In late August, when the drought was putting the City of Hudson's water supply in jeopardy, the Water Department issued an advisory about conserving water which began with an explanation of where our water comes from.
The City of Hudson receives the raw water for its public water supply from the 78-million-gallon Churchtown reservoir. That man-made water body is primarily filled by water diverted from the Taghkanic Creek in the Town of Taghkanic. Our watershed encompasses 55-square miles in the Towns of Claverack, Hillsdale, Taghkanic and Copake and its regulations are codified by State Law under 10 NYCRR 109.1.
Last week, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner announced the Taghkanic Headwaters Conservation Plan. The Plan maps five areas of exceptional importance including the Taghkanic Creek which supplies drinking water for the City of Hudson and other residents of Columbia County.
This essential water source is at risk from Hecate Energy’s proposed Shepherd’s Run solar project (DMM #21-02553) which is located in the broad alluvial floodplain of the Taghkanic Creek, its associated wetlands and tributaries.
Hecate’s consultant recently made regulatory filings identifying 21 wetlands (159.53 acres) in the Project Area, and 17 streams, 9 of which are NYS protected streams including the Taghkanic Creek.
Construction of a project on this scale could adversely impact drinking water for the City of Hudson. Significant concerns include:
- The boring of underground electrical lines under NYS Protected Waterbody Crossings
- Excavation and grading near NYS Protected Waterbodies
- Clearing of 40 acres of forest
- Oil in large transformers requiring a spill containment plan
- Steep slope erosion
- Road construction
There are many disturbing statements in the application (Petition Items 53 & 54 filed 7/29/22). Exhibit 13 “Water Resources & Aquatic Ecology” and Exhibit 14 “Wetlands” describe the construction process which will take place over 9 to 12 months. We encourage you to read Exhibit 13 and 14, namely:
1. HDD [Horizontal Directional Drilling] boring methods are proposed for burying electrical lines under NYS protected waterbody crossings [which we assume is the Taghkanic Creek]. A total of five streams are being crossed using HDD boring, and one stream is having trees cleared from its banks. [Exhibit 13, Page 23].
2. Short term minor stream impacts (i.e. increases in downstream turbidity levels and sediment deposition downstream) are possible with the open stream crossing method [Exhibit 13, Page 14]
3. Certain construction activities have potential to result in direct and/or indirect impacts to surface waters. These activities include the installation of access roads, and the installation of buried electrical collection lines. [Exhibit 13, Page 15]
4. The volume of oil in the large power transformers located at the substation is expected to trigger the requirement for a SPC and Spill Containment Plan. The other large storage site is located at the inverter-transformers. [Exhibit 13, Page 21]
5. There will be some unavoidable impacts to the 100 ft. adjacent area of state regulated wetlands, specifically the adjacency of six delineated State regulated wetlands will include some disturbance from . . . installation of solar arrays, clearing and/or maintenance of adjacent area vegetation, earthwork for the placement of roads, placement of security fence, trenching of buried electrical collection lines, forest clearing . . . and planting for visual screening . . . . [Exhibit 14, Page 7]
6. Slope and Erosion Considerations in Relation to NYS Protected Waterbodies--There are two areas of steep slope, greater than 35%, within the project area. . . . [Exhibit 14, Page 17]
The private developer, who is motivated solely by large potential profits, will claim they have mitigation plans for all of these hazards. Given the importance of protecting the drinking water supply to the citizens of Hudson and Columbia County, we should not rely on a private developer’s assurances when no independent oversight is in place. . . .
We must carefully implement the DEC’s Conservation Plan, whose vision statement is:
“The Taghkanic Headwaters and the lands that surround it support clean water for the people, plants and animals, and provide vital wildlife habitat connections between New York and New England. We envision a future Taghkanic watershed that is cared for by local communities and landowners to protect clean water. . . .”
The application referenced in the letter can be found here.
The map of the Taghkanic Creek Headwaters below shows the location of the proposed Hecate Project construction area in relation to the City of Hudson's Churchtown reservoir. Compare this map with the one shown earlier. The red outline marks the 55-square-mile area that is the City of Hudson watershed.
This project appears to pit the benefits of renewable energy against the inarguable need to protect our water supply. This is a project that deserves the attention and intervention of both the City of Hudson Conservation Advisory Council and the Columbia County Environmental Management Council.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CAROLE OSTERINK
Addendum: The Columbia County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution (R151-2021) opposing the Shepherd's Run Solar Project in May 2021. The resolution was introduced by Hudson Third Ward supervisor Michael Chameides.
This is a good time for us to remember that some years ago the City of Hudson leased our backup water supply to Colarusso.
ReplyDeleteActually, as I recall, we sold it to them, didn't we?
DeleteIt is not exactly the backup water supply. It is the quarry all around the access to the backup water supply. The deal was they would lease it for a period of years (I can't remember how many) making payments conveniently equal to the payments the City needed to make to repay the loan for the new water treatment plant, and at the end of that period, Colarusso would own the quarry they had been leasing.
DeleteOh, please. This is just silly. I live close to the Hudson reservoir. The Hecate project is very far from it, and the water that feeds the reservoir comes principally from wetlands and streams unconnected to the Hecate site.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, solar projects seldom if ever have any impact on water quality. I would put the chances of some dirt from Hecate’s construction making its way all the to the Hudson reservoir at about zero.
The Hecate opponents have become utterly irrational and desperate. They don’t want to do anything about global warming, and are more concerned about catching a fleeting glimpse of a solar panel while speeding at 70 mph on a 40 mph country road.
Sam may live close to the Hudson reservoir, but the water in it is piped there from the Taghkanic Creek. This from the DEC funded Taghkanic Headwaters Conservation Plan: "Residents of the City of Hudson rely on drinking water from the Taghkanic Creek. At New Forge, water is
Deletediverted from the Taghkanic Creek to supply the drinking water for the City of Hudson. The water flows
through a pipe to the Churchtown Reservoir, where it is stored before being piped to a water treatment
plant on Academy Hill in Hudson. If more water is needed, the City of Hudson can increase the flow of
water from Copake Lake into a tributary to the Taghkanic Creek to supply adequate water to the city,
which has happened at least once." The Taghkanic Creek, surrounding marshes and its flood plain are situated right in the center of Hecate's 265 acre project. I would not rely on a private for-profit developer's assurances that there will be no impact to run-off, absorption, changes in vegetation, erosion, etc.
Tom Goldsworthy is correct -- all bodies of water are connected at some level and the closer they are . . .. Beyond that, the PCBs and other fun things in the electrical transformers which require a containment plan (and, one assumes, a contingent clean up plan in case the containment plan isn't foolproof) should be of concern to those whose ground water is potentially ruined by such things as well as the City and its citizens who may have to drink it (or not). This is especially true given that, as P. Winslow mentions, we're simply replacing one utility company's strange hold on power for another's. No net gain beyond the solar v. carbon equation when great positive externalities are available via on-site solar collection/storage.
DeleteTom, have you ever been to the Hudson Reservoir?
DeleteIf you have, you have seen that water flows into it directly from neighboring streams, several ponds and neighboring marshes—which are not connected to the Taghkanic Creek. Take a look at this location in Google Maps to see what I mean:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1667151,-73.7098656,16z
The portion of the Taghkanic Creek where Hecate is located is quite distant from the Reservoir even as the crow flies; the Creek flows far to the south of it.
If additional water is added from other sources, you should specify exactly which point of the Taghkanic Creek is the source of any piping.
As someone who grew up near the Housatonic, and has also lived close to the Hudson, I certainly take PCB contamination seriously. But likening the amount of PCBs one would find at solar site to anything like what G.E. and other polluters dumped directly into rivers is simply absurd.
Unfortunately, one can find traces of PCBs everywhere on the planet. But anyone with a sincere concern about Hudson’s water supply—as opposed to wanting to use this as a scare tactic—has a lot more to worry about than Hecate.
For example, the waters which flow into the Reservoir come principally from the area uphill directly across County Route 27 -- in line with the former Snydertown dump which was abruptly closed in the 1980s.
That closing occurred after a Register-Star reporter exposed utterly appalling conditions at the dump, with indiscriminate disposal and burial of all kinds of hazards. Both the Reg-Star reporter and the County engineer lost their jobs over that exposé (something I wrote about for Our Town maybe a decade ago).
Somehow I doubt we’ll see any Hecate opponents digging into how or whether the Snydertown dump was properly mitigated, and the visible contamination capped. Because you can’t see it from any Copake roads.
Anyway: My water comes from the same aquifer, without the benefit of a multimillion dollar treatment plant such as Hudson has. I am not even a little concerned about Hecate. This is grasping at straws floating by.
P.S. According to the Taghkanic Conservation Advisory Committee, some of the water in the Hudson Reservoir is taken from the Taghkanic Creek from an intake point in New Forge State Forest. This is not only very far from the Hecate site, but the Creek is also fed by countless other small streams along its long, meandering path. In short, the water in Creek at that point is overwhelmingly from sources nowhere near the Hecate site.
DeleteAll that is said not even bothering with the absurd idea that a solar field would release PCBs into an aquifer. I have heard no evidence that PCBs are even present in such projects. For example, this lengthy academic paper on the safety of solar indicates that they are not used in such transformers and haven't been since they were banned in the 1970s; it is only legacy electricl projects which still have them, as I understand it.
https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Health-and-Safety-Impacts-of-Solar-Photovoltaics-PV.pdf
“... Electrical transformers (to boost the inverter output voltage to the voltage of the utility connection point) do contain a liquid cooling oil. However, the fluid used for that function is either a nontoxic mineral oil or a biodegradable non-toxic vegetable oil, such as BIOTEMP from ABB. These vegetable transformer oils have the additional advantage of being much less flammable than traditional mineral oils. ... Transfers with PCB-containing oil were common before PCBs were outlawed in the U.S. in 1979.”
Here is a link FWIW to the Upper Taghkanic Creek Connectivity Planning Area:
Deletehttps://www.tgazette.com/post/what-is-the-cac-take-a-look-you-might-be-interested
This shows how the point of intake for the reservoir in the New Forge forest is fed by a zillion small streams and ponds, far past the location of the solar field (which has nothing to spill into a creek besides vegetable oil).
I note also that this watershed area contains many gas stations, not to mention Copake Lake. I wonder if the Lake residents with their anti-solar signs have stopped using their motorboats, since they are so concerned about water quality...
P.S. Those of us who watch stream and pond activity on a daily basis—there are four streams and six ponds on my land—understand that any purely hypothetical silting from solar construction would likely settle long before it gets to the Reservoir... and get diluted by the many other contributors to the Creek... with any trace dirt which actually made it to the Reservoir would settle in the pond. (Newsflash for cityfolk: The bottom and banks of your Reservoir are made of mud.) And of course at the end you have your expensive filtration system.
Now: If the land owner abandons solar and decides to build 200 vinyl houses on that land instead, will people prefer those construction impacts? Plus the long-term drain on the water table, traffic, etc.?
Anyway, once again, this discussion is all pure idiocy. Some folks in Copake have lost their minds over this beneficial and necessary project, even though it is already half the size originally proposed. They are trying to use Hudson for their own ends, and it’s an absurd reach.
I don't see the point of permitting all these solar farms when there are so many rooftops empty of solar. Rooftop solar is the most direct, efficient method of generating solar power. These farms seem to be yet another way to keep the corporate stranglehold on utilities.
ReplyDeletePer NYSERDA:
DeleteThere are 1,240 completed solar projects in Columbia County. 1,081 of them are *residential* projects.
That’s over 87% of them.
Only 10 are commercial/industrial solar arrays. That’s the number that folks like the Hecate opponents are so worked up about. Another 149 are small commercial projects. Which they claim not to oppose.
So you are getting your wish — 87% of solar in Columbia County *is* residential.
But:
Those 87% of residential projects only generate 930 of the 3,109 MW of power from solar in Columbia County.
In short: Limiting solar to residences will greatly slow down the addition of solar capacity.
Moreover, each of those residential installations must be tailored to the home; will require their own inverter(s); and will require their own expensive batteries to be effective.
And unless our State and Federal governments massively increase subsidies to homeowners, many if not most people won’t be able to finance an installation, or will have to take on a lot of debt to do so.
In any case: The existence of solar utilities doesn’t require you to be dependent on them. If you want, you can install your own solar if you can swing it.
Lastly, as I pointed out in a recent opinion piece in The Columbia Paper, the last five-year Federal agricultural census showed Columbia County *gaining* active farmland, not losing it. This fact does not stop anti-solar folks from trying to pit ag against solar, much as they are trying to falsely gin up an environmental concerns here about Hudson’s water. See:
https://www.sampratt.com/sam/2022/09/solar.html
The subsidies exist -- but they're going to PILOTs for corporate interests that are paid for by local property owners . . . who could afford to install more solar and other non-carbon energy systems if they didn't have to support far-off corporate profits. Surely the dollars saved by not doing PILOTS won't fund 100% but they'd provide plenty of incentive for property owners to make the switch. That said, among your statistics I didn't see what the average resi install reduced demand by for the property owner. I think the question isn't "how many megawatts does my house produce" but "how much of my demand is my house producing?" Without some understanding of the impact of the median or average resi install viz. the underlying properties' energy independence I think comparing farmed solar to resi and small industrial solar on output alone is meaningless.
DeleteP. Winslow raised the question of preferring residential to commercial solar, not me. Fact is the NYSERDA stats show that in fact residential installations vastly outnumber commercial ones in the County, but still produce far less energy.
DeleteAs far as how much of one’s home energy use solar covers, that obviously depends on how many panels you can afford to buy. I sized my own carport installation to cover my existing home use +15%, and that’s the result I have gotten. But not everyone is going to have enough roof space or cash to do that.
Hence the great value of community solar projects—anyone can sign up, no cash outlay is involved, you don’t need your own inverters or batteries, etc. And in many cases local residents get reduced electricity rates. It’s far more efficient overall, not requiring everyone create their own personal infrastructure and having to maintain their own system. But both need to happen. Like, immediately.
Anyway such debates are red herrings. We just don’t have the luxury of making epicurean energy choices now. Society decided to kick this can down the road until the crisis was not just underway, but difficult to reverse.
Make your choice—everyone’s grandkids get to fry or drown in their old age, cursing our shortsightedness as they go... or tomorrow we might have to catch a brief glimpse of a solar panel.
I know, it’s a tough call for some of you. Those grandkids can be little brats.
I think razing 40 acres of forest is a pretty bad idea.
ReplyDeleteLate to the party, but I am far from alone…This is a sobering debate and the arguments made in favor of the solar installation and siting, of environmental and energy adaptability, are compelling. We do need to consider the serious consequences for our children and their children if we keep our heads in the sand. The increased public discussion on whether residentially or corporately developed community solar is preferable is a must to continue. But as for the policy issue of building alternative sources of renewable electricity production and storage -- the critical and immediate need to realign from non-renewable to renewable sources of electricity generation -- how can that not be considered settled? As for the request that the City of Hudson add its opposition to that of the County Board of Supervisors, Sam’s research is sufficiently compelling that, absent a detailed and effective response from those opposed to the Hecate project, it would be prudent to decline, and consider doing so formally. The Mayor and Common Council should request that our Conservation Advisory Council elaborate on its own recommendations for effective solar adoption for the City. That would follow as an action item after the Council’s adoption in July of a comprehensive resolution supporting the NYS Climate Action Scoping Plan that sets a goal of 70% of electrical generation from renewables by 2030. A NYSERDA report found that as of 2018, energy used for electricity generation amounted to 36.2% of primary energy use. NRDC reports that currently only 28 percent of NY electrical generation is from renewables and 80 percent of that is from legacy hydroelectric sources. Is this persuasive that the City should dedicate funds for such a plan and task the CAC to determine practical ways that we can play our part? It certainly says that there is much more to be done.
ReplyDeleteAre we forgetting rooftop surfaces facing sunward on the Walmarts, ShopRites and Lowe's of the world? Weren't these ugly environment gobbling monstrosities built on forest and field? How about reclaiming them for the environmental good? How much acreage does that add up to? If not enough, and undoubtedly we are in a climate emergency, perhaps mitigate how much forest is ultimately cleared and reduce the effect of that calamity. How realistic are any of these desperate measures? But certainly destroying forest and the natural environment adds to the carbon dioxide release we are trying to resolve in the first place. Isn't that how we got here? Ironically and sadly, the 'solution' is further aggravating a most serious predicament. The Hecate development should most definitely be put on pause to reassess the environmental impact. This is an understatement: corporate entities jumping on the climate change rescue bandwagon do need extra scrutiny. Historically they are the major players without oversight or regulation. Coal mining for one bright example. Lets not forget, motivation! Imagine (not hard) behind-the-scenes collaboration between eager business partners salivating over profit margins. Whenever we let these actors loose, it doesn't end well. I need a refresh where this proposal currently stands. I rely on Sam and the other devoted readers to clarify, thank you.
ReplyDelete