Dateline: 17 May 2012
The Sempronius Town Board met on May 14 in a special session to discuss the proposed moratorium law, as presented to the board last month by our town attorney and David Slottje, an attorney with the Community Environmental Defense Council (CEDC).
The entire town board was present, along with our attorney and three members of the community, two of which are on our citizen committee, which was formed to study the potential impact of hydrofracking on our town and advise the board. Our attorney informed the board that he had told David Slottje that a CEDC attorney would not need to attend the meeting.
Our attorney asked the board for comments and questions concerning the moratorium law, as it was presented to the board last month. A board member stated in no uncertain terms that he thought the law was ridiculous and unnecessary. Another board member said he had read the law very carefully two times and had a couple of questions, which were asked and duly answered.
The matter of a survey of town roads came up. There was some discussion about the need of a survey of the roads by a qualified third party to to determine a baseline condition of the roads. Such a survey would, it is believed, cost the town around $10,000.
A board member stated that he had done some research into the matter and did not believe that we needed the survey at this time, and that a basic road-use law could be passed that would require (when the necessity arose) that a gas company pay for a road survey as part of a road-use agreement between the gas company and the town.
Our town currently has no road use laws and it is an undisputed fact that our town roads will be significantly damaged by the enormous amount of truck traffic that will come if hydrofracking is allowed in our town (this is one negative consequence that the gas drilling companies do admit to). Such damage would cost our town far more money than we could ever afford to pay without a hefty increase in property taxes.
A board member stated that we had two gas wells drilled in our town several years ago and there was no problem. I pointed out that those wells are conventional gas wells, not hydrofracked, and there is a big difference between the two (the amount of truck traffic being but one difference).
There was a lot of discussion about the roads and moratorium, with our attorney providing his opinion on several aspects of the matter. But there seemed to be a lot of confusion and I think the board needs more clarity on this matter.
At one point in the meeting, a person in the audience started to ask a question and she was immediately informed that the meeting was for the board only, and the board would not be allowing any comments from non-board members. The person refrained from speaking.
But then, a few minutes later, another person who is also not a board member spoke up and became involved in the board’s discussion, and she was never stopped. I thought this was improper and I was surprised that nothing was said about it. I considered pointing out the inconsistency but I did not feel it was my place to disrupt the proceedings over the impropriety.
As the meeting progressed, our attorney asked how we as a board wanted to proceed. Someone asked if we needed a vote. It was determined that a vote was not necessary.
A board member stated that he felt a moratorium of 9 to 12 months was a good idea and that we needed this duration to provide our citizen committee time to do their work.
Another board member stated that he felt the moratorium was a distraction and that we had more important matters in the town to deal with, making mention of some matter with the bills last month. He further stated that since I had not gone on the fact-finding trip to northern Pennsylvania that some on the board had gone to, I did not fully understand the hydrofracking issue. He felt we were rushing into a moratorium, and said he was not comfortable with it.
For my part, I said that I felt the board had a responsibility to address any issues with our bills AND the matter of hydrofracking. Both are important.
The board knows that I am in favor of moratorium because, as I have explained in the many essays on this web site, I believe hydrofracking technology may have a profound negative impact on the health, safety and general welfare of the Sempronius community. I see the moratorium as a self-defense mechanism for the town. It gives out citizen committee time to study and advise us about not only hydrofracking but also potential road impact and measures we can take to effectively deal with such impact.
I asked what the downside is to enacting a moratorium? What harm is there in it? If anyone answered me, I didn’t hear it.
Near the end of the discussion, a board member who is against the moratorium pointed out that our attorney had told us that we did not need a moratorium. This brought an immediate response from our attorney. He stated that he did not advise the board of any such thing , and that it is up to the board to decide if a moratorium is needed. He stated that every board member needs to do what they believe is the right thing to do. I think that was good counsel.
It was clear that we had a split board, with two in favor of a moratorium and two against. So it was then up to our Supervisor to decide. He stated that he did not have $10,000 in the budget for a road survey, and that he felt we should wait until the next meeting to get a report from our citizen committee. He also said that we would get a report from our highway superintendent who has attended a seminar in Cortland that specifically addressed road concerns and hydrofracking.
There was, of course, much more to the discussion of the evening than I have reported here, and I’m sure that other board members would report on the meeting differently. But what I have written here provides you with the pertinent details from my perspective.
That said, in the interest of fair reporting, I should also report that one board member accused me of writing lies about him on this web site. And another told me he did not appreciate me mentioning his name in these essays.
I was also told, loud and clear, by a board member that he felt I should resign (because I don’t know most of the people in Sempronius, as he does), and he further stated that I’ll never get reelected to the board in Sempronius again.
One final recollection of the meeting that is noteworthy was when a pro-fracking board member publicly stated that there are three large landowners in Sempronius who were offered a very large amount of money by a gas company for the rights to their land, and that all three refused the money because “they care about this town.”
He further told me that I should write about that on this web site instead of saying bad things about “greedy landowners.”
I replied that I had heard of very large sums of money being offered to some landowners in Sempronius years go but I didn’t know the details.
I must admit that I had heard these landowners were negotiating with the gas companies for more money prior to the state implementing its moratorium several years ago. I’m pleased to know (and report here) that, according to my colleague on the board, what I heard is incorrect, and that these landowners had refused to deal with the gas companies because they care about Sempronius.
I asked my colleague if he was one of those large landowners and he replied that he was not.
What I find confusing about this story is that if, as my colleague on the board stated, there are large landowners who turned down big money because they care about Sempronius, it seems only logical that they would also be in favor of at least a moratorium on hydrofracking in our town (and I haven't seen that). After all, that’s why there are people in our community who want a moratorium—they care about Sempronius, and are concerned about the negative impact hydrofracking will have on the entire town.
I should point out that, in addition to the three unnamed large landowners my colleague mentioned, I know of numerous smaller landowners in Sempronius who refused to sell their gas rights (or have gotten out of leases they signed) because they care about the impact hydrofracking could have on their land and their neighbors. Any landowner (large or small) like that deserves to be commended and it’s encouraging to know about them. I’m glad my colleague on the board brought this to the attention of the board.
Don’t forget the next town board meeting is Monday, May 21, at 7:00 pm.
Also, remember that the two farmers from Pennsylvania will be speaking about the impact that hydrofracking had on them and their rural community at the Moravia Elementary school auditorium (Details Here) on Thursday, May 24 at 7:00 PM