NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING—CONFERENCE CALL
NYRU WILL HOLD ITS ANNUAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2006 AT 4:00PM EST
via Conference CALL
ALL MEMBERS ARE INVITED!
DETAILS OF HOW TO CALL IN:
NUMBER: 1800-610-4500
ACCESS CODE: 13442
TIME 4:00PM EST
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Friday, June 16, 2006
Navigation --NYRU Joins For Support
Adirondack Council • Adirondack Mountain Club • American Canoe Association • American Rivers, Mid-Atlantic Region • American Whitewater •The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development • EPL/Environmental Advocates • New York State Conservation Council • New York State League of Conservation Voters • New York Rivers United Parks and Trails New York • Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks Scenic Hudson • Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter
By Hand
June 14, 2006
Hon. Alexander B. Grannis
Member, NYS Assembly
712 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
Re: In support of A. 10048, Public Navigation Rights
Dear Assemblyman Grannis:
We, the undersigned, are writing in support of A. 10048, titled “Public Passage in Navigable Waterways,” whose primary purpose is codification in a single State statute of the longstanding existing common law public right of navigation. Enactment of A. 10048 will make the law concerning this right much more accessible, understandable and transparent. At present the law concerning this public right is scattered in numerous case law decisions and, without passage of this bill, the right will continue to be difficult to find and difficult to interpret, causing continued confusion and conflict between riparian landowners and waterway users.
We recognize that you were a prime sponsor of this legislation when the bill was active in the 1989 – 1991 period, when it passed the Assembly in 1990, and we appreciate the key role that you have played in re-introducing it at this time. The continuity that you have provided, after action on the earlier legislation was placed on hold in June 1991 at the beginning of the 9-year court case concerning the South Branch of the Moose River, has been critical in moving ahead again towards enactment.
The successful conclusion of the Moose River case in the Court of Appeals, important as it is, did not lessen the need for this legislation.
The same problems of inaccessibility to the law and difficulty in interpreting numerous applicable cases still exists. Also, this is a statewide issue, not limited to the Adirondacks despite the focus there. The fact that conservation easements have been acquired by the State on thousands of acres of timber lands in the Adirondacks providing much new access on navigable rivers in that region, doesn’t mean that a comprehensive statewide solution isn’t needed to the problems already described.
A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg 2
A. 10048 is written in plain English; it is easy to understand. The bill assures riparian landowners that the public has no right to be on private property other than to make necessary portages incidental to the public right of navigation and then only to the minimum extent required to accomplish those purposes. It also authorizes riparian landowners to establish portage routes on their land along the shores of navigable waterways. It references existing provisions of the General Obligations Law, reassuring landowners that they have no extra responsibility or duty of care, beyond normal, to keep their premises safe for those who are exercising the public right of navigation.
It has been nearly four decades since Paul Jamieson, the dean of Adirondack canoeing, began to call attention to the longstanding existence of these public rights. Later he advocated strongly for the legislation, now numbered A. 10048. It has been 16 years since this legislation was first introduced in 1989. After all of this time and considering the positive findings of the Court of Appeals in the Moose River case, settling the key issue that caused the hiatus in the legislation in those earlier times, it is more than time for this bill to be enacted. It is time for the State of New York to definitively describe, in a single statue and in plain English, and give visibility to this public right, a right that has had a shadowy existence in the labyrinth of the common law for 228 years. Thank you for all that you are doing to ensure passage of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Brian Houseal, Executive Director
Adirondack Council
Neil Woodworth, Executive Director
Adirondack Mountain Club
Pamela S. Dillon, Executive Director
American Canoe Association
Stephanie D. Lindloff, Associate Director, Dam Programs
American Rivers, Mid-Atlantic Region
Mark Singleton, Executive Director
American Whitewater
Tom Alworth, Executive Director
The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development
Robert J. Moore, Executive Director
EPL/Environmental Advocates
Wally John, Legislative Vice-President
New York State Conservation Council
A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg. 3
Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director
New York State League of Conservation Voters
Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
New York Rivers United
Robin Dropkin, Executive Director
Parks and Trails New York
Peter Bauer, Executive Director
Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks
Ned Sullivan, Executive Director
Scenic Hudson
Roger T. Gray and John Nemjo, Co-chairs, Adirondack Committee
Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter
By Hand
June 14, 2006
Hon. Alexander B. Grannis
Member, NYS Assembly
712 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
Re: In support of A. 10048, Public Navigation Rights
Dear Assemblyman Grannis:
We, the undersigned, are writing in support of A. 10048, titled “Public Passage in Navigable Waterways,” whose primary purpose is codification in a single State statute of the longstanding existing common law public right of navigation. Enactment of A. 10048 will make the law concerning this right much more accessible, understandable and transparent. At present the law concerning this public right is scattered in numerous case law decisions and, without passage of this bill, the right will continue to be difficult to find and difficult to interpret, causing continued confusion and conflict between riparian landowners and waterway users.
We recognize that you were a prime sponsor of this legislation when the bill was active in the 1989 – 1991 period, when it passed the Assembly in 1990, and we appreciate the key role that you have played in re-introducing it at this time. The continuity that you have provided, after action on the earlier legislation was placed on hold in June 1991 at the beginning of the 9-year court case concerning the South Branch of the Moose River, has been critical in moving ahead again towards enactment.
The successful conclusion of the Moose River case in the Court of Appeals, important as it is, did not lessen the need for this legislation.
The same problems of inaccessibility to the law and difficulty in interpreting numerous applicable cases still exists. Also, this is a statewide issue, not limited to the Adirondacks despite the focus there. The fact that conservation easements have been acquired by the State on thousands of acres of timber lands in the Adirondacks providing much new access on navigable rivers in that region, doesn’t mean that a comprehensive statewide solution isn’t needed to the problems already described.
A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg 2
A. 10048 is written in plain English; it is easy to understand. The bill assures riparian landowners that the public has no right to be on private property other than to make necessary portages incidental to the public right of navigation and then only to the minimum extent required to accomplish those purposes. It also authorizes riparian landowners to establish portage routes on their land along the shores of navigable waterways. It references existing provisions of the General Obligations Law, reassuring landowners that they have no extra responsibility or duty of care, beyond normal, to keep their premises safe for those who are exercising the public right of navigation.
It has been nearly four decades since Paul Jamieson, the dean of Adirondack canoeing, began to call attention to the longstanding existence of these public rights. Later he advocated strongly for the legislation, now numbered A. 10048. It has been 16 years since this legislation was first introduced in 1989. After all of this time and considering the positive findings of the Court of Appeals in the Moose River case, settling the key issue that caused the hiatus in the legislation in those earlier times, it is more than time for this bill to be enacted. It is time for the State of New York to definitively describe, in a single statue and in plain English, and give visibility to this public right, a right that has had a shadowy existence in the labyrinth of the common law for 228 years. Thank you for all that you are doing to ensure passage of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Brian Houseal, Executive Director
Adirondack Council
Neil Woodworth, Executive Director
Adirondack Mountain Club
Pamela S. Dillon, Executive Director
American Canoe Association
Stephanie D. Lindloff, Associate Director, Dam Programs
American Rivers, Mid-Atlantic Region
Mark Singleton, Executive Director
American Whitewater
Tom Alworth, Executive Director
The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development
Robert J. Moore, Executive Director
EPL/Environmental Advocates
Wally John, Legislative Vice-President
New York State Conservation Council
A.10048 June 14, 2006 Pg. 3
Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director
New York State League of Conservation Voters
Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
New York Rivers United
Robin Dropkin, Executive Director
Parks and Trails New York
Peter Bauer, Executive Director
Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks
Ned Sullivan, Executive Director
Scenic Hudson
Roger T. Gray and John Nemjo, Co-chairs, Adirondack Committee
Sierra Club – Atlantic Chapter
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Action Alert: Clean Water Rule Making
New York Rivers United
P.O. Box 1460, Rome, NY 13442
www,newyorkriversunited.org
Tel. (315) 339-2097 Fax (315)339-6028
Email:newyorkriversunited.org
ACTION ALERT
Please HELP To Protect Our Wetlands and Streams From Damaging"“Mitigation" Rule – Send Comments to the EPA and Corps Today
There is simply no comparison: natural wetlands and streams are more ecologically sound and are better for purifying drinking water, protecting against flooding, maintaining water quality, and providing habitat than streams and wetlands constructed to "replace" destroyed natural water resources.
Despite the poor track record of the mitigation program to date, in March of this year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) jointly proposed a rule revising the standards governing compensatory mitigation for aquatic resources that allows for vastly greater flexibility in meeting mitigation requirements. By making it easier to compensate for destroying ecologically crucial streams and wetlands, this proposal will effectively promote, not discourage continued destruction.
The public can comment on this rule until June 30. Please weigh in yourself by sending a letter to the EPA by email to: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov, or by US mail to: USEPA Docket Center, Attention Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0020, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Below is a sample letter that can be used:
SAMPLE LETTER:
To the EPA and Army Corps Water Docket:
I am writing in opposition to the recently proposed compensatory mitigation rule (Docket No. EPA-HW-OW-2006-0020). Our nation’s wetlands and streams provide habitat for a variety of species, improve water quality, and protect communities by reducing flooding. The proposed rule would weaken protections for these waters by sanctioning uncertain mitigation practices, effectively encouraging the increased destruction of these important water resources.
Your agencies have a long-standing and accepted sequence to deal with impacts to streams and wetlands: adverse impacts should be avoided whenever possible, unavoidable impacts should be minimized as much as possible, and only then should mitigation be considered. The proposed rule undermines this critical sequence with its overwhelming focus on mitigation.
This rule promotes an “anything goes” approach with no scientific backing. Under this proposal completely filling in streams could be “mitigated” by creating a wetland twenty miles away, or destroying wetlands could be “mitigated” by preserving upland buffer areas that are not even wet—this approach does nothing to protect our nation’s waters
The proposal puts too much discretion in the hands of each Corps’ district engineer to approve almost anything as mitigation, fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated at all, and blatantly promotes the mitigation banking industry, taking into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances.
This rule fails entirely to further the national goal of “no net loss” of wetlands in any way and also fails to promote the health of our essential wetlands and streams. This rule needs to be significantly rewritten to treat mitigation as a last resort and to ensure that the best science is used to protect and enhance our nation’s streams and wetlands. If those principles cannot be fully integrated into the proposal, then this rule should be withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Address
City, State Zip Code
MORE BACKGROUND:
MAIN PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING
• The proposal ignores the fact that compensatory mitigation should be the last resort. While the rule does include some brief language requiring avoidance and minimization of impacts before mitigation is considered, the language is not as comprehensive as current guidelines. Further, the proposed rule undermines the bedrock principle of “avoid and minimize first” by encouraging reliance on unproven and inadequate compensatory mitigation practices.
• The proposal authorizes an “anything goes” approach to mitigation. The new rule purports to embrace a “watershed approach” – aligning wetland and stream mitigation with the needs of the watershed. But the rule actually punts on any real watershed approach to guiding mitigation. It does not require creation of watershed plans to guide mitigation, and doesn’t even require existing plans to be used. Instead, the Corps will simply take the word of the project applicant as to how their project benefits the watershed, even if a rarer type of wetland is replaced with a more common and easily restored type, or even if mitigation occurs far from the impact site.
• The proposal leaves far too much to the discretion of the district engineer. The rule language suggests much, but requires little. In setting requirements for mitigation, the word “may” is used 18 times and “should” is used 38 times instead of non-discretionary words such as “must” or “shall,” allowing enormous discretion to the District Engineers to waive requirements. Here are just three examples:
- ... overall compensatory mitigation project should be provided long-term protection...
- The real estate instrument for the long-term protection of the compensatory mitigation site should restrict or prohibit incompatible uses (e.g., clear cutting)...
- ... the district engineer should apply a higher mitigation ratio if the requirements are to be met through the use of preservation credits.
- The district engineer could even allow destruction of a stream to be “mitigated” by creating or preserving a wetland and/or its upland buffer many miles away.
• The rule fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated. There is no scientific data showing that the functions of headwater streams, and wetlands such as bogs and fens, can be reproduced. The rule purports to provide for replacement of the services of these systems, when it would really offer only poor substitutes that do not replace the functions of these streams and wetlands.
• The rule’s blatant promotion of the mitigation banking industry is inappropriate. The rule sets up a strong preference for the use of mitigation banks over other forms of mitigation. The rule goes so far as to eliminate the main competition of mitigation banks – “in-lieu-fee mitigation” entirely (instead of simply developing equivalent standards) and takes into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances. This is despite the fact that the only study to look at the success of mitigation banks compared to other forms of mitigation found it to be no better at replacing wetlands lost to development.
• The rule fails to provide essential improvements in monitoring and enforcement. The proposed rule leaves to the discretion of the district engineer whether monitoring should measure success in achieving functions and for how long. Effective measurement of success over a minimum of 5 years, and longer when necessary, should be mandatory. Also, required enforcement measures should be articulated in the rule.
• The rule allows for preservation of existing wetlands and streams -- and even the preservation of dry uplands -- as "mitigation" for the destruction of other wetlands or streams.
The rule allows for nearly unlimited use of preservation of existing wetlands, buffers and even uplands as mitigation. While all can enhance mitigation sites, preservation of existing water resources does not replace the functions or acreage of those that are destroyed. Why would a developer even bother with risky restoration projects when they could simply buy up existing wetlands and put an easement on them? There isn’t even any hard requirement that higher mitigation ratios be required for such “mitigation.” The rule should limit the use of preservation practices to augmenting restoration and replacement projects that achieve, on their own, at least an acre replacement for ever
NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION IN CONJUCTION WITH THE CLEAN WATER NETWORK, WHICH NYRU IS A MEMBER OF. WE THANK THEM FOR THEIR ASSIISTANCE.
New York Rivers United
DEDICATED TO CONSERVE, PROTECT AND RESTORE NEW YORK'S RIVERS
P.O. Box 1460, Rome, NY 13442
www,newyorkriversunited.org
Tel. (315) 339-2097 Fax (315)339-6028
Email:newyorkriversunited.org
ACTION ALERT
Please HELP To Protect Our Wetlands and Streams From Damaging"“Mitigation" Rule – Send Comments to the EPA and Corps Today
There is simply no comparison: natural wetlands and streams are more ecologically sound and are better for purifying drinking water, protecting against flooding, maintaining water quality, and providing habitat than streams and wetlands constructed to "replace" destroyed natural water resources.
Despite the poor track record of the mitigation program to date, in March of this year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) jointly proposed a rule revising the standards governing compensatory mitigation for aquatic resources that allows for vastly greater flexibility in meeting mitigation requirements. By making it easier to compensate for destroying ecologically crucial streams and wetlands, this proposal will effectively promote, not discourage continued destruction.
The public can comment on this rule until June 30. Please weigh in yourself by sending a letter to the EPA by email to: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov, or by US mail to: USEPA Docket Center, Attention Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0020, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Below is a sample letter that can be used:
SAMPLE LETTER:
To the EPA and Army Corps Water Docket:
I am writing in opposition to the recently proposed compensatory mitigation rule (Docket No. EPA-HW-OW-2006-0020). Our nation’s wetlands and streams provide habitat for a variety of species, improve water quality, and protect communities by reducing flooding. The proposed rule would weaken protections for these waters by sanctioning uncertain mitigation practices, effectively encouraging the increased destruction of these important water resources.
Your agencies have a long-standing and accepted sequence to deal with impacts to streams and wetlands: adverse impacts should be avoided whenever possible, unavoidable impacts should be minimized as much as possible, and only then should mitigation be considered. The proposed rule undermines this critical sequence with its overwhelming focus on mitigation.
This rule promotes an “anything goes” approach with no scientific backing. Under this proposal completely filling in streams could be “mitigated” by creating a wetland twenty miles away, or destroying wetlands could be “mitigated” by preserving upland buffer areas that are not even wet—this approach does nothing to protect our nation’s waters
The proposal puts too much discretion in the hands of each Corps’ district engineer to approve almost anything as mitigation, fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated at all, and blatantly promotes the mitigation banking industry, taking into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances.
This rule fails entirely to further the national goal of “no net loss” of wetlands in any way and also fails to promote the health of our essential wetlands and streams. This rule needs to be significantly rewritten to treat mitigation as a last resort and to ensure that the best science is used to protect and enhance our nation’s streams and wetlands. If those principles cannot be fully integrated into the proposal, then this rule should be withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Address
City, State Zip Code
MORE BACKGROUND:
MAIN PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING
• The proposal ignores the fact that compensatory mitigation should be the last resort. While the rule does include some brief language requiring avoidance and minimization of impacts before mitigation is considered, the language is not as comprehensive as current guidelines. Further, the proposed rule undermines the bedrock principle of “avoid and minimize first” by encouraging reliance on unproven and inadequate compensatory mitigation practices.
• The proposal authorizes an “anything goes” approach to mitigation. The new rule purports to embrace a “watershed approach” – aligning wetland and stream mitigation with the needs of the watershed. But the rule actually punts on any real watershed approach to guiding mitigation. It does not require creation of watershed plans to guide mitigation, and doesn’t even require existing plans to be used. Instead, the Corps will simply take the word of the project applicant as to how their project benefits the watershed, even if a rarer type of wetland is replaced with a more common and easily restored type, or even if mitigation occurs far from the impact site.
• The proposal leaves far too much to the discretion of the district engineer. The rule language suggests much, but requires little. In setting requirements for mitigation, the word “may” is used 18 times and “should” is used 38 times instead of non-discretionary words such as “must” or “shall,” allowing enormous discretion to the District Engineers to waive requirements. Here are just three examples:
- ... overall compensatory mitigation project should be provided long-term protection...
- The real estate instrument for the long-term protection of the compensatory mitigation site should restrict or prohibit incompatible uses (e.g., clear cutting)...
- ... the district engineer should apply a higher mitigation ratio if the requirements are to be met through the use of preservation credits.
- The district engineer could even allow destruction of a stream to be “mitigated” by creating or preserving a wetland and/or its upland buffer many miles away.
• The rule fails to address the fact that many aquatic systems cannot be recreated. There is no scientific data showing that the functions of headwater streams, and wetlands such as bogs and fens, can be reproduced. The rule purports to provide for replacement of the services of these systems, when it would really offer only poor substitutes that do not replace the functions of these streams and wetlands.
• The rule’s blatant promotion of the mitigation banking industry is inappropriate. The rule sets up a strong preference for the use of mitigation banks over other forms of mitigation. The rule goes so far as to eliminate the main competition of mitigation banks – “in-lieu-fee mitigation” entirely (instead of simply developing equivalent standards) and takes into account the economic needs of this industry over the needs of the watershed in certain circumstances. This is despite the fact that the only study to look at the success of mitigation banks compared to other forms of mitigation found it to be no better at replacing wetlands lost to development.
• The rule fails to provide essential improvements in monitoring and enforcement. The proposed rule leaves to the discretion of the district engineer whether monitoring should measure success in achieving functions and for how long. Effective measurement of success over a minimum of 5 years, and longer when necessary, should be mandatory. Also, required enforcement measures should be articulated in the rule.
• The rule allows for preservation of existing wetlands and streams -- and even the preservation of dry uplands -- as "mitigation" for the destruction of other wetlands or streams.
The rule allows for nearly unlimited use of preservation of existing wetlands, buffers and even uplands as mitigation. While all can enhance mitigation sites, preservation of existing water resources does not replace the functions or acreage of those that are destroyed. Why would a developer even bother with risky restoration projects when they could simply buy up existing wetlands and put an easement on them? There isn’t even any hard requirement that higher mitigation ratios be required for such “mitigation.” The rule should limit the use of preservation practices to augmenting restoration and replacement projects that achieve, on their own, at least an acre replacement for ever
NEW YORK RIVERS UNITED PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION IN CONJUCTION WITH THE CLEAN WATER NETWORK, WHICH NYRU IS A MEMBER OF. WE THANK THEM FOR THEIR ASSIISTANCE.
New York Rivers United
DEDICATED TO CONSERVE, PROTECT AND RESTORE NEW YORK'S RIVERS
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
NYRU Celebrates Court Decision
PRESS RELEASE
Date: May 16, 2006
For release: Immediately
Contact: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
(315)339-2097
New York Rivers United Celebrates
Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court Decision
NYRU Says Decisive Ruling Directly Affects New York’s Rivers
Rome,NY – A Rome-based statewide river conservation organization is celebrating
a unanimous May 15, 2006, U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirms states’ rights to protect their rivers from water quality problems caused by hydropower dams.
In January 2006, New York Rivers United (NYRU) filed an amicus brief in the nationally-significant case supporting the state of Maine’s right to protect the water quality of its rivers. In yesterday’s decisive ruling, the Court rejected a foreign company’s bid to exempt five hydroelectric dams it owns in Maine from a 35-year-old provision in the federal Clean Water Act.
“If the hydropower industry’s court challenge had been successful, rivers across the nation would lose this vital protection and would return to being used primarily to generate profits for a few energy companies at the expense of lost benefits to local communities,” NYRU executive director Bruce Carpenter said. “The hydro industry’s challenge would have turned the clock backward on river restoration. It could have rendered our state incapable of setting even basic conditions for the operation of hydropower dams within the state.”
There are more than 150 federally-licensed hydropower dams in New York State. “Since the majority of the rivers in New York (e.g., Mohawk, Oswego, Beaver, Black, Salmon, West Canada Creek) have multiple dams, most of them producing hydropower, this Supreme Court case directly affects New York’s rivers,” Carpenter said.
Carpenter said, “This decisive ruling is a major victory for who love rivers and those who have worked diligently to protect our free-flowing rivers resources. It is especially rewarding here in New York where the Clean Water Act has been used extensively to restore rivers through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process.”
- more -
Carpenter said this vital court decision recognizes well-established science that dams can have a huge impact on water quality. He said, “Many of New York’s dams provide benefits, yet they have also caused considerable harm to rivers, as well as to local communities. Hydro dams have dried up entire river sections, depleted fisheries, degraded river ecosystems, and diminished recreational and economic opportunities on rivers across New York State.”
Since 1992, NYRU has worked closely with the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), encouraging the agency used to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to require hydroelectric dams to mitigate their adverse impacts on rivers. The result of this was hundreds of river miles restored, improved fish protection and passage, and greater use by local communities.
As an amicus party to the case, NYRU strongly supported the state of Maine’s right to establish requirements for dams on its rivers. Carpenter said, “We strongly encouraged New York State to join this effort and help organize efforts across the country to fight this issue. The effort was joined by the Bush administration, a bipartisan group of 36 state attorneys general, a coalition of more than four dozen conservation and fishing groups, American Indian tribes, leading river scientists and engineers, and others that filed ‘friend of the Court’ briefs. The issue was clear: dams can hurt water quality, so water quality protection laws have to apply.”
Carpenter said, “We hope that the Court will now will apply this same common sense approach to the remaining Clean Water Act cases before it and affirm that all waters of the United States are deserving of federal protection.”
Carpenter has participated in virtually all hydropower licensing and relicensing proceedings in New York since 1992, more than 50 in all. He is an active member of the national Hydropower Reform Coalition's steering committee and is recognized as a state and national leader in this specialized field.
#
Date: May 16, 2006
For release: Immediately
Contact: Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director
(315)339-2097
New York Rivers United Celebrates
Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court Decision
NYRU Says Decisive Ruling Directly Affects New York’s Rivers
Rome,NY – A Rome-based statewide river conservation organization is celebrating
a unanimous May 15, 2006, U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirms states’ rights to protect their rivers from water quality problems caused by hydropower dams.
In January 2006, New York Rivers United (NYRU) filed an amicus brief in the nationally-significant case supporting the state of Maine’s right to protect the water quality of its rivers. In yesterday’s decisive ruling, the Court rejected a foreign company’s bid to exempt five hydroelectric dams it owns in Maine from a 35-year-old provision in the federal Clean Water Act.
“If the hydropower industry’s court challenge had been successful, rivers across the nation would lose this vital protection and would return to being used primarily to generate profits for a few energy companies at the expense of lost benefits to local communities,” NYRU executive director Bruce Carpenter said. “The hydro industry’s challenge would have turned the clock backward on river restoration. It could have rendered our state incapable of setting even basic conditions for the operation of hydropower dams within the state.”
There are more than 150 federally-licensed hydropower dams in New York State. “Since the majority of the rivers in New York (e.g., Mohawk, Oswego, Beaver, Black, Salmon, West Canada Creek) have multiple dams, most of them producing hydropower, this Supreme Court case directly affects New York’s rivers,” Carpenter said.
Carpenter said, “This decisive ruling is a major victory for who love rivers and those who have worked diligently to protect our free-flowing rivers resources. It is especially rewarding here in New York where the Clean Water Act has been used extensively to restore rivers through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process.”
- more -
Carpenter said this vital court decision recognizes well-established science that dams can have a huge impact on water quality. He said, “Many of New York’s dams provide benefits, yet they have also caused considerable harm to rivers, as well as to local communities. Hydro dams have dried up entire river sections, depleted fisheries, degraded river ecosystems, and diminished recreational and economic opportunities on rivers across New York State.”
Since 1992, NYRU has worked closely with the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), encouraging the agency used to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to require hydroelectric dams to mitigate their adverse impacts on rivers. The result of this was hundreds of river miles restored, improved fish protection and passage, and greater use by local communities.
As an amicus party to the case, NYRU strongly supported the state of Maine’s right to establish requirements for dams on its rivers. Carpenter said, “We strongly encouraged New York State to join this effort and help organize efforts across the country to fight this issue. The effort was joined by the Bush administration, a bipartisan group of 36 state attorneys general, a coalition of more than four dozen conservation and fishing groups, American Indian tribes, leading river scientists and engineers, and others that filed ‘friend of the Court’ briefs. The issue was clear: dams can hurt water quality, so water quality protection laws have to apply.”
Carpenter said, “We hope that the Court will now will apply this same common sense approach to the remaining Clean Water Act cases before it and affirm that all waters of the United States are deserving of federal protection.”
Carpenter has participated in virtually all hydropower licensing and relicensing proceedings in New York since 1992, more than 50 in all. He is an active member of the national Hydropower Reform Coalition's steering committee and is recognized as a state and national leader in this specialized field.
#
Action ALERT: Clean Water
ACTION ALERT :YOUR HELP NEEDED NOW
What we are asking you to do:
Ask New York’s House Members to VOTE YES on the Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Clean Water Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill!
Next week, Representatives Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Jim Leach (R-IA) and John Dingell (D-MI) will offer an amendment to the EPA/Interior Appropriations Bill when it is on the floor of the House that will prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from continuing to implement the destructive 2003 "No Protection" policy guidance that leaves thousands of waters and wetlands unprotected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This Amendment will restrict EPA from spending money to implement this policy and begin to restore federal anti-pollution safeguards to our Nation’s waters.
Many Congressional leaders recognized the danger of this policy guidance and signed letters seeking repeal of the 2003 policy guidance (Senate letters: Oct. 16, 2003, Aug. 4, 2004, Aug. 5 2004; House letter: Nov. 24, 2003). But now – for the first time since the destructive policy was issued – there will actually be an up-or-down vote in Congress on this most important CWA issue! The vote is anticipated for May 17th. Please help us WIN this critical vote!
History of the 2003 “No Protection” Policy Guidance
· In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States (SWANCC) limited federal authority under the CWA to regulate certain “isolated” wetlands.
· In 2003, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) issued a joint policy guidance that further limited federal application of the CWA to waters across the country. Ostensibly, this guidance was offered to clarify issues of jurisdiction in light of the SWANCC decision and subsequent case law, but it is unnecessary and harmful.
· EPA has estimated that more than 20 million acres of wetlands (20% of the wetlands in the U.S., excluding Alaska) and countless miles of small streams are at risk under this policy.
· A Congressional investigation was requested to assess ACOE wetland permitting after the 2003 policy guidance was issued. Two reports by the U.S. General Accounting Office document ACOE’s lack of uniform or publicly available criteria for determining wetland jurisdiction, and further criticize ACOE’s lack of documentation of rationales when non-jurisdictional determinations are made.
For more information on the SWANCC decision and 2003 Policy Guidance: http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/watershed/you_can_do/442
The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act
Although passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act (CWARA) is the ultimate solution to reaffirm protections for all waters under the CWA, Congress has a unique opportunity with the Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Clean Water Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill to take a first step towards stopping this destructive 2003 policy that targets so called “isolated” waters.
For more information on CWARA: http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/watershed/you_can_do/579
To write to NY Congressional Representatives and ask them to cosponsor CWARA: http://ga1.org/campaign/CWARA_carabell_rapanos_clone
TAKE ACTION: Call you Representative and ask for the staffer handling the Interior-EPA Appropriations Bill. Contact information and Talking Points are provided below.
Contact Information:
Rep. Timothy H. Bishop (D-1) (202) 225-3826 Rep. Steve Israel (D-2) (202) 225-3335
Rep. Peter T. King (R-3) (202) 225-7896 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-4) (202) 225-5516
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-5) (202) 225-2601 Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-6) (202) 225-3461
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-7) (202) 225-3965 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-8) (202) 225-5635
Rep. Anthony D. Weiner (D-9) (202) 225-6616 Rep. Edolphus Town (D-10) (202) 225-5936
Rep. Major R. Owens (D-11) (202) 225-6231 Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-12) (202) 225-2361
Rep. Vito Fossella (R-13) (202) 225-3371 Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-14) (202) 225-7944
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-15) (202) 225-4365 Rep. José E. Serrano (D-16) (202) 225-4361
Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-17) (202) 225-2464 Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-18) (202) 225-6506
Rep. Sue W. Kelly (R-19) (202) 225-5441 Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-20) (202) 225-5614
Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-21) (202) 225-5076 Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-22) (202) 225-6335
Rep. John M. McHugh (R-23) (202) 225-4611 Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-24) (202) 225-3665
Rep. James T. Walsh (R-25) (202) 225-3701 Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-26) (202) 225-5265
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-27) (202) 225-3306 Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-28) (202) 225-3615
Rep. John R. “Randy” Kuhl (R-29) (202) 225-3161
If you prefer to send e-mail, find your Representative’s contact information here: http://www.congress.org
Talking Points:
· For three years the EPA/ACOE 2003 policy guidance has led to decisions stripping Clean Water Act protections from thousands of acres of wetlands and miles of streams, ponds and other vital waters all across the country and in New York.
· Although passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act is the ultimate solution to reaffirm protections for all waters, Congress has a unique opportunity to put a stop to this destructive policy by voting FOR the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell Clean Water Amendment to the Interior/EPA Appropriations Bill.
· The Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Amendment will restrict EPA from spending money to implement this destructive policy and will begin to restore federal anti-pollution safeguards to our Nation’s waters.
· EPA has estimated that more than 20 million acres of wetlands (20% of the wetlands in the U.S., excluding Alaska) and countless miles of small streams are at risk under this policy. No comprehensive study has assessed the full measure of wetlands and waters that have lost protection in New York. Nonetheless, the Attorney General’s Office found that approximately 66-67% of wetlands at study areas near Lake Ontario and Millbrook lost protection under the policy guidance. New York City Department of Environmental Conservation estimates that 22% of wetlands and 30-34% of streams in the City’s 2,000 square mile drinking water supply watershed have lost federal protection.
· These threatened waters are the lifeblood of our Nation, and protecting them is essential to maintain diverse water systems, filter pollutants and safeguard our drinking water supplies, replenish groundwater aquifers, alleviate flooding, provide recreational opportunities, promote a healthy economy, and provide habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife.
· Please encourage [Congressperson X] to support the Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Clean Water Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill.
What we are asking you to do:
Ask New York’s House Members to VOTE YES on the Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Clean Water Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill!
Next week, Representatives Jim Oberstar (D-MN), Jim Leach (R-IA) and John Dingell (D-MI) will offer an amendment to the EPA/Interior Appropriations Bill when it is on the floor of the House that will prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from continuing to implement the destructive 2003 "No Protection" policy guidance that leaves thousands of waters and wetlands unprotected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This Amendment will restrict EPA from spending money to implement this policy and begin to restore federal anti-pollution safeguards to our Nation’s waters.
Many Congressional leaders recognized the danger of this policy guidance and signed letters seeking repeal of the 2003 policy guidance (Senate letters: Oct. 16, 2003, Aug. 4, 2004, Aug. 5 2004; House letter: Nov. 24, 2003). But now – for the first time since the destructive policy was issued – there will actually be an up-or-down vote in Congress on this most important CWA issue! The vote is anticipated for May 17th. Please help us WIN this critical vote!
History of the 2003 “No Protection” Policy Guidance
· In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States (SWANCC) limited federal authority under the CWA to regulate certain “isolated” wetlands.
· In 2003, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) issued a joint policy guidance that further limited federal application of the CWA to waters across the country. Ostensibly, this guidance was offered to clarify issues of jurisdiction in light of the SWANCC decision and subsequent case law, but it is unnecessary and harmful.
· EPA has estimated that more than 20 million acres of wetlands (20% of the wetlands in the U.S., excluding Alaska) and countless miles of small streams are at risk under this policy.
· A Congressional investigation was requested to assess ACOE wetland permitting after the 2003 policy guidance was issued. Two reports by the U.S. General Accounting Office document ACOE’s lack of uniform or publicly available criteria for determining wetland jurisdiction, and further criticize ACOE’s lack of documentation of rationales when non-jurisdictional determinations are made.
For more information on the SWANCC decision and 2003 Policy Guidance: http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/watershed/you_can_do/442
The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act
Although passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act (CWARA) is the ultimate solution to reaffirm protections for all waters under the CWA, Congress has a unique opportunity with the Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Clean Water Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill to take a first step towards stopping this destructive 2003 policy that targets so called “isolated” waters.
For more information on CWARA: http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/watershed/you_can_do/579
To write to NY Congressional Representatives and ask them to cosponsor CWARA: http://ga1.org/campaign/CWARA_carabell_rapanos_clone
TAKE ACTION: Call you Representative and ask for the staffer handling the Interior-EPA Appropriations Bill. Contact information and Talking Points are provided below.
Contact Information:
Rep. Timothy H. Bishop (D-1) (202) 225-3826 Rep. Steve Israel (D-2) (202) 225-3335
Rep. Peter T. King (R-3) (202) 225-7896 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-4) (202) 225-5516
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-5) (202) 225-2601 Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-6) (202) 225-3461
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-7) (202) 225-3965 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-8) (202) 225-5635
Rep. Anthony D. Weiner (D-9) (202) 225-6616 Rep. Edolphus Town (D-10) (202) 225-5936
Rep. Major R. Owens (D-11) (202) 225-6231 Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-12) (202) 225-2361
Rep. Vito Fossella (R-13) (202) 225-3371 Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-14) (202) 225-7944
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-15) (202) 225-4365 Rep. José E. Serrano (D-16) (202) 225-4361
Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-17) (202) 225-2464 Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-18) (202) 225-6506
Rep. Sue W. Kelly (R-19) (202) 225-5441 Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-20) (202) 225-5614
Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-21) (202) 225-5076 Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-22) (202) 225-6335
Rep. John M. McHugh (R-23) (202) 225-4611 Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-24) (202) 225-3665
Rep. James T. Walsh (R-25) (202) 225-3701 Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-26) (202) 225-5265
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-27) (202) 225-3306 Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-28) (202) 225-3615
Rep. John R. “Randy” Kuhl (R-29) (202) 225-3161
If you prefer to send e-mail, find your Representative’s contact information here: http://www.congress.org
Talking Points:
· For three years the EPA/ACOE 2003 policy guidance has led to decisions stripping Clean Water Act protections from thousands of acres of wetlands and miles of streams, ponds and other vital waters all across the country and in New York.
· Although passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act is the ultimate solution to reaffirm protections for all waters, Congress has a unique opportunity to put a stop to this destructive policy by voting FOR the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell Clean Water Amendment to the Interior/EPA Appropriations Bill.
· The Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Amendment will restrict EPA from spending money to implement this destructive policy and will begin to restore federal anti-pollution safeguards to our Nation’s waters.
· EPA has estimated that more than 20 million acres of wetlands (20% of the wetlands in the U.S., excluding Alaska) and countless miles of small streams are at risk under this policy. No comprehensive study has assessed the full measure of wetlands and waters that have lost protection in New York. Nonetheless, the Attorney General’s Office found that approximately 66-67% of wetlands at study areas near Lake Ontario and Millbrook lost protection under the policy guidance. New York City Department of Environmental Conservation estimates that 22% of wetlands and 30-34% of streams in the City’s 2,000 square mile drinking water supply watershed have lost federal protection.
· These threatened waters are the lifeblood of our Nation, and protecting them is essential to maintain diverse water systems, filter pollutants and safeguard our drinking water supplies, replenish groundwater aquifers, alleviate flooding, provide recreational opportunities, promote a healthy economy, and provide habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife.
· Please encourage [Congressperson X] to support the Oberstar/Dingell/Leach Clean Water Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill.
Monday, April 10, 2006
New York Rivers United: Action Alert -Write NY's commsioners
NYRU
P.O. Box 1460, Rome, NY 13442 Tel. (315) 339-2097 Fax (315) 339-6028 Email:newyorkriversunited.org
ACTION ALERT
ACTION PROPOSED BY ORSANCO A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
FOR WATER QUALITY
CWA – GOING BACKWARDS AGAIN?
RE: ANOTHER WET WEATHER PROPOSAL
Currently the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) is considering a proposed plan to lower water quality standards for the Ohio River Basin. Under this proposal, substantial amounts of raw sewage will be dumped into the Ohio River following a wet weather event. Approval of the proposed revision would sacrifice the region’s potential for local economic development, and would have many negative health and environmental implications for local communities.
NOTE: NEW YORK’S ALLEGHENY RIVER IS A PART OF HEADWATERS OF
THE OHIO SYSTEM AND COULD COME UNDER THIS NEW RULE-MAKING;
NY’s COMMSSSIONERS WILL VOTE!
We believe that ORSANCO should serve to protect and preserve the Ohio River Basin. Tolerance of sewage and other pollutants should not be increased. We need strict policies to lessen the environmental impacts and risks to human health associated with sewage pollution. Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act more than thirty years ago, conditions of the Ohio River have improved dramatically, yet there are still many steps we need to take in the name of clean water. The approval of weakened water quality standards would be a giant step in the wrong direction.
THIS IS YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE CWA
We understand that the financial issue at hand (fixing failing sewer systems) is a multi-billion dollar task. Furthermore, many communities located along the Ohio River Basin are currently under Consent Decree. However, the long-term economic, environmental, and social risks involved with failing to correct the problem now will cause many adverse effects for local communities in the future. We need to invest in improving infrastructure now, or the problem will continue to build.
ORSANCO should enforce existing water quality standards under the Clean Water Act instead of changing them to allow more sewage to pollute the environment in which we live, work and recreate. We believe that ORSANCO has the ability to be a positive force in our nation’s fight for improved water quality. However, we find it disappointing that the Commission would consider approval of lowered water quality standards for the Ohio River. Improvements in infrastructure must be made. If they are not, we will continue to pass this growing problem to future generations. Sacrificing residents’ public health, recreational opportunities and quality of life is not a solution.
DEDICATED TO CONSERVE, PROTECT AND RESTORE NEW YORK'S RIVERS
UNDERMINING RECREATIONAL VALUES
After attending both the Technical Committee and Commissioners Meetings in February, NGO’s felt that a move forward with this proposal would be a serious mistake. To date, there is insufficient data to address the various environmental and economic issues at hand. We believe that a decision to lower recreational status for the Ohio River based on incomplete “observations” is dangerous. We urge the Commissioners to consider the consequences that such a decision would have on the surrounding communities.
Furthermore, NGO’s are concerned by the Commission’s decision to exclude some of the major communities in this “participatory” decision-making process. Louisville, Kentucky; Evansville, Indiana; and Wheeling and Huntington, West Virginia, have not been included in the public hearing process. These communities were engaged in the initial public review process but have been inexplicably overlooked for the final stages of review. These communities are plagued by the same dilemma facing many municipalities located along the Ohio River. These areas are already negatively affected by sewage pollution. These effects would worsen if lowered water quality standards were to be adopted by the Commission. We urge you to include these important locations in the discussions this coming spring.
ACTION YOU CAN TAKE!
WRITE TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND
EXPRESS YOUR DISSATISFACTION ON THIS PROPOSED RULE! (See Attachements)
State your opposition to the proposed water quality standard revisions
and strenuously urge the Commission to reject the proposal to lower
water quality standards.
MAKE IT CLEAR: WE BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL SETS A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT FOR OUR NATION WATERS.
For more information contact:
Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director Becky McClatchey
New York Rivers United Sierra Club
Bruce_carpenter@newyorkriversunited.org 515 Wyoming Ave
Cincinnati, Oh 45215
mailto:becky.mcclatchey@sierraclub.org
NY INFO: The Allegheny River Basin in New York State comprises a portion of the headwaters of the larger Ohio River Basin. A total of approximately 1,900 square miles of the basin lie within New York State, populated by about 170,000 people. It consists of most of Cattaraugus and Chautauqua Counties and a small portion of Allegheny County. The geology of the area is mainly a highly dissected plateau of deep, flat-bottomed valleys. The nature of the area varies from the rugged, heavily wooded Allegheny Hills along the Pennsylvania border to the flatter lands in the north and west. The basin is primarily rural-agricultural with several population centers and industries located along the major waterways. Other primary activities include silviculture, oil and gas production, and recreation. Steady progress has been made toward cleaning up the waters of the Allegheny River Basin. Most notable have been some of the industrial and municipal sewage treatment plant abatement efforts.
P.O. Box 1460, Rome, NY 13442 Tel. (315) 339-2097 Fax (315) 339-6028 Email:newyorkriversunited.org
ACTION ALERT
ACTION PROPOSED BY ORSANCO A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
FOR WATER QUALITY
CWA – GOING BACKWARDS AGAIN?
RE: ANOTHER WET WEATHER PROPOSAL
Currently the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) is considering a proposed plan to lower water quality standards for the Ohio River Basin. Under this proposal, substantial amounts of raw sewage will be dumped into the Ohio River following a wet weather event. Approval of the proposed revision would sacrifice the region’s potential for local economic development, and would have many negative health and environmental implications for local communities.
NOTE: NEW YORK’S ALLEGHENY RIVER IS A PART OF HEADWATERS OF
THE OHIO SYSTEM AND COULD COME UNDER THIS NEW RULE-MAKING;
NY’s COMMSSSIONERS WILL VOTE!
We believe that ORSANCO should serve to protect and preserve the Ohio River Basin. Tolerance of sewage and other pollutants should not be increased. We need strict policies to lessen the environmental impacts and risks to human health associated with sewage pollution. Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act more than thirty years ago, conditions of the Ohio River have improved dramatically, yet there are still many steps we need to take in the name of clean water. The approval of weakened water quality standards would be a giant step in the wrong direction.
THIS IS YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE CWA
We understand that the financial issue at hand (fixing failing sewer systems) is a multi-billion dollar task. Furthermore, many communities located along the Ohio River Basin are currently under Consent Decree. However, the long-term economic, environmental, and social risks involved with failing to correct the problem now will cause many adverse effects for local communities in the future. We need to invest in improving infrastructure now, or the problem will continue to build.
ORSANCO should enforce existing water quality standards under the Clean Water Act instead of changing them to allow more sewage to pollute the environment in which we live, work and recreate. We believe that ORSANCO has the ability to be a positive force in our nation’s fight for improved water quality. However, we find it disappointing that the Commission would consider approval of lowered water quality standards for the Ohio River. Improvements in infrastructure must be made. If they are not, we will continue to pass this growing problem to future generations. Sacrificing residents’ public health, recreational opportunities and quality of life is not a solution.
DEDICATED TO CONSERVE, PROTECT AND RESTORE NEW YORK'S RIVERS
UNDERMINING RECREATIONAL VALUES
After attending both the Technical Committee and Commissioners Meetings in February, NGO’s felt that a move forward with this proposal would be a serious mistake. To date, there is insufficient data to address the various environmental and economic issues at hand. We believe that a decision to lower recreational status for the Ohio River based on incomplete “observations” is dangerous. We urge the Commissioners to consider the consequences that such a decision would have on the surrounding communities.
Furthermore, NGO’s are concerned by the Commission’s decision to exclude some of the major communities in this “participatory” decision-making process. Louisville, Kentucky; Evansville, Indiana; and Wheeling and Huntington, West Virginia, have not been included in the public hearing process. These communities were engaged in the initial public review process but have been inexplicably overlooked for the final stages of review. These communities are plagued by the same dilemma facing many municipalities located along the Ohio River. These areas are already negatively affected by sewage pollution. These effects would worsen if lowered water quality standards were to be adopted by the Commission. We urge you to include these important locations in the discussions this coming spring.
ACTION YOU CAN TAKE!
WRITE TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND
EXPRESS YOUR DISSATISFACTION ON THIS PROPOSED RULE! (See Attachements)
State your opposition to the proposed water quality standard revisions
and strenuously urge the Commission to reject the proposal to lower
water quality standards.
MAKE IT CLEAR: WE BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL SETS A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT FOR OUR NATION WATERS.
For more information contact:
Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director Becky McClatchey
New York Rivers United Sierra Club
Bruce_carpenter@newyorkriversunited.org 515 Wyoming Ave
Cincinnati, Oh 45215
mailto:becky.mcclatchey@sierraclub.org
NY INFO: The Allegheny River Basin in New York State comprises a portion of the headwaters of the larger Ohio River Basin. A total of approximately 1,900 square miles of the basin lie within New York State, populated by about 170,000 people. It consists of most of Cattaraugus and Chautauqua Counties and a small portion of Allegheny County. The geology of the area is mainly a highly dissected plateau of deep, flat-bottomed valleys. The nature of the area varies from the rugged, heavily wooded Allegheny Hills along the Pennsylvania border to the flatter lands in the north and west. The basin is primarily rural-agricultural with several population centers and industries located along the major waterways. Other primary activities include silviculture, oil and gas production, and recreation. Steady progress has been made toward cleaning up the waters of the Allegheny River Basin. Most notable have been some of the industrial and municipal sewage treatment plant abatement efforts.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
NYRU Concerned With Black River Dams --Watertown Times
Note: The Following Story was published in the Watertown Times
Plan to Build Hydro Dams in Black River Hits a Snag
By Cory Nealon
Times Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP's plan to fast track the construction of two dams on the Black River appears to have hit a brick wall.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation asked the company to conduct a more thorough study of the breached dams in Great Bend and Felts Mills.
Erie Boulevard wants to amend its license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to include the two sites. In doing so, it would skip a three-part study that typically takes two years to complete.
The company's proposal irked DEC and at least one environmental group.
"The department will likely require studies over a season or more," DEC spokeswoman Maureen Wren said. "Based on the information presented by Erie Boulevard, we weren't sure they were ready to do that."
Erie Boulevard, which is a subsidiary of Brookfield Power Corp., Toronto -- the former Brascan Corp. -- announced its plans after Black River Felts Mills LLC filed applications with FERC in November for exclusive rights to study the dams.
Bruce R. Carpenter, executive director of New York Rivers United, Rome, said Erie Boulevard is trying to skirt the application process.
"When Black River filed their applications, these people realized they could lose those sites," he said. "They talked with their lawyers and came up with this plan to move further along in the process."
Jon D. Elmer, general manager of the company's Lake Ontario division, did not return a phone call Tuesday.
However, last month he said the company hopes to start building within a year and wrap up the projects in the summer of 2008 at the latest.
Mrs. Wren said DEC wants Erie Boulevard to study a number of environmental issues, including what effect the dams would have on recreation, fish spawning areas and water quality.
Mr. Carpenter said the company's most recent study of the Black River was done eight years ago, which is too old considering the scope of the project.
"They're asking us to let them do the studies post filing, and I'm not willing to do that," he said.
Meanwhile, Black River Felts Mills, which is a subsidiary of Black River Energy LLC, Charlotte, N.C., said it would study the project for about two years before starting building in 2009. The parent company operates a 55-megawatt steam plant on Fort Drum.
While FERC issues hydroelectric licenses, DEC holds a trump card. Ms. Wren said to receive a license, DEC must first issue a water quality certificate.
If FERC and DEC agree to open Erie Boulevard's license and include the two sites, local municipalities will have a chance to renegotiate land settlements they signed about 10 years ago.
The company operates six hydroelectric dams on the Black River from Herrings to the city of Watertown. Five of those dams -- Sewalls Island, two in the village of Black River and one each in Deferiet and Herrings -- are part of the license it wants to open.
That would bode well for the city, which has been trying to make Sewalls Island and the Black River more accessible for recreational activities.
Downtown Development Specialist Christine E. Hoffman said the existing license doesn't allow the city to negotiate a new deal for 15 more years.
Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us | Help & Tech Support
Plan to Build Hydro Dams in Black River Hits a Snag
By Cory Nealon
Times Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Erie Boulevard Hydropower LP's plan to fast track the construction of two dams on the Black River appears to have hit a brick wall.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation asked the company to conduct a more thorough study of the breached dams in Great Bend and Felts Mills.
Erie Boulevard wants to amend its license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to include the two sites. In doing so, it would skip a three-part study that typically takes two years to complete.
The company's proposal irked DEC and at least one environmental group.
"The department will likely require studies over a season or more," DEC spokeswoman Maureen Wren said. "Based on the information presented by Erie Boulevard, we weren't sure they were ready to do that."
Erie Boulevard, which is a subsidiary of Brookfield Power Corp., Toronto -- the former Brascan Corp. -- announced its plans after Black River Felts Mills LLC filed applications with FERC in November for exclusive rights to study the dams.
Bruce R. Carpenter, executive director of New York Rivers United, Rome, said Erie Boulevard is trying to skirt the application process.
"When Black River filed their applications, these people realized they could lose those sites," he said. "They talked with their lawyers and came up with this plan to move further along in the process."
Jon D. Elmer, general manager of the company's Lake Ontario division, did not return a phone call Tuesday.
However, last month he said the company hopes to start building within a year and wrap up the projects in the summer of 2008 at the latest.
Mrs. Wren said DEC wants Erie Boulevard to study a number of environmental issues, including what effect the dams would have on recreation, fish spawning areas and water quality.
Mr. Carpenter said the company's most recent study of the Black River was done eight years ago, which is too old considering the scope of the project.
"They're asking us to let them do the studies post filing, and I'm not willing to do that," he said.
Meanwhile, Black River Felts Mills, which is a subsidiary of Black River Energy LLC, Charlotte, N.C., said it would study the project for about two years before starting building in 2009. The parent company operates a 55-megawatt steam plant on Fort Drum.
While FERC issues hydroelectric licenses, DEC holds a trump card. Ms. Wren said to receive a license, DEC must first issue a water quality certificate.
If FERC and DEC agree to open Erie Boulevard's license and include the two sites, local municipalities will have a chance to renegotiate land settlements they signed about 10 years ago.
The company operates six hydroelectric dams on the Black River from Herrings to the city of Watertown. Five of those dams -- Sewalls Island, two in the village of Black River and one each in Deferiet and Herrings -- are part of the license it wants to open.
That would bode well for the city, which has been trying to make Sewalls Island and the Black River more accessible for recreational activities.
Downtown Development Specialist Christine E. Hoffman said the existing license doesn't allow the city to negotiate a new deal for 15 more years.
Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us | Help & Tech Support
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
New York Rivers United: Dam Safety Hearing
New York State Assembly Hearing:
Dam Safety In New York State
February 9, 2006
Testimony by Bruce R. Carpenter
Executive Director
New York Rivers United
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this critically important issue facing our state.
First, some back ground. My name is Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director of New York Rivers United (NYRU). NYRU is 501© 3, statewide environmental conservation organization based in Rome, NY. Our members boat, hunt, fish and are generally river enthusiasts from across New York State. Our mission is “to conserve, protect and restore New York’s rivers.”
NYRU was founded because of a dam issue, FERC dams, those dams licensed and under the jurisdiction of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In 1992, NYRU was created to take on the relicensing issues of hydro dams through the FERC process, to represent the public views, to ensure there is a balance between hydro production and the environment. Since 1993, more than 50 hydro facilities have come up for relicensing. NYRU has played a major role in restoring instream flows, creating whitewater flows, bank stabilization, increased spawning grounds for migratory fish, and base flows for biodiversity and recreation on hundreds of river miles.
Our interest in dams and in watersheds in general led us to begin to look at dams across the state: their use and condition and how they are currently affecting our waterways. Our major problem was that dam removal was often not even being considered as a solution on some waterways. NYRU knows that removal may often be a very viable option.
All of New York State’s 17 major watersheds are fragmented and their health degraded by dams. There are 6,701 dams that impede our state’s streams and rivers. These dams exact a heavy toll on rivers and river life. Even small dams can have big impacts on the aquatic environment of a stream. Foremost among the casualties are fish passage, water quality and the downstream movement of sediments.
While our focus was on environmental issues, we soon released that many of these dams posed even greater threats in the communities where they were located. Many communities throughout the New York State face serious public safety and economic threats as a result of abandoned and deteriorating dams. These once-productive dams no longer serve in any beneficial way. The costs of maintenance, the costs to the environment and the liability associated with them make them a burden on the communities where they are located. The vast majority of these structures are municipally owned dams, not by choice but as the result of owner abandonment.
Our review led us to the state’s Dam Safety program, to ask questions of its practices and policies. To determine if, in fact, there was an adequate program to deal with the more than 6.000 dams. We found that there was a major problems. lack of staff, Second, that all or most of the program consumed by dams that had already failed, as opposed to a proactive campaign to eliminate, or at least reduce the overall burden and risk that communities faced. And, lastly, transparency, a lack of information, and a reluctance to publicly identify dams that had potential problems, a position we still fail to understand.
NYRU has been active on this problem, not by attacking those who do the work but working on policy efforts to reduce this risk. We are active members of the Barrier Task Force, organized by DEC, comprised of agencies and NGO’s working to address this situation. We have helped in developing criteria to assess some of these older structures and are in the process of groundtruthing that data.
We are currently working under an EPA grant to do evaluation of first barrier dams on Great Lakes tributaries. The goal is to identify projects that impede the restoration of native fish species. Some will be removed. We have been active in Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, which has identified stream and river restoration as a major goal. We are now working on the effort to secure funding for this type of activity.
But the bottom line is, this is a policy decision that must come from you and other leaders in Albany. If dam removal is to be part of the solution -- and we feel it should be -- you in the legislature must provide that direction.
We have entered the 21st century. Dam removal is a tool to repair damages that were not fully understood in times before. We know now that not all dams should be left in place. You must provide the laws; you must provide the funding to protect New York’s communities and enable the state’s agencies to expedite the process for protecting our waterways.
The possibility of dam removal is an option that should be considered on its merits. Dam removal for safety and for the express purpose of river and ecosystem restoration may be a worthwhile option. This removes the hazard, eliminates the liability and costs, and restores the river's natural values.
Thank you for this opportunity to address you today. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter more fully with any of you at any time.
Ten Reasons Why Dams Damage Rivers
(1) Dams reduce river levels
By diverting water for power, dams remove water needed for healthy in-stream ecosystems. Stretches below dams are often completely de-watered.
(2) Dams block rivers
Dams prevent the flow of plants and nutrients, impede the migration of fish and other wildlife, and block recreational use. Fish passage structures can enable a percentage of fish to pass around a dam, but multiple dams along a river make safe travel unlikely.
(3) Dams slow rivers
Many fish species, such as salmon, depend on steady flows to flush them downriver early in their life and guide them upstream years later to spawn. Stagnant reservoir pools disorient migrating fish and significantly increase the duration of their migration.
(4) Dams alter water temperatures
By slowing water flow, most dams increase water temperatures. Other dams decrease temperatures by releasing cooled water from the reservoir bottom. Fish and other species are sensitive to these temperature irregularities, which often destroy native populations.
(5) Dams alter timing of flows
By withholding and then releasing water to generate power for peak demand periods, dams cause downstream stretches to alternate between no water and powerful surges that erode soil and vegetation, and flood or strand wildlife. These irregular releases destroy natural seasonal flow variations that trigger natural growth and reproduction cycles in many species.
(6) Dams fluctuate reservoir levels
Peaking power operations can cause dramatic changes in reservoir water levels -- often up to 40 feet -- which degrade shorelines and disturb fisheries, waterfowl, and bottom-dwelling organisms.
(7) Dams decrease oxygen levels in reservoir waters
When oxygen-deprived water is released from behind the dam, it kills fish downstream.
(8) Dams hold back silt, debris, and nutrients
By slowing flows, dams allow silt to collect on river bottoms and bury fish spawning habitat. Silt trapped above dams accumulates heavy metals and other pollutants. Gravel, logs and other debris are also trapped by dams, eliminating their use downstream as food and habitat.
(9) Dam turbines cut up fish
Following currents downstream, fish are drawn into and cut up by power turbines. When fish are trucked or barged around the dams, they experience increased stress and disease and decreased homing instincts.
(10) Dams increase predator risk
Warm, murky reservoirs often favor predators of naturally occurring species. In addition, passage through fish ladders or turbines injure or stun fish, making them easy prey for flying predators like gulls and herons.
Environmental Reasons for Removal
The process of blocking a moving river inherently changes the ecosystem, destroying the natural processes dependent on that system and hindering recreational activities. The impacts can include:
• Inundating wildlife habitat
• Reducing river levels
• Blocking or slowing river flows
• Altering timing of flows
• Fluctuating reservoir levels
• Altering water temperatures
• Decreasing water oxygen levels
• Obstructing the movement of gravel, woody debris, and nutrients
• Blocking or inhibiting upstream and downstream fish passage
• Altering public river access
• Impacting negatively the aesthetics and character of a natural setting
Benefits of Dam Removal
Removal is often the most environmentally-sound, cost-effective way to address the various safety, economic, and ecological issues surrounding an aging and/or obsolete dam. Dam removal has been shown to provide significant benefits to a river, river system, and riverside communities, including:
• Restoring river habitat
• Improving water quality
• Reestablishing fish passage upstream and downstream
• Restoring threatened and endangered species
• Removing dam safety risks and associated liability costs
• Saving taxpayer dollars
• Improving aesthetics of the river
• Improving fishing opportunities
• Improving recreational boating opportunities
• Improving public access to the river, both up and downstream
• Recreating “new” land for parks or landowners
• Improving riverside recreation
• Increasing tourism
"
Dam Safety In New York State
February 9, 2006
Testimony by Bruce R. Carpenter
Executive Director
New York Rivers United
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this critically important issue facing our state.
First, some back ground. My name is Bruce Carpenter, Executive Director of New York Rivers United (NYRU). NYRU is 501© 3, statewide environmental conservation organization based in Rome, NY. Our members boat, hunt, fish and are generally river enthusiasts from across New York State. Our mission is “to conserve, protect and restore New York’s rivers.”
NYRU was founded because of a dam issue, FERC dams, those dams licensed and under the jurisdiction of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In 1992, NYRU was created to take on the relicensing issues of hydro dams through the FERC process, to represent the public views, to ensure there is a balance between hydro production and the environment. Since 1993, more than 50 hydro facilities have come up for relicensing. NYRU has played a major role in restoring instream flows, creating whitewater flows, bank stabilization, increased spawning grounds for migratory fish, and base flows for biodiversity and recreation on hundreds of river miles.
Our interest in dams and in watersheds in general led us to begin to look at dams across the state: their use and condition and how they are currently affecting our waterways. Our major problem was that dam removal was often not even being considered as a solution on some waterways. NYRU knows that removal may often be a very viable option.
All of New York State’s 17 major watersheds are fragmented and their health degraded by dams. There are 6,701 dams that impede our state’s streams and rivers. These dams exact a heavy toll on rivers and river life. Even small dams can have big impacts on the aquatic environment of a stream. Foremost among the casualties are fish passage, water quality and the downstream movement of sediments.
While our focus was on environmental issues, we soon released that many of these dams posed even greater threats in the communities where they were located. Many communities throughout the New York State face serious public safety and economic threats as a result of abandoned and deteriorating dams. These once-productive dams no longer serve in any beneficial way. The costs of maintenance, the costs to the environment and the liability associated with them make them a burden on the communities where they are located. The vast majority of these structures are municipally owned dams, not by choice but as the result of owner abandonment.
Our review led us to the state’s Dam Safety program, to ask questions of its practices and policies. To determine if, in fact, there was an adequate program to deal with the more than 6.000 dams. We found that there was a major problems. lack of staff, Second, that all or most of the program consumed by dams that had already failed, as opposed to a proactive campaign to eliminate, or at least reduce the overall burden and risk that communities faced. And, lastly, transparency, a lack of information, and a reluctance to publicly identify dams that had potential problems, a position we still fail to understand.
NYRU has been active on this problem, not by attacking those who do the work but working on policy efforts to reduce this risk. We are active members of the Barrier Task Force, organized by DEC, comprised of agencies and NGO’s working to address this situation. We have helped in developing criteria to assess some of these older structures and are in the process of groundtruthing that data.
We are currently working under an EPA grant to do evaluation of first barrier dams on Great Lakes tributaries. The goal is to identify projects that impede the restoration of native fish species. Some will be removed. We have been active in Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, which has identified stream and river restoration as a major goal. We are now working on the effort to secure funding for this type of activity.
But the bottom line is, this is a policy decision that must come from you and other leaders in Albany. If dam removal is to be part of the solution -- and we feel it should be -- you in the legislature must provide that direction.
We have entered the 21st century. Dam removal is a tool to repair damages that were not fully understood in times before. We know now that not all dams should be left in place. You must provide the laws; you must provide the funding to protect New York’s communities and enable the state’s agencies to expedite the process for protecting our waterways.
The possibility of dam removal is an option that should be considered on its merits. Dam removal for safety and for the express purpose of river and ecosystem restoration may be a worthwhile option. This removes the hazard, eliminates the liability and costs, and restores the river's natural values.
Thank you for this opportunity to address you today. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter more fully with any of you at any time.
Ten Reasons Why Dams Damage Rivers
(1) Dams reduce river levels
By diverting water for power, dams remove water needed for healthy in-stream ecosystems. Stretches below dams are often completely de-watered.
(2) Dams block rivers
Dams prevent the flow of plants and nutrients, impede the migration of fish and other wildlife, and block recreational use. Fish passage structures can enable a percentage of fish to pass around a dam, but multiple dams along a river make safe travel unlikely.
(3) Dams slow rivers
Many fish species, such as salmon, depend on steady flows to flush them downriver early in their life and guide them upstream years later to spawn. Stagnant reservoir pools disorient migrating fish and significantly increase the duration of their migration.
(4) Dams alter water temperatures
By slowing water flow, most dams increase water temperatures. Other dams decrease temperatures by releasing cooled water from the reservoir bottom. Fish and other species are sensitive to these temperature irregularities, which often destroy native populations.
(5) Dams alter timing of flows
By withholding and then releasing water to generate power for peak demand periods, dams cause downstream stretches to alternate between no water and powerful surges that erode soil and vegetation, and flood or strand wildlife. These irregular releases destroy natural seasonal flow variations that trigger natural growth and reproduction cycles in many species.
(6) Dams fluctuate reservoir levels
Peaking power operations can cause dramatic changes in reservoir water levels -- often up to 40 feet -- which degrade shorelines and disturb fisheries, waterfowl, and bottom-dwelling organisms.
(7) Dams decrease oxygen levels in reservoir waters
When oxygen-deprived water is released from behind the dam, it kills fish downstream.
(8) Dams hold back silt, debris, and nutrients
By slowing flows, dams allow silt to collect on river bottoms and bury fish spawning habitat. Silt trapped above dams accumulates heavy metals and other pollutants. Gravel, logs and other debris are also trapped by dams, eliminating their use downstream as food and habitat.
(9) Dam turbines cut up fish
Following currents downstream, fish are drawn into and cut up by power turbines. When fish are trucked or barged around the dams, they experience increased stress and disease and decreased homing instincts.
(10) Dams increase predator risk
Warm, murky reservoirs often favor predators of naturally occurring species. In addition, passage through fish ladders or turbines injure or stun fish, making them easy prey for flying predators like gulls and herons.
Environmental Reasons for Removal
The process of blocking a moving river inherently changes the ecosystem, destroying the natural processes dependent on that system and hindering recreational activities. The impacts can include:
• Inundating wildlife habitat
• Reducing river levels
• Blocking or slowing river flows
• Altering timing of flows
• Fluctuating reservoir levels
• Altering water temperatures
• Decreasing water oxygen levels
• Obstructing the movement of gravel, woody debris, and nutrients
• Blocking or inhibiting upstream and downstream fish passage
• Altering public river access
• Impacting negatively the aesthetics and character of a natural setting
Benefits of Dam Removal
Removal is often the most environmentally-sound, cost-effective way to address the various safety, economic, and ecological issues surrounding an aging and/or obsolete dam. Dam removal has been shown to provide significant benefits to a river, river system, and riverside communities, including:
• Restoring river habitat
• Improving water quality
• Reestablishing fish passage upstream and downstream
• Restoring threatened and endangered species
• Removing dam safety risks and associated liability costs
• Saving taxpayer dollars
• Improving aesthetics of the river
• Improving fishing opportunities
• Improving recreational boating opportunities
• Improving public access to the river, both up and downstream
• Recreating “new” land for parks or landowners
• Improving riverside recreation
• Increasing tourism
"
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
NYRU Press Releases: NYRU Files Amicus Brief In U. S. Supreme Court Case
Rome,NY – A Rome-based statewide river advocacy group last week filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a nationally-significant Clean Water Act case to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court next month. New York Rivers United (NYRU) is fighting to retain a 35-year old provision in the federal CWA that gives states the right to protect their rivers from water quality problems caused by hydropower dams, according to NYRU executive director Bruce Carpenter.
“Hydro dams can devastate fisheries and river ecosystems, limit recreational and economic opportunities, and even dry up entire stretches of river,” said Carpenter. “States have been using the Clean Water Act for more than 30 years to require dam owners to implement modest changes that offset most of these problems.”
On February 21, 2006, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case attempting to overturn this protection. “If the hydropower industry wins, rivers everywhere will lose,” Carpenter said.
There are more than 150 federally-licensed hydropower dams in New York State. “Since the majority of the rivers in New York (e.g., Mohawk, Oswego, Beaver, Black, Salmon, West Canada Creek) have multiple dams, most of them producing hydropower, this Supreme Court case will directly affect New York’s rivers,” Carpenter said.
The issue before the Supreme Court is the S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection case brought by a South African-owned paper company that owns several dams on Maine’s Presumpscot River. Last week, NYRU joined a broad coalition filing a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Maine’s right to protect its rivers from hydropower-related harm.
“Hydropower dams have a profound impact on New York’s aquatic systems, affecting water quality, fisheries, wildlife, river-based recreation, and tourism,” said Carpenter. “Under authority of the Clean Water Act, New York and other states have required dam owners to protect these assets. If the hydropower industry’s court challenge is successful, rivers across the nation will lose this vital protection and will return to being used primarily to generate profits for a few energy companies at the expense of lost benefits to local communities.”
Carpenter has participated in virtually all hydropower licensing and relicensing proceedings in New York since 1992, more than 50 in all. He is an active member of the national Hydropower Reform Coalition's steering committee and is recognized as a state and national leader in this specialized field.
In addition to NYRU and other environmental and recreation groups, other parties filing briefs in support of Maine include the Bush Administration, the Attorneys General of 35 states and territories, several American Indian Tribes, sportfishing groups, leading rivers scientists and engineers, Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), and others. “The hydropower industry’s position in this case is totally self-serving,” said John Seebach, National Coordinator of the Hydropower Reform Coalition in Washington, DC.
Carpenter leads the Hydro Reform’s New York State Coalition. He said, “When you look at the diversity of the groups that filed in opposition – everyone from environmentalists to the Bush administration - you can really see how the industry has isolated itself from the mainstream.”
New York Rivers United was created in 1992 principally to address the environmental and recreational consequences of the relicensing of hydropower projects on various rivers across the state. New York State had 43 separate hydro dams up for relicensing as part of the nation’s “Class of ’93,” the most of any state in the country.
These hydro dams are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which grants 30-50 year operating licenses that balance energy production with other equally important public values.
NYRU is an active intervener in all of the New York State hydro relicensing cases — as well as applications for new licenses — currently under review by FERC and takes the lead in coordinating the efforts of state hydro coalition interveners in these cases. NYRU is also a party in all of the proceedings before the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to certify the projects’ future compliance with state water quality standards. (It is this opportunity to protect water quality that is being threatened by next month’s court proceeding.) In proceedings before FERC and DEC, NYRU submits technical data and analysis and legal briefs regarding project impacts and alternative operating regimes which would allow economical energy generation while also complying fully with modern environmental law.
By virtue of its involvement in FERC and DEC proceedings, expert knowledge relating to river resource protection, recreation and hydropower development, and ability to represent the public's interest in the non-developmental values of the hydroelectric projects, NYRU has demonstrated the potential of restoring rivers through the hydropower licensing process.
Because of NYRU efforts, stretches of New York rivers dammed for more than 50 years are free-flowing again on the Beaver River, the Salmon River, the Sacandaga/Hudson River, the Black River and − most recently − the Raquette River, where NYRU's advocacy led to the successful relicensing affecting 14 dams on 90 miles of this stunning natural resource.
#
“Hydro dams can devastate fisheries and river ecosystems, limit recreational and economic opportunities, and even dry up entire stretches of river,” said Carpenter. “States have been using the Clean Water Act for more than 30 years to require dam owners to implement modest changes that offset most of these problems.”
On February 21, 2006, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case attempting to overturn this protection. “If the hydropower industry wins, rivers everywhere will lose,” Carpenter said.
There are more than 150 federally-licensed hydropower dams in New York State. “Since the majority of the rivers in New York (e.g., Mohawk, Oswego, Beaver, Black, Salmon, West Canada Creek) have multiple dams, most of them producing hydropower, this Supreme Court case will directly affect New York’s rivers,” Carpenter said.
The issue before the Supreme Court is the S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection case brought by a South African-owned paper company that owns several dams on Maine’s Presumpscot River. Last week, NYRU joined a broad coalition filing a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Maine’s right to protect its rivers from hydropower-related harm.
“Hydropower dams have a profound impact on New York’s aquatic systems, affecting water quality, fisheries, wildlife, river-based recreation, and tourism,” said Carpenter. “Under authority of the Clean Water Act, New York and other states have required dam owners to protect these assets. If the hydropower industry’s court challenge is successful, rivers across the nation will lose this vital protection and will return to being used primarily to generate profits for a few energy companies at the expense of lost benefits to local communities.”
Carpenter has participated in virtually all hydropower licensing and relicensing proceedings in New York since 1992, more than 50 in all. He is an active member of the national Hydropower Reform Coalition's steering committee and is recognized as a state and national leader in this specialized field.
In addition to NYRU and other environmental and recreation groups, other parties filing briefs in support of Maine include the Bush Administration, the Attorneys General of 35 states and territories, several American Indian Tribes, sportfishing groups, leading rivers scientists and engineers, Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), and others. “The hydropower industry’s position in this case is totally self-serving,” said John Seebach, National Coordinator of the Hydropower Reform Coalition in Washington, DC.
Carpenter leads the Hydro Reform’s New York State Coalition. He said, “When you look at the diversity of the groups that filed in opposition – everyone from environmentalists to the Bush administration - you can really see how the industry has isolated itself from the mainstream.”
New York Rivers United was created in 1992 principally to address the environmental and recreational consequences of the relicensing of hydropower projects on various rivers across the state. New York State had 43 separate hydro dams up for relicensing as part of the nation’s “Class of ’93,” the most of any state in the country.
These hydro dams are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which grants 30-50 year operating licenses that balance energy production with other equally important public values.
NYRU is an active intervener in all of the New York State hydro relicensing cases — as well as applications for new licenses — currently under review by FERC and takes the lead in coordinating the efforts of state hydro coalition interveners in these cases. NYRU is also a party in all of the proceedings before the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to certify the projects’ future compliance with state water quality standards. (It is this opportunity to protect water quality that is being threatened by next month’s court proceeding.) In proceedings before FERC and DEC, NYRU submits technical data and analysis and legal briefs regarding project impacts and alternative operating regimes which would allow economical energy generation while also complying fully with modern environmental law.
By virtue of its involvement in FERC and DEC proceedings, expert knowledge relating to river resource protection, recreation and hydropower development, and ability to represent the public's interest in the non-developmental values of the hydroelectric projects, NYRU has demonstrated the potential of restoring rivers through the hydropower licensing process.
Because of NYRU efforts, stretches of New York rivers dammed for more than 50 years are free-flowing again on the Beaver River, the Salmon River, the Sacandaga/Hudson River, the Black River and − most recently − the Raquette River, where NYRU's advocacy led to the successful relicensing affecting 14 dams on 90 miles of this stunning natural resource.
#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)