For now, Democrats’ proposal to prohibit the county from treating fracking-related waste water won’t move forward.
Last night, Republican John Howland, the chair of the County Legislature’s Environment and Public Works committee, referred the proposal to the Brooks administration for further study. He said it’s a complex issue with lots of facts coming from each side of the issue. Howland did not set a timeframe for the administration to report back. Democrat Paul Haney accused Howland of “just sending it [the legislation] to the dustbin.”
Democrat Justin Wilcox introduced the moratorium legislation. Fracking waste water is loaded with chemicals, salts, and often some radioactive materials, and Wilcos says he’s concerned about the environmental and public health concerns posed by treating the waste water. The state and the federal Environmental Protection Agency are still studying fracking’s environmental and health impacts, he noted.
Even if legislature never passes the Democrats’ proposal, the county would need state approval to accept and treat fracking waste water. The county’s water treatment plants operate under state permits. For the county to get a permit modified, officials would have to analyze the waste they want to take in as well as the plant’s ability to treat it. No municipal water treatment plants in the state are permitted to accept fracking fluid. The state DEC has questioned whether any of them are capable of effectively treating the waste water.
During the meeting’s public forum last night, three people affiliated with R-CAUSE, a local anti-fracking group, spoke in favor of the legislation.
Jennifer Fitzsimmons of Webster said that while Pennsylvania allows drilling, it does not permit the treatment or disposal of any of the waste water within the state’s borders.
“This is a huge public health issue that we all know affects all of us,” said Nedra Harvey of Rochester.
This article appears in Oct 24-30, 2012.
They don’t call them fossil fuels for nothing. Natural gas, like oil and coal, is an old, outdated fuel source that has severely damaged our environment and significantly changed our climate. These days, natural gas is being hailed as the bridge fuel to the future. Unfortunately, the current popularity of natural gas is a detour, not a bridge. Hydrofracking for natural gas is a commitment of 30 to 40 more years of remaining in the energy past and it delays, yet again, a concentrated focus on and development of new, renewable, clean energy sources.
As a society, we did not heed the message of the first Earth Day in 1970. With the development of renewable, clean energy and a continual, resolute emphasis on conservation, we could have avoided the climate change we see today. Because this did not happen, I commonly hear hydrofracking supporters say the environment is too damaged to fix and therefore there is no reason not to damage it further with fracking. But anti-fracking activists refuse to give up on the environment.
Fortunately, New York state residents and Governor Andrew Cuomo have an amazing opportunity. If citizens continue to protest and Andrew Cuomo listens and bans fracking in New York, the state and the governor instantly become world environmental leaders. Governor Cuomo can become the bold environmental leader and with a possible run for President, could mirror President Kennedy’s goal to put a man on the moon, this time around with the development of revolutionary new, clean, green and renewable energy.
And Monroe County can lead with a comprehensive ban on accepting waste water for treatment…