More About Sewer Separation
When the Common Council held its informal meeting at the Central Fire Station on Monday, the resolution to declare the sewer separation project, for which the City is set to receive $600,000 in CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds, a Type II action under SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act), requiring no environmental review, was introduced for the second time. Attached to the resolution this time was a report from Delaware Engineering, summarizing our current waste water treatment plant, which they designed, and describing the approach to storm water separation and treatment that they are recommending; the cover page and page 8 of the City of Hudson's SPDES (State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit; the SEQRA classification page from the CDBG application; and the definitions of Type I and Type II SEQR classifications.
The discussion of the resolution began with DPW superintendent Rob Perry once again telling about Hudson's antiquated sewer system and the evils of CSOs (combined sewer overflows). It is frustrating that the public discussion of this project rarely seems to get beyond establishing need to examining if what is being proposed to meet that need is the best solution or to assessing the impacts of the proposed solution on the environment.
Alderman Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward), trying to focus the discussion on risk and impact, asked three questions. Her first question was: Can the grant be used to create green infrastructure so we don't have to dump storm water in North Bay? She mentioned rain gardens, as an example, and Perry's response equated rain gardens with green roofs and seemed to dismiss the suggestion as something the City could not do. Rain gardens and green roofs are two of several types of green infrastructure recommended by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Garriga's second question was: Has the City adopted a policy that new parking lots must be constructed with permeable surfaces? The answer to the question is no, but Perry talked about the soil in Hudson being mostly clay, which limits the amount of water that can be absorbed, and maintained that some process would still be needed to convey the remainder of the storm water elsewhere. Garriga's third question was: Why is this project being considered a Type II action? In answering the question, Perry pointed out that untreated sanitary sewage and storm water were going into North Bay right now.
Newly appointed First Ward alderman Rick Rector asked, "Is this project part of a master infrastructure plan?" City attorney Carl Whitbeck responded to the question by talking about SPDES requirements and the consent order, claiming that the sewer treatment plant is not in compliance with the Clean Water Act and reiterating his opinion that the proposed sewer project does not require environmental study.
Timothy O'Connor, who has been the most steadfast opponent of the sewer separation plan, which would discharge an estimated 242 million gallons of untreated storm water into North Bay each year, pointed out that the consent order was not for a general violation but for a specific violation that happened in 2007, when waste water from Hudson Fabrics was discharged untreated into the river. O'Connor reiterated that no one knows the impact of discharging storm water into North Bay and argued that "the Council can put mitigating conditions on the project" by deeming the project an unlisted action under SEQRA instead of a Type II action.
The Council is scheduled to vote on the resolution to declare the sewer separation project a Type II action on Tuesday, April 21. The online petition urging the Council not to pass this resolution and to have an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared before proceeding with the project now has 299 signatures. You can add yours by clicking here.
A letter to the editor written by O'Connor appeared in the print version of the Register-Star on Friday but not in the online version. The letter has been posted on imby: "A SEQRA exemption could culminate 12 years of silencing the public."
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
ReplyDeleteThe SEQRA classification page which is now "attached to the Resolution" states that the exemption from environmental review is "based on the City of Hudson 2014 Stormwater Separation Report by Delaware Engineering."
That means our representatives will have to read the report to discover the argument, but who has time for that.
Fortunately, some of us read the June report as soon as we discovered that it existed. That was in December!
The engineering report claims that the sewer separation is "a major component" of "a condition of Order on Consent."
This was an extremely serious misrepresentation. No doubt the authors never figured on the public scrutinizing their work, but without missing a beat we accused the city of lying. Consequently, the rationale for at least one of the alleged "requirements" was dropped, except that it's still there in print.
As we heard on Monday, the city's Corporate Counsel won't let go of a second "requirement" fantasy, which only a lawyer could derive from the phrasing on the state permit "to the greatest extent possible."
It's curious that nobody at the federal or state regulatory authorities will back this up, and it's even more curious that nobody in city government, apparently, has investigated the claim for themselves.
Understand how this city operates: the mayor's lawyer states whatever he pleases to our representatives, then that becomes gospel (or quasi-gospel, until some alder(wo)man decides to follow it up).
But I believe the deepest motivation to continue selling this project as a "requirement" is the need to justify the original false claim on the grant application.
Someone needs the deniability. They need to be able to say they weren't defrauding federal taxpayers when that's precisely what they did.
As long ago as 1995, the EPA acknowledged that "[sewer] separation has been reconsidered in recent years because it typically results in increased loads of storm water runoff pollutants (e.g., sediments, bacteria, metals, oils) being discharged to the receiving waters."
ReplyDeleteFurther down, the same passage recommended that sewer separation be "considered in conjunction with the evaluation of sensitive areas" (Guidance for Long-Term Control Plans, p. 3-34).
But in 2003, the City of Hudson misled state regulators into believing that Hudson has no sensitive areas! This remains the city's official position, which was itself achieved in a document the regulators mistakenly believed had enjoyed public participation.
In reality, the sewer planning was so secretive that the FBI eventually paid a visit to Hudson to investigate the relationship between city officials and the engineering firm which had authored the dismissive language about "sensitive areas."
The public had no idea what was going on, despite the explicit federal requirement of "active public participation" throughout the planning (national CSO Policy of 1994).
Looking all the way back to 2003, when the city first submitted its "Long Term Control Plan for Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)," the public is at last fully aware that it never enjoyed a single unadulterated opportunity to comment on any of these issues.
ReplyDeleteThe federally-required participatory role in CSO planning was fashioned after the public's more explicit role laid out in the National Environmental Policy Act - the federal version of New York's SEQRA.
In all cases, the public's role is to consider alternatives to any planned governmental action, which is exactly what Hudson residents are doing right now, albeit informally. (For now, I'm less interested in the alternatives themselves than I am the public's right to formally express them.)
Logically, however, the first alternative to consider is the plan that was already approved for Hudson in 1984. Management of the city's runoff was to follow the Army Corps of Engineer's "Storage, Treatment, Overflow and Runoff Model" (STORM).
The STORM plan, which the current plan would supersede, was to filter and treat runoff by adding an extra step to the still-current system:
"The model simulates rainfall washoff of dust and dirt and associated pollutants washed off the watershed. The resulting runoff is routed to treatment-storage facilities where runoff less than or equal to the treatment rate is treated and released. Runoff exceeding the treatment plant capacity is stored for treatment at a later time. If storage is exceeded, the untreated excess is wasted through overflow directly into the receiving waters."
The city's knee-jerk answer to this passage is that there's no room for any new infrastructure, green or otherwise.
DON'T BE MISLED!
At any rate, the federal policy states that it's the public's privilege to discuss the options we're paying for, and not to have them discussed for us by unelected interested parties.
Whatever alternative we choose, the Department of Environmental Conservation clearly stipulated in 1984 that any future CSO project to be implemented with federal funds (e.g., CDBG) must needs address the environmental conditions of North Bay.
Now we're starting to hear we should let the project proceed without further scrutiny because we've dug ourselves into a hole. Typical for Hudson, the only way out of the hole, we are told, is to dig deeper.
And don't ask who put us in the hole or you won't be invited to participate in things like Conservation Advisory Councils ...
Looking all the way back to 2003, when the city first submitted its "Long Term Control Plan for Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)," the public is at last fully aware that it never enjoyed a single unadulterated opportunity to comment on any of these issues.
ReplyDeleteThe federally-required participatory role in CSO planning was fashioned after the public's more explicit role laid out in the National Environmental Policy Act - the federal version of New York's SEQRA.
In all cases, the public's role is to consider alternatives to any planned governmental action, which is exactly what Hudson residents are doing right now, albeit informally. (For now, I'm less interested in the alternatives themselves than I am the public's right to formally express them.)
Logically, however, the first alternative to consider is the plan that was already approved for Hudson in 1984. Management of the city's runoff was to follow the Army Corps of Engineer's "Storage, Treatment, Overflow and Runoff Model" (STORM).
The STORM plan, which the current plan would supersede, was to filter and treat runoff by adding an extra step to the still-current system:
"The model simulates rainfall washoff of dust and dirt and associated pollutants washed off the watershed. The resulting runoff is routed to treatment-storage facilities where runoff less than or equal to the treatment rate is treated and released. Runoff exceeding the treatment plant capacity is stored for treatment at a later time. If storage is exceeded, the untreated excess is wasted through overflow directly into the receiving waters."
The city's knee-jerk answer to this passage is that there's no room for any new infrastructure, green or otherwise.
DON'T BE MISLED!
At any rate, the federal policy states that it's the public's privilege to discuss the options we're paying for, and not to have them discussed for us by unelected interested parties.
Whatever alternative we choose, the Department of Environmental Conservation clearly stipulated in 1984 that any future CSO project to be implemented with federal funds (e.g., CDBG) must needs address the environmental conditions of North Bay.
Now we're starting to hear we should let the project proceed without further scrutiny because we've dug ourselves into a hole. Typical for Hudson, the only way out of the hole, we are told, is to dig deeper.
And don't ask who put us in a hole if you want to participate in the Conservation Advisory Council.
Thank you unheimlich for your in depth knowledge of our Gov't and the Hudson River as we continue the discussions relative to the City of Hudson's sewer lines, water treatment and the quality of the lands and waters of the North Bay and Hudson River.
ReplyDeleteI would like to just add a very basic and simple comment.
Why would anyone, especially a person in our Government, that has the power of voting on a project that would allow polluted waters to run into the North Bay/Hudson River, approve of such a thing?
Maybe Hudson's Common Council should be asked to vote (not to include the separation project) if they want polluted, contaminated, dirty waters from the streets of their City to flow freely into the Hudson River.
It is basic and it is that simple.
You're very welcome, tmdonofrio.
DeleteBecause the only choice available to anyone is between differing degrees of polluting the North Bay, why not let the public weigh in on the lesser risk?
Maybe the city's plan is the best, though I highly doubt it. Or perhaps making no changes at all is best, the "No Action Alternative" being important in every comparison.
I'd like people in a position of power who can too-easily endorse the city's single plan - potentially the worst idea of all - to wait until the public has its rightful say.
My first concern is that the public was consistently cheated before now, which was against all the rules of the two involved federal agencies. The cheating is well-documented, but it's only one of several arguments available to oppose the release of funds.
Perhaps the council will still surprise us, so let's be heard first (the petition's nearly 350), and then we'll just wait and see.