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
As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget
"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Dec 12, 2024
As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."
CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."
Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.
Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."
As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.
Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."
"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.
The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.
"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."
"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."
Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.
"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."
By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."
"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Urges War Crimes Probe of 'Indiscriminate' Israeli Attacks on Lebanon
"The latest evidence of unlawful airstrikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers," said one campaigner.
Dec 12, 2024
Amnesty International on Thursday called for a war crimes investigation into recent Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon that killed dozens of civilians, as well as a suspension of arms transfers to Israel as it attacks Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria.
In a briefing paper titled The Sky Rained Missiles, Amnesty "documented four illustrative cases in which unlawful Israeli strikes killed at least 49 civilians" in Lebanon in September and October amid an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) campaign of invasion and bombardment that Lebanese officials say has killed or wounded more than 20,000 people.
"Amnesty International found that Israeli forces unlawfully struck residential buildings in the village of al-Ain in northern Bekaa on September 29, the village of Aitou in northern Lebanon on October 14, and in Baalbeck city on October 21," the rights group said. "Israeli forces also unlawfully attacked the municipal headquarters in Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on October 16."
Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty's senior director for research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, said in a statement that "these four attacks are emblematic of Israel's shocking disregard for civilian lives in Lebanon and their willingness to flout international law."
The September 29 attack "destroyed the house of the Syrian al-Shaar family, killing all nine members of the family who were sleeping inside," the report states.
"This is a civilian house, there is no military target in it whatsoever," village mukhtar, or leader, Youssef Jaafar told Amnesty. "It is full of kids. This family is well-known in town."
On October 16, Israel bombed the Nabatieh municipal complex, killing Mayor Ahmad Khalil and 10 other people.
"The airstrike took place without warning, just as the municipality's crisis unit was meeting to coordinate deliveries of aid, including food, water, and medicine, to residents and internally displaced people who had fled bombardment in other parts of southern Lebanon," Amnesty said, adding that there was no apparent military target in the immediate area.
In the deadliest single strike detailed in the Amnesty report, IDF bombardment believed to be targeting a suspected Hezbollah member killed 23 civilians forcibly displaced from southern Lebanon in Aitou on October 14.
"The youngest casualty was Aline, a 5-month-old baby who was flung from the house into a pickup truck nearby and was found by rescue workers the day after the strike," Amnesty said.
Survivor Jinane Hijazi told Amnesty: "I've lost everything; my entire family, my parents, my siblings, my daughter. I wish I had died that day too."
As the report notes:
A fragment of the munition found at the site of the attack was analyzed by an Amnesty International weapons expert and based upon its size, shape, and the scalloped edges of the heavy metal casing, identified as most likely a MK-80 series aerial bomb, which would mean it was at least a 500-pound bomb. The United States is the primary supplier of these types of munitions to Israel.
"The means and method of this attack on a house full of civilians likely would make this an indiscriminate attack and it also may have been disproportionate given the presence of a large number of civilians at the time of the strike," Amnesty stressed. "It should be investigated as a war crime."
The October 21 strike destroyed a building housing 13 members of the Othman family, killing two women and four children and wounding seven others.
"My son woke me up; he was thirsty and wanted to drink. I gave him water and he went back to sleep, hugging his brother," survivor Fatima Drai—who lost her two sons Hassan, 5, and Hussein, 3, in the attack—told Amnesty.
"When he hugged his brother, I smiled and thought, I'll tell his father how our son is when he comes back," she added. "I went to pray, and then everything around me exploded. A gas canister exploded, burning my feet, and within seconds, it consumed my kids' room."
Guevara Rosas said: "These attacks must be investigated as war crimes. The Lebanese government must urgently call for a special session at the U.N. Human Rights Council to establish an independent investigative mechanism into the alleged violations and crimes committed by all parties in this conflict. It must also grant the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over Rome Statute crimes committed on Lebanese territory."
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians."
Last month, the court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with Israel's 433-day Gaza onslaught, which has left more than 162,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing in the embattled enclave.
The tribunal also issued a warrant for the arrest of Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri for alleged crimes committed during and after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, in which more than 1,100 people were killed and over 240 others were kidnapped.
Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice is weighing a genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel. Last week, Amnesty published a report accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
The United States—which provides Israel with tens of billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic cover—has also been accused of complicity in Israeli war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon.
"Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful airstrikes in Gaza and past wars in Lebanon taking a devastating toll on civilians," Guevara Rosas said. "The latest evidence of unlawful air strikes during Israel's most recent offensive in Lebanon underscores the urgent need for all states, especially the United States, to suspend arms transfers to Israel due to the risk they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular