the atlantic chapter of the sierra club — serving new york

S I E R R A A T L A N T I C 1w w w.newyork.s i e r r a c l u b . o r g • w w w. s i e r r a c l u b . o r g

SierraAtlanticThe Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club — Serving New York State Volume 37 Winter 2010

by James Northrup

The regulations on hydrofrackingproposed by the DEC were writ-ten for existing small vertical

New York wells—known in the in-dustry as “stripper wells”—oil wellsthat produce fewer than 10 barrels aday. A horizontal hydrofrack in atight shale formation is from 10 to100 times larger than the fracks puton these small vertical wells; yet theproposed regulations on horizontalhydrofracking of shale gas differ onlyslightly from those imposed on smallvertical wells.

The existing DEC well regulationsare grossly inadequate to regulate ahorizontal hydrofracked well in shalegas. They are a prescription for disas-ter for New York’s drinking water.

Horizontal hydrofracking of shalegas formations is essentially ahydrobaric underground explosion,

i.e., a bomb. A very powerful, verydirty, pipe bomb.

A bomb’s explosive power is afunction of the pressure wave it gen-erates and the mass of air or water itdisplaces. An “air bomb” used in Af-ghanistan as an anti-personnel devicehas a pressure wave of about 500 lbs.per square inch (psi). It can be heardup to 100 miles away. A horizontalhydrofrack in shale can have pres-sures approaching 15,000 psi, or 30times that of an air bomb. That isequivalent to the water pressure sixmiles deep in the ocean.

The volume of fluid in a hydrofrackcan exceed three million gallons, oralmost 24 million pounds of fluid,about the same weight as 7,500 auto-mobiles. The fracking fluid containschemicals that would be illegal touse in warfare under the rules of theGeneva Convention. This all adds upto a massive explosion of a “dirty

bomb” underground.Since the chemicals in most

fracking fluids are hydrocarbons (i.e.,oil-based), they separate from thefrack water, meaning they rise to thetop of the fractures within a matterof days. So, while they represent asmall fraction of the total frackingfluid, they are disproportionate atthe top of the formation—which iswhy they are found in relative abun-dance in adjacent water wells whensuch wells are polluted by shale gasdrilling.

When a shale gas well is hydro-fracked, the explosive power of thefrack breaks up the rock indiscrimi-nately for a considerable distance—far enough to break into nearby aqui-fers—particularly if the frack hits avertical fault that may cause the gas-bearing formation to “communicate”with other strata. This can releasenatural gas—which consists of meth-

ane, butane, propane, and benzene,etc. — into drinking water, alongwith the toxic chemicals in thefracking fluid. Once introduced, thereis no way to remove the gas or thechemicals from the drinking water.

As originally proposed by theDEC, a horizontal hydrofracked shalegas well could be 50 feet from a mu-nicipal drinking water source suchas Lake Otsego. That has been thesetback for “stripper wells” in NewYork; it’s about the width of a smallresidential lot. The well itself can bedrilled under the lake, since it wouldgo out horizontally from the shore.The frack on the well could pen-etrate the aquifers under the lake,which in turn would pollute the lakewith gas and toxic chemicals.

After Otego 2000 protested theproposed regulations, the DEC in-creased the setback to 150 feet from

Scientific and political disputesover drilling Marcellus shalefor natural gas have focused

primarily on the environmentaleffects of pumping millions ofgallons of water and chemicalsdeep underground to blastthrough rocks to release the natu-ral gas.

But University at Buffalo re-searchers have now found thatprocess—called hydraulic fractur-ing or “fracking”—also causes ura-nium that is naturally trapped in-side Marcellus shale to be released,raising additional environmentalconcerns.

The research was recently pre-sented at the annual meeting ofthe Geological Society of Americain Denver.

Marcellus shale is a massiverock formation that stretches fromNew York through Pennsylvania,Ohio and West Virginia, and whichis often described as the nation’slargest source of natural gas.

“Marcellus shale naturally trapsmetals such as uranium and atlevels higher than usually foundnaturally, but lower than manmadecontamination levels,” says TracyBank, Ph.D., assistant professor ofgeology. “My question was, if theystart drilling and pumping millionsof gallons of water into these un-derground rocks, will that forcethe uranium into the solublephase and mobilize it? Will ura-nium then show up in groundwater?”

To find out, Bank and her col-

leagues at UB scanned the surfacesof Marcellus shale samples fromWestern New York and Pennsylva-nia. Using sensitive chemical instru-ments, they created a chemical mapof the surfaces to determine theprecise location in the shale of thehydrocarbons, the organic com-

Tracy Bank, University of Buffalo geologist

Fracking mobilizes uraniumin groundwater, researcher says

Fracking is literally a ‘dirty bomb,’ says former industry insider

by Jurgen Wekerle and Caitlin Pixley

Acontroversial electric powertransmission proposal, theChamplain Hudson Power Ex-

press (CHPE), is racing toward regu-latory approval even though it is un-needed, will undermine genuine re-newal energy, and wreak environ-mental havoc on the Hudson Riverand virgin Canadian forests.

CHPE is pressing for fast-trackapproval from the U.S. Departmentof Energy (DOE) and the NYS PublicService Commission (PSC). If suc-cessful, the boondoggle will qualifyfor $1.52 billion in U.S. Recovery andReinvestment Act loan guaranteeswhich require both the transmissionof renewable electricity and a con-struction start date by September.

The project is a 355-mile, 1,000-megawatt, direct current (DC) sub-marine power cable to begin at theHertel Substation in Quebec, Canada.The cable is to cross the interna-tional border into NYS and will beburied under Lake Champlain andthe Hudson River, causing dredging,PCB and other toxic disturbance andenvironmental damage in its wake.

It would surface in Yonkers at asubstation next to a new civic centerand the MTA Hudson Line railroadstation. That prized location is incom-patible with the best use of the criti-cal riverfront redevelopment district,and conflicts with existing effortsthat are key to the revitalization ofdowntown Yonkers.

To be able to receive federal subsi-dies, the CHPE proposal is being

Greenwashed power line on fasttrack to grab billions in $ubsidies

falsely advertised as a clean, renew-able energy source that will trans-port surplus Quebec wind and hydropower to meet NYS demand andrenewable energy targets. Quebec,however, has no surplus green en-ergy to export, and the touted hydrosources do not yet exist. They are tobe built in the same environmentallydestructive manner as previous JamesBay proposals by Hydro Quebec.

Virgin Canadian forest lands must

continued on page 9

first be clear-cut and flooded, and acomplex of dams and impoundmentsis to be constructed at LowerChurchill Falls on the Quebec/Labra-dor border 1,000 miles away.

Churchill Falls generation andCHPE cable transmission are separatebut companion projects mutuallydependent on each other and on U.S.subsidies without which neither willbe built. If those loan guarantees areapproved, U.S. taxpayers will be pay-ing for the devastation of habitat andwildlife in Canada, and for the collat-eral release of methane and mercuryemissions which pollute air, land andwater resources on both sides of theborder.

Moreover, the proposed hydro-power would be generated from low-

The project would divert New

York wind power to Canada,

then import it as “new”

renewable electricity.

continued on page 9

continued on page 12

WINTER 20102 S I E R R A A T L A N T I C

Sierra Atlantic (ISSN 0164-825X) ispublished quarterly for $1 by the AtlanticChapter of the Sierra Club, 353 HamiltonSt., Albany, NY 12210-1709; 518-426-9144,518-427-0381 (fax)

http://newyork.sierraclub.org/

EDITORS Hal Smith and Dorinda White,[email protected]

ADVERTISING Circulation 40,000. Ad rates,specs and deadlines available uponrequest from Bobbie Josepher,[email protected]

ATLANTIC CHAPTER STAFF

Conservation Program ManagerRoger Downs,[email protected]

Conservation Associate Caitlin Pixley, [email protected] Coordinator Bobbie Josepher,

[email protected]

ATLANTIC CHAPTER OFFICERS

Chair Susan Lawrence, 518-489-5721,[email protected]

Vice Chair Jeff Bohner, 607-621-8241,[email protected]

Secretary James Lane, 212-697-8942,[email protected]

Treasurer Steve Kulick, 315-476-0695,[email protected]

CONSERVATION

Chair Jessica Helm, 631-849-5373,[email protected]

SIERRA ATLANTIC MISSION The mission ofthe Sierra Atlantic is to educate andenlist the people of New York state toprotect and restore the quality of thenatural and human environment. Wewill do this by providing informationabout important environmental issues;sounding an alarm when the environ-ment is threatened; reporting on theactivities, outings and campaigns con-ducted by the Atlantic Chapter; celebrat-ing nature; and inviting our readers tojoin us.

SUBMISSIONSSend us a letter, an

article, news briefs, com-ments, photos, graphics orother items of interest.Contact the editors at thee-mail address above forsubmission format anddetails. When querying,please write “Sierra Atlan-tic” in the subject line.

DEADLINES –WINTER ISSUE

February 15 — Final copy andcamera-ready ads due

March 15 — Newsletter mailedto 37,500 members

Printed on 100% recycled paper

Message from the Chairby Susan Lawrence

Support Chapter’s Work in NYSWe need your help to maintain the Atlantic Chapter’s most critical

conservation efforts. Your membership dues primarily support theClub’s national priorities. Your additional support is needed to strengthenthe Chapter’s work in the state Legislature and throughout the state.

Please use the coupon below to send us your donation. Contributionsand dues to the Sierra Club are not tax-deductible; they support our ef-fective, citizen-based advocacy and lobbying efforts. Thank you.

Yes, I want to help the Atlantic Chapter preserve and protectthe environment of New York state. I am enclosing my gift of:

❑ $500 ❑ $250 ❑ $100 ❑ $60 ❑ $35 ❑ Other $______

❑ Check made payable to Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter is enclosed.

❑ I’d like to make a single payment by credit card.

❑ I'd like to become a sustainer with a $____ monthly or

$____ quarterly credit card donation.

Bill to: ❑ Mastercard ❑ Visa

Acct. no.________________________________ Exp. date____________

Signature____________________________________________________

Name_______________________________________________________

Sierra Club membership no.____________________________________

Street_______________________________________________________

City__________________________________ State ______ZIP________

❑ Please save paper and postage by not sending me a thank you note.

Mail this completed form with your check orcredit card information to:

Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, PO Box 886, Syosset, NY 11791-0886A copy of our latest financial report can be obtained by writing to Sierra Club

Atlantic Chapter, PO Box 886, Syosset, NY 11791-0886, or the NYS Attorney General,Dept. of Law, Charities Bureau, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271.

Iam looking forward to the newadministration of Andrew Cuomoas governor with both hope and

trepidation.In his November policy paper,

“The New NY Agenda: A Plan forAction,” Cuomo writes:

“It is critical that we ensure theprotection of our environment, forourselves and future generations. …Environmental protection efforts canbenefit our economy — creatinggreen jobs while reducing pollution,increasing energy efficiency and pro-tecting water resources — all whilehelping to foster greener, environmen-tally friendly business opportunities.”

But Governor Cuomo and the newLegislature will be working to closean estimated $10 billion deficit forthe coming fiscal year while main-taining essential state programs andaid to localities. So budget supportfor essential environmental programscould once again get lost in theshuffle.

The Atlantic Chapter needs to ad-vocate as hard as we can for criticalongoing environmental programs andnew initiatives, as well as for fundingand for new legislation and regula-tions. Our staff and volunteer leader-ship are gearing up to take advantageof all windows of opportunity.

The Atlantic Chapter endorsedAndrew Cuomo, and I have been ap-pointed to his Transition Team toserve on the Environment, Energyand Parks Committee.

At the national level and in manyother states, the outlook is bleak forreducing greenhouse gas emissions80 percent by 2050, if not sooner. SoNew York must take strong action,building on many initiatives to date,to serve as a standard bearer for ourcountry and the world.

New York is working to update its2009 Energy Plan by 2013 and hasrecently issued a draft “Climate Ac-tion Plan” to reduce greenhouse gasemissions by 80 percent 2050. Thisplan covers all sectors of oureconomy, including power supplyand use, housing, transportation, andbusiness. And the state recently is-sued its 2010 Solid Waste Plan aimedat greatly reducing solid waste in thefirst place and then making handlingof solid waste vastly more sustain-able. These are major steps.

However, we face stark realitiesbecause of the very slow economicrecovery. As a result of devastatingcuts to its budget over the last fewyears, staffing at the Department ofEnvironmental Conservation is at itslowest level since 1983. More than800 staff have been fired in the lasttwo years. Funding for travel, equip-ment, and all sorts of expenses wascut 50 percent in the 2010-2011 budget.

These severe cuts to DEC’s budgetcontinue to hamstring essential pro-grams with:

• huge backlogs of DEC permit

reviews, plus shortfalls in resourcesto stop pollution of our air, waterand land

• a severe shortage of DEC stafffrom all areas of the department toregulate natural gas drilling withhydrofracking — and to monitor thedrilling, if it is allowed

• too few field staff and too littletravel money to support prompt re-sponses to emergencies, and

• more destruction of wetlands asDEC lacks funds to map wetlandsand even to publicize draft wetlandsregulations for public review.

DEC is so underfunded that it can-not fulfill its responsibilities to man-age the U.S. Clean Water, Clean Airand Superfund Acts in New York.

There is some good news. In his“The New NY Agenda,” AndrewCuomo emphasizes the need to curbsprawl and revitalize urban areas

with coordinated planning for hous-ing, transportation, public servicesand environmental protection. This issupported by the 2010 State SmartGrowth Public Infrastructure PolicyAct, which sets funding priorities forthese purposes.

In 2011, with our excellent Albanystaff, our many dedicated volunteersand the support of our 37,000 mem-bers, the Atlantic Chapter will beworking very hard to:

• restore the DEC budget to a suf-ficient level to accomplish its mission

• enact state legislation and regu-lations to protect NYS from thethreats posed by massive drilling of10,000-plus natural gas wells usinghydrofracking

• enact legislation and regulationsand provide funding for many initia-tives to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions by the year 2050, if not wellbefore.

This will not be easy. There willbe many roadblocks. We need toescalate our Chapter’s efforts tomake Governor Cuomo’s words hap-pen. We cannot let the calls for eco-nomic development and balancingthe budget trample the critical needto protect our environment.

Looking ahead to the Cuomo AdministrationWith the state facing a

$10 billion deficit,

environmental protection

may again be pushed aside.E X P L O R E , E N J O Y A N D

P R O T E C T T H E P L A N E T


Your donations to the Atlantic Chapter now are very important to help usfight for our environment.In 2011, the Chapter faces the second consecutive year of severe cuts in

revenue from the national Club. Our tight Chapter budget funds our staff(Roger Downs, Caitlin Pixley, and Bobbie Josepher), assistance to our 11 re-gional Groups around the state, lobbying and conservation work, online com-munications, and the Sierra Atlantic.

If we are to accomplish what we need to do as one of the leading environ-mental organizations in New York, then our members and supporters need togreatly increase their contributions. We have the advantage of being part ofthe national Sierra Club, but also the inherent disadvantage of being muchlower on the totem poll in terms of funds from members’ dues and other sources.

However, in so many ways, working at the state and local level is where therubber hits the road. If you donate directly to the “Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter,”this gives the Chapter flexibility to use the funds for staff lobbying, support ofactivist lobbying and administrative costs.

You can also make a tax-deductible donation to the “Sierra Club Founda-tion,” specifying “Atlantic Chapter” on the memo line. This will direct your do-nation to our conservation, education and litigation work.

The Atlantic Chapter needs your help to make our voices heard loud andclear in these hard times for the economy and the environment!

Thank you for any amount you can donate now. (See coupon, page 2.)Susan Lawrence

Your donations to the work of ourAtlantic Chapter are needed now!

by Moisha Blechman

On November 17, I had anepiphany: there’s little interestin the major media to solve

global warming. On that day, TheNew York Times published a dedi-cated section, ENERGY, culminating ayear without hard-hitting news onglobal warming.

Half the front page featured a pho-tograph of oil rig laborers lookingheroic as they work to extract oil.Behind the oil rig was a forested wil-derness. Under the photo was aheadline in bold red type: “ThereWill Be Fuel. “ The subhead read:“New Oil and Gas Sources Abound,but They Come with Costs.”

The “costs” were a mere listing.Once mentioned, they cleared theway for the good news: “The outlook…now appears to promise large sup-plies of oil and gas from multiplenew sources for decades to come.”

The triumphant joy was palpableas the article went on to say: “Energyexperts expect there will be plenty,perhaps even an abundance of oiland gas.” A rise in liquid fuel con-sumption was expected to increasefrom 92.6 million to 112 millionbarrels a day by 2030. There was nocalculation of how much CO

2 would

be added to the atmosphere and theoceans, and there was no mention ofthe consequences.

Confidence in coalOther headlines in the section

included, “In the Heartland, Still In-vesting in Coal” and “Without a ClearNational Policy on Emissions, NewPlants Spring Up.” Judging by thephotographs, those plants are huge.Clearly, investors have reason to be-lieve that there is no chance theywill shut down soon.

Another headline in the same sec-tion declared, “Some Exceptions tothe Rule, but Pipelines Are Safer.”

Finally, on the last page, were twoarticles on solar installations, but inboth cases the main thrust of the

articles was about the environmentaldownsides of industrial-size solarinstallations.

We can imagine what a section on“Energy” could have been like. Itcould have been very informative onthe many, many new technologies,about which the public knows little,for tapping the sun’s energy, for geo-thermal and for wave energy, and forinnovative technologies reducing allkinds of energy waste. It could haveexplored the difference betweencorporate green-energy creation andsmaller, individual energy solutions.It could have analyzed the financialand environmental implications ofeach to the consumer.

What upset me was that our na-tional newspaper of record, The NewYork Times, had so dramaticallyturned its back on fossil fuel emis-sions reduction. In fact, the newspa-per was saying, in effect: No need toworry—use all the fuel you want.There was no mention of the devas-tating consequences of oil and gasextraction to the environment. Therewas no mention of the precipice onwhich civilization is now poised due

to the 40 percent increase of CO2

already in both the atmosphere andthe oceans, and no mention of theutter folly of burning more.

Although there were two full-pageads, one from Exxon Mobil and onefrom Shell, it was not an advertisingsupplement. These were New YorkTimes news stories.

Compounding this was a front-page article the very same day byDavid Leonhardt,“One Way toTrimthe Deficit: Cultivate Growth.” Unfor-tunately, most “growth” is defined asthe ability to buy more manufacturedgoods, all of which are created by themining of natural resources. Growthtoday is fueled by burning gas, oiland coal and is responsible for everysingle item we buy. “Growth” doesnot imply either sustainability or eco-nomic equity.

It is shocking that the proposedeconomic solution, given front pageprominence, was yet again a formulafrom the past which ignores the im-perative of the present.

Pushing for growthSince then, the magazine section

of the Times has had a featured ar-ticle on the Chinese as consumers bythe same writer, Leonhardt. He ex-horts the Chinese to become a con-sumer society like us. In the subhead,he says, “The stability and health ofthe world economy depends on it.”Apparently, he has not figured outthat the economic system is man-made and can be changed by man.But the laws of nature are absoluteand cannot be changed by man. Anythinker will quickly see that the twoare in conflict. The Times knows bet-ter, but has chosen to push “growth.”Effectively, the Times is promotingthe demise of life. This attitude is notunique to the Times. It is reflected inall the major media.

This is not only the policy of themedia. President Obama said therewill not be any climate change legis-lation this year, next year or the yearafter. He has failed to use his positionto educate the public and to pushCongress on either climate or cleanenergy action. Having made a deci-sion not to lead the world at the cli-mate summit in Copenhagen lastyear, Obama signaled that there will

be nothing forthcoming from himnor the U.S. in the foreseeable futureat any of the annual meetings of theInternational Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC). In effect, the U.S. hassucceeded in diluting the enthusiasmfor creating protocols for CO

2 emis-

sions reductions at UN conferencesto the point where nothing meaning-ful happened at Cancun this year, norwill happen next year at Durban,South Africa.

Silence on consequencesIn fact, there is a silence on the

consequences of consumption and“growth” by all the major media. Forthe last few years, I have noticed thatthe Science Times section has a vir-tual blackout on climate-relatednews. There is no ongoing explana-tion of global warming chemistry orthe many ways in which the chang-ing chemistry and habitat destruc-tion are reflected in plant and animalbehavior, even though fascinatingevidence is reported every week inthe science journals.

What we need to do, and do im-mediately, is obvious. The lack of in-telligent climate policy cannot bedue to either ignorance or stupidity.The New York Times has all the infor-mation on the consequences of past,present and future burning of fossilfuels. The same is true of the majornews sources and the U.S. govern-ment. They know the climate crisisthis planet is facing.

Yet, with no informed public dis-cussion on alternatives, the U.S., withfew limitations, is moving ahead withall possible fossil fuel extraction—whatever the ecological devastation.National policy appears to be assur-ing the public that there will be allthe energy it wants in spite of thecertainty of climate change and oceanacidification.

Profits drive policyThis could be a problem of corpo-

rate structure. Corporate profit is thedriver of governmental policy, notecosystem health. That fact is re-flected in every aspect of energyexploration and production. Oneshould not confuse corporate profitswith economic health. Ecosystemdecline is devastating to economiesand will shut many of them down.

There is one bright spot, and curi-ously it comes from one of the mostsuccessful capitalists in the world,Bill Gates. It has been known foryears that the world needs a zerocarbon emissions target and thatplanetary catastrophe is inevitablewithout a zero carbon emergency-response. Bill Gates gave a lectureduring which he said that zero car-bon emissions should be our onlygoal. At www. Onlyzerocarbon.comyou can hear Gates giving thatspeech and find excellent informa-tion to go with it.

This is a hopeful break in the damof denial. Our own response shouldbe to breach the dam in ourselves.We must push for a zero emissionstarget now.

Moisha Blechman, a member of the NewYork City Group, is chair of theChapter’s Publications Committee.

With no informeddiscussion in the press,the public is beingassured there will beall the dirty energy itwants—in spite of thecertainty it will createclimate change andacidify the oceans.

News media, Washington ignore imperative of zero emissions


by Jessica Helm, Conservation Chair

Conservation Action

Oil and gas industry, clean up your mess!

The gas industry would have usbelieve that shale gas has be-come accessible due to techno-

logical advances. The truth is that thetechnology has only become afford-able because of deliberate changes toimportant public health legislation.

These loopholes have been ex-panded over time, until today the oiland gas industry has almost no obli-gation to keep its mess from affect-ing public health. The consequenceis illness from poisoned land, air andwater—and federal, state and localinstitutions left with costs the publiccannot afford. The following list de-tails major exemptions that the oiland gas lobby has squeezed out ofour most significant national envi-ronmental and health legislation.

Note: The online version of thisarticle links to the relevant chaptersof the 2010 version of the UnitedStates Code maintained by the USHouse of Representatives.

ComprehensiveEnvironmental ResponseCompensation and LiabilityAct (CERCLA)

CERCLA established theSuperfund program in 1980 to en-sure that parties contributing to anenvironmental mess are legally re-sponsible for the cost of cleaning itup — unless that mess is from oil ornatural gas. CERCLA excludes oil andgas products and any chemicals con-tained in them (unless otherwiseregulated).

This exclusion means that oil andgas explorers and producers can cutcorners, spill and leak chemicals, andnot worry about having to clean upthe site or be liable for cleanup. In-stead, they can sell an old well to aspeculator, who produces as much aspossible for as long as possible be-fore abandoning the site. Liability fora cleanup must be proved in courtfor each site. This is an expensive andlengthy process that doesn’t evenbegin until the site is officially con-taminated, by which time the pollu-tion may be spreading beyond thesite boundaries through under-ground aquifers.

Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA)

RCRA (a.k.a. Solid Waste DisposalAct) was created in 1978 to regulatehazardous and solid wastes. However,1988 EPA Regulatory Determination53 FR 25447 and 1993 clarification58 FR 15284 exempt any wastesbrought to the surface in the processof oil and gas well exploration andproduction. They also exempt any-thing that is produced during theremoval of produced water or othercontaminants from the product, in-cluding used fracking fluids, hydro-gen sulfide gas, and gas condensate.Fracturing fluid is therefore hazard-

ous from the time it leaves the manu-facturing facility until it touches theinside of a well, when it is suddenlyno longer considered hazardous un-der federal law!

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)The Safe Drinking Water Act was

initially passed in 1974. The act’s Un-derground Injection Control pro-gram protects underground sourcesof drinking water from contamina-tion by injected fluids. Undergroundinjection is used for storage, forwaste disposal, and for production ofpetrochemicals or geothermal energy.

In 2005, the Energy Policy Actamended the SDWA to exclude hy-draulic fracturing from the definitionof “underground injection.” Section322. The Frac Act, cosponsored byRepresentative Maurice Hinchey andfirst introduced in 2009, would re-move this exemption and requiredisclosure of chemicals injected forhydrofracking.

Clean Water ActOriginal statute (Sec. 1342) ex-

empts storm-water runoff carrying

sediment from oil and gas sites fromregulation, and the exemptions wereexpanded in the 2005 Energy PolicyAct (sec 1362). The 2005 energy actalso exempted fracking materialsused in oil and gas production frombeing considered a pollutant underNational Pollutant Discharge Elimina-tion System, and delegated determi-nation of risk to states. See Section323 of the 2005 Energy Act.

Clean Air ActThe EPA is required to list major

and clustered minor categories ofsources of air pollution, but has notincluded wells or fields, allowingoperators to avoid emissions con-trols standards. National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollut-ants sets maximum limits on pollu-tion from individual sources andrequires maximum achievable con-trol technology to be installed ateach source to reach compliance.

Clusters of smaller sources canadd up to a major source of pollut-ants. A cluster of cement kilns orsteel plants controlled by the entityis counted as a single “aggregated”

source and regulated under the na-tional emission standards of the CleanAir Act, but oil and gas wells andsome compressor and pump stationsare exempt from the same aggrega-tion and remain unregulated. Lowproducing stripper wells are also ex-empt from emissions regulation in1990, and hydrogen sulfide, a lethalgas associated with gas explorationand production, was struck from thelist of pollutants in 1991.

National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA)

NEPA requires government agen-cies to consider the environmentalimpact of their actions, and requirespublic comment and evaluation ofalternatives through an environmen-tal impact statement (EIS) processwhen a significant impact is likely.The 2005 Energy Policy Act (section390) created a categorical exclusionfor some types of oil or gas well ex-pansions, allowing them to occurwith limited review. The public nowhas to prove significant harm to chal-lenge anything on the basis of NEPAviolations.

Toxic Release Inventory ofEmergency Planning andCommunity Right to Know Act(EPCRA)

The oil and gas industry is exemptfrom reporting releases of toxic mate-rials (for example, via evaporation,underground injection, or transfer toa treatment facility) in the Toxic Re-lease Inventory.

An open letter by the CommunityEnvironmental Legal Defense Fund

November 16, 2010

This morning, the Pittsburgh CityCouncil became the first mu-nicipality in the United States to

ban natural gas extraction within itsboundaries.

The ordinance isn’t just a ban—itconsists of a new Bill of Rights forPittsburgh residents (which includesa right to water along with rights forecosystems and nature), and thenproceeds to ban those activities—including natural gas extraction—which would violate those rights.

But it doesn’t stop there.The ordinance seeks to undo over

a hundred years’ worth of law in theU.S. which gives corporations greaterrights than the communities inwhich they do business. Those rightscome in two primary forms; first arecorporate constitutional rights andpowers (including court-bestowedconstitutional rights of“personhood”), and second are cor-porate rights that have been codifiedby statewide laws (like Pennsyl-vania’s Oil and Gas Act), which liber-ate the corporation from local con-trol in individual issue areas.

When a community makes a deci-sion which runs afoul of either ofthose corporate rights frameworks,corporate decisionmakers use thecourts to throw out the community’sdecision. If a municipality bans astate-permitted activity, it gets sued

Municipalities must challenge corporate ‘personhood’

for “taking” the corporation’s prop-erty as a constitutional violation. If itattempts to legislate in an area inwhich the State has created a regula-tory program which permits the ac-tivity, the community then gets suedby the corporation for violating pre-emptive state law.

And why wouldn’t they? After all,corporate lawyers created the veryrights-frameworks that they use thecourts to enforce, concocting manyof those doctrines precisely to re-strict community lawmaking as farback as the late 19th century.

In fact, those frameworks havebeen so effective that we rarely evendream about what our communitieswould look like if we actually calledthe shots. We even question our-selves as to whether we should havethat power or not.

And so we turn away from thatgrim reality, and instead attempt touse other tools that have been givento us which respect and incorporatethose rights-frameworks. We attemptto use zoning laws to ban certainactivities and learn that banningthrough zoning violates corporateconstitutional due process rights.

Turned back on that front, we thennegotiate with the corporation—and beg and plead with state regula-tors—so that the corporation causesa little less harm to our communities.

As second-class citizens, our rightsmade secondary to the privileges ofcorporations, we look for solutionsto the ignoble status we’ve been rel-egated to. Our work plays out withina very small box of “allowable activ-ism” bounded on all sides by rights-frameworks which protect a rela-tively small number of corporatedecisionmakers.

What does this have to do withfracking in the Marcellus shale for-mation? Everything.

The rationale behind the Pitts-burgh ordinance is a simple one. Ifwe respect and comply with thoseframeworks of law—playing withinthe sandbox that has been con-structed for us—we’ll get drilled. It’sas straightforward as simple arithmetic.

Which brings us to another logicalconclusion: if we want to stop thedrilling, we must therefore undothose false corporate rights frame-works.

Over a hundred other municipalgovernments across Pennsylvaniahave joined Pittsburgh in reachingthat revelation—that the only way tostop agribusiness factory farms, sew-age sludge dumping, corporate wastedisposal, and natural gas extraction isto frontally and directly challengethose layers of corporate law whichhave removed any vestige of commu-

continued on page 7

It’s time to overturn

law that authorizes

corporate minorities to

run roughshod over

community majorities.


Albany Update

by Roger Downs, Chapter Conservation Program Manager

Paterson’s fracking legacy presents challenges for Cuomo

Governor David Paterson left of-fice with many important envi-ronmental accomplishments

under his belt—such as the ClimateAction Plan, the Bigger Better BottleBill and a comprehensive E-WasteRecycling law.

But he will most be rememberedas the governor who systematicallydismantled the Department of Envi-ronmental Conservation through se-vere and disproportionate budgetcuts and fired a DEC commissionerwho quietly warned that such actionwould risk human life and irrevers-ible harm to our natural resources.

Though he had tremendous guid-ance from green giants such as JudithEnck, Peter Iwanowicz and PeteGrannis, Paterson seemed to counterevery environmentally beneficial ac-tion with harmful policies designedto undermine regulations, impedeenforcement and mollify industry.Whether this duality was a functionof advice from competing advisors—namely his secretary Larry Schwartzwho seemed put off by any environ-mental initiative—or merely the de-sire to please everyone, it oftenpleased no one.

Perhaps the best example ofPaterson’s “bipolar” approach is hishandling of horizontal hydraulic frac-turing, a natural gas extraction tech-nique. The long view of history maysee him as the governor who savedNew York from one of its worst envi-ronmental debacles, while Pennsylva-nia transformed its rural landscapeinto industrial grid-works of pipelinesand well pads. He deserves a lot ofcredit for taking a precautionary ap-proach to drilling, but in the evolu-tion of his hydrofracking policy, everystep of the way was a series of mixedmessages and contradictory actions.

Mixed messagesThe most profound and decisive of

these actions came in July, 2008,when Paterson signed a controversialbill to facilitate fracking but then or-dered a comprehensive study whichhalted horizontal hydraulic fracturinguntil new permitting conditionscould be established. Essentially, theorder placed a “de facto moratorium”on horizontal drilling.

Arguably, this was one of the stron-gest actions taken against the naturalgas industry in our country’s history.But the resulting scoping process andthe draft of the study, known as theSupplemental Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement (SGEIS), were adisappointment and reflected indus-try bias and incomplete analysis. DEC

staffing shortages and the accelerateddate for completion seemed to affectthe quality of the document as well.

In the fall of 2009, the public shotback at the weak study by sendingmore than 13,000 comments criticiz-ing the lack of consideration of cu-mulative impacts, from wastewaterinfrastructure, pipelines and com-pressor stations, to air pollution, cli-mate change, human health andother critical deficiencies. But thesignals coming from the governor’soffice reflected a different attitude.Marcellus shale gas now played aprominent part in the state’s energyplan, the executive budget pushedfor an augmented permitting staff tofacilitate drilling, and administrationofficials and agency heads mounted apublic relations campaign to assureNew Yorkers that drilling was safe.

Summer of calamityAnd then, in 2010, Pennsylvania’s

“summer of calamity “ unfolded. Thatstate’s Dept. of Environmental Pro-tection confirmed that gas drillingcontaminated drinking water wellsin Dimock, and the media began tofocus on other spills, leaks and acci-dents. Josh Fox’s documentary, “GasLand,” premiered on HBO, and theEnvironmental Protection Agencybegan its critical look at the impactsof hydrofracking on water resources.Public outcry grew louder.

The Senate passed a bill in Augustsuspending all pending and futurepermits in Marcellus and Utica shalesuntil May 15, 2011. The bill gave theincoming administration some “breath-ing room” and staved off a final deci-sion on the SGEIS. Governor Pater-son then began to show signs of con-cern that New York was still notready to move forward with drillingand indicated that he would not fi-nalize the SGEIS regardless of whetherits findings made it to his desk.

When the bill reached the Assem-bly in late November, the gas indus-

try began to panic and launched afierce campaign claiming that if en-acted, the “time out” on frackingwould shut down all drilling in NewYork. Since the bill did not differenti-ate between horizontal and verticaldrilling, the industry claimed that this“flaw” would impede vertical wellsalready in development, costing thou-sands of jobs and millions in revenue.

Of course, the truth was that onlya handful of vertical well permitswould be delayed by five months; thebill passed the Assembly 93-43. Butthe industry’s misinformation cam-paign lingered in the press, and Gov-ernor Paterson began to question thelegitimacy of including vertical wellsin the moratorium when the billcame to his desk.

This inclusion of smaller verticalwells in the bill was no accident.When the Assembly originally at-tempted to advance a bill calling for amoratorium on horizontal drillingthat would be lifted upon thecompletion of an EPA study, the in-dustry made a threat: for every singlehorizontal well they would be pro-hibited from drilling, they would drill16 wells with 16 separate well padsevery square mile (which is currentlylegal spacing).

Based on this threat, the drafters ofthe bill had no choice but to includevertical wells as well. Also lost in thedebate was the fact that gas compa-nies have been explicit that the cur-rent vertical wells they are drilling inMarcellus and Utica shales will beconverted into horizontal wells assoon as the SGEIS review process iscomplete. This would give them anunfair advantage in “staking claims” toareas that may in the future be offlimits.

Many activists pushing the bill feltthat drillers should not be allowed tosidestep the ongoing environmentalreview process through a loopholefor vertical wells. It is also importantto remember that Dimock, Pa.—the

poster child for poor drilling prac-tices—saw the town’s drinking wa-ter contaminated by vertical wellssimilar to wells that are currentlybeing drilled in New York.

On December 11, Governor Pater-son vetoed the bill on the groundsthat it would cost “hundreds if notthousands of jobs” and “would havesubstantial negative financial conse-quences for the state” for a processthat has “no demonstrated environ-mental harm.”

In its place, Paterson issued Ex-ecutive Order 41 that compels theDEC to complete its review of themore than 13,000 comments andintegrate substantive responses intoa new draft SGEIS. This draft is to bepublished June 1, 2011, and the DECis to accept public comment for atleast 30 days and suggests the sched-uling of public hearings. The orderalso specified the continuation of the“de facto moratorium” on horizontaldrilling until the finalization of theentire State Environmental QualityReview Act process.

A significant winWhile the unfounded rationale for

the veto irritated the environmentalcommunity, the executive order wasmet with great fanfare, and compet-ing press accounts declared victoryfor both sides. Like most of Paterson’sdecisions, there was something foreveryone to grumble about, but atthe end of the day the mandate of asecond draft is a significant win forthose wishing to expose hydro-fracking’s dangers.

Executive orders do not have thesame strength as laws, and incominggovernor Andrew Cuomo could dis-continue the order and accelerate hisown drilling review, but that seemshighly unlikely. Cuomo will not wantto fill his already crowded six-monthagenda with something so controver-sial that has no short-term positiveeconomic impact.

The Atlantic Chapter will be seiz-ing the opportunity presented by EO41 to finally insert cumulative im-pacts analysis into the SGEIS andcorrect multiple deficiencies. To date,Cuomo has not taken a clear positionon hydrofracking, but we hope thathe will be as cautious as his prede-cessor—minus the hedging.

As for the former governor, weowe him a debt of gratitude for, inthe end, holding off the drilling rigs.We only wish he had demonstratedthe same restraint when New York’senvironmental agencies were on thechopping block.

You can sign up for AtlanticChapter “action alerts” to take ac-tion on legislation and other keyissues. Send an e-mail to:[email protected], withthe message

“Subscribe ATL- [email protected]”Include your first and last name.You can make a difference fromyour home by taking action viaphone, e-mail, or letter.

Join the ActionAlert listserve


-800

The New York State Energy Re-search and Development Author-ity (NYSERDA) has partnered

with local contractors to transformsome turn-of-the-century OneidaCounty homes into laboratories fortesting new models of energy effi-ciency.

Under a program funded byNYSERDA and the Mohawk ValleyCommunity Action Agency, contrac-tors have installed state-of-the-artmeasures on four houses in Romeand Utica in hopes of finding cost-effective ways to dramatically reduceenergy consumption by retrofittingolder homes that make up a largeportion of our housing stock.

Applying new techniques to olderbuildings can not only help NewYorkers save money and cut energyuse, but also help create green jobs,NYSERDA says.

In typical home energy efficiencyretrofits, owners add insulation tothe attic, blow cellulose into walls,seal around doors and change sashwindows for double-panes, amongother standard practices.

In contrast, a “Deep Retrofit”project can include many more sig-nificant measures, including:

• sealing the attic/roof connectionor removing the roof and building itup with rigid insulation and install-ing a metal roof.

• removing the house siding andinstalling a foil-backed material to air-seal the walls, and adding 4-inchthick foam insulation on top

• sealing basement walls and floorwith foam and a rubber mat that al-lows water to drain, while leavingthe basement accessible for laundryand storage

• adding a more efficient heatingand hot-water system.

Absolute measurements of theimprovements in the Oneida Countyhomes won’t be available until thiswinter’s heating bills can be com-pared to last year’s. However, blower-door tests—basically, a giant vacuumthat tests air leakage—showed sig-nificant reductions in drafts.

By working on owner-occupiedbuildings, the project is trainingworkers in advanced techniques—while providing insights to reducecosts—and results in more retrofitbusiness for contractors and greaterenergy savings for society.

For examples from the pilot, visithttp://www.nyserda.org/Programs/IABR/DeepRetrofit.asp.

New York ranks among the topstates in the nation for energyefficiency best practices, ac-

cording to a survey by the AmericanCouncil for an Energy-EfficientEconomy (ACEEE).

ACEEE reviewed utility and gov-ernment policies and practices inevery state and ranked New Yorkfourth in the nation, up from fifth inlast year’s survey.

The rankings are based on sixcriteria: Utility sector and publicbenefits programs and policies,transportation policies, buildingenergy codes, combined heat andpower (the use of waste heat togenerate electricity), state govern-ment initiatives, and appliance-efficiency standards.

NYSERDA reports that supportingenergy efficiency and clean energy issaving New Yorkers more than $680million annually on their energy bills.Similar programs administered bythe state’s public power authoritiesthat serve Long Island, municipalelectric systems and governmentcustomers in New York have alsocontributed to the state’s highranking.

ACEEE Executive Director StevenNadel said, “Even as Washingtondawdles on climate and clean energy,states are moving ahead... While $11billion in American Recovery andReinvestment Act funds was helpfulin this process…the overall storyhere is one of states getting donewhat Congress has so far failed to do.”

According to NYSERDA, everydollar invested in energy efficiencyreturns $4.70 in economic and envi-ronmental benefits.

State ranked amongmost energy efficient

‘Deep Retrofit’ tests new energy techniques in old Upstate homes

The exterior of this house is ready for new siding over an air barrier, two layers of 2-inch poly-isocyanurate rigid insulation, and firring stips and ready to receive new siding. New windows(R4) have been installed, improving insulation to R30, with much reduced air leakage.

This basement floor (slab) has a dimple mat drainage plane, 2 inches of polystyrene (XPS) and aDura Rock surface sheet, for final cover. The walls have been treated with perimate groovedrigid insulation and 2 inches of foil-faced polyisocyanurate, fire rated insulation which givesthe basement an equivalent thermal improvement of R10 for the slab, and R20 for the walls.

Exterior siding has been removed down to existing sheathing, and a thermal air barrier(Thermoply) is being applied to reduce air leakage. The window rough openings have also beenbuilt out to accept two layers of 2-inch rigid insulation that will follow, and allow for air sealingbefore new windows (R4) are installed.

The first 2-inch layer of polyisocyanurate rigid insulation is applied over a thermal air barrier.All windows have been flashed with peel-and-stick membrane, sill pan flashed and joints taped toreduce air leakage. Another 2-inch layer of rigid insulation will follow for a total of R30.


by Peter Debes

When people think of the Cityof Rochester, they often thinkof its beautiful parks.

Frederick Law Olmsted recognizedthe unique beauty of the low hillsand ridges, part of a glacial moraine,that form the southern boundary ofthe city. He advised the city of Roch-ester to preserve these lands asparks. Today, one of these parks,Cobb’s Hill, is the focus of a success-ful effort to protect and preserve a25-acre patch of classic oak-hickoryforest that lies only two miles fromthe center of Rochester.

Named the Washington Groveafter our first President, it offers avariety of paths that wind throughmajestic oaks, hickories, tulip trees,and other large tree species native tothis area. Washington Grove, how-ever, has been undergoing manynegative changes. Trails are erodingand becoming wider as more andmore people use the Grove. Under-growth is thinning, and some nativespecies are disappearing due to dis-ease and competition with exoticspecies. Large oaks are falling as theyage, opening up gaps that shouldpermit young oaks to sprout, yet feware replacing them.

I had grown up in a house rightnext to the Grove and had becomeconcerned about its future. Threeyears ago, I discussed the idea of re-moving invasive Norway maples inthe forest with a city forester. Whatfollowed is a fascinating story of howa grass-roots movement was founded,expanded, experienced strife andcontroversy, and through a consen-sus-based process, developed a plan

that is now serving as the basis forlong-term management by the Cityof Rochester.

The city forester recommendedthat I form a citizens’ group to pro-pose solutions for the Grove. Thepolitical difficulties of such a ventureimmediately surfaced. Like most citi-zen groups, it was a challenge to in-volve people in a long-term commit-ment, and especially to identify com-mon goals among various interestedcitizens’ groups. Moreover, responsi-bility for the management of the for-ested Washington Grove was splitbetween two city departments—theDepartment of Recreation and theDepartment of Environmental Ser-vices—which did not otherwisehave many shared projects. I wasencouraged by long-time Sierra Clubactivist Hugh Mitchell to develop

this project as a coalition involvingthe City, the Sierra Club, and neigh-borhood groups. Hugh tutored methrough the steps needed to meetSierra Club guidelines, and the pro-posal was approved by the Roches-ter Regional Group Executive Com-mittee.

I then methodically began to seekout interested partners for the Coali-tion—securing names from inter-ested neighbors, contacting neigh-borhood associations, and workingclosely with the then Assistant Direc-tor of Parks, James Farr, who hadbeen involved in previous efforts toprotect and stabilize the Grove. I alsomentioned the project to a plantecology professor at SUNYBrockport and a master’s thesisproject to study the Grove was be-gun. From these efforts, an e-mail list

of over 50 organizations and indi-viduals with interest in the projectwas formed. Of these, there emergedten committed individuals, who, overthe course of more than two years,have proposed a management planfor the Grove.

To develop a working plan, a pro-cess was used that first identified allthe stakeholders (or interest groups)who should have a voice in the plan.Examples of stakeholders were na-ture lovers, neighbors, mountain bik-ers, persons concerned about inva-sive plants, those with scientific in-terests, dog-walkers, non-machineusers, and those concerned aboutlong-term stewardship. A personwho agreed to be a representativeand spokesperson for each groupwas identified and charged with thetask of developing a list of thegroup’s interests and concerns. Overmany weeks of work and meetings, Ihelped facilitate the development ofan outline of a management planfrom these interests and concerns.

Acrimonious debate frequentlythreatened to undermine the groupover issues such as mountain bikingand walking dogs off leash in theGrove. At least one core group mem-ber left the group because of his un-yielding stance that dogs should bepermitted off-leash, despite the factthat the Assistant Director of Recre-ation stated that this municipal lawcould not be changed in the Grove.After years of little surveillance, aculture had developed of defying thelaw with impunity. Many otherpeople were disturbed by the pro-posal to cut Norway maple trees inthe Grove. Signs posted by the Coali-tion to inform people about meet-ings and proposed work were de-stroyed or sabotaged. The Sierra Clubwas attacked in other posters. Insome cases, neighbors found theywere at bitter odds with other neigh-bors about proposals for manage-ment.

It is a testament to the love of theGrove by all, and a commitment tohelp protect it, that the coalitionsubmitted a proposed plan to cityofficials. The city organized threepublic meetings to take commentsand revise the tentative plan. One ofthese was poorly organized and actu-ally drew doubt on the entireproject. The last meeting, however,was very well planned and con-ducted and subsequently the cityofficially adopted many elements ofthe plan on a trial basis.

In May, foresters removed Norwaymaples from three demonstrationplots in the Grove and now volun-teers are continuing the work of sub-stituting native species for invasiveones and repopulating the under-story, working in collaboration withthe City of Rochester.

The original coalition has beenreformed and renamed and nowserves to support the city’s work asthe “Friends of Washington Grove.”We look forward to the success ofthis effort and the reality that we canmake a difference and help to pre-serve the beauty of natural places forfuture generations to enjoy.Peter Debes is vice chairman of theChapter’s Rochester Regional Group.

Case study: How Rochester Sierrans helped save an old-growth forest

Peter Debes, left, stands with volunteers who helped save an old-growth grove in Rochester.

nity self-government.As with the passage of similar ordi-

nances by municipalities in Pennsyl-vania over the past several years,which have dealt with an array ofissues, the Pittsburgh ordinance willresult in a lot of hand-wringing bystatewide environmental groups,which have made long careers out ofnot coloring outside of the lines.

As they see it, their job is to workwithin existing law and do their bestto limit environmental damage. That’swhy they call for more zoning laws(even though horizontal drilling de-feats the purpose of zoning theplacement of drilling pads, for ex-ample), or a severance tax (which,ironically, encourages even moredrilling to produce more revenue).It’s why they talk about “responsible”drilling and natural gas as a “bridge”to a sustainable energy future. It’swhy they’ve talked themselves intoseeing drilling as inevitable, and thatthe best we can do is simply to en-dure it. In doing so, they’ve con-demned our communities to thesame kind of damage that the gascorporations are forcing upon us.

They may be nice people, butthey’re not our friends in this mess.They’re too obedient in a situationthat demands widespread disobedience.

Stopping the drilling means com-

ing face-to-face with the reality thatthis country isn’t what we thought itwas. That the rights-frameworksclaimed by the corporations are notjust a tragic mistake, but are the un-derlying reality demonstrated by ourexistence in a system in which thelegal system serves corporate produc-tion but not community democracy.

These local ordinances intend toturn that structure upside down—subordinating corporate “rights” andcorporate production to local self-governance and the rights of nature,rather than the other way around.

For that reason, if we truly believein economic and environmental sus-tainability, variations of the Pitts-burgh ordinance must spread to athousand other communities in thepath of the Marcellus shale drillers.

And then it must spread to a thou-sand more.

More importantly, perhaps, com-munities need to jettison corporatelawyers and lobbyists from their mu-nicipal meeting rooms. We need tostop listening to environmental law-yers who tell us that there’s nothingthat we can do. We need to take acollective stand to reject corporate-imposed energy policies and replacethem with local ones of our ownmaking.

We then must be prepared to dis-obey courts and legislatures who

inform us that we can’t have sustain-ability because it interferes with cor-porate prerogatives.

It’s time. After all, what’s left? Af-ter ripping up our communities,there will be a new scheme to ex-tract something else, and anotherone after that. It’s time to shut downthe machine. It’s time to use our mu-nicipalities to engage in collectivecivil disobedience through commu-nity lawmaking.

As Frederick Douglass wrote overa hundred years ago:

“If there is no struggle, there is noprogress. Those who profess to favorfreedom and yet depreciate agitation,want crops without plowing up theground, they want rain without thun-der and lightening. . . Power con-cedes nothing without a demand. Itnever did and it never will.”

It’s time to use our municipal gov-ernments to demand an end to allactivities and policies that are harm-ful to our communities and the natu-ral communities upon which ourlives depend. It’s time to undo astructure of law that authorizes cor-porate minorities to run roughshodover community majorities.

Isn’t that what democracy is sup-posed to be about?

To contact the Community Environmen-tal Legal Defense Fund, go towww.CELDF.org.

It’s time to challenge corporate ‘personhood’continued from page 4


by Sue Smith-Heavenrich

Google “Sandra Steingraber” andyou learn that she is an ecolo-gist, an author, a cancer survi-

vor. She is also internationally recog-nized as an authority on environmen-tal links to cancer and other healthproblems, and the author of thehighly acclaimed book, LivingDownstream, which was recentlymade into a movie.

But when we settle into an inter-view in Trumansburg, it becomesimmediately clear that Steingrabersees her most important role as aparent whose responsibility is tokeep her children safe.

She keeps one eye on her eight-year-old son, Elijah, as she talks abouta trip to Washington, D.C., where shewas one of three participants in acongressional staff briefing. Theirtopic: the President’s Cancer Panelreport, “Reducing EnvironmentalCancer Risk,” released in early May.Nineteen months earlier, Steingraberhad testified before the panel. Thir-teen years before that she had re-turned to her hometown in Illinoisas an environmental detective,searching for clues to explain how,between her sophomore and junioryears of college, she developed blad-der cancer.

It was environmental, Steingrabersaid. Though she’d never worked in atextile factory, smelted aluminum, orworked at a dry cleaner’s, she’d de-veloped a cancer with establishedlinks to chemicals particular to thoseoccupations. A decade-and-a-halflater, she learned that the publicdrinking water wells in her home-town contain traces of those chemicals.

The biggest problem Steingrabersees is the disconnect between sci-entific evidence and regulatory re-sponse. The Toxic Substances ControlAct (TSCA), adopted by Congress in1976, regulates the introduction ofnew or already existing chemicals.But it grandfathered in most existingchemicals, Steingraber explained. “Itis so weak that it couldn’t even banasbestos.” She notes that even indus-try recognizes that they are losingmarket share in the European Union

Author/activist Sandra Steingraber, with son Elijah, says the environmental risks from naturalgas hydrofracking take away her ability to keep him safe from harm.

Ph

oto

by

Sue

Smit

h-H

eave

nri

ch

Fracking poses environmental cancer risk, says activist author

because of this law.That’s because the European

Union embraces a precautionary ap-proach to regulating industrial pollut-ants, Steingraber said. In contrast, theU.S. takes a reactionary approach inregulating chemicals, forcing citizensto bear the burden of proving that achemical causes harm. She quotesthe President’s Cancer Panel: “Stron-ger regulation is needed.”

Industry is, and has been for years,exploiting regulatory weaknesses at ahigh cost to the nation. How high?From cancers alone, from just oneyear (2009), the National Institutes ofHealth estimates a cost of $243.4billion. That’s $99 billion in directmedical costs, $19.6 billion for thecost of lost productivity due to ill-ness, and $124.8 billion for the lostproductivity due to premature death.

Steingraber points to a recentstudy in West Virginia that shows theentire economic benefit to the statefrom the coal industry is wiped outby the mortality and lost productivityof sick coal miners.

“Cancer is not cheap,” Steingrabersaid. She speaks from experience.Treatment is expensive, and survivors

continue to receive periodic check-ups and treatment. “Forget abouthaving a retirement fund or moneyin the bank,” she said, noting thatindividuals aren’t covering all thebills. As taxpayers, we’re all under-writing the cost of environmentalpollution.

Aside from the economic argu-ment, Steingraber pointed out a basichuman right: killing people withtoxic chemicals is wrong. “When werealized slavery was wrong, wedidn’t regulate slavery or settle forstate-of-the-art slavery,” Steingrabersaid. “We abolished it.”

And that’s where Steingraberthinks we ought to be with cancer.In its letter to President Obama lastspring, the cancer panel urged himto “remove the carcinogens andother toxins from our food, water andair that needlessly increase health carecosts, cripple our nation’s productivity,and devastate American lives.”

Those words have direct implica-tions for high-volume hydraulic frac-turing. “Fracking,” Steingraber said,stressing each word, “means deliber-ately introducing carcinogens intoour land, water and air.” She intro-duced the issue during her congres-sional briefing, and also in a meetingwith White House science and tech-nology staffers. “The President’s Can-cer Panel report is a strong argumentagainst fracking,” she added.

Pointing to the industry’s qualitycontrol problems, Steingraber notedthat even if there’s not a singlechemical spill in New York, there willstill be problems: diesel exhaust fromtrucks, emissions from compressorsat the well site, emissions from com-pressor stations and leaks in pipelines.

“Then you have the chemicals

themselves.” Steingraber cited therevelation of 981 gas and oil spills inColorado. Frack fluid, combined withproduced water (brine), accountedfor more than 80 percent of the 5.2million gallons spilled.

“Spills seem to routinely accom-pany the process,” Steingraber said,“but I am very concerned about thechemicals left in the ground.” Thingsmove underground in ways they’re“not supposed to,” in ways we don’texpect them to, Steingraber said.

“Maybe we can clean up surfacespills,” Steingraber said. “But shatteredbedrock—there’s no fixing that.” Shegives a quick glance at her son,Elijah.

“Industry shouldn’t introducetechnologies where, in the worstcase scenario there’s nothing to bedone,” Steingraber mused. She’s talk-ing about the Deep Water Horizon oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico, but shecould just as easily be talking aboutDimock, or her home in Trumansburg.Steingraber understands the push toextract energy from unconventionalsources; we’ve used up the easilyobtained fossil fuels. So we go deeperinto the ocean, with catastrophicresults, she says. We removemountaintops for coal, with cata-strophic results. Now we’re frackingfor gas, with catastrophic results.“How far are we willing to go to getthis energy?”, she asks.

Environmental thinking has givenus new ways of looking at things,Steingraber said, like “full cost ac-counting.” If we fully factored in thetrue environmental costs of fracking,it would mean counting the dieselfumes from trucks hauling water andchemicals to the site, and frack fluidand well waste from the site. Itwould mean factoring in the runoffand erosion from drilling pads andaccess roads, chemical spills andwear and tear on local roads and in-frastructure. A huge truck rumblesby, the fourth in an hour, shaking thebridge on Route 96 as it grinds itsway up Trumansburg’s main street.

“The only way to get shale gas isthrough fracking, and the only way todo fracking is to degrade the com-mons,” Steingraber said. “This is themost urgent environmental issue wenow face.”

You can read the President’s Can-cer Panel report at http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

You can read Sandra Steingraber’sarticles and blog posts at her website,http://steingraber.com

Sue Smith-Heavenrich is a freelancewriter and member of the Society of En-vironmental Journalists. She lives inCandor and blogs atmarcelluseffect.blogspot.com.

The Executive Committee of the Atlantic Chapter held its fall, 2010, meet-ing on October 16 in Albany. The ExCom had also conducted telephone con-ference call meetings in the preceding weeks to vote on Sierra Club politicalendorsements in the wake of the September primary.

On conservation issues, the ExCom approved Sierra Club participation in alawsuit concerning the historic Stanford Home in Niskayuna. The town ap-proved the development of the site for a shopping mall, including the reloca-tion of the mansion, but did not comply with the State Environmental QualityReview Act.

The ExCom also voted to oppose the application of the Champlain HudsonRiver Power Express for a 355-mile electric transmission line from Canada toYonkers. Although touted as a vehicle for wind- and solar-generated electricity,the line would facilitate dam building and consequent flooding in Quebec.

In administrative matters, the ExCom adopted new policies and proceduresfor litigation, increased the conservation budget by $5,000, and approved theexpansion of the New York City Group ExCom (subject to the approval of theGroup’s members and the national Club).

Executive Committee Reportby James Lane, Secretary


flow, artificial impoundments, notfrom high-volume, free-running rivers,and thus does not even qualify asrenewable energy pursuant to NYSrenewable energy policies.

The CHPE promise to import Ca-nadian wind power into NYS is justas contrived as the James Bay-typehydro boondoggle. The proposalwould actually divert Great Lakes andTug Hill wind power generated inwestern NYS from the existing state-wide market. It would re-route thatpower via the existing grid northacross the border and east into theHertel Substation in Quebec, wouldre-brand that same NYS-originatedpower as a new source of renewableCanadian electricity, and then wouldre-import that power south into theNY metro market.

Currently, all wind power pro-duced in NYS is already available tothe NY metro region (and to all cus-tomers throughout NYS and sur-rounding states) via a more directand much shorter route provided bythe open access network of the exist-ing grid. What CHPE is proposing is abait-and-switch scheme to create theillusion of renewability in order toclaim eligibility for the coveted fed-eral loan guarantees and other subsi-dies, such as the Westchester CountyIndustrial Development Agency (IDA)tax exemptions.

Not only is the CHPE project aglaring example of greenwashing atits best, it satisfies no public need orbenefit, defies market conditions,constrains other power merchants,undermines the genuine renewablesolar and wind industry which is cre-ating real, permanent jobs in NYS,and conflicts with the state energyplan.

There just is no market demandfor additional long-distance power,but should such demand occur, exist-ing plans and the conventional gridcan respond and transmit powerfrom Canada or elsewhere withoutthe construction of the CHPE cable.

Paradoxically, a wave of new gen-eration and supply sources is justcoming on line at the same time that

overall consumption of power inNYS is declining. In April, 2010, theNew York Independent System Op-erator (NYISO), which manages thesupply reliability of electricity pro-duced and traded among NYS mer-chants, stated that there is no existingor anticipated need for additionalpower in NYS during the next 10-year planning cycle. In fact, the use ofelectricity in the state has droppedsignificantly each year since 2008. Asa consequence, the Public ServiceCommission (PSC) has directed utili-ties to prepare austerity plans to ad-just generating capacity/productionaccordingly.

While power supply is not an is-sue, upgrading the delivery system is.The NYISO, PSC and the state energyplan all reaffirm that the top energypriorities are to modernize the localutility infrastructure and the regionalgrid, to maximize efficiency and tosupply genuine renewable sourcesthroughout the distribution system.

The CHPE cable would accom-plish none of those objectives. In-stead of contributing new intercon-nections along its 355-mile route andintegrating itself with the existinggrid as required by industry stan-dards, the cable would bypass and beindependent of the grid.

The cable’s closed DC design pre-vents its use by NYS merchants totransport and distribute electricitywithin NYS, and also from selling intothe Canadian market. It is an anti-competitive, one-way monopoly thatwould channel trade-protected Que-bec power into the high-use but al-ready well-supplied NY metro marketat a disadvantage to NYS merchants,customers and the environment.

Further, the CHPE cable standsapart from traditional power mer-chants, since it provides a specialized,long-distance, transmission-only func-tion, just like the failed New YorkRegional Interconnect (NYRI) powerline proposal. It neither generateselectricity nor does it serve as a util-ity which distributes electricity toretail customers. It has no controlover the source, the price, of the end-use of the power it would transmit. It

pounds containing natural gas.“We found that the uranium and

the hydrocarbons are in the samephysical space,” says Bank. “Wefound that they are not just physi-cally—but also chemically—bound.

“That led me to believe that ura-nium in solution could be more of anissue because the process of drillingto extract the hydrocarbons couldstart mobilizing the metals as well,forcing them into the soluble phaseand causing them to move around.”

When Bank and her colleaguesreacted samples in the lab with sur-rogate drilling fluids, they found thatthe uranium was, indeed, being solu-bilized.

In addition, she says, when themillions of gallons of water used inhydraulic fracturing come back tothe surface, it could contain uraniumcontaminants, potentially pollutingstreams and other ecosystems andgenerating hazardous waste.

The research required the use ofvery sophisticated methods of analy-sis, including one called Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrom-etry.

The UB research is the first tomap samples using this technique,which identified the precise locationof the uranium.

“Even though at these levels, ura-nium is not a radioactive risk, it isstill a toxic, deadly metal,” Bank con-cludes. “We need a fundamental un-derstanding of how uranium existsin shale. The more we understandabout how it exists, the more we canbetter predict how it will react tofracking.”

Fracking mobilizesuranium, saysresearchercontinued from page 1

continued from page 1 cannot promise or guarantee renew-able sources just as it cannot denydirty fossil fuel or nuclear sources. Itis just like a giant household exten-sion cord with plugs only at eachend: an entry plug in Quebec and anexit plug in Yonkers, with no accesspoints in between.

Unfortunately, the permit reviewsby the Dept. of Energy and PSC arebeing limited only to the portion ofthe cable on the NYS side of the bor-der. Inexplicably, studies of the con-struction and generation contingen-cies on the Canadian side and theircumulative impacts, which give birthto CHPE, are being omitted.

With no market need and no pub-lic economic benefit, the project haslittle hope of making a profitthrough actual old-fashioned earn-ings. CHPE, however, is a high-fi-nance venture—the object is moreto capture the subsidies than to pro-vide renewable energy. The hedgefunds will not be placing their ownmoney at risk since the billions ofdollars in public subsidies providefor an overly generous, government-guaranteed profit—even if CHPEgoes bankrupt and even if no elec-tricity is ever transported.

Ultimately, the nation must focuson ways to reduce energy consump-tion rather than continue to fosterexponential consumption to stimu-late the economy at a price that can-not be repaid. The best and fastestway to provide clean, renewable,cost-effective energy is to promoteon-site solar and wind generation,coupled with assertive demand-sidereduction, conservation and energyefficiency measures—not the per-verse transmission-only shell gamebeing perpetrated on unwitting U.S.taxpayers by CHPE.

For more information, visitwww.AskPSC.com, with links toDOE for details, current status, Atlan-tic Chapter testimony, and scopingcomments (re: Champlain HudsonPower Express – PSC case #10-T-0139).Jurgen Wekerle sits on the Chapter’sClean Water and Energy committees.Staffer Caitlin Pixley is the AtlanticChapter’s Conservation Associate.

Greenwashed power line on fast track to grab billions in $ubsidies

by Michael Brune

In the mid-term elections, the Si-erra Club played big and scoredbig against Big Oil with the defeat

of California’s Proposition 23.Despite more than $10 million

spent on a deceptive advertisingcampaign funded by out-of-state oilbarons to undermine the state’s land-mark clean-energy and climate law,California voters took a stand for cleanenergy—not in spite of a major eco-nomic downturn, but because of it.

As National Journal said, wecould point to existing jobs thatwould be lost with the passage ofProp 23.With the third-highest un-employment numbers in the nation,California voters chose clean energyas one of the best paths to recovery.

This victory also shows what can

Mid-term bright spot shows we won’t cede our future to Big Oilhappen when we work together tocreate jobs and protect our environ-ment. When given the chance to voteon the actual issues, the public em-braced our belief that a clean envi-ronment and a strong economy arenot mutually exclusive.

A broad coalition of clean techcompanies, small businesses, publichealth advocates, social justicegroups, environmental organizations,organized labor, seniors and youngpeople, Republicans and Democrats,all worked in tandem to defeatProposition 23 and continue ourpath toward a future powered byclean energy.

Not surprisingly, polling, includingour own, shows that jobs and theeconomy were the top priority forvoters this election and they showedtheir dissatisfaction with the current

state of the economy and both politi-cal parties. That will be the case untilthe country’s economic situationimproves. And the way to that futureis a clean energy economy and goodjobs for American workers.

This election was indeed the yearof The Empire Strikes Back. Big Oiland corporate polluters spent inrecord amounts to try to buy backour government—eclipsing progres-sive groups’ election spending bynearly two to one. According to theAlliance for Climate Protection, cor-porate polluters and energy interestsspent $247 million this year on ad-vertising alone to target legislators intheir fight to block clean energy jobs.

That said, it doesn’t appear thattheir attacks on clean energy contrib-uted to Democratic defeats—27 ofthe 44 House Democrats who voted

against the American Clean Energy &Security Act have been voted out ofoffice or retired. The open questionis with whom the new House Repub-lican majority will side. With the BigOil and Coal interests who expect areturn on their investment? Or withthe American people who want law-makers to start making the choicesthat they’ve been making for years intheir own lives and communities—saving energy in their homes andconserving resources for a cleaner,safer, and more prosperous Americato pass on to their children.

Americans still want more jobs,less pollution and greater security.When given the opportunity to votedirectly on the clean energy issue, aswe saw in Prop 23, voters will sidewith clean energy.

We have no intention of cedingAmerica’s future to Big Oil. We areconfident that over the next severalyears we will make significantprogress at the federal, state and lo-cal levels to build a clean energyeconomy made in America.

Michael Brune is executive director ofthe national Sierra Club.


Group ChairsFinger Lakes Kate Bartholomew, 607-228-7371,

[email protected]

Hudson-Mohawk Virginia Boyle Traver, 518-322-0950,[email protected]

Iroquois Martha Loew, 315-492-4745, [email protected]

Long Island Shawn Kilmurray, 631-669-1175, [email protected]

Lower Hudson George Klein, 914-941-2505, [email protected]

Mid-Hudson Joanne Steele, 845-338-0300, [email protected]

Niagara Bob Ciesielski, 716-634-3394, [email protected]

New York City Ken Baer, 718-638-3533, [email protected]

Ramapo-Catskill Stanley Mayer, 845-342-3997, [email protected]

Rochester Deb Muratore, 585-385-9743, [email protected]

Susquehanna Julian Shepherd, 607-722-9327, [email protected]

by Dave Gibson

P roposed six years ago, thesprawling 6,400-acre AdirondackClub and Resort (ACR) near

Tupper Lake remains on paper oneof the most serious threats to theAdirondacks in 40 years of Adiron-dack Park Agency (APA) history. Its650 luxury homes and condos wouldrequire expensive new services onlands which today are logged, huntedand fished.

Most of the ACR is proposed onprivate lands zoned least appropriatefor intense development, and re-served for forestry, agriculture andopen space recreation. Thus, ACR hasPark-wide implications. It would alsoplace development on steep slopesand damage small streams enteringTupper Lake. On a landscape scale, itwould break up habitats connectingthe High Peaks Wilderness Area to

the east with the Bog River Wilder-ness to the west. In sum, ACR wouldfragment the great northern hard-wood forests of the park and foul itspure waters, the very foundations forthe region’s economy.

ACR was originally justified asgreat camps and ski-in, ski-out con-dos whose owners would financiallysupport reopening the Big TupperSki Area on Mt. Morris, and provide atax benefit to Tupper Lake. This justi-fication has been proven false. Theapplicant has pushed ski center op-erations out by four years, refuses topay for infrastructure up front andoffers payments in lieu of taxes, nottaxes in full. The application wouldend all forest management, and allleases for hunting and fishing.

The long-delayed public hearingcould start in January-February 2011,and last many months. As a newlyreestablished organization devotedto safeguarding, extending and edu-cating about all wild lands, AdirondackWild: Friends of the Forest Preserveis now fully engaged. We applied forand received party status this fall. Wewill work in coalition with dozens ofconcerned citizens in Tupper Lake, aswell as with other groups to presenta hearing record that will compel theAPA to reject ACR, and hopefully con-vince the applicant to submit an al-ternative design that makes moreenvironmental and economic sense.Fundamental goals that AdirondackWild will seek to explore at the hear-ing include:

• understanding and protectingarea habitats

• protecting large blocks of forest• clustering homes to reduce

sprawl• reducing road construction and

other threats to water.This testimony will be relevant

elsewhere, and provide reasons whythe APA Act should be changed tomake this type of speculative devel-opment illegal.

We thank the Sierra Club AtlanticChapter for its partnership and initialsmall grant. We look forward to work-ing with Chapter leaders and mem-bers in the months ahead.

State backs Chapter to open ADK wilderness waterway to paddlersby Charles C. Morrison

The Chapter’s Adirondack Com-mittee has gained traction in itseffort to end the illegal blockage

of a legally navigable waterwaymuch admired by recreationalcanoers and kayakers.

The committee sent an exten-sively documented letter of com-plaint to the DEC and the AttorneyGeneral in August, 2009, about theillegal blockage—with cables andintimidating signs—of the Mud Pond-Shingle Shanty Brook through-routefor paddling between Lake Lila andLittle Tupper Lake in the WhitneyWilderness.

The DEC has responded stronglyto the committee’s complaint aboutthe actions of the Brandreth ParkAssociation and its affiliate, Friendsof Thayer Lake.

DEC Assistant Commissioner forNatural Resources ChristopherAmato and other DEC staff met withBrandreth representatives in Decem-ber, 2009, and proposed avoiding alawsuit over the blockage, which theAdirondack Committee had pointedto as a common law public nuisanceunder DEC’s own guidelines. TheDEC proposed opening the route forthree years on a trial basis. In return,DEC would increase patrolling by itsrangers to help prevent trespassingor other such problems for the land-owners.

Despite correspondence and apaddle-through by Amato last sum-mer at Brandreth’s invitation, mem-bers of the Brandreth Park Associa-tion almost unanimously voted downthe trial proposal at its annual meet-ing in August. A Brandreth attorneyrequested that Amato have DEC rang-ers and the state police prosecute“trespassers” on the disputed water-way.

Amato rejected that request andcountered by telling Brandreth toimmediately remove any cables,signs, field cameras or other deter-rents to public passage. He wrote:“The Department has concluded thatMud Pond, Mud Pond Outlet andShingle Shanty Brook are subject to apublic right of navigation, and thatmembers of the public are therefore

legally entitled to travel on thosewaters.” Amato also said thatBrandreth’s interference with andactions to impede or prevent publicnavigation of these waters was “un-lawful” and must be discontinuedimmediately, and if Brandreth fails tocomply with removal of impedences,the DEC will “evaluate its options,including referring this matter to theAttorney General’s office for legalaction.” Amato asked Brandreth to“reconsider” DEC’s proposal andended the letter with, “In the mean-time, the Department is unwilling toacquiesce in the Association’s con-tinuing interference with thepublic’s right to navigate Mud Pond,Mud Pond Outlet and Shingle ShantyBrook.”

Although Brandreth’s adversaryclearly is the State, on November 15it filed a trespass complaint inHamilton County Supreme Courtagainst a softer target, Phil Brown,editor of Adirondack Explorer maga-zine, who had written a detailed ar-ticle about his May, 2009, trip throughMud Pond-Shingle Shanty Brook.Brandreth also asked the court for adeclaratory judgment as to whetherthis waterway is navigable-in-factunder common law criteria.

Brandreth claims that it is notnavigable-in-fact because it has noprior history of commercial use andthat recreational use alone is insuffi-cient to support a finding of naviga-bility. However, DEC contends that ifa waterway can be used for recre-ational purposes, it has the capacityfor trade and travel and, therefore, itmeets the common law test for be-ing navigable-in-fact.

The common law public right ofnavigation has existed in New Yorksince it became a state in 1777.

The DEC has asked the AttorneyGeneral to intervene in the lawsuitthat Brandreth instituted against PhilBrown. An answer to Brandreth’ssuit must be served on its attorneysby January 6, 2011.

Charles Morrison is a member of theChapter’s Adirondack Committee andcoordinator of the Public NavigationRights Project. For information:[email protected], or 518-583-2212.

What You Can DoThe Sierra Club Atlantic

Chapter’s participation in theACR issue was approved by theChapter ExCom in 2007. Thedeveloper’s application re-mained dormant at theAdirondack Park Agency untilrecently. The Chapter’s AdirondackCommittee is working jointlywith Adirondack Wild on this issue.

Adirondack Wild needs toraise thousands of dollars forlegal advice and experts in habi-tat assessment and alternativedesign that could make ACRcompatible with human andwild neighbors.

To get involved:• Follow Adirondack Wild at

www.adirondackwild.org.• Make a donation to

Adirondack Wild, POB 9247,Niskayuna NY 12309.

• Call or e-mail Dan Plumleyor David Gibson at [email protected], [email protected]; 518-637-2385, or 518-469-4081.

Luxury development called worstthreat to Adirondacks in 40 years

Dori

nda

Wh

ite,

Su

squ

eha

nn

a G

rou

p


by Betsy Naselli

A re you someone who grew upeating “red gravy” — what wenon-Italians call spaghetti sauce?

Or, was gravy always made withthe bits of meat left in the pan andserved over mashed potatoes or bis-cuits? My mother-in-law, who neverreally did understand what veganmeant, no matter how many times Ipatiently tried to explain, would urgeme to eat her red gravy, and tell me itwas vegetarian; I should just take outthe sausage and meatballs.Hmmm....no, thanks!

Well, you can make vegan gravy,and it is delicious over veggie-filledchickpea crepes, or roasted garlicmashed potatoes, or biscuits. It’s acomfort food of choice for many ofus, and just perfect for a cold winterevening. Add a green salad and call ita meal!

Basic Gravy2T whole wheat pastry flour2T canola or extra virgin olive oil13/4 C filtered water1/4 C tamari or shoyuIn a medium saucepot, over me-

dium heat, frequently stir the flouruntil it is toasty and nutty smelling.This takes just a few minutes. Don’tleave it untended — keep stirring soit doesn’t become too browned. Addthe oil and stir until combined; it willall sort of gum up together in the pot.Not to worry. Add the water andtamari (I combine these in a two-cupmeasuring cup first) and stir with awhisk until completely smooth. Sim-

Vegan gravies and sauces enliven crepes, potatoes, biscuits

Things that scream in the nighthave a way of attracting atten-tion. I speak of wild creatures,

outdoors in the dark, crying outwhen attacked, crying out when at-tacking, crying out to discourage arival or encourage a mate. Even whenheard through a double-paned win-dow, such cries can stand neck hairson end. Heard at close range, from atent in the forest, they strike fear inthe hardest of hearts.

“It sounded like a woman screaming.”“It sounded like someone being

strangled.”Through the years, I have heard

these descriptions and others frompeople intent on determining thesource of this yowling. Unfortunately,the bookstore does not sell “A FieldGuide to Bloodcurdling NocturnalScreams.” Until it does, nailing downwhat animal screeched is a challengeif the creature itself is not sighted.

On rare occasions, a flashlightbeam can detect the eye shine of anowl. For months after fledging, younggreat horned owls tag after their par-

Wheel of Seasonsby Rick Marsi

Screeching not limited to horror movies

ents, begging food when their owninept attempts at capturing preyleave them hungry. The screams canlast for hours, produced by a forlornowl perched in a tree, unaware of itsparent’s location.

Foxes can give you a good case ofgoose bumps if their nocturnal vo-cals wake you up on a warm summer

night. Books call it barking, this sharpyapping sound, but the noise is un-earthly, not dog-like at all to my ear.

And then there are cats, large wildcats, secret cats. Could that screamhave been made by a bobcat or evena cougar? Before you say “never,”don’t say it; you just might be wrong.Even though cougars are officiallyextinct in the East (with the excep-tion of a remnant Everglades popula-tion), stranger things have happenedthan finding one loose in the wild.Think of those “game farms” you’vepassed driving out in the country. Anunscrupulous owner might decidehis big cat is a burden and simplyrelease it.

Think of the people you’ve heardand read about, who bought babycreatures — or took them from thewild — and then watched whilethese bundles of joy became fear-some adults. Couldn’t a cougar endup in the wild — tossed out, sink orswim, from a vehicle under cover ofdarkness? In my book, it could, so Idon’t rule out cougars when a caller

describes nighttime screams.However, to date, no one has

shown me photos of a cougar or itstracks to verify a big cat’s existence.

What about bobcats? Odds in-crease when they enter the picture.As New York and other northeasternstates continue to become more for-ested, habitat for bobcats increases.Never common, these nocturnalhunters are so secretive, people canlive near them for decades withoutseeing them.

Bobcats are masters of conceal-ment. Males in the Northeast weighabout 25 pounds; females growsmaller. Their mottled coats blendseamlessly with natural surroundings.Cottontail rabbits constitute pre-ferred prey. Bobcats in suburbia?Don’t be too doubtful, especially assuburbs continue penetrating moredeeply into forested areas.

Bottom line: Keep your cameraready. Lock your eyes on the snowfor fresh tracks. If it howls in thenight, record the sound if you can.Then, when skeptics say, “no way,”you can counter with documentation.

Naturalist Rick Marsi, a member of theSusquehanna Group, is a journalist,public speaker and leader of eco-tours.His book of favorite nature columns isWheel of Seasons, available atwww.rickmarsi.com. ©2010 Rick Marsi

mer until the gravy thickens, about10 minutes. Serve.

Mushroom Gravyabout 2 C mushrooms — a mix-

ture of shiitake, button and portabellos ismy favorite — chopped or thinlysliced. (You want them to be aboutbite-sized, generally.)

1T (scant) olive oil1T fresh thyme leaves, or 1t. dried

ground thyme1/2t. dried sage1 Basic Gravy recipePlace oil in a medium pan on me-

dium heat. When oil is hot, add mush-rooms and herbs and saute untilmushrooms are tender and have re-leased most of their moisture. AddBasic Gravy to pan and stir to com-bine. Serve.

“Chick’n” Gravy2T whole wheat pastry flour2T canola or extra virgin olive oil2T nutritional yeast2C vegetarian “chicken” broth* (I

like to use the Better Than Bouillonfor this.)

pinch of turmericFollow instructions for Basic

Gravy, adding nutritional yeast andturmeric at the same time as thebroth.

If you add peas, diced potatoes,diced carrots and diced celery, orwhatever other veggies you like (thiscould be as simple as a bag of or-ganic frozen mixed vegetables), youcan use this as a potpie filling also.Or, top with the biscuit dough andbake as a casserole.

Whole WheatBaking Powder Biscuits

3/4C non-dairy milk2t. apple cider vinegar11/2C whole wheat flour1/2C unbleached flour1T baking powder1t. sea salt1/4C cup canola oilPreheat oven to 350 degrees. Add

vinegar to non-dairy milk and setaside to curdle while you mix re-maining ingredients. Mix dry ingredi-ents together. When non-dairy milklooks curdled, add the oil to it andwhisk to blend. Add to the dry ingre-dients and mix with a fork just untilcombined (over-mixing will createtough biscuits). Drop by large spoon-fuls onto lightly greased pan, or gen-tly pat onto a lightly floured surfaceand cut out with a biscuit cutter. Youshould get about eight good-sizedbiscuits.

Bake for 15 to 20 minutes, untillightly browned.

Roasted GarlicMashed Potatoes

I am cheating a little here with thegarlic in that it is not really roasted,but slowly cooked on the stovetop inoil as the potatoes boil. I use thismethod frequently when I want themeltingly delicious flavor of roastedgarlic, but don’t want to either takethe time that roasting it requires, orsimply don’t want to heat up theoven just to roast garlic.

At least 1 head of garlic, (more if

you love it like I do) cut into thickslices

about 3T olive oil5 or 6 large potatoes; — Yukon

Gold are my favorites, but any waxedpotato will work. Peel if they are notorganic; otherwise, just scrub cleanand cut into large chunks.

salt and pepper to tastePlace the oil in a very small pot

over medium heat. When the oil ishot, add garlic slices and turn to lowso garlic slowly simmers. Cook untila rich golden color. You do not wantcrispy, browned garlic pieces, butsoft, translucent and melty garlicslices.

Add potatoes to water to coverand bring to a boil. Reduce tempera-ture to medium and cook until forktender.

Drain potatoes, add garlic and oiland mash all together. Season withsalt and pepper.

Betsy Naselli owns The Holistic LifestyleCompany in the Syracuse area.www.TheHolisticLifestyleCompany.comThe Atlantic Chapter encourages you to movetoward a plant-based diet to protect the environ-ment, human health and wildlife, and to makebetter use of natural resources. To learn more andreceive more recipes, contact the Biodiversity/Vegetarian Outreach Committee [email protected], (315) 488-2140 ,5031 Onondaga Rd., Syracuse, NY 13215-1403 orgo to www.newyork.sierraclub.org/. Click on “Con-servation” at the top. On the left, see “Environmen-tal Issues.” Click on “Biodiversity/Vegetarian Out-reach.”

*If you can’t find a chicken fla-vored vegetarian broth, a plain veg-etarian broth will do.


Ret

urn

Ser

vice

Gu

aran

teed

Sier

ra C

lub

Atl

anti

c C

hap

ter

PO

Box

42

10

41

Pal

m C

oas

t FL

32

14

2-1

04

1

Non-

Prof

it Or

ganiz

ation

US Po

stage

PA

IDUt

ica, N

ew Yo

rkPe

rmit

No. 3

2

EX

PL

OR

E,

EN

JOY

AN

D

PR

OT

EC

T T

HE

PL

AN

ET

Long IslandClimate action, dark skies, energy research competition

In October, 2009, the LI Group organized the 350 Riverhead Street Fair aspart of the 350 International Day of Climate Action. Considering a growingshare of our national energy use comes from processing, packaging and trans-porting food, we chose tosupport a local certified or-ganic farm for this year’s 10/10/10 Global Work Party.

Sierrans were joined bymembers of Slow Food Hun-tington (a co-organizer forthis event) and other volun-teers to help RestorationFarm in Bethpage preparefor the autumn season. Aftersome hard work, we satdown for a potluck picnic.

The often misunderstood subject of light pollution was the topic of ourNovember community meeting. This presentation by Susan Harder, executivedirector of the International Dark-Sky Association, New York chapter, made itclear that by directing the appropriate amount of light where it is neededsaves energy and has numerous benefits for people and the environment. Theaudience included homeowners and municipal representatives who partici-pated in the lively Q&A that followed. (For more information: www.darksky.org.)

Nassau and Suffolk county students in grades 9–12 are participating inour energy research competition. They will submit proposals for developingan alternative source of energy that can be implemented on Long Island. Thegoal is to create awareness for the need to develop renewable energy sources.Winners will be announced in January.

BILL STEGEMANN

Group Roundup

IroquoisArt galleries provide opportunity for outreach about fracking

Our anti-hydrofracking efforts took a new turn recently. A local art gallerysolicited local work for an exhibit, “A Sense of Place,” about the impact of hu-mans on our natural landscape. Pictures covered the effects of mining of allkinds, including one of a lovely meadow, titled “Hydrofrackin Site.” The galleryis in a community with many leases and the gallery owner put together a pro-gram of local town planners and community leaders and asked our Group tosend a speaker. We sent two, Jack Ramsden and Martha Loew. The meetingroom filled, and the interest was great. This was the first audience in sometime that was not very aware of the Marcellus gas “play,” so it was really worth-while.

This is the second art gallery that has been really helpful in the Syracusearea, and it may be a venue others would like to look into.

We are planning a big push for the “Save the Water” campaign in support ofa county plan to avoid building any more sewage treatment plants by keepingstorm water out of the sewer system. We will be meeting to plan more in Feb-ruary.

The local offshoot of Shaleshock ny, Shaleshock cny, is very active and meet-ing monthly. So all the work of the past year and a half is now a program of itsown.

Albany staffer Roger Downs presented one of our best events with hisanalysis of the state and federal elections. The program was co-sponsored bythe Syracuse League of Women Voters. Despite a windy rainstorm, turnout andresponse were terrific.

MARTHA LOEW

Lower HudsonPolitical action, showing of “Gasland” yield good returns

In the past few months, we concentrated on the NY Senate and Assemblyelections. Our crack political team arranged for endorsement of four Senatecandidates and seven Assembly candidates. We worked actively for three of theSenate candidates, calling Sierra Club members in the districts, and, in twocases, mailing postcards as well. In the end, one lost and three won. In the As-sembly races, all seven of our endorsees won.

Beyond the elections, we worked on the fracking threat with the CrotonWatershed Clean Water Coalition and other local groups by holding a screen-ing of the film “Gasland,” followed by a panel and reception, from all of whichwe garnered a new crop of activists on the fracking issue.

GEORGE KLEIN

the lake—three house lots away from the shoreline. A spill at the well sitewould easily get into the lake. The horizontal section of the well could extendfar under the lake—since the lake is not controlled by the municipality thatuses it for drinking water. The proposed DEC regulations offer no protectionfor the lake or its watershed. They pose a threat to all water wells, creeks, riv-ers and lakes in the Southern Tier.

As proposed, New York’s regulations are the worst in the country. Unlike inother states, there is no direct tax on the gas produced, so the state reaps nodirect benefit from production. Unlike other states, New York tasks its regula-tory agency, the DEC, with the issuance of drilling permits—thus compromis-ing the DEC’s mission as environmental watchdog. Unlike other states, NewYork can compel a landowner to participate in drilling a well—even if thelandowner has not signed a lease; this practice is known as “compulsory inte-gration,” which is illegal in other states.

New York represents a dramatically different drilling regime than otherstates where horizontal hydrofracking of shale has been developed. For ex-ample, Texas is about the size of France but has only one natural lake (Caddo).All other surface water sources are impoundments (man-made reservoirs) andall of them are either owned or controlled by a municipality for drinking wa-ter, or by the Corps. of Engineers. If Cooperstown were in Texas, Lake Otsegowould be a reservoir owned by the townships and county. Whether to drillnext to the lake or frack under it would be a municipal decision, not a private one.

New York’s proposed regulations treat New York City and Syracuse differ-ently from other municipalities with respect to drinking water sources. TheDEC puts a gloss on its reasoning for such disparate treatment, but it is notlikely to survive a court challenge. Otesgo County residents should have thesame protections as New York City residents—and every Texan.

The proposed DEC regulations should be scrapped. The state should waitfor the EPA to issue its new guidelines on horizontal hydrofracking of shalegas wells. And the state should wait for Congress to close the “Halliburtonloophole” in the Clean Water Act, so that such wells are once again broughtunder federal jurisdiction, as they were before the 2005 Energy Act exemptedthem from regulation.

James Northrup of Cooperstown was in the energy business for 30 years.He has been an independent oil and gas producer in Texas and New Mexicoand has owned onshore and offshore drilling rigs in Texas, Louisiana, Okla-homa, West Africa, Brazil and the South China Sea. This article expands onhis comments at a public forum on natural gas drilling, organized by theOtsego County Board of Representatives.

Fracking is literally a ‘dirty bomb’continued from page 1

the atlantic chapter of the sierra club — serving new york

Documents