Dateline: 20 June 2012
As I made clear in my report, Mr. Slottje advised us that a moratorium on hydrofracking is an appropriate action in towns where residents and/or board members are divided in their opinion of hydrofracking. A moratorium law would simply preserve our options. It would not mean that any board members have made up their minds about whether gas drilling is an appropriate use in the town. Also, he made it clear that a moratorium should be enacted before the State DEC begins to issue drilling permits. After that our options to protect the town are significantly diminished, because the town would then be more liable for “takings” litigation.
After Mr. Slottje’s presentation, he left and the matter of moratorium was further discussed. Our 7-member Citizen Committee, which volunteered to advise us on the impact that hydrofracking would have on the Sempronius community, presented the board with six papers from six member of the committee giving their opinion of whether the town should proceed with a moratorium or not. The seventh member voiced his opinion verbally, as I reported in Part 1.
Of the seven people on the committee three were opposed to a moratorium and four were in favor of a moratorium.
The three people opposed to the moratorium seemed to be united in the thought that we don’t need a moratorium because it is unlikely that the gas companies will ever drill in Sempronius. Another reason offered was that a moratorium would likely embroil the town in a lawsuit.
Those who were in favor of a moratorium were unanimous in their concern that hydrofracking as it is now done is potentially dangerous, may lead to polluted water, and may be a health disaster for some people in our community. One person in favor of the moratorium ended his written comments as follows:
Based on this information and the uncertainty of future public health impacts I recommend the following:
1. Put a moratorium in place.
a. start immediately
b. scheduled to end one year following the promulgation of NYS DEC Regulations. (this time frame will allow “bugs” in the DEC Regulations to be identified and corrected.
2. Define the dimensions & directional flow of the aquifer in the Town of Sempronius.
a. Cayuga County prevented RG&E site from becoming a disposal site for nuclear power plant ‘waste” because of the impact it would have on the county’s aquifer.
3. Define those areas of Sempronius where heavy industrial activity is acceptable.
In response to the belief that the gas companies are not going to even drill in Sempronius, I pointed out that Chesapeake Energy (the gas company that bought most of the leases in our town) sold its Cauyga County leases to Minard Run Oil Company (MROC) a couple months ago. MROC has publicly stated their “3 to 5 year Development Plan” for the “Finger Lakes District, Cayuga & Seneca Counties.” In the 104,779 undeveloped acres they acquired, they intend to do gas exploration via horizontal drilling (hydrofracking). Here is an exact quote from the MROC plan:
MROC also feels that the Utica Shale in the region shows potential for exploration of natural gas via horizontal drilling. Pending approval of the NYDEC’s Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS), there is a high probability that MROC may engage in exploration of the Utica Shale.
As noted in previous reports here, Sempronius does not have Marcellus Shale for drilling, but we have Utica Shale under the whole town. Also, while a portion of the town is currently off limits because it falls within the restricted Skaneateles watershed, a good portion of our town is potentially available for hydrofracking. The fact that a State highway goes through our town would, I have to believe, be a bonus when considering where to hydrofrack.
In response to this a board member said that gas drilling is off limits in all the watersheds, not just Skaneateles. That may be technically correct at this time because all of New York currently has a statewide moratorium in effect. But once the moratorium is lifted, the only watersheds in New York that will be protected are those of Skaneateles Lake and New York City. He seemed to think that all watersheds would be off limits, and I said that the whole state consists of watersheds.
In any event, it was getting late and our Supervisor suggested that we get on to other business. I then requested that, before we got to other business, I be allowed to read a short statement that I had put together. And I made a point of requesting that the statement be included in the official minutes of the meeting. The Supervisor agreed and I read the following....
Four Reasons For Passing a Moratorium on Hydrofracking in Sempronius
By: Herrick Kimball
1. There is no clear consensus about the public safety of hydrofracking. Some authorities say it is not a danger to public health, while other authorities say it is. This lack of agreement is, in itself, reason for this board to be concerned and cautious about allowing hydrofracking in our town. The Town Board has a legal right and moral responsibility to protect our town from any industrial activity that will adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of those people who live here now, and those who will live here in the generations to come.
2 Many people in our town have expressed to us their sincere and serious concerns about the safety of hydrofracking and how it will impact their lives. These people have asked the board to enact a moratorium or ban. Regardless of how any of us on the board personally feel about hydrofracking, enacting a moratorium at this time is a respectful response to the concerns held by so many of the people we represent.
3. As a small rural town, we are not well equipped to deal with the numerous changes, expenses, and liabilities that hydrofracking will bring. Faced with these kinds of issues and costs, a moratorium is a logical and financially prudent measure for us to take.
4. This board has appointed a citizen committee to study the issue of hydrofracking and report to us in one year. The purpose of the committee, as previously discussed in our board meetings, is not to advise us about whether to have a moratorium, but to study and advise us about the potential impact hydrofracking will have on our town, and whether to proceed with a ban, or not. To have such a committee and not give it the “cover” needed by a moratorium is not right.
Once the State of New York begins to issue drilling permits, this town’s ability to protect itself with a moratorium (or ban) will have been lost. If we pass a moratorium or ban after drilling permits are issued, we will be open to, and liable for, “takings” litigation.
Conclusion: Recent news reports indicate that the State is talking of issuing horizontal drilling permits in the Southern Tier. This board has discussed this matter for many months. The window of opportunity for protecting our town is closing. That being the case, I propose that the board have a clear vote tonight to accept the moratorium law that was presented to us at our previous board meeting, and proceed to schedule a public hearing, on the moratorium law, as required by State law. I propose that we have this public hearing before our regularly scheduled July town board meeting, and that this board will then have a final vote for or against the moratorium at the July meeting.
As soon as I read my statement, a town board member who is in favor of gas drilling in our town said, We’re not going to do that!”
Conversation ensued. I said we have a responsibility to deal with this matter. We need to deal with it and move on.
The aforementioned board member stated that two gas companies have said they aren’t going to drill in this town. I asked him if he believes everything the gas companies say. He responded by asking if I believe everything “that guy” (referring to David Slottje) says?
I did not answer. But I tend to believe David Slottje far more than I believe any gas company. The simple fact of the matter is that gas companies are notorious for not telling the truth, or telling partial truths, or saying one thing and doing another. There are plenty of people (and lawsuits) to testify to this fact. But I’ve yet to see or hear David Slottje do any of those things, and if he did, I'm sure it would be well publicised by the gas industry..
I said that if we proceed to the Public Hearing, then the gentleman on the Citizen Committee who took issue with our moratorium law (see Part 1 of this report) could express his objections and concerns, and ask questions of our two attorneys. That's exactly why we are supposed to have a public hearing.
Another board member took offense with me, saying that he didn’t like me deciding how he was going to vote (or something like that). I wasn’t sure what he meant. If any board member is deciding how he is going to vote on this issue, it sure isn’t me. But if he was saying that he didn’t like me pressing this issue of moratorium and asking the board to make a clear decision, then, yes, I’m guilty of that. I’m sorry, but that’s our job as board members.
I asked the major question in my mind: "What’s the downside to a moratorium?" No answer. I asked again: “What’s the downside to a moratorium?" If anyone on the board answered me I didn’t hear it. But I heard a woman in the audience answer it.... “There is none.”
That’s the part about this whole moratorium thing that bothers me the most. There is no downside to proceeding with a moratorium. There is no negative aspect to it. It is an entirely responsible step to take. And yet there is fierce resistance to it. Why?
And here's another question that I'd like to ask:
Why would anyone in Sempronius who insists that the gas companies are not going to drill in this town have any objection to a moratorium?
There is no cost to enacting a moratorium. There is virtually no liability. If I truly thought this town was not going to be hydrofracked, but other people in town did, and they wanted a moratorium, and I could see no downside to it for the town, I'd say, "Sure. Go ahead."
Our Supervisor ended the discussion by saying that he wanted our town attorney, Mr. Marangola, to be present when we made a decision. He said that we would make a clear decision on the matter of proceeding with a moratorium, or not, next month, at the July town board meeting.
Good enough.
So next month (July 16 at 7:00 pm) the Sempronius town board will make a final decision about whether to proceed with a moratorium on hydrofracking, or not.
==========
As an addendum to this report, I would like to say that I read a prepared statement and submitted it to be in the official minutes of the board meeting because I want it to be perfectly clear exactly how I feel about hydrofracking and doing what is best for the town of Sempronius. Yes, this web site certainly does that, but this web site is not an official document.
I am cognizant of the fact that if hydrofracking comes to our town, and if there are problems, as has been the case elsewhere where hydrofracking has been allowed, there are going to be some very upset people in this town. There will be people wondering how this was allowed when it could have been prevented. There may even be people one day looking back through the official minutes of the meetings to try to understand what board members were thinking, and what was discussed.
There is no way that I want to ever be associated with allowing hydrofracking in this town. Let there be no mistake about it. I have researched and investigated this hydrofracking technology and I am 100% opposed to it, based entirely on my belief that it may cause great harm to the health, safety, and general welfare of the people in Sempronius.
As for this web site, it will remain online for as many years as I can keep it in place.