January, 10 2012, 01:13pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tina Posterli, Riverkeeper, 914-478-4501 x 239, tposterli@riverkeeper.org
Bridget Lee, Earthjustice, 212-791-1881 x 8232, blee@earthjustice.org
Kate Slusark, NRDC, 212-727-4592, kslusark@nrdc.org
Environmental Coalition Concludes New York State DEC's Fracking Proposal Too Fatally Flawed to Move Forward
After two drafts, significant aspects of environmental impact statement still so deficient that it must be redone
WASHINGTON
Catskill Mountainkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Riverkeeper, Inc. announced today that, after extensive evaluation and technical expert review, they have concluded that the state must go back and revisit significant aspects of its revised draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (RDSGEIS) before fracking can move forward.
Tomorrow, the groups are submitting over 500 pages of joint comments on the RDSGEIS and draft high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) regulations.
The comments will include review from the groups' technical expert consultants - Louis Berger Group, Inc., Dr. Tom Myers (hydrology), Dr. Glenn Miller (toxicology), Dr. Susan Christopherson (economics), Meliora Environmental Design (water quality), Harvey Consulting (petroleum engineering, air quality), Dr. Ralph Seiler (toxicology), Kevin Heatley (terrestrial and restoration ecology), Dr. Kimberly Knowlton (climate), and Dr. Gina Solomon (health). These experts have identified numerous areas where the proposal is deficient. Some of the most significant deficiencies include:
- No plan for disposal of hazardous fracking wastewater. There are no wastewater treatment plants in New York State designed to treat wastewater from HVHF operations and no plan for how the millions of gallons of toxic fracking waste will be disposed. The impacts associated with the only disposal options that are theoretically available, deep well injection with attendant seismic risks and long distance trucking for out of state disposal, are not examined. Deep well injection has been attributed to the recent earthquake activity in Ohio, Arkansas, and elsewhere.
- The state completely omitted an assessment of potential health impacts from the RDSGEIS. This is despite the fact that fracking-related pollution across the country has been associated with a range of health impacts, from loss of smell, memory problems, and headaches to a number of serious respiratory illnesses. A coalition of 250 doctors and independent health professionals petitioned the governor earlier this year to request an independent Health Impact Assessment on fracking.
- Despite numerous comments from these groups and others in 2009 calling for comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts - i.e., the total impact of multiple well pads and ancillary facilities being developed - the RDSGEIS still inadequately evaluates such impacts. Instead, with the notable exception of potentially positive economic impacts (which are themselves exaggerated), it erroneously focuses on evaluating the impacts of a single well pad. One of the most glaring examples of this is the RDSGEIS's failure to analyze the development of pipelines and compressor stations that would be required if HVHF development goes forward.
- Failure to quantify any negative socioeconomic impacts associated with fracking. The impact statement contains no estimate of costs to communities, and ignores potential negative impact to agriculture and tourism. The state recently acknowledged this deficiency and ordered their socioeconomics consultant to revise their analysis. However, the state does not plan to let this fatal flaw slow down its push to finalize its environmental review by releasing this supplemental assessment for public comment. The public deserves a new comment period on a socioeconomics analysis that addresses the potential negative impacts of fracking.
- The SGEIS continues to ignore the fundamental regional geological conditions that pose significant risk of groundwater contamination. There is hydrogeological evidence, including from industry studies, documenting the presence of naturally existing pathways and those created by drilling practices that expose groundwater aquifers to contamination. There is also the serious hazard of improperly plugged old wells, which has created documented problems both here in New York and other states. The governor and DEC propose to rely on industry to find those wells and report them. This is equal to a time bomb waiting to go off in our water supplies for years to come.
Kate Hudson, Riverkeeper Watershed Program Director, stated, "Governor Cuomo has promised that he will not allow fracking to move forward until he has the facts and the science that shows that it will be safe and a net benefit to New Yorkers. The revised 2011 SGEIS fails to give him the information he needs to keep that promise. The science that would assure us that the drinking water supply for millions of New Yorkers is not at risk is not there. Neither are the facts that would tell us whether fracking will be an economic boon or a fiscal disaster for the state. The governor cannot keep his promise unless he directs DEC to fill the gaps and correct the significant deficiencies in this critical document. He owes New York taxpayers and communities no less."
"This is outrageous that the governor has rushed this process forward," said Wes Gillingham, Catskill Mountainkeeper Program Director. "He pushed it out this summer before DEC could finish it. Now the document appears like a deliberate attempt to rationalize going forward despite the science, dismissing the potential for groundwater contamination on faulty science and unsupported assumptions. Every step in the process for permitting fracking in New York State has been deeply flawed. And every step of the way, there are more and more unanswered questions, not the least of which are: What will the health impacts be? What will be done with the toxic waste? And how do we protect New York from the impoverishment associated with the rapid industrialization of rural communities?"
"DEC fails to accurately or comprehensively assess the impacts of gas development so they have reached unfounded conclusions about its safety, its costs and benefits, and the expectation of successfully avoiding irreparable harm to New York communities and resources. The only option at this point is for DEC not to proceed with gas drilling and go back and finish their essential homework," said Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director, Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
"After a thorough review of the state plan by a panel of experts, we have concluded the plan must be redone. If fracking is allowed to proceed as planned, the health of New Yorkers could be in serious jeopardy," said Bridget Lee, an attorney with Earthjustice, a non-profit, environmental law firm. "The gas has been in the ground for millions of years. It can stay there a little longer until the state figures out how, and if, fracking can be done safely in New York."
"When you rush--you make mistakes, and that's what's happened here," said Kate Sinding, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "After careful review from a host of internal and external experts, it's clear that there are significant areas where the state's latest review falls short, and the governor is still not in a position to make any final decisions on fracking. The governor and his team need to go back, look at the problem areas again, and get it right next time. And they should take all the time they need; the risks - from poisoned water supplies to earthquakes - are too great for anything less."
LATEST NEWS
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular