tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post1309971085996842739..comments2024-03-28T07:54:47.319-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: Tuesday Night at City HallCarole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-41657935193772009182016-06-23T13:18:44.275-04:002016-06-23T13:18:44.275-04:00The Register-Star was wrong to rewrite the languag...The Register-Star was wrong to rewrite the language of the settlement in order to reflect the DPW's account of the sewer system. The language of the agreement is the language of the agreement, period.<br /><br />The actual settlement reads:<br /><br />"Within forty-five 45 days ... the City must remove the existing manhole situated on the Property and connect the stormwater/sewer line entering the property from Tanners Lane ..."<br /><br />The Register-Star printed this:<br /><br />"Within 45 days the city must remove the manhole and connect the stormwater line entering the property from Tanners Lane ..."<br /><br />For years, the Plaintiff claimed that combined water - and not only stormwater - was draining to his property from Tanners Lane's combined sewer (i.e., combined sewage plus stormwater).<br /><br />The Common Council has now seen fit to acknowledge the Plaintiff's claim, since the only water mentioned in his amended settlement is "stormwater/sewer."<br /><br />The City's sewer collection system map shows no stormsewers on Tanners Lane, and only a combined sewer.<br /><br />A 2002 map by Stearns and Wheler actually identifies the Von Ritter/L&B spur as a combined sewer from Tanners.<br /><br />Earlier this year, the Conservation Advisory Council specifically asked the DEC's Hudson River Estuary Program to clarify the same sewer spur on new sewer collection maps produced by the State program. The result is that only a combined sewer is depicted on the new maps (2016).<br /><br />Since 2013, at least, the DEC Division of Water has refused to comment on the nature of the Tanners' sewer spur, or where it empties to. The court case was always cited as the reason for this reticence.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying that I know the Plaintiff is correct, and that it's combined sewer water that wells up on his property, but the public is not asking enough questions. The Register-Star has accepted the DPW's word on a potentially serious public health issue, and what the City's DPW "understands" to be the case. <br /><br />The same thing happened last September, after the alleged vandalism to a pump at the City's treatment plant. <br /><br />Public: (at DPW Committee meeting) How much straight, untreated sewer water escaped to the environment? <br /><br />DPW: No idea. <br /><br />Public: So how much went into the North Bay?<br /><br />DPW: None.<br /><br />Public: (to NYSDEC Division of Water [DOW]) Why was a spill of raw water reported improperly by the City?<br /><br />DOW: "It was combined water." <br /><br />Unacceptable. All of it!<br /><br />Regarding the Von Ritter settlement, since last week someone in City government should have contacted the DOW, demanding a clear and decisive account about this sewer which the settlement claims is combined. The question was asked at last week's Informal Meeting, and the recommendation was made that someone on the Council phone the DOW. <br /><br />Evidently nobody did, though a week later the Aldermen thought they knew enough to agree with the language of the settlement.<br /><br />Not that he's terribly clear or decisive, but Jamie Malcolm is our contact at the NYSDEC's DOW, and others may still phone: (518) 357 - 2385.<br /><br />But don't hold your breaths; I've weighted nearly two weeks for a call-back.unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.com