The Marcellus Shale, which reaches beneath the southern tier of New York and into Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia is one of the largest fossil-fuel reserves in the Western Hemisphere and could yield as much as 20 times as our natural current output of natural gas. You might think that such a large energy reserve seems too good to be true, and perhaps it is. It gets its name from a town in Western New York where there the shale formation juts out above the ground. The region’s energy richness has been known for decades. But extracting the natural gas from the pores in the shale in a way that would be cost effective and efficient has always been a problem.

Hydraulic Fracturing (mostly shortened to hydrofracking) was determined to be an efficient way of extracting the methane gas from the shale. The process is not new, it has been used in the oil industry for more than 60 years. Only in the past several years, with the rising cost of fossil fuels, has it been determined by the energy industry that the Marcellus Shale is worth hydrofracking’s high cost.

Hydrofracking removes fossil fuels from shale by pumping a pressurized cocktail of toxic liquids, diesel fuel and water, into the shale to fracture the rock, which would in turn release the fossil fuel, in this case natural gas. These fractures are then maintained after the injection by introducing materials such as sand, ceramic, or other particulates, that prevent the fractures from closing when the fluid injection is stopped. The water, diesel, and other chemicals that is left over is stored in pools, sometimes unlined, above the surface until it is hauled away for treatment or disposal.

Some landowners in the Marcellus Shale area are experiencing a modern day gold rush. Energy-industry representatives are paying princely sums, rumored to be as high as eight figures in some cases, to obtain drilling rights beneath private property.

But environmentalists are warning that hydrofracking is not only bad for the region, it can cause a catastrophe in New York as great, if not greater, than the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill. They’ve presented evidence that it can provoke earthquakes and above-ground explosions, and that it can pollute our groundwater and create dry beds out of our streams, ponds, and rivers, which are used to supply resources for the hydrofracking process.

In Pennsylvania, where hydrofracking has been taking place in the Marcellus Shale, wells have been ruined, tainted with salt, benzene, and other toxic and volatile chemicals. There is evidence that these compounds have also entered into nearby streams, not only affecting fish, but nearby farms that use this water for irrigation.

The problems with hydrofracking in have been outlined in the documentary Gasland, which is currently playing on the premium cable network HBO. The most famous segment of the film shows a resident near a hydrofracking well setting his methane-infused tap water on fire in his kitchen.

Environmentalists point to evidence from hydrofracking regions in Wyoming, Colorado of people and wildlife being made sick from the process. Diseases such as rare adrenal tumors and cancers are attributed to the extremely toxic compound “2-BE” that’s used in the process. There is no list of the chemicals used in hydrofracking, but clean-up sites left in the wake of the process have shown excess levels of toxins such as hydrochloric acid, benzene, toulene, and xylene (the last three toxins are commonly found in diesel fuel).

Why is the list of chemicals used in hydrofracking kept secret? Perhaps it had to do with a conflict of interest between the Bush Administration and the energy corporations, specifically Halliburton.

In 2005, the energy industry was exempted from clean water protections by the Bush Administration. As part of Vice President Dick Cheney’s infamous and secretive “Energy Task Force” in 2001, the captains of the energy industry and the administration touted hydrofracking as the future of fossil-fuel extraction, while redacting any evidence of human health hazards caused by the process. Halliburton, the company that pioneered and continues to develop and utilize hydrofracking, benefited greatly from the Bush Administration’s deference to the energy industry. Thus, the lack of clean water provisions in regard to energy development are known as the “Halliburton Loophole.”

Vice President Cheney, if you need be reminded, was the CEO of Halliburton prior to becoming Vice President. He continued to be paid millions a year in deferred compensation from his vested financial interests in the corporation while serving in the Bush Administration.

Where does New York stand on hydrofracking? Right now, industry-supported State laws are in effect to disencumber hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale and New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation has been busy stamping permits for drilling. But the DEC might be moving the process along too quickly: Instead of studying the environmental impacts of each individual well (which is typically needed under State law) the DEC has opted to hastily get through this process by only gauging the collective impact of the hydraulic fracturing process. Such generic evaluations are similar to the type of loose regulation used in deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. These evaluations can also be easily disputed by the legal departments of large energy interests. In effect, New York’s DEC has chosen to marginalize its impact as the lead regulatory agency and seems more than happy to perform a mediocre job of protecting our state’s environment.

But local governments are stepping up and taking action and there is particular concern in this region. While Rockland County is outside of the Marcellus shale, it is only a short 70 miles from its eastern boundary and our natural water systems are directly affected.

Rockland County may take action soon in calling on Governor Paterson to impose a moritorium on hydrofracking. The County Legislature’s Environmental committee has recently passed a resolution calling for this. County legislator Connie Coker, who chairs the committee is hopeful that this resolution will be passed by the full legislature after its referred to them in a meeting on July 6.

“This procedure presents many environmental, human and wildlife health concerns,” said Legislator Coker […] the prime sponsor of the resolution. “There is the potential to contaminate groundwater, the surrounding landscape and the quality of air. What happens to all that solid material that is no longer just innocent sand, but toxic waste? This resolution asks the Governor to impose a moratorium and to withdraw the flawed impact statement until the results of on-going studies are made available, studied and concluded. I believe it would be viewed as a responsible and prudent action on his part.”

Clarkstown Town Clerk, David Carlucci, who is running for State Senate in the 38th District, which includes Rockland County and parts of Orange County, is also calling for a moratorium, and says that in many respects hydrofracking is New York’s equivalent to the Gulf of Mexico’s deep water oil drilling process and must be treated with similar seriousness. A recent press release form his campaign makes some lucid points about further reviewing the hydrofracking process:

It is my belief that we do not know enough about either side of this issue to allow widespread hydro-fracking in the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale formations to begin. We need to thoroughly investigate and understand reports of ground water and nearby stream contamination as well as the health impact to local residents before we jump into this process, or we may end up with an environmental disaster on our hands. Such a disaster would make any economic gain offered by the gas companies seem small by comparison.

Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef, who is running against Carlucci for the open Senate seat, has worked as an environmental attorney in the past. Disappointingly, he has not issued a statement concerning the Marcellus Shale in either his capacity as the advocate for the county, nor as a possible future State Senator, which may have to make decisions about hydrofracking going forward.

There is bigger concern in New York City. It’s source of drinking water is in the Catskill watershed, some of it within the Marcellus Shale. New York is one of the few municipalities that gets its water untreated from its reserviors. Contamination of New York City’s water supply would be a man-made disaster of monumental proportions and affect the health of more than 8 million people.

Until we get some answers and perhaps some alternatives to the chemicals and processes used in hydrofracking, residents of Rockland and Orange Counties need to back resolutions to call for a moratorium of this process in New York State.

This article is based on a similar piece written for the Left of the Hudson blog.

Without even something as simple as a business plan or a building permit, the Town has already bulldozed a notable section of the 61 acre drainage basin on Route 45, cutting down trees and paving it over. However, neither the Board nor Town Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence has been able to provide any hard evidence that the wooded site is in fact blighted and worthy of being classified as an urban renewal zone. But by declaring it one, the Town can easily move ahead on development and construction without going through typical bureaucratic processes.

But has St. Lawrence and the Ramapo Board played fast and loose with the legal definition of blighted to skirt State law?

New York’s Constitution (Article XVIII, Section 3) uses the precedent established by Yonkers v. Morris to define blight as follows:

* Factors to be considered in determining if area is “blighted” and thus subject to urban renewal condemnation include such diverse matters as irregularity of the plots, inadequacy of the streets, diversity of land ownership making assemblage of property difficult, incompatibility of existing mixture of residential and industrial property, overcrowding, incidence of crime, lack of sanitation, drain areas makes on municipal services, fire hazards, traffic congestion and pollution.
* For an area to be termed “blighted” and thus subject to urban renewal condemnation, degree of deterioration or precise percentage of obsolescence or mathematical measurement of other factors do not have to be arrived at with precision, since combination and effects of such things are highly variable.

Further, the New York Development Corporation Act defines a “substandard or insanitary area” as:

[I]nterchangeable with a slum, blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating area, or an area which has a blighting influence on the surrounding area, whether residential, non-residential, commercial, industrial, vacant or land in highways, waterways, railway and subway tracks and yards, bridge and tunnel approaches and entrances, or other similar facilities, over which air rights and easements or other rights of user necessary for the use and development of such air rights, to be developed as air rights sites for the elimination of the blighting influence, or any combination thereof and may include land, buildings or improvements, or air rights and concomitant easements or other rights of user necessary for the use and development of such air rights not in themselves substandard or insanitary.

I think an interested party stands a good chance of challenging this development and stopping its progress in court. After all, wouldn’t the Town of Ramapo have to prove that the area has the potential to degrade the quality of nearby property or is itself in the process of deterioration? And what proof would they present?

Aerial photographs of the site show the property to be a healthy, attractive wooded area with a stream running through it. Only the area that was bulldozed and paved over by the Town of Ramapo seems to mar it. However, the Town claims the site is polluted and filled with trash, such as abandoned cars. But those that have visited the area, including Preserve Ramapo‘s Michael Castelluccio have found the site to be “pristine” and devoid of trash. The Town has even admitted that the levels of mercury, DDT, and arsenic on the site are not highly toxic.

By insisting this wooded area is blighted and by designating the site an urban renewal zone, the town allows the Ramapo Local Development Corporation, a quasi-governmental agency chaired by St. Lawrence, to forego numerous protocols typically used in the development and construction stages. It also assists the corporation in seeking state and federal grants, including real property tax abatements. After the stadium is built, it would be owned by St. Lawrence’s corporation, which would lease the stadium to tenants.

Even after it’s built, Ramapo residents would continue to be taxed diffusely for this new stadium, picking up the slack for the tax abatements that the Ramapo Development Corporation will enjoy. While the developers could have 10 years of real property tax abatements through New York’s Empire Zone program, Ramapo residents will be footing the bill for the additional police, public works, and sewage resources this stadium will demand. In addition, the rest of taxpayers in Rockland can expect to pay for the the Development Corporation’s share of county taxes into the next decade. In short, residents of other towns will end up paying for a project that they didn’t approve. And that’s taxation without representation.

Further, it has been pointed out by local newspapers, bloggers, and activists that the surrounding roads, especially the two-lane Route 45, will be inadequate in handling the traffic to the area, possibly causing back-ups and gridlock that would extend outside of Ramapo and into Clarkstown and beyond. The Orangetown newspaper Our Town said in a recent editorial that:

The downside of Ramapo’s headlong rush to get into the sports business is the traffic impact and the investment in road improvements necessary to support a minor league baseball team and stadium. That could be spread around a much larger number of people who have no say in the matter whatsoever. All towns that could be affected should have an opportunity to review and comment during the planning process.

I couldn’t agree more. I’m calling on the Rockland County Executive’s office to take the lead in this matter, considering that this stadium could have a potential negative impact throughout all five towns.

The Town of Ramapo is playing the entire County as suckers and taxpayers need an advocate. It is the County Executive’s duty to use the bully pulpit of his office to review land use, public works, and taxation issues that can have a dire consequences on the welfare of the County. We need Scott Vanderoef to lead the County a public forum, or if need be, a suit filed by the on behalf of Rockland’s residents to stop the Town of Ramapo from moving forward with this subterfuge.

“I have been encouraged to look at it, and we are making calls to chairs and talking to them about it, and trying to gauge the support that might be there,” Vanderhoef confirmed to me by phone. “This is exploratory, getting a sense of what’s going on in the state.”

Vanderhoef, who fought a dirty campaign against Thom Kleiner to win a fifth term as County Executive just this past November, has told the Albany Times Union that he’s reached out to county party chairs upstate, despite some of them having endorsed Bruce Blakeman, who has been actively running for the Senate as a Republican. Billionaire Mort Zuckerman recently announced that he will not seek the Senate nomination. According to the Times Union, Vanderhoef is working with a well-connected GOP operative.

In addition to his interest in running for Comptroller and Senator, the former which he announced the only one day after he began his fifth term as Executive, Vanderhoef has run for Congress and Lieutenant Governor while at the helm of Rockland County. There have also been reports that Vanderhoef has sought the Presidency of Rockland Community College and an top position with Giuliani Partners while Executive.

While I am not against politicians seeking higher office, Vanderhoef has made it very clear that he does not care much for his job. His public job-search exploits have been a distraction and many people have begun to wonder whether Vanderhoef is paying enough attention to the County and its serious financial problems. Under his watch the County has consistently faced eight-digit shortfalls due to the Executive’s perennial revenue miscalculations. Vanderhoef has become Rockland County’s King Nero that fiddles as the County budget burns. While our taxes have risen, services have been cut, and County salaries have been frozen, Vanderhoef  had the nerve to ram through a 12.5 percent salary increase for himself in December. And just a few months into another four-year term, does Vanderhoef think he has accomplished what he was elected to do?

Right now, many people are wondering, and rightfully so, whether Governor David Paterson should resign his post. Beyond his ethical lapses, the question is whether Paterson can competently handle matters of the State of New York while being distracted with other serious issues. I believe the same criteria should apply to Vanderhoef; if the County Executive will become too busy running for higher office over the next eight months should he continue to serve the county? Rockland is in the midst of its greatest financial crisis in a generation and attending to our problems should trump political aspirations. I, for one, do not like the idea of unelected underlings of Vanderhoef’s taking the helm of the county while he abandon’s his post for a full-time statewide campaign.

I’m putting politics aside and my concerns for the Rockland first when I ask that the County Executive either drop the idea of running for the Senate or resign as County Executive. This is no time for an absentee leader.

Please read the article from the Mid Hudson News:

NEW CITY – Rockland County Legislator Joseph Meyers wants the legislature to review the history of the County Health Department’s oversight, inspection and enforcement of the existing 5,000 square foot New Square poultry processing facility in light of recent federal action against the operation of the existing New Square facility.

Late last month, federal authorities, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, filed a complaint against the existing poultry plant alleging that New Square Meats had violated the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act. Federal Judge Stephen Robinson in White Plains agreed and ordered the slaughterhouse that supplies all the poultry to the Hasidic village of New Square padlocked. Federal authorities said New Square Meats has been selling uninspected poultry since 2002.

Meyers said there appears to have been some “funny business” going on about the inspection process.

“The plant operator announced to the State of New York that it no longer had to do inspections because the plant was processing enough chickens to fall within the federal regulatory framework, so then the federal regulators would be inspecting, but then they never filed the appropriate paperwork with the federal authorities to have the federal regulators inspect. So, they got the state to sit back and the state stopped inspecting, but then didn’t file the paperwork to get the federal government to inspect them,” he said.

As a result, Meyers wants to know what the county Health Department did or didn’t do regarding the plant.

Meyers would also like the state withdraw the $1.6 million grant awarded to the project under the Empire State Development program “Restore New York”.

According to court papers filed by federal authorities which led to the ordered closure of the plant, federal investigators said they found poultry residue on walls and light fixtures and in the manager’s office. Employee restrooms had no soap or hand sanitizer. There was mold on walls and overhead areas, and rubbish and foul-smelling pools of water were found outside the plant. A chiller tank lacked running water, even though it was full of processed birds. A plant official told inspectors in 2005 that an unrefrigerated van was used to transport product.

In October of last year, Meyers introduced legislation now pending before the Legislature, objecting to the new 25,000 square foot poultry processing facility that is proposed to replace the existing facility and be built on Route 45 in the Village of New Square.

If a corporation underperforms, the board of directors would hold back raises and bonuses for its executives. I don’t know why that concept isn’t applied to our County Executive as well.

Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef will see a $17,322 raise in 2010 after a 12-5 vote Tuesday by the county Legislature to retroactively increase his pay.

It appeared Monday that Vanderhoef could receive a $5,500 raise, a 4 percent increase to his current $137,765 salary, which has remained unchanged since 2007.

Legislators voted to grant that 4 percent increase, but they also voted to grant Vanderhoef retroactive pay increases of about 2 percent every six months since Jan. 1, 2008.

Legislators Joseph Meyers, D-Airmont; Frank Sparaco, R-Valley Cottage; Alden Wolfe, D-Suffern; Michael Grant, D-Garnerville; and Jacques Michel, D-Spring Valley; voted against the increases.

And it’s not just the raise that stinks to high heaven. The whole process of giving Vanderhoef a raise was compromised. Read below:

The motion to increase Vanderhoef’s pay was not brought up in a committee meeting, where deeper discussion could have taken place, but was instead included on the agenda of the last full regular Legislature meeting for 2009.

“It’s not about the money,” Grant said. “It’s about the process … I don’t want to appear to be a co-conspirator, (as) having done something after the fact. After the election is over, when no one’s looking, when the holidays are over or right in the midst of the holidays, and just contribute to a lack of trust in government.”

Mr. Grant is right. The process of granting Vanderhoef a raise lacked transparency and wasn’t handled poorly by the legislature. To the outside observer, it appears that this raise was a favor, ram-rodded by Ilan Schoenberger so it would not undergo a proper review. I am now wondering what favor Schoenberger will be getting in return.

It’s understandable that partisan politics, even and especially on a local level, can be off-putting for many. Much of what passes for debate and argument in today’s politics is driven by division and personal destruction. However, perhaps the biggest reason that people are turned off by politics is because the issues and debate often seem irrelevant to them. Many people feel that political parties manipulate them because they’re often asked to make hasty choices based upon labels such as “Democrat” or “Republican.”

But the truth is, political divisions are inherent in all political discourse. In Michigan, where I was born and lived until 15 years ago, most municipalities did away with partisan elections decades ago. This, however, did not end of partisan politics in those municipalities. The void left by political parties is now filled with alliances, coalitions, and confederations that are not transparent to the typical voter. Even worse, by their very nature, voters created their own quasi-parties based on racial, ethnic, and religious lines. Without political parties, we default to creating our own political apartheid, making local politics even more off-putting, and voters become even more confused by byzantine schisms within their communities.

Needless to say, it was refreshing when I moved here and found that I could vote for individuals that I could bond with on issues that were grander than the office they sought. When I first moved here, it was good to know that then South Nyack Trustee Tish DuBow was a staunch supporter of women’s rights and that Thom Kleiner once worked advocating for consumers. It was obvious to me that these people shared my core values, and it made it easier for me to vote for them even before I got to know both of them personally.

I understand that most people don’t live their lives identifying their values as being “blue” or “red” just as most people aren’t staunchly religious or secular, pro-management or pro-union, pro-development or pro-environment; we all fall somewhere on the spectrum on many issues.

However, for the people that are politicians, I don’t believe they compromise themselves by aligning and remaining loyal to a party, whether that party be the Democratic, Republican, or Independence Party. I think they do the voters a service by defining not only how they stand on current issues, but by giving their constituents an guideline on how they will respond to matters that nobody has yet considered.

I understand, however, that many people long for a politics where we have real vigorous disagreements and debates about the issues and where party affiliation is not part of the debate. They like politicians that don’t insist on having a monopoly on what is right or wrong, and don’t demonize our political opponents and their followers.

Barack Obama has asked that politicians extend themselves beyond partisan politics by espousing a “fair minded” approach to public service. He believes in a philosophical approach to politics that understands that truth and certainty are not the same thing. It is a philosophical approach that ultimately has as its goal the pursuit of the common good. It’s politics that espouses cooperation above competition. This is how politics should work on all levels, not just the local level.

However, it is also true that President Obama has had to take up the mantle of party leadership when his “common good” politics is attacked by ideologues and hate mongers. The uncomfortable truth is that not everybody, politicians nor citizens, play by these rules and to defend the common good, a politician must often fall back on the comfortable principles and parameters of the political party.