway’s job-switch is a big loss for DEP.

In his relatively short time as Commissioner, Holloway has taken important steps to refocus and re-energize the city’s sprawling and at times disheveled environmental agency.

He clarified the Department’s core strategic functions and adopted a forward-looking strategic plan. He invigorated existing staff and brought in new talent. And he solidified his reputation for taking on tough challenges and getting things done.

Friends of DEP were hoping that Holloway’s tenure -- building on the efforts of his predecessors -- would provide the stability needed to finally get the Department operating at maximum efficiency and providing the vision and leadership to safeguard New York’s water, air and land for years to come.

But Holloway’s unexpected departure now leaves the Department looking for its 6th commissioner in a decade. (Joel Miele, Chris Ward, Emily Lloyd and Steve Lawitts were his predecessors over the past ten years.) (In contrast, Ray Kelly, in his second run as Police Commissioner, has led that Department since 2002.)

Although not as visible as other city agencies, DEP performs essential functions, such as bringing clean drinking water to half the state’s population and treating more than a billion and a half gallons of wastewater every day. The Department has nearly 6,000 employees, some in offices as far as 100 miles north of the city in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds. And with 19 reservoirs, 14 sewage plants, numerous treatment and testing facilities and thousands of miles of aqueducts, pipes and mains, the Department has one of the largest capital construction programs of any locality in the nation. For these and other reasons, the DEP Commissioner’s post is a challenging one.

Holloway has had the right attributes to perform this difficult job, including strong management and decision-making skills, a commitment to implement environmental sustainability goals, and the ear and the confidence of Mayor Bloomberg.

Still, when Holloway’s successor comes in, he or she will be facing major challenges.

For example, the next Commissioner will have to:

-- insure that State’s troubling plans for gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale don’t advance within the New York City watershed boundaries, don’t come within miles of the indispensible tunnels that carry water to our city, and don’t include disposing of fracking wastewaters anywhere within the watershed region;

-- move aggressively to implement cost-saving green infrastructure requirements (plantings, rain barrels, roof gardens, porous pavements), which capture stormwater runoff from both public and private developments to reduce raw sewage overflows into local waterways;

-- keep a close watch on the Department’s many capital projects, including the Croton Filtration Plant now under construction and the forthcoming Delaware Aqueduct bypass tunnel, while insuring that city water rates don’t again soar with double-digit increases; and

--complete the cultural change at DEP by bringing in young, committed staffers who are dedicated to public service and who embrace the Mayor’s sustainability agenda.

With less than 2 and ½ years left in the Mayor’s third term, it is hard to predict who will be tapped to take over the commissioner’s desk at the Department’s headquarters in Flushing, Queens.

Among the possibilities are David Bragdon, director of the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and Long-Term Planning; David Yassky, the Mayor’s Taxi and Limousine Commissioner; and Jim Gennaro, chairman of the City Council’s Environmental Protection Committee. All three are experienced and all three are friends of the city’s environment. Other names will no doubt surface before a final selection is made.

Cas Holloway’s shoes will be hard to fill. And the next person who becomes DEP Commissioner and chief environmental guardian for 8.2 million residents will be taking on one of the toughest jobs in New York City government.

NYS Enacts Loophole-Closing Legislation to Safeguard State Water Resources

2011-06-17T15:57:09Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

After nearly three years of advocacy by environmental groups and detailed review in Albany, comprehensive legislation to regulate the use of state water resources finally sailed through the New York State Senate last night.

The bill closes a giant loophole in state water law by establishing a new comprehensive permit system for persons and corporations seeking to withdraw large volumes of water from the state’s rivers, streams, aquifers and waters of the Great Lakes.

Presently, most high volume water users in New York – including power plants, golf courses, snow-making facilities, mining operations, oil and gas producers, water bottlers, and other commercial and industrial users – are free to withdraw state waters, largely unregulated.

Under the new law, persons, corporations and governmental entities seeking to withdraw 100,000 gallons or more a day from state waters for agricultural, commercial or industrial uses would first be required to secure a permit from DEC.

Permit applicants would be required to demonstrate that their proposed withdrawals will not result in significant adverse impacts on the quantity or quality of the water source or on water-dependent natural resources.

And to secure a permit, the applicants would also need to show that they have put into place comprehensive water conservation and efficiency measures.

Among other things, the new law would also regulate large water withdrawals from the Great Lakes basin and bring New York State into compliance with the interstate Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact.

An identical bill was enacted by the State Assembly earlier this year. Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has strongly supported the loophole-closing legislation, is expected to sign the bill into law.

Deserving of special thanks are Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, Senator Mark Grisanti, as well as Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assemblyman Bob Sweeney, along with their unsung staff members who toiled on this bill.

Of course, we thank Governor Cuomo, who we believe will sign this legislation with enthusiasm. We appreciate the strong support for the legislation from DEC Commissioner Joe Martens and his water deputy James Tierney and their staff. We thank them in advance for what we hope will be the Department’s aggressive and effective implementation of this important legislation.

Rich Schrader, NRDC’s NYS Legislative Director, spearheaded NRDC’s efforts on this bill in Albany. Congratulations also go to our environmental colleagues, including Katherine Nadeau from Environmental Advocates of New York, Jessica Ottney at The Nature Conservancy and Bill Cooke of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment for their tenacious work over several years to advance this legislation.

This legislation recognizes the fundamental role that safe and sufficient water plays in the economic and environmental lives of all New Yorkers. If aggressively implemented, this new law will help New York meet its top priority water needs for water supply, agriculture, wildlife, recreation and other purposes well into the 21st century.

We have a few ways you can keep up with our New York work online: Please visit our website at www.nrdc.org/newyork or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

New Film on Destructive Mountaintop Removal Should Wake Up NY

2011-05-31T18:18:14Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

Last week, I attended the New York City premiere of “The Last Mountain,” a sobering documentary about the coal industry’s devastating mountaintop removal practices in the Appalachian Mountains. As I watched, I was struck by how little most New Yorkers know about this ongoing tragedy, although it is occurring only five hundred miles from Times Square.

The film follows environmental lawyer Bobby Kennedy, Jr. as he travels around West Virginia’s coal country, speaking with families living and working in the shadow of Coal River Mountain. This natural peak is called “The Last Mountain” because – as country star EmmyLou Harris observed – it’s just about the only mountain in the community that the coal mining industry hasn’t blown up yet.

According to the film, Massey Energy – the third largest coal company in the U.S. – has followed the same destructive pattern since arriving in the Coal River Valley in 2000. First, the company dynamites the majestic mountaintops. Then it brings in giant earth-moving equipment to tear up the trees and landscape and heave them into the low-lying hollows and streams to get at the coal.

Massey has been cited for tens of thousands of permit violations for its practices over the decade. But the relatively mild penalties that have been assessed have not succeeded in changing the company’s behavior. And loopholes in the law have allowed the Massey blasting to continue.

As a consequence, the people living in the valley – the real stars of the film – have faced public health risks like sooty air, contaminated drinking water, flooding, and falling rocks from the blasting. Residents report increased cancer rates in their community and suspect mining-related well water contamination as the cause.

Not to mention, the beautiful ridges are gone.

Those who are bravely standing up to Massey to protect their last mountain have a steep hill to climb. There’s the economic dependency that’s been created by the coal industry and the performance of local elected officials and government agencies that seem to be at the beck and call of industry. (This is despite the fact, as the film points out, that mountaintop mining practices have actually led to decreased employment for local miners, compared to traditional mining operations.)

But mountaintop removal mining isn’t just an issue for people living in valley. Maria Gunnoe – a Coal River Valley resident featured in the film and a 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize winner – put it best:

You’re connected to coal, whether you realize it or not. Everybody’s connected to this, and everybody’s causing it, and everybody’s allowing it.

She’s right. About 13 percent of New York State’s electricity comes from coal. We’re linked to this unsustainable resource every time we flip on a light switch and forget to turn it off.

Of course, there are solutions to just about every problem, as Allen Hershkowitz – NRDC’s senior scientist who is spearheading the organization’s campaign against mountaintop removal mining – points out in the film. And Coal River Mountain, as it turns out, is a darn good location for wind farms, which could bring green jobs to the community.

New Yorkers who see this film might logically leave the theater thinking about what they can do to make their homes and apartments more energy-efficient.

Another useful reaction for New York City residents is to purchase their electricity from green power – GreenPowerNYC. This option is available to both property owners and renters.

One group that should definitely see this movie is the management team at Con Edison, New York City’s energy provider. Right now, Con Ed is fighting state legislation – the Solar Jobs Bill – that would accelerate solar power projects in New York by requiring utilities to buy solar power generated by New York homes and businesses. Con Ed’s chieftains are asleep at the switch on this one.

"The Last Mountain" also has relevance to the hotly contested issue of shale gas drilling here in New York, where rushed and ill-advised proposals for widespread drilling have set off alarm bells. The film provides a reminder of what happens when industry extracts energy resources while ignoring the environmental and public health impacts of its actions.

After the film concluded, our colleague Bobby Kennedy spoke with the audience. He observed that these days, when so much of the “news” presented to the American people is trivial or irrelevant, well-produced documentaries have become important vehicles for telling powerful environmental stories. We know more about climate change thanks to Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” We have learned about the dangers of shale gas fracking from Josh Fox’s “Gasland.” And, said Bobby in congratulating director Bill Haney, we hope that “The Last Mountain” will play a similar role in waking up the nation to the indescribable harm being done to the Appalachian countryside by mountaintop removal mining.

Take a look at the trailer for "The Last Mountain." It opens at the Landmark Sunshine Cinema in New York and at theaters nationwide on June 3. See for yourself what short-sighted policies are doing to our planet and how inspiring citizens are taking action in a valiant effort to turn things around.

We have a few ways you can keep up with our work online: Please visit our website at www.nrdc.org/newyork or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

New York Times Exposé on Fracking Offers Lessons for New York

2011-03-05T17:02:55Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

The New York Times just published the third part of Ian Urbina's powerful investigative series on the dangers associated with the controversial natural gas drilling technique known as fracking. Taken together, the three articles paint a devastating picture of current gas drilling practices in many parts of the country and lay out numerous problems that must be solved before any new fracking activities should be allowed in New York State.

In part one of the series, the Times highlighted the lax regulatory framework governing fracking and raised troubling questions about disposal practices for the huge volume of potentially radioactive wastewaters that are left at the end of the drilling process. In part two of the series, the Times documented how industry promises to recycle and properly treat hazardous waste from gas drilling operations have frequently and brazenly gone unfulfilled.

In the latest installment, the Times describes the political pressures over the years on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from industry and lawmakers from gas-producing states, in an ongoing effort to cripple federal oversight. Such pressure has been part of the industry’s long-running campaign to downplay the risks from poorly regulated fracking and to protect the gaping exemptions that big oil and gas corporations have secured from the nation’s most basic laws to protect our health and environment.

For example, the Times reports that EPA studied fracking when Congress was considering whether the process should be fully regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2004:

“An early draft of the study discussed potentially dangerous levels of contamination in hydrofracking fluids and mentioned ‘possible evidence’ of contamination of an aquifer. The final version of the report excluded these points, concluding instead that hydrofracking ‘poses little or no threat to drinking water.’”

“Shortly after the study was released,” the Times dispatch continues, an EPA whistleblower said the agency’s final report “had been strongly influenced by industry and political pressure.”

“MYSTERY LIQUIDS”: Wastewaters from hydrofracked gas wells – like these from Pennsylvania – are contaminated with varying levels of hazardous substances but have frequently been disposed of improperly, according to the New York Times investigation.

Thanks in part to the good work of New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey, EPA is now embarking on a new, congressionally mandated national study of fracking.

Since assuming her post, President Obama’s EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, has demonstrated that she is a strong guardian of public health and a true friend of our nation’s air and water. But, as the Times article makes clear, there is every reason to believe that pressure on EPA from the gas and oil industry (and from their friends in Congress) is going to continue.

What does all this mean for New York, where the Cuomo Administration is now mulling how best to deal with the gas industry clamor for widespread fracking in the state’s portion of the Marcellus Shale formation?

The Marcellus Shale – a geological formation that stretches from Virginia into southern New York State – has attracted new interest in industrial gas drilling, despite a boatload of unresolved regulatory problems. At least 50,000 new Marcellus wells are expected to be drilled in neighboring Pennsylvania over the next two decades, according to the Times report."

The stakes are high for all New Yorkers who want safe, clean drinking water. Perhaps nobody should be more worried that residents of New York City, Westchester County and Syracuse. The water supplies in these localities are currently unfiltered.

But declines in water quality – which could well result if widespread gas drilling flies ahead – could trigger state or federal orders to construct massive filtration facilities. And the construction of multi-billion dollar filtration facilities would precipitate soaring rate increases for millions of New York water consumers.

My colleague Kate Sinding has been spearheading NRDC’s campaign to protect all New York State waters from the dangers of ill-considered drilling schemes. She will certainly have more to say on this issue in the weeks to come.

But here are three lessons for New York State officials, which flow directly from the Times’ well-researched three-part investigation:

"Lesson #1 – Take your time to get this right, New York State.

There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by racing ahead and implementing a flawed gas drilling program. Just look at Pennsylvania, where they followed the full-speed-ahead approach and, as the Times series documents, many residents there have had their lives upended. They’ve had their water contaminated, their property values devastated, and their communities destroyed.

New York officials are currently observing an unofficial moratorium until June on new fracking activities. But it will take months longer to answer all the questions and put in place ironclad rules and safeguards to ensure that all New Yorkers are protected from the risks of widespread drilling.

This time schedule was set, arbitrarily, by the Paterson administration – and the new administration under Governor Cuomo shouldn’t feel obligated to meet this deadline at the risk of rushing through the process. It should take all the time it needs to review and analyze the facts and to adopt the most comprehensive restrictions, regulations and safeguards in the country before allowing any fracking to proceed.

Lesson #2 -- Be sure your environmental review of fracking’s impacts is beyond reproach and addresses all of the consequences Pennsylvania and states around the country have suffered.

Even before the Times' investigation into fracking, the issue has been a hot one here in New York. New Yorkers have made this their number one environmental health concern, and for good reason. History suggests that short-circuiting the environmental review process not only leads to grave consequneces – but public cynicism and years of litigation.

The State Department of Environment Conservation should promise New Yorkers that it will do everything in its power to make sure New York doesn’t see a repeat of the gas drilling nightmare the rest of the country has experienced – dead livestock, houses that will never sell again, and poisoned drinking water. That means conducting the strongest possible environmental review, holding new public hearings around the state so the people impacted can weigh-in, and examining cummulative impacts of gas drilling before proceeding. And it means issuing formal, new regulations before issuing any new permits.

Lesson #3 -- Press for closing of gas and oil industry loopholes, so they must comply to the same basic federal environmental and health laws as everyone else.

As the Times reports, the oil and gas drilling industry is exempt from portions of more than a half dozen bedrock environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Water resources and public health will remain at risk in New York (and elsewhere) from widespread fracking until that changes.

The State Department of Environmental Conservation should join the growing chorus of government agencies and elected officials nationwide who are calling upon Congress to eliminate the sweatheart exemptions this industry enjoys from compliance with protective national environmental laws.

As the Times' series vividly portrays, current fracking operations pose myriad threats to water resources, environmental health and the quality of life in communities around the country. New York has a chance to stop the cycle, to say “NOT HERE,” and to set a model the rest of the nation can follow. The problems exposed by the Times' fearless reporting can and must be resolved before any new gas drilling operations move forward in New York.

New York State Authorizes 105,000 Acre NYC Watershed Land Acquisition Program to Safeguard Downstate Water Supply and Region's Economy

2011-02-16T18:38:59Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

After extensive legal wrangling and nearly three years of negotiations among stakeholders, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) has issued a 15-year watershed land acquisition permit to New York City.

The new permit authorizes the City to acquire up to 105,000 acres of sensitive lands that drain into the City’s Catskill and Delaware system reservoirs, which supply over a billion gallons of water daily to nearly half of the State’s population.

Among those who will directly benefit from issuance of the new State permit are nine million water users in New York City and Westchester County.

One benefit will be economic. As the State DEC Findings Statement that accompanied the permit concludes, the extended watershed acquisition program will contribute to the City’s continued “avoiding filtration with an estimated $10-15 billion cost.”

Indeed, this renewal of the willing-buyer/willing-seller land acquisition program represents the single most important step that State, City, and watershed officials have taken in more than a decade to enhance the protection of New York’s drinking water supply and to forestall massive water rate increases that would result if New York were ordered to build filtration facilities for the Catskill/Delaware supply.

New York City’s Catskill/Delaware water system is one of only five major unfiltered drinking water supplies in the United States. And to secure a continuing waiver from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act filtration requirement, the water system operators must demonstrate that they are implementing a comprehensive watershed protection program. The National Academy of Sciences and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency have identified land acquisition as the primary line of defense for safeguarding watershed lands from pollution. Under its 2007 watershed protection plan, the city set aside $241 million for land acquisition to protect drinking water over ten years – a bargain and a no-brainer, compared to the multi-billion dollar costs of filtration.

A second benefit is long-term protection for the source of New York City’s high-quality drinking water supply. By authorizing the City to safeguard over 100,000 acres of forests, meadows, farms and wetlands in their natural state, the new permit should help to ensure clean water for half the State’s population deep into the 21st century.

Under the new permit, the percentage of State and City owned watershed acreage is projected to increase from 34 percent to 44 percent. Since 1997, the city has acquired more than 100,000 acres of Catskill/Delaware watershed lands and conservation easements in the successful first phase of its watershed land protection program.

(Photo by Daniel Case)

A new state permit authorizes New York City to buy up to an additional 105,000 acres of sensitive lands that drain into its upstate reservoirs, like the Ashokan in Ulster County, pictured above, to safeguard drinking water quality for nine million downstate New Yorkers.

Significantly, the new permit and the accompanying agreement among watershed stakeholders also provide benefits for upstate residents who live on privately owned lands in the Catskill/Delaware watershed region.

Such benefits include City commitments to: (1) provide continued funding for upstate water quality-related projects, such as septic system maintenance; (2) assist localities to ensure fair calculations of property taxes owed by the City to watershed communities; (3) increase recreational opportunities for local residents and tourists on City-owned watershed lands; and (4) allow watershed towns to exclude certain lands from the City’s acquisition program so that such parcels are available for future growth.

In exchange for securing these and other concessions from the City, the Coalition of Watershed Towns – which represents elected officials from communities in the Catskill watershed – agreed in late December to support the new permit and drop its lawsuit challenging the new land acquisition program.

The amicable resolution of this dispute marks a strengthening of the upstate-downstate partnership and perhaps even a lasting improvement in the relationship between watershed and New York City stakeholders.

Credit for this accomplishment goes to the government officials and other stakeholders who worked diligently on this matter over the past three years.

Among those deserving public thanks are Jim Tierney, and Bill Clarke and their team at State DEC; Roger Sokol and his colleagues at the State Health Department; Hilary Meltzer and her associates at the Corporation Counsel’s office; Denis Lucas, Alan Rosa, Jeff Baker and Kevin Young, representing watershed interests; and Paul Rush, Dave Warne and their colleagues at NYC Department of Environmental Protection.

New York City Councilman Jim Gennaro, who heads the Environmental Protection Committee, was the first public official to press for a vigorous continuation of the City’s land acquisition program in 2006 and 2007. And at U.S. EPA, Walter Mugdan and Kevin Bricke also played critical roles in 2007, convincing New York decision makers to fully fund the extended land acquisition program.

Here at NRDC, our staff pressed for years for an extension of the watershed land permit, participated in the long-running negotiations and intervened in the litigation to defend the City’s land acquisition program. Other environmental group participants in the talks included Riverkeeper, as well as the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development, NYPIRG, the Open Space Institute and the Trust for Public Land.

The State issued the new permit on December 24, 2010, but city and state officials did not publicly announce the news until today, presumably to give the Cuomo Administration a chance to review the new initiative. Today’s release of the permit is welcome evidence that Governor Andrew Cuomo understands the link between protecting New York’s water quality and insuring the state’s long-term economic well-being.

How Frosty the Snowman Is Hurting New York City Recycling

2011-01-13T16:37:02Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

Initial reports suggest that New York City’s Sanitation Department did a much better job in clearing the city’s streets of Tuesday night’s nine-inch snowfall than after the now infamous December Blizzard of 2010. Hats off to the Department and the Bloomberg Administration for the apparent effectiveness of yesterday’s storm clean-up.

But before breaking out the champagne, allow us to point out several continuing problems with the Department’s policies involving snow removal and recycling.

As first reported by WNYC’s Ailsa Chang, the Sanitation Department has confirmed that without public notice it has cancelled this year’s annual Christmas tree recycling program, because it was “overwhelmed” with snow cleanup and garbage removal. In previous years, more than 1,300 tons of trees have been collected and turned into compost as part of the successful tree recycling program.

The cancellation of this year’s program is particularly noteworthy since, under new legislation passed this summer by the City Council and signed into law by Mayor Bloomberg, the Sanitation Department was required to have expanded its Christmas tree recycling program from one week to two. Instead, the Department has scrapped the program and will pay to ship the trees – by truck and rail -- to out-of-state landfills and incinerators.

Of course, snow removal must be the Department’s first priority in the aftermath of severe storms. But why is recycling so often on the very bottom of the Sanitation Department’s priority list?

Why, for example, did the Department announce the other week that, following its clean-up of snow from the December Blizzard, it would restore regular trash collections, but that collections of recyclables would be postponed?

This practice of making trash collections a higher priority than recycling collections is an approach the Department follows even in absence of a major snowstorm. It happens after most three day holidays, when recycling collections are suspended on the holiday Monday and not restored until the following week.

As if that weren’t enough, the Department’s budget’s practices have historically and inexplicably allocated some of the costs of snow removal to the city’s recycling budget. This, according to a comprehensive study DSM Environmental prepared for NRDC in 2008, has had the effect of skewing the costs of recycling to make the program appear much more expensive than it really is.

The reality, as this independent study showed, is that if you remove improperly included snow removal and other miscalculated expenses, the overall costs of recycling and of trash disposal are nearly the same -- and recycling could become cheaper for city taxpayers than other options over the next several years as the costs of out-of-state landfilling continue to escalate. Yet despite Sanitation’s acknowledgment that the DSM analysis was basically sound, the Department has apparently not yet corrected its accounting approach on this issue.

Thus, even though recycling of Christmas trees and other city trash reduces global warming pollution, saves natural resources and is now cost-competitive with the price of export of trash to distant landfills and incinerators, the Sanitation Department continues to use snow removal to undercut the city’s recycling program.

Maybe someone at Sanitation should be reminded that addressing climate change and advancing sustainability are key parts of the Bloomberg Administration’s mayoral legacy.

Photo Credit: John Flanigan - http://www.flickr.com/photos/82369865@N00/5328383532/

The Sanitation Department has terminated its Christmas Tree recycling collections this year, but has apparently continued to allocate some of the costs of snow removal to the recycling program -- making the costs of recycling appear artifically higher than they really are.

Commissioner Grannis was right to reject Gov's crippling cuts that risked NY's clean air, water

2010-10-22T17:23:22Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

Alexander “Pete” Grannis, the former Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation who was fired yesterday by Governor David Paterson, has been a friend of New York’s environment for more than 40 years.

As a long-time State Assemblyman from Manhattan’s East Side, Pete was a leader on such issues as anti-smoking legislation, motor vehicle pollution control, the original bottle deposit bill, hazardous waste and brownfields clean-up, New York’s environmental review law and, ironically, funding for environmental and open space programs across the state.

When he was named DEC Commissioner in 2007 by then-Governor Eliot Spitzer, Pete declared: “This is my dream job.”

At DEC, he brought in a talented team of deputies and assistants, including dedicated first-deputy Stu Gruskin, committed water quality protector Jim Tierney and Policy Office director, Anne Reynolds.

Although DEC faced budgetary challenges almost from the beginning of his tenure, Pete and his team managed to make progress on several key fronts. Under his leadership, the Department helped create a landmark recycling program for electronics, invested in green jobs, and promoted smart growth in our communities.

Pete’s one soft spot was his role in advancing Governor Paterson’s proposal for industrial gas drilling across southern New York State. This proposal, which would authorize the worrisome extraction technique called hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking”) throughout the Marcellus Shale formation upstate in the Catskills, would jeopardize drinking water quality and threaten public health for more than 17 million people, including all of New York City. It would also create significant waste disposal issues, pollute the air, and permanently alter the rural landscape.

Over the years, DEC absorbed significant budget cuts, as did other parts of state government. But Pete and his team, while recognizing that every agency had to make do with less, did not stand idly by as his Department faced round after round of disproportionate staff reductions. After losing more than 600 people over the past year and a half and with DEC staffing levels at their lowest point in two decades, Pete objected to the most recent order to slash another 200 employees.

And he was right to do so. The state agency tasked with overseeing the environment doesn’t have the staff or money it needs to enforce basic clean water or clean air laws. In fact, it is already so dangerously understaffed that it does not have an employee who can process the paperwork necessary to receive federal grants that would help fund New York environmental projects – so the money is lost.

A memo from DEC to the Governor, which described the dire impacts the latest round of cuts would have on the functioning of the agency, was leaked to the Albany Times Union this week. Secretary to the Governor, Larry Schwartz, then demanded Pete’s resignation. “You can either do this in a cooperative fashion or a hostile fashion,” the Commissioner was told. Pete asked to speak to the Governor directly. But he was turned away. Yesterday, after Pete refused a quick resignation, Schwartz shoved him out the door. The Commissioner can leave with his head held high and with public thanks for taking a stand on behalf of his beleaguered agency and for his years of devotion to protection of public health and conservation of the state’s natural resources.

Unfortunately, his departure leaves the Department weakened and vulnerable to further attack from an unsympathetic Executive Chamber.

And it places an even greater burden on New York’s next governor to meet the expectations of New Yorkers who rightly expect Albany to safeguard their water and air, to protect their open spaces and to preserve the state’s natural heritage for future generations.

Long Shadows of September 11th Attack on U.S. are Detailed in New Book; Nine Years Later, Will Congress Act to Help First Responders and Other Survivors?

2010-09-21T20:15:30Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

A new book by former New York Times reporter Anthony DePalma offers a comprehensive and fearless account of the environmental aftermath of the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center and the public health consequences of the worst environmental disaster in New York City history.

In "City of Dust: Illness, Arrogance, and 9/11" (FT Press), DePalma sets out to examine "the scientific, medical, political and legal scope of the disaster" in panoramic fashion. That's a tall assignment. But DePalma largely succeeds in capturing the environmental health saga of one of the most heartrending episodes in the nation's history.

The horrors of September 11, 2001 remain indelibly etched in the minds of millions. Just hours after two planes slammed into the World Trade Center's twin towers, the 110-story buildings came crashing down. "Billowing gray dust plumes rampaged through city streets like monsters unleashed from hell," DePalma writes. As a result of this attack, at least 2,752 people perished (along with 224 more in the Pentagon attack and in the downed plane in Shanksville, Pennsylvania).

The ensuing fires at Ground Zero "raged at over 1,000 degrees for days and then smoldered at lower temperatures for months." These fires, along with the jagged steel and unstable ruins, created what DePalma calls "the most dangerous workplace in the country" during the long, sad fall of 2001.

No precise numbers are available as to the total numbers of persons exposed to the toxic cloud that engulfed Lower Manhattan on 9/11 or the noxious smoke that seared the lungs of those at Ground Zero for weeks thereafter. When the federal government ultimately created a World Trade Center Health Registry -- designed to identify and track all first-responders, Ground Zero workers, and persons who lived or worked in the vicinity or who happened to be in the area on September 11th -- 71,000 people signed up. While most live in New York, New Jersey or Connecticut, Health Registry enrollees come from every state in the nation and 15 other countries.

DePalma reminds his readers of the government statements and actions that mislead the public on the scope of the health risks in the aftermath of the horrific attack.

"The air quality is not dangerous," Mayor Rudy Giuliani told the press on September 12th. And New York City's Departments of Environmental Protection and Health did little in the days and weeks that followed to clarify or refine that unknowing, oversimplified message.

"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink," the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Administrator, Christie Whitman, said on September 18th.

But, as an EPA Inspector General's investigation later revealed, this and similar EPA statements were not accurate. One reason, DePalma recounts, is that all EPA press releases issued during the initial clean-up "were scrubbed by the White House and the [President's] Council on Environmental Quality" before being released. On some occasions, "the Bush White House made subtle word changes that effectively repackaged the message, slimming down the risks...."

"By not being clear about the risks," writes DePalma, "the federal and municipal governments - in what has been called a conspiracy of purpose - sacrificed a degree of safety for the quick recovery of Wall Street."

While he concludes that many bad decisions were made relating to the public health aftermath of the 9/11 attack, DePalma finds "no venality." Rather, he writes, "a long sequence of individual decisions - some made in haste, some made with arrogance - favored the recovery of the city over the recovery of its people."

An early consequence of government's failure to warn of the risks associated with direct exposure to the dust and smoke was the World Trade Center cough - a pulmonary syndrome that within a month hampered most of the firefighters and thousands of others who were present in Lower Manhattan on September 11th or the days that followed.

More serious have been the long-term lung impairments affecting thousands of first-responders. One study, conducted by Dr. David Prezant, chief medical officer at the New York City Fire Department and a heroic figure himself, confirmed that exposure to dust and smoke at Ground Zero left a substantial proportion of firefighters and Emergency Medical Service workers with abnormal lung function; about 5,000 were found to have symptoms that persisted even seven years later. Another noteworthy study concluded that between 17,400 and 40,000 new cases of adult asthma have developed among persons heavily exposed in the aftermath of September 11th.

DePalma is a good story-teller and he pulls his readers into some of 9/11's stories of personal tragedy and triumph. One example is his chapter on the Fullam brothers, Marty and Dave, both of whom were FDNY veterans who responded to the call on 9/11 and toiled at Ground Zero during the continuing rescue operations. "One brother came of the fire scarred but whole. The other nearly died and will spend every day of the rest of his life taking a medicine cabinet of medications ... and hoping against hope that with a new lung and a team of doctors who care, he can watch his three daughters grow into fine young women."

Of course, it is now widely recognized that thousands of first-responders have suffered lung-related ailments that proved to be more serious that initially thought. But much still remains unknown. "Even with the most advanced science," writes DePalma, "we do not yet know what the wicked concoction of dust, ash, and toxic materials did when it landed deep inside the lungs of responders."

One controversial issue that DePalma confronts head-on is the number of deaths that can be directly attributed to exposure to the witches' brew of 9/11 contaminants. Before he would certify a death as related to the September 11th attacks and add the names of the deceased to the official tally, Dr. Charles Hirsch, the city's chief medical examiner, has required that proof linking the death to contaminants must be established with "certainty beyond a reasonable doubt." This approach has caused great consternation, especially among the families of first-responders who believe their loved ones premature deaths were indeed linked to exposures received in the toxic aftermath of the Trade Center's destruction.

DePalma re-tells the tragic story of New York City Police Detective James Zadroga, who responded heroically, inhaling toxic dust on 9/11 and in the weeks that followed, and who died in 2006. Ultimately, however, medical examiner Hirsch ruled that Zadroga's death had not been directly caused by to exposure to 9/11 contaminants.

DePalma's discussion serves as a stark reminder of the importance of following the precautionary principle in responding to environmental disasters.

Many, although not all, of illnesses that surfaced in the weeks and months after the 9/11 attack itself could presumably been avoided or mitigated if government officials and other key actors were more diligent in seeking to prevent harmful exposures by first responders, at least after the initial rescue operations ended.

DePalma also relates how government delayed and then bungled the clean-up of Lower Manhattan residences. He tells of the anguish that even the most determined and sophisticated downtown dwellers, like Catherine McVay Hughes, went through as they struggled to obtain information, arrange for testing and secure clean-up of their apartments and their children's schools.

DePalma's comprehensive recap of the 9/11 health disaster identifies others who stood out in one way or another for their public service in the aftermath of the attack. Among them are Joel Kupferman and Juan Gonzalez (a crusading lawyer and newspaper columnist, respectively, who were among the first to alert the public to the persisting air quality dangers) and Paul Lioy, Steve Levin and Phil Landrigan (three of the many physicians who stepped up to document the pollution problems or provide first responders with expert medical care). To be mentioned in DePalma's book is, for sure, not to be canonized. But considering the unprecedented situation in which they all found themselves in the wake of the 9/11 attack, these individuals and their colleagues deserve public thanks.

DePalma's book -- part chronicle of tragedy and heroism, part detective story and part legal thriller -- is also something of a cliff hanger.

Two major subplots remain unresolved.

The first is the massive civil litigation filed in 2004 by approximately 10,000 first responders and other workers against the City of New York and other agencies and private firms, seeking compensation for the failure of government to protect them from exposure to 9/11 contaminants. DePalma shares the courtroom drama and commends federal district Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein for his handling of the extraordinarily complex litigation.

"Hellerstein's greatest concern as he promoted a settlement always had been to make sure that those who were most severely injured received the bulk of the compensation," writes DePalma. Early this year, Judge Hellerstein rejected the first settlement proposed by the parties, in part for this reason.

A revised settlement agreement was announced in June. Under this agreement, a maximum payout of $712.5 million is authorized to be paid to thousands of plaintiffs, with the exact amount of each payment based upon the severity of the illness and the strength of the link between the illness and exposure to 9/11 contaminants. Ninety-five per cent of all plaintiffs must accept the settlement terms by November 8, 2010 before the agreement can take effect.

The other outstanding matter is whether Congress will finally enact the long-delayed James Zadroga 9/11 Health Compensation Act. This legislation -- which has been spearheaded in the House by Representatives Carolyn Maloney, Jerrold Nadler, Peter King and Michael McMahon - would fund medical monitoring and treatment for first responders and others exposed to Trade Center contaminants and provide reasonable compensation to those who have not been compensated for losses suffered as a result of World Trade Center-related illnesses.

The House legislation seems to have considerable support, but has been held up for procedural reasons. In the Senate, passage of an identical bill, spearheaded by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, also seems within reach.

Of course, there is much we still don't know about the ultimate health impacts of the thousands of Americans who were exposed to the toxic contaminants in the horrific aftermath of 9/11. It will take many years before the final accounting can be definitively recorded.

But anyone who reads DePalma's important new book will be hard-pressed to deny that the courageous first-responders and others who were exposed to the pollution aftermath deserve the medical care and fair compensation provided for under the legislation now pending in the United States Congress.

Clean Water is Basic Human Right, General Assembly Declares in Under-Reported Vote

2010-09-04T13:48:09Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

There were no shouting matches about it on the cable news shows. Very few newspapers covered the story. And you had to search carefully to find it mentioned even on environmental blogs.

But this summer, in an historic vote, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution affirming the public right to clean drinking water for all.

The resolution noted that approximately 884 million people “lack access to safe drinking water” and more than 2.6 billion “do not have access to basic sanitation” services.

It declared that “the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights.”

And it called upon the nations of the world and international organizations to provide financial resources, capacity-building and technology “so as to assure safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.”

The resolution passed by a vote of 122 to zero. Forty-one countries abstained, including the United States.

In an explanation of the U.S. abstention, John F. Sammis, U.S. Deputy Representative to the Economic and Social Council, stated that the United States “supports the goal of universal access to safe drinking water” and “hoped to negotiate and ultimately join consensus” on such a resolution but was concerned about the specific language of this text and the process of drafting it.

Despite the abstentions, the U.N. vote reflects widespread international support for this fundamental tenet and is worthy of attention.

Now, of course, comes the hard part -- turning the promise of clean water for all into a reality. The ongoing human tragedy in Pakistan -- where millions of refugees are still without clean water in the wake of this summer’s widespread flooding – is a stark reminder of the scope of the challenge.

While clean water is more abundant and more accessible in the United States, our nation too is facing serious water challenges. Among the contaminants threatening some of America’s water supplies are perchlorate, atrazine, and chromium. And, of course, parts of the United States are also facing significant challenges in meeting existing demand for water, with the problem of water scarcity certain to worsen as a result of continued global warming.

Here in the New York-Pennsylvania area, the number one regional environmental controversy this summer has been the threat to water resources posed by industrial drilling for natural gas using the controversial technique of hydraulic fracturing in portions of the Marcellus Shale.

Passage of the landmark UN resolution seems like a worthy occasion to remind elected officials in the US that the fundamental right to clean water is one that most Americans believe in too.

A Shot of Adrenaline for the Nation's Largest Municipal Recycling Program

2010-07-30T19:49:15Z

Eric Goldstein, Director of NRDC's New York City Environment, NY

The New York City Council did not meet in its historic chambers at City Hall yesterday. With portions of the 198 year old City Hall ongoing much-needed renovation, the Council gathered instead at the old Emigrant Savings Bank building, just about a block to the north.

Despite the “first-day-of-school” atmosphere at the Council’s temporary new home, it was a great day for New York City’s environment.

For one thing, the Council enacted 11 separate bills dealing with various elements of the city’s recycling program. These bills, if signed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and aggressively implemented by his Department of Sanitation, could set in motion the biggest enhancements to New York City’s recycling program in more than two decades.

The City’s recycling program, hailed upon its creation in 1989 as perhaps the most ambitious in the nation, has been struggling in recent years. The City’s residential recycling rate has actually dipped from more than 20% in 2000 to approximately 16% today. Part of the reason was an ill-advised suspension of recycling of glass and plastic in 2002. Although recycling collections of these materials returned in 2003 and 2004, the confusion about what should and should not be placed out for recycling has apparently continued.

Fortunately, the new recycling bills hold the potential to boost New York City recycling in a number of ways.

Here are some of the highlights:

One bill, Intro. 148A, directs the Sanitation Commissioner to designate all rigid plastic containers as recyclable materials and to provide for the collection for all such plastics as part of the city’s recycling program once the city’s new South Brooklyn Marine Terminal recycling facility opens (which is now projected for December 2011). This bill should finally end confusion about which plastics New Yorkers should include in their recycling cans. It will allow residents to forget about looking for tiny numbers on the bottom of their plastic containers to determine which ones are eligible for recycling.
Another bill, Intro. 165A, requires that by January 2011 every public and private school classroom in New York City must provide a separate receptacle for collection of recycled paper and that recycling receptacles for metals, glass and plastic be located at every school entrance and cafeteria. This exciting and long-overdue initiative should help instill the recycling habit in millions of younger New Yorkers. And the bill’s supporters hope that schoolchildren will also continue their recycling activities when they get back home.
A third bill, Intro. 158A, directs the Sanitation Department to establish by January 2011 a citywide textile reuse and recycling program. The Department is to facilitate a program for accessible drop-off bins at convenient locations around the city where residents will be able to recycle clothing and other textiles. These commodities make up about 5% of the city’s residential waste stream, so finding better ways to reuse and recycling clothing and other fabrics should help keep these useful materials out of landfills and incinerators.
Intro. 158A also requires the Sanitation Department to expand “public space” recycling by adding at least 500 new receptacles for the collection of metals, glass, plastic and paper at park entrances, transit hubs and business districts over the next three years. Within ten years, the law requires the Department to reach a cumulative total of 1,000 such receptacles. These green and blue containers, which are to be placed right next to traditional waste baskets, should help make recycling easier for New Yorkers on-the-go and serve as an important public education tool.
Yet another bill, Intro. 157A, requires the Sanitation Commissioner to provide for the separate collection and composting of yard wastes for eight months a year, beginning in 2012, and to operate one or more yard waste composting facilities to receive the waste collected. Several councilmembers voted against this bill. But the majority understood that it makes no economic (or environmental) sense to have the city collect huge volumes of grass clippings and ship them hundreds of miles to out-of-state landfills, when such materials can easily and more cheaply be composted in backyards or in nearby city facilities.
Intro. 142A directs the Sanitation Commissioner to establish a voluntary program, in cooperation with paint manufacturers, distributors and retailers, for the collection of unused paint from consumers, so that such paint will be reused or recycled. If this pilot program proves successful, New York will be among the leaders in the country (Oregon already has such a program underway) in removing unused paints from the residential waste stream.

Among the other recycling bills passed by the City Council yesterday were ones designed to: expand recycling at all city agencies; step up household hazardous waste recycling; enhance public education activities on recycling; study how to advance food waste composting in the city; increase fines for violation of recycling rules in buildings with 9 or more units; and establish new ten year recycling goals of 25% for city-collected waste and 33% for city-managed waste.

These bills, taken together, should serve as a jolt of adrenalin for New York City’s recycling program. Their passage demonstrates that -- despite the many challenges of establishing a comprehensive recycling program in the nation’s most densely populated city -- recycling here is becoming a cornerstone of city solid waste policy and one that makes sense economically as well as environmentally for our city.

* * * * * * * *

As if that weren’t enough, the City Council also enacted strong air quality legislation that will reduce airborne emissions from home heating oil. Specifically, the bill will cut in half the amount of allowable sulfur in No. 4 heating oil, which is a major source of particulate pollution in New York City. The legislation also requires that heating oil used after October 2012 must contain at least 2 percent biodiesel fuel. Since the dirtier fuel grades are still being burned in thousands of apartment buildings here, the new legislation – combined with other actions underway or planned – should significantly cut pulmonary and other health risks to tens of thousands of city residents.

My NRDC colleague, Rich Kassel, has blogged about this issue and our friends at the EDF have prepared an excellent report on the health risks top New Yorkers posed by burning dirty heating oil. See their links below.

* * * * * * *

Special thanks to City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, to Sanitation Chairperson Tish James and Environmental Chairperson Jim Gennaro for their determined and leadership on these issues. Many other councilmembers, who became lead sponsors of the individual recycling bills, also deserve a shout-out, as do dedicated staff persons Laura Popa, Jarret Hova and Siobhan Watson.

Mia Nivarro of the New York Times got it exactly right when she stated that “it was like Earth Day” at the New York City Council yesterday.

So the Council is off to a great start at the Emigrant Savings Bank. If Speaker Quinn and her colleagues keep passing legislation like this in their temporary new chambers, New Yorkers who care about environmental health and the quality of city life might consider asking the Council to stay right where they are and not to return to City Hall.

Rich Kassel’s blog on NRDC’s Switchboard:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkassel/nyc_moving_quickly_to_clean_it.html

Environmental Defense Fund’s “The Bottom of the Barrel” Report:

http://www.edf.org/documents/10085_EDF_Heating_Oil_Report.pdf

Mia Nivarro’s article in the New York Times:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/toward-a-cleaner-and-greener-new-york/