comments
8

Elected Officials to Protect New York

On Monday, June 4, more than 280 local elected officials from 34 counties across New York State called on Governor Cuomo to continue the fracking moratorium and to do additional study before a decision is made whether to allow fracking. Their request, which they delivered in the form of a letter to the Governor, crosses political lines and comes from elected officials from more than half of New York State’s counties.

At a press conference in Albany, elected officials shared issues of concern to municipalities and released their letter to Governor Cuomo. They spoke about how the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) review of fracking has significant shortcomings. To address their concerns, a number of studies are needed before—not after—any decision is made about fracking and before fracking commences anywhere in the state.

One of the elected officials who started the initiative, Town of Caroline Deputy Supervisor Dominic Frongillo, said, “As local elected officials, we are on the front lines of this issue, and a number of critical studies have not been done to determine the consequences of fracking and drilling operations to the constituents we represent. The impacts of fracking don’t respect municipal boundaries or political parties, which is why we’ve already seen such an overwhelming and bipartisan response in support of this initiative from across the state.”

Among their concerns are the cumulative health impacts of fracking, so they are calling for a comprehensive and independent cumulative health impact assessment. Town of Rochester Supervisor Carl Chipman said, “The revised SGEIS on the extraction of natural gas by hydraulic fracturing presented by the DEC falls very short of resolving and even discussing many concerns involving the impacts on the health, safety, and general well being of our residents as well as the economic impacts to our communities. As an elected official, failure to oppose lifting the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in New York would be a disservice to those whom I’m elected to represent.”

Elected Officials to Protect New York’s request to the governor also called for revised and thorough studies of all potentially negative socioeconomic impacts (not just the benefits, as the current study outlines) and of cumulative environmental impacts related to fracking and drilling operations. They pointed out that thorough study was significantly lacking in the SGEIS of impacts relating to these concerns, including increased demands on local governments, increased strain on first responders and law enforcement, effects on property values and home mortgages, impacts on existing businesses and economies, local community character, water resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and more.

Justin Riccobono, Council Member At Large in the City of Beacon, urged extreme caution: “As a Republican and a conservative, I feel there are too many risks involved for our watershed and air quality than there are benefits. If something goes wrong, we may never be able to correct the problem. I encourage all New Yorkers to research the issues with hydrofracking in the states of Wyoming, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.”

Elected Officials to Protect New York noted that they agree with Governor Cuomo that a decision on fracking should be based on the science, but they believe the facts and science available currently leave many serious questions unanswered. Albany Common Council Member Leah Golby said, “It is imperative that a decision on fracking be based on the facts, like the Governor has said it will be, but as it stands New York State has not adequately looked at the science and facts on many issues of serious concern. We respectfully urge Governor Cuomo to maintain New York’s moratorium and to hold off on making a decision until the requested independent and thorough studies have been completed and we have all of the facts.”

Elected officials from the Southern Tier were quick to point out that the perception that the Southern Tier wants fracking is wrong. Town of Afton Councilmember Mary Jo Long said, “Just because we have been unable to get our town boards to pass bans or moratoria to date does not mean we want our community fracked. Senator Libous does not speak for a large portion of the Southern Tier.”

City of Elmira Mayor Susan Skidmore said, “My opinion is that all the facts are not being considered. Local environmental and infrastructure studies and current conditions of these items are not understood or taken into consideration. I am very concerned about the impact to my city. I see it as a burden to the residents to shoulder what is left when these large companies cap the wells and employment drops to a few part time maintenance positions. It will and has destroyed our property values and our ability to afford our own homes and rental properties.”

Syracuse Common Councilor Kathleen Joy said, “Even though Syracuse is protected, New York is one state. If it’s not safe in one municipality’s watershed, it’s not safe anywhere. We shouldn’t be putting any of New York’s citizens at risk. The risks of fracking don’t change from one municipality to the next, neither should state policy.”

Elected Officials to Protect New York is a broad-based and nonpartisan group of elected officials seeking to open a dialogue with the Governor’s office on these issues. Frongillo made the point that there needs to be an ongoing conversation between the Governor’s office and local officials: “Whatever is eventually decided about fracking, we need to be consulted and involved. We’re the boots on the ground, representing villages, cities, towns, and counties. The bipartisan, geographically-diverse group of elected officials that has joined together on this letter stands ready to work with the DEC and the Governor for the best possible future for all of New York State.”

Elected Officials to Protect New York will continue to collect signatures on the letter to Governor Cuomo on its website.

Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.

 

comments
8

RECENT STORIES

8 Comments

  • peggy lien says:

    How I wish we had even just one elected official in my state who would even look at the evidence. The good old boys here have their hands so deep in the pockets of big oil and their heads in the sand so deep they don’t want to even be informed. I am really scared for myself and the future of North Dakota. They are “fracking” away here and we are being experimented on. We need federal protection from this now because our govenor and atty general have over one million to fight the EPA. Thats how bad our state government is. Keep up the fight New york, Pennsylvania etc. Your leading the way!

  • Laura Toth says:

    For disabled people, ask yourself this: How will I get even bottled water when the TV news announces DO NOT DRINK ANY TAP WATER A FRACKING ACCIDENT HAS OCCURRED AND POISONOUS RADIOACTIVE CHEMICALS HAVE LEACHED INTO LAKE ERIE. THE LAKE IS NO LONGER A WATER SOURCE FOR W.N.Y. You thought gas prices were high, just imagine how expensive WATER will be.

  • Jean Michel LeTennier says:

    I am an Advovcate of Drilling in UPSTATE NY.. and it does not affect the entire state, PA is a clear example of this.. .. keeping UPSTATE NEW YORK POOR is BS.. I own a lot of property and live on that property, if youwant to protect the WATER SHED by all means do.. but do not take away the RIGHTS of LAND USAGE from the rest of the STATE.. LASTLY NOEN OF THIS REQUIRES any TOXIC CHEMICALS ANYWAY.. ww.gasfrac.com makes this clear.. so please stop the BS..

    • Bill Baker says:

      and here’s a list of the “non-toxic” chemicals:
      CAS Number Parameters Detected in Flowback from PA and WV Operations
      00087-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
      00095-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
      00108-67-8 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
      00105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol
      00087-65-0 2,6-Dichlorophenol
      00078-93-3 2-Butanone / Methyl ethyl ketone
      00091-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene
      00095-48-7 2-Methylphenol
      109-06-8 2-Picoline (2-methyl pyridine)
      00067-63-0 2-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol
      00108-39-4 3-Methylphenol
      00106-44-5 4-Methylphenol
      00072-55-9 4,4 DDE
      00057-97-6 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
      00064-19-7 Acetic acid
      00067-64-1 Acetone
      00098-86-2 Acetophenone
      00107-13-1 Acrylonitrile
      00309-00-2 Aldrin
      07439-90-5 Aluminum
      07440-36-0 Antimony
      07664-41-7 Aqueous ammonia
      12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248
      07440-38-2 Arsenic
      07440-39-3 Barium
      00071-43-2 Benzene
      00050-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene
      00205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene
      191-24-2 Benzo(ghi)perylene
      00207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
      00100-51-6 Benzyl alcohol
      07440-41-7 Beryllium
      00111-44-4 Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
      00117-81-7 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate / Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
      07440-42-8 Boron
      24959-67-9 Bromide
      00075-25-2 Bromoform
      07440-43-9 Cadmium
      07440-70-2 Calcium
      00124-38-9 Carbon Dioxide
      00075-15-0 Carbondisulfide
      00124-48-1 Chlorodibromomethane
      00067-66-3 Chloroform
      07440-47-3 Chromium
      103 This table contains information compiled from flowback analyses submitted to the Department by well operators as well as
      flowback information from the Marcellus Shale Coalition Study.
      Revised Draft SGEI S 2011, Page 5-103
      CAS Number Parameters Detected in Flowback from PA and WV Operations
      07440-48-4 Cobalt
      07440-50-8 Copper
      00057-12-5 Cyanide
      00319-85-7 Cyclohexane (beta BHC)
      00058-89-9 Cyclohexane (gamma BHC)
      00055-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
      00075-27-4 Dichlorobromomethane
      00084-74-2 Di-n-butyl phthalate
      00122-39-4 Diphenylamine
      00959-98-8 Endosulfan I
      33213-65-9 Endosulfan II
      07421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde
      00107-21-1 Ethane-1,2-diol / Ethylene Glycol
      00100-41-4 Ethyl Benzene
      00206-44-0 Fluoranthene
      00086-73-7 Fluorene
      16984-48-8 Fluoride
      00076-44-8 Heptachlor
      01024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide
      00193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
      07439-89-6 Iron
      00098-82-8 Isopropylbenzene (cumene)
      07439-92-1 Lead
      07439-93-2 Lithium
      07439-95-4 Magnesium
      07439-96-5 Manganese
      07439-97-6 Mercury
      00067-56-1 Methanol
      00074-83-9 Methyl Bromide
      00074-87-3 Methyl Chloride
      07439-98-7 Molybdenum
      00091-20-3 Naphthalene
      07440-02-0 Nickel
      00086-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
      00085-01-8 Phenanthrene
      00108-95-2 Phenol
      57723-14-0 Phosphorus
      07440-09-7 Potassium
      00057-55-6 Propylene glycol
      00110-86-1 Pyridine
      00094-59-7 Safrole
      07782-49-2 Selenium
      07440-22-4 Silver
      07440-23-5 Sodium
      07440-24-6 Strontium
      14808-79-8 Sulfate
      14265-45-3 Sulfite
      00127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene
      07440-28-0 Thallium
      Revised Draft SGEI S 2011, Page 5-104
      CAS Number Parameters Detected in Flowback from PA and WV Operations
      07440-32-6 Titanium
      00108-88-3 Toluene
      07440-62-2 Vanadium
      07440-66-6 Zinc
      2-Picoline
      Alkalinity
      Alkalinity, Carbonate, as CaCO3
      Alpha radiation
      Aluminum, Dissolved
      Barium Strontium P.S.
      Barium, Dissolved
      Beta radiation
      Bicarbonates
      Biochemical Oxygen Demand
      Cadmium, Dissolved
      Calcium, Dissolved
      Cesium 137
      Chemical Oxygen Demand
      Chloride
      Chromium (VI)
      Chromium (VI), dissolved
      Chromium, (III)
      Chromium, Dissolved
      Cobalt, dissolved
      Coliform
      Color
      Conductivity
      Hardness
      Heterotrophic plate count
      Iron, Dissolved
      Lithium, Dissolved
      Magnesium, Dissolved
      Manganese, Dissolved
      Nickel, Dissolved
      Nitrate, as N
      Nitrogen, Total as N
      Oil and Grease
      Petroleum hydrocarbons
      pH
      Phenols
      Potassium, Dissolved
      Radium
      Radium 226
      Radium 228
      Salt
      Scale Inhibitor
      Selenium, Dissolved
      Silver, Dissolved
      Sodium, Dissolved
      Revised Draft SGEI S 2011, Page 5-105
      CAS Number Parameters Detected in Flowback from PA and WV Operations
      Strontium, Dissolved
      Sulfide
      Surfactants
      Total Alkalinity
      Total Dissolved Solids
      Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
      Total Organic Carbon
      Total Suspended Solids
      Volatile Acids
      Xylenes
      Zinc, Dissolved

  • Jo Ann Van Slyke says:

    Thanks Mr. Baker for listing the toxic chemicals that do not exist for Jean Michael LeTennier. I guess ignorance is bliss Mr. LeTennier maybe North Dakota is not the only area that has their heads in the sand. The only Bull shit is the lies big oil is telling you about how safe fracking is.

  • K M Dean says:

    Education of the sleeping masses is imperative

  • R K Williams says:

    They’ve had 4 years ! What have they been doing all this time?

    Am still waiting to hear about all these environmental disasters in PA but all I see across the state line is people with jobs, landowners with money in their pockets and cheap energy.

    Like anything if fracking isn’t done properly then it could go wrong. But seriously, show me where these wells are polluting water and killing wildlife etc…. happy to be persuaded but all I see is emotion and ranting.

  • Daniel Keough says:

    I have contacted all elected officials in my City of Ithaca, at least those who had not signed on to this—and now most of them have signed it: the mayor and 6/8 members of Common Council!
    Our City officials who have not yet signed onto this specific letter, as of today are Alderpersons Kerslick and Mohlenhoff who I have contacted personally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

SPONSORS

Founding Sponsors

CLOSE X
SIGN UP FOR OUR TOP
NEWS OF THE DAY






* = required information.



Email Marketing Software by VerticalResponse

Privacy policy