WWEIII: No, it’s not about wrestling

Friends of the Upper Delaware River (FUDR) sponsored its third annual Water Water Everywhere conference on Tuesday, October 9, coupling technical presentations related to increasing water flows to relieve thermal stress on trout with talks on the power of coalition building to actually implement such policy goals.

All about thermal releases

The technical talks presented three developments that could wind up dovetailing nicely to mitigate the thermal emergencies that have repeatedly threatened the trout in the Upper Delaware’s coldwater fishery in recent years. This year, for instance, there were four instances in which high water temperatures prompted urgent requests by the New York DEC and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to the Delaware River Basin decree parties (the State of New York, the City of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey) to release extra water to cool things down. There was a response to only one of these. One of those thermal stress episodes lasted seven days, without relief.

Representative Fred Henson of the NY DEC and Mark Hartle of the PA Fish and Boat Commission noted that one of the problems in obtaining thermal releases is the fact that the decision can only be made by a vote of the decree parties. Reaching the officials who represent the parties and getting them to vote on the issue, let alone getting a favorable vote, presents serious logistical issues. The response-time problem is worsened by the fact that there is a roughly 12-hour lag in getting the water from Cannonsville to Lordsville on the main stem.

Noting that it is politically unlikely that the decree parties will cede their decision-making power with regard to thermal releases to any automatic protocol, Hartle and Henson suggested as an alternative a decision tree that would help objectify the decree parties’ deliberation process, allowing them to come more rapidly and reliably to a conclusion about what needs to be done. The idea is that the creation of clear criteria under which thermal releases should be authorized ought at least to reduce the hemming and hawing time, while tending to encourage a favorable response to requests.

Peter Kolesar presented a work in progress with regard to quantifying, via rigorous statistical methods, exactly how much water needs to be released to relieve thermal stress defined as water temperatures above 75 degrees Fahrenheit, and showing that in the past there would have been plenty of water available to do so within the parameters of the Interim Excess Release Quantity available in the current flow regime. When complete, Kolesar’s models could provide, in effect, a mathematically rigorous version of Hartle and Henson’s decision tree, giving specific criteria for when water should be released for thermal stress purposes and how much. It would also provide the decree parties with the comfort of scientific evidence that the amount of water being released has been calculated for maximum efficiency, so that the desired result is achieved with nothing being squandered. Kolesar expects his work to be ready for prime time in one or two months.

Garth Pettinger of Trout Unlimited gave a presentation on the potential impact of the completion of the Croton reservoir system's new filtration system sometime in 2013. That part of the NYC drinking water system has been offline since 2008, and had been experiencing periodic shutdowns even before then. Pettinger argued that the water newly available from Croton, up to 290mgd, ought to be deducted from the amount drawn from the Delaware system, allowing for much higher Delaware reservoir releases year round.

Some in the audience noted that water from Croton would need pumping to get to NYC, making this a costly tradeoff for the city and one that it is unlikely to concede. But I did some research after the conference and found in the final EIS for the plant (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/croton/execsumm.pdf) that an average flow of 144mgd per day from Croton is anticipated. That amount can be driven by gravity; indeed, in the past, the gravity flow from Croton has supplied about 10% of the city’s water needs, and it goes to customers in low-lying areas of the Bronx and Manhattan.

That 144mgd is not sufficient to carry out Pettinger’s proposed program of increased flows years round, but it is probably more than enough to offset any draws required by the precise targeting of the Kolesar approach, which could potentially make it an easier political sell.

The power of we

The day concluded with a couple of presentations about coalitions, one by Anthony Caligiuri and Kim Beidler of the newly formed Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed (CDRW), and one by Jeff Skelding and Rachael Dawson of America’s Great Waters Coalition. Both presentations pointed out the degree to which the interests of small grass-roots organizations can be leveraged by joining together with other like-minded groups. Such groups can operate on what Skelding called “the NATO principle:” what you do to one of us, you do to all--a principle that can operate both as a shield and a proactive power.

The most stunning statistic with regard to the leverage that can be obtained by coalitions was cited by Caligiuri, who noted of one organization, the Chesapeake Bay Coalition, that the number of individuals represented has grown to 1 million, in an area whose population is 17 million. One in 17 people in that area can stand behind any initiative proposed by that coalition – a very powerful political fact.

In conversation after the meeting, Dan Plummer, chairman of FUDR, which is already a member of both CDRW and the Great Waters Coalition, said he was particularly enthusiastic about the discussion of coalitions. Indeed, the tagline with which Beidler named her presentation, “It’s not just us anymore,” was derived from a remark that Plummer had made shortly after joining the coalition. Expressing his relief at not feeling alone in his efforts, Plummer had said, “It’s not just FUDR anymore.”

In the face of the powerful multinational industrial interests that seem to be engaged in what can only be called a concerted attack on the water resources of the nation including the Delaware, those of us who seek to protect those resources can all too easily feel like ants who have wandered onto a battlefield. Coalitions such as CDRW and the Great Waters Coalition offer the possibility of getting into the fray in a more effective way.

Gas commission gets going

The Town of Delaware’s newly formed commission on natural gas drilling held its first meeting on Monday, October 9, sans Fred Stabbert, who did indeed resign before the meeting (see “Friday evening gossip…” below). Superintendent Ed Sykes, who was there for the first outing but will not necessarily be at future meetings, said he understood Stabbert’s feeling that, as publisher of a newspaper, Stabbert felt he needed to maintain independence. (In answer to a question from the public at the town board meeting at which the names had first been announced, Sykes had listed Stabbert as one of three commission members he considered pro-fracking.)

This first defection notwithstanding, my very preliminary impression is that Sykes may have actually succeeded in doing what he said he wanted to do: appoint a commission composed of members who, while they do start out with a position leaning either for or against fracking, are willing to be open minded about the issue. Commission members are Earl Kinney, Matt Hofer, Kara McElroy, Cindy Menges and Craig Schumacher . The commission itself will select a sixth member, but had not done so as of the end of Monday’s meeting. Menges will be chairman at least until the sixth member is selected.

Although it was hard to tell much from a first meeting at which the discussion was mainly about process rather than substance, I consider it unlikely that this group will follow its unfortunate predecessor in Cochecton by winding up in ideological gridlock. That’s partly because the way the members interacted suggests an ability to work together well, but also because, although the group has not yet even fully articulated what its mission is, as discussed so far it will focus on fact finding rather than policy prescriptions.

As Schumacher put it, "We are out to find the truth," and although that is perhaps an overly simplistic and even naive way to put it, the members' discussion of method suggested a hardheaded and practical approach that could potentially produce some valuable results. Particularly interesting was the insistence on sourcing all information in hard data and primary studies, combined with the admission that even apparently neutral sources like university studies could be influenced by who commissioned and financed those studies. Cindy Menges in particular took a lead on promoting this angle, and said she has worked extensively with statistics and knows how they can be skewed to support almost any point of view. The focus on sourcing, tempered by a healthy skepticism about the apparent neutrality of any source, strikes me as a good place to start.

Whether the town board will be influenced in any way by the group’s findings is, of course, quite another question.

The commission’s next meeting will be on Monday, October 22 at 5:30 p.m. in the town hall, and it will continue to meet weekly for the subsequent month, with meetings probably becoming less frequent as it gets in the groove. The public is welcome, but it is requested that all comments be submitted in writing. A dedicated email address will be established for that purpose.

The request is that all public comments back up any assertion with the source of the facts alleged, including if possible hyperlinks. For the first meeting, the commission is requesting input on what questions the group ought to be seeking the answers to.

My impression is that this group is indeed open to credible information, and it is important that anyone who knows of good primary sources regarding the environmental and economic impacts of hydrofracking provide the commission with links to those studies, or publication information allowing them to obtain hard copy.

Water quality under threat from DRBC proposal?

Bernie Handler of Damascus Citizens for Sustainability has alerted me to a potential problem developing at the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), related to an idea that he had heard proposed at the last regular DRBC meeting on September 12.

The proposal is to eliminate redundancies in DRBC and the individual states' regulation of water discharges in the Delaware River basin. As confirmed by Kenneth Najjar, Manager, Planning & Information Technology Branch of the DRBC, the idea is to shift control over the permitting process to the states, while maintaining as a minimum the standards and criteria for approval currently imposed by the DRBC.  The goal is to consolidate the stream of paperwork in one process. 

Of course, in addition to  paperwork there are issues regarding monitoring and other field work, enforcement and the like. The DRBC would continue to be involved with some or all of these, with the details to be worked out. Najjar said, in fact, that there was a meeting taking place on Thursday to work out just some of those details.

Najjar says it's possible that further information about this issue will be shared at the December 5 DRBC meeting. 

As Najjar pointed out on Thursday evening after the Upper Delaware Council meeting, the states are under tremendous pressure to make all their operations more efficient, and in that context it is no surprise to hear that regulations in the river basin are being targeted, as they do, no doubt, tend to get particularly complex because of the overlay between the interstate organization and the individual states.

The problem is, however, that when it comes to environmental regulators, the term "streamlining" can all too often be code for "making smooth the road for industry at the expense of the environment." We can certainly hope that that is not the case in the current instance--but in that regard it would be useful if all those, both general public and organizations, interested in protecting water quality in the Delaware River Basin, keep their eyes on the process and make sure that any increases in efficiency are not purchased at the expense of effectiveness.

It is of particular concern to make sure that enforcement of DRBC standards does not fall victim to the vicissitudes of political change. It is of no use to have a robust system of standards that will serve to protect river water quality if implementation falls into the hands of a state whose regulatory mechanism is under the sway of industry interests. Tom Corbett's Pennsylvania, bluntly, is a matter of concern; not that there aren't still many highly competent, high-integrity regulators there, but the system as a whole under the Corbett administration has in many ways been gamed to serve industry interests over the past couple of years.(See http://www.riverreporter.com/editorial/16/2011/09/27/interdisciplinary-and-cross-media-huh.)

In any case, this is most certainly an issue we should keep our eyes on.

Gas drilling and the new feudalism

A friend recently called my attention to a post by "Kilgour Farms" over at Natural Gas Forums (http://www.naturalgasforums.com/index.php/topic,17939.msg232166.html#new) that draws a parallel between the Anti-Rent War that occurred in upper New York State in 1846, which “put to rest fuedelism (sic) in America,” and the struggle of some current landowners to lease their land for natural gas drilling.

I agree that feudalism has raised its ugly head again in the current debate over natural gas drilling in our area. But it is not the small landowners trying to preserve the rural residential character of their neighborhoods and the value of their land by keeping out heavy industrial activity who are behaving like feudal overlords. It is, duh, the large landowners who are trying to leverage the power of their acreage to impose land uses that serve their own private interests, regardless of the costs to small landowners and renters in the community.

During the Anti-Rent war, (http://www.oneonta.edu/library/dailylife/protest/index.html), tenant farmers were protesting a system in which large landowners leased  their land to farmers via perpetual leases rather than selling the land outright. The landowners retained the rights, among other things, to mineral, lumber, and water rights. Presumably it’s the “mineral rights” phrase that struck a chord with Kilgour Farms, with the modern-day analogy being government as the evil landowner, and large landowners like Kilgour being the downtrodden.

Only one problem: in our country, governments that derive their powers from a democratic system with one vote per man—especially the municipal governments that control most land use issues—are light years away from a single landowner who has nothing to consult but his own wishes. The body that, in some towns, is telling large landowners that they cannot host large-scale industrial activity is composed of their more numerous neighbors, each of whom stands to suffer more grievously from what the large landowners want to do than the landowners stand to gain.

After all, the pro-drilling landowners have held their land for years without even knowing the option of gas drilling existed. All they are giving up is a hitherto unknown opportunity. Small property owners stand to lose pretty much everything they already have—their health, a contaminated water supply, their homes and the majority of their wealth due to revoked mortgages by banks unwilling to take the risks associated with gas drilling.

Note, by the way, that these same municipalities have for years granted huge tax breaks to these large landowners in return for their good stewardship of the land for, e.g., forestry purposes—and the same small landowner neighbors have paid a disproportionately high share of taxes to make that possible.

All of this bears no relationship to the private individual landowners imposing their will on their small tenants that the Anti-Rent war protested.

On the contrary, when Noel van Swol of the pro-drilling Joint Landowners Coalition of NY stands up in the Town of Delaware meetings and prefaces his remarks with how many acres he represents in the town—and refuses to answer the question, “and how many people do you represent?”—he is reflecting precisely the view of the medieval overlord: my land is my might, and you must do deference to it. It’s not about people. It’s about land, and who owns the most. And my land makes my will law.

In his post, Kilgour quotes an Anti-Rent leader, Dr. Smith Boughton: "The purpose of our society is not for the few of maximum strength and ambition to lead lives of Byzantine glory, but for men to make the most of their common humanity.”

Indeed. Hence the importance of preserving our common assets, like clean water and air, essential to the wellbeing of all—even if it deprives a few of a special windfall that allows them to "lead lives of Byzantine glory."

Fear and loathing in Denver

I made an honest try to listen to the Presidential debate, I really did. But I only lasted about 20 minutes. It was like listening to two guys at a bus stop argue whether Obama or  Romney should become President. Neither one of these clowns seemed to know or understand any more about their economic ideas than I do, which is not a high bar.

And is there some reason Obama didn't jump all over Romney when he kept saying, "the share" paid by upper income people would not decline under his tax proposals? The trick here of course is the word "share," referring to the fact that he plans to cut rates across the board by 20% -- but boy howdy is that going to come to a different number of dollars for the one percent and for you and me. It's terrifying to think of my financial future as being in the hands of either one of these guys. As is all too often the case, I was left after my 20 minutes with the conclusion that if things are going to get better, it's all going to have to be by the bootstraps.

Friday night gossip at the Callicoon Wine Merchant

Shouldering my way into the Callicoon Wine Merchant at sixish on Friday, I ran into a friend who is a member of the Loyal Opposition. I say "shouldering my way in" because there was a considerable crowd of people standing around talking, some holding glasses of wine. I wondered if it could be a political fundraiser -- it's the season, after all -- but my friend told me no, it's just Friday night after five at Callicoon Wine Merchant. Apparently there's a bit of a mini-bar-scene there that I had not been aware of.

After making it to the cash register to pay for the cosmetically flawed but ambrosial Honey Crisp apples that I had picked up from a wooden crate sitting on the bench outside, I returned to my friend for a bit of a gossip. He said he had a couple of tidbits for me, both of which proved related to the natural gas drilling commission which had been approved two town meetings ago, and whose members' names (supposedly) Ed Sykes had announced at the most recent meeting.

Tidbit one (add salt for the hearsay) was that someone had told my friend that Fred Stabbert, one of the named commission members, has said that he is not pro-gas drilling, and therefore is going to resign. We were both scratching our heads over that one. It's true that Ed described Stabbert as one of the three members of the six-member commission who tended to lean pro, but Sykes also reiterated that the whole point was to find people who are not rabid either way. Combining what is generally perceived as the somewhat pro stance of Stabbert's newspaper with his personal (if this hearsay is correct) affirmation that he is not pro drilling, that might actually bring him pretty close to the balance Sykes is looking for. So why quit? All I can think of is that he's not happy to be designated as holding one position or the other in the case of something so controversial. In that case, I would imagine he can be persuaded to stay on the commission once he has made his objection to Sykes' characterization clear.

Tidbit two, without going into specific names to protect the innocent, is that another named member admitted that Sykes had spoken to him, but had not agreed to be on the commission and indeed didn't want to be--it apparently came as a surprise to him that he had been publicly named. But once he was told he had been named, so the tale goes, he allowed as how maybe he'd agree to be on the commission after all.

 As noted, add salt. But the general impression is that the gas commission is a bit up in the air. I wonder if any of the members, for instance, has been charged with convening an initial meeting? Or if they're all sitting around waiting for somebody else to get started -- those who are aware they are on it and are unequivocally willing to accept the appointment.

 Meanwhile, Callicoon Wine Merchant owner Robin says he will have more apples out there on Sunday, September 30. You can't beat $1 a pound, they're clearly local, and they beat those shiny round things in the supermarket all hollow.

UDC chestnuts pulled out of the fire

Given an increasingly isolationist, do-nothing and even anti-environmental bent in the past year or so, it has sometimes seemed that the UDC is in the process of marginalizing itself. Its raison d'etre, after all, is to administer the plan that protects the values for which the Upper Delaware River was designated as part of the Wild and Scenic River system. Had the new five-year plan boasted a list of priorities with "protecting private property rights" at the top, as it came close to doing, that might just have been the nail in the coffin.

This danger was averted at the September meeting, with a series of maneuvers led by Town of Highland Superintendent Andy Boyar, principally assisted by the NY DEC's Bill Rudge and National Park Superintendent Sean McGuinness, with other including Sue Sullivan, Larry Richardson and even, at the end, Jack Niflot chipping in bits from the sidelines.

It became apparent early in the discussion that the WURM committee's proposal of re-voting the workshop poll that had produced the list in question was not going to fly. Indeed, it looked like it might be game over altogether when Al Henry, who had spoken strongly for the re-vote idea at the WURM meeting, nevertheless made a motion at the full council meeting to vote on the five-year plan as-is, which is to say, including the list with "private property rights" as the number one concern. A vote to approve the plan at that time might very well have gone through. But it was at this point that Boyar intervened with a motion to amend.

It's a perfect example of a case in which experience--and knowledge of Robert's Rules--counts; as Boyar knew, and I and others learned, a motion to amend is the one kind of motion you can interject, and have discussed and voted on, when there is another motion on the floor. Boyar obtained a reprieve by picking up a ball that had been thrown by Rudge: a rewrite of the number one priority that put private property rights back where they belong, that is, as an adjunct to the protection of the river. The resulting rephrase was almost verbatim a combination of the number on and number four goals listed on page 13 of the River Management Plan (RMP): "Protect the unique scenic, cultural and natural resource values of the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River and its immediate environs [number one] while protecting private property rights [number four].”

Boyar may have perhaps over-praised Rudge's offering a bit in saying that, like the Gettysburg Address, it's the kind of thing nobody would want to change a word of -- but his intervention in moving to amend the original motion to approve the plan had the desired effect. The bulk of the discussion turned to how Rudge's suggestion should be changed, not on whether, and the momentum of the meeting shifted decisively. McGuinness helped provide the final push by saying that it might be okay to keep the language as is, with private property rights number one, if everybody would concede what that actually meant according to the RMP. He then went on to enumerate all the steps, e.g. regular conformance reviews, strict adherence to ordinances, strict enforcement, etc. etc., all of which in fact amounted to nothing more than what the RMP has been telling us all along. But it was a bit too rich for the blood of Deerpark representative Dave Dean, who said he could go along with some of it, but not all. In comparison, the Rudge compromise probably started to look pretty good.

By this time the sheer lateness of the night was taking its toll, and Jack Niflot of Fremont, typically a swing vote, did his bit by pointing out that they had started out with a perfectly simple, perfectly good motion by Boyar and maybe they just ought to stick with it. In the end, a very slight modification of Rudge's language was approved (replacing the word "respecting" with "protecting" private property rights). Perhaps most surprising of all, the vote seemed to be virtually unanimous -- it looked like Peckham voted "no", and there may have been some abstentions.

Of course, the proof will be in the pudding as to how the council members actually use this five-year plan going forward. But at least we will be spared arguments in which someone puts forward a motion on the grounds that it protects private property rights--even if it has nothing to do with, or even harms environmental resources--and justifies it by referring to the list of priorities in the five-year plan.