BROOKHAVEN, Long Island (WABC) -- Teachers and community members profiled in an Eyewitness News investigation related to allegations that a landfill in Long Island was violating state environmental laws and allowing potentially hazardous chemicals into the air say they are finally getting the action from the state they've been asking for.
The landfill in Brookhaven has been the source of odor complaints. Photo Credit: Jessica Rotkiewicz
By Carl MacGowancarl.macgowan@newsday.com @CarlMacGowanUpdated September 23, 2019 2:12 PM
The Town of Brookhaven has been ordered to take "immediate steps" to rid the town landfill of sickening stenches or face $178,000 in fines.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation on Thursday issued a consent decree requiring the town to find the sources of odors emanating from the dump in Brookhaven hamlet and "take aggressive corrective measures" to prevent the release of offensive smells in the future.
The order stems from odor violations found by the DEC in December following complaints from residents and people who work near the massive landfill on Horseblock Road.
The town also was ordered to enhance gas monitoring near the landfill, improve landfill gas collection and pay $150,000 for an unspecified environmental benefit project. The town will owe $178,000 in fines if it fails to comply with the order, the DEC said in a news release.
“The enforcement action announced today is just the most recent of many actions DEC has taken to prevent the return of odor issues that have affected the quality of life [in] the communities surrounding the Brookhaven landfill,” DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos said in a statement. “DEC is working closely with the town of Brookhaven to address the odors and we will continue to do so in order to protect public health and the environment by taking enforcement against facilities that violate our stringent permit requirements.”
In a news release Friday, town officials said construction work in December to cover, or cap, the landfill caused a "temporary odor event," adding that while the smells were "unpleasant," they "did not impact the health of our residents.
"The DEC agreed with Brookhaven at that time that such work was needed to provide long-term odor control," the town said in the release. "As expected, work during this period resulted in odor complaints from residents living near the landfill from elevated levels of hydrogen sulfide — which causes a distinctive rotten egg smell."
Brookhaven officials said they have spent $20 million to contain odors from hydrogen sulfide and leachate at the landfill. Hydrogen sulfide is a gas that causes throat irritation, watery eyes, respiratory problems and other illnesses.
The landfill, which is slated to close in 2024, was opened by the state in the mid-1970s as a solid waste collection facility. The town took it over in the 1980s and limited waste collection to construction and demolition debris and incinerated trash from waste-to-energy plants.
Several dozen residents and teachers and parents from Frank P. Long Intermediate School in Bellport have filed a lawsuit accusing the town of negligence in its maintenance of the landfill. Some plaintiffs have claimed severe health issues that they blame on the facility.
Adrienne Esposito, a longtime landfill critic and executive director of Farmingdale-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said the DEC order was "a step in the right direction."
“We are delighted to see the DEC taking action to address the consistent odors from the Brookhaven landfill," she said in a statement. "Community members, teachers and students at Frank P. Long School have long suffered from the adverse impacts of the landfill’s noxious odors and the town needs to rectify this burden on the public."
DEC officials said they would hold a public meeting to discuss the landfill at 6 p.m. on Oct. 10 at the Medford Fire Department.
Ed Warner pushes his boat off a sliver of Long Island waterfront that’s been in his family since the 1800s. He is the fifth generation of Warner baymen – the locals’ term for fisherman – to head out to eastern Shinnecock Bay in search of Mercenaria mercenaria, the hard clam.
“Clamming and fishing, they’re in your blood,” says Warner, as Hampton Bays, a coastal village in Southampton, New York, fades into the distance. “It’s a lifestyle, not a job.”
New York lawmakers are aiming to improve water quality across the state with a new task force.
The initiative, named Assembly Minority Task Force on Water Quality, was formed to “address critical issues impacting our public water supply systems including, but not limited to, aging infrastructure and emerging contaminants,” according a spokesperson.
The Suffolk County Water Authority on Monday proposed installing more treatment systems to remove the chemical 1,4-dioxane from drinking water, with potential capital costs of at least $75 million, officials said.
SCWA officials told Suffolk County legislators they were planning to install 31 new advanced treatment systems at sites where levels of the likely carcinogen are higher than a proposed state limit.
Jill Jedlicka, executive director of Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, is concerned that the repeal of clean water regulations will hurt smaller waterways such as Cayuga Creek. (Sharon Cantillon/Buffalo News)
By Jerry Zremski
Published 12:10 p.m. September 23, 2019|Updated 47 minutes ago
·
Gazing at Cayuga Creek in Lancaster, Jill Jedlicka sees a tributary that could return pollution to the Buffalo River – all because the Trump administration recently decided to roll back regulations aimed at protecting the nation's smaller waterways.
"It's a systematic, disassembling of the tools and the resources and the laws that are on the books to help us protect our water quality," Jedlicka, executive director of Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, said of Trump's effort.
But on the Wyoming County farm where the Buffalo River starts, Pat McCormick couldn't be happier that Trump's Environmental Protection Agency recently repealed Obama-era regulations that extended federal pollution controls to small streams as well as water bodies that come and go with the seasons.
"They were trying to regulate basically every inch of our ground," McCormick said.
That stark difference of opinion over the nation's main clean-water law will now likely be fought in the courts.
In the meantime, though, Trump's decision inflamed passions over a set of regulations that have, for years, served as a flashpoint in the nation's ever-widening urban-rural divide.
For proof, just compare and contrast the comments of Buffalo's congressman and the president who's most beloved in rural America.
Rep. Brian Higgins, a Democrat, said Trump is rolling back regulations that aim to control "the existential threat to the viability of Lake Erie and Great Lakes – and that is farming and other activities."
But Trump said the issue is much simpler than that.
"Government will no longer try to micromanage every rain puddle and every drainage ditch on private land," the president said.
Then-President Barack Obama and his aides said they were simply doing a common-sense thing when they broadened the definition of water bodies protected under the federal Clean Water Act.
“The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who threaten our clean water,” senior White House adviser Brian Deese told reporters during a conference call back in 2015.
Obama administration officials said their new rule would end the confusion over which waterways are protected under federal law. So long as a body of water flows into another that's navigable, then it qualifies for federal protection, the new rule said.
But farmers saw the new rule as a burden – and they quickly won plenty of allies in Congress, including Rep. Chris Collins. A Clarence Republican, Collins started protesting the new rule in letters and hearings even before it became finalized. He also co-sponsored legislation that would have repealed Obama's effort.
Not surprisingly, Collins was thrilled when Trump finally overturned the rule.
“The Obama ‘clean water’ rule was nothing more than a giant power grab by the Obama Administration that had real and harmful consequences on America’s hardworking farmers and small business owners,” Collins said in a statement last week.
To hear environmentalists tell it, though, the real and harmful consequences of the rule's repeal will be on the nation's waterways.
And for proof, they point to the western parts of Lake Erie. There, giant algal blooms have appeared summer after summer, creating "dead zones" so deprived of oxygen that the lake's natural inhabitants can't survive there.
Lake Erie algae blooms like this one at a Presque Isle marina could become worse if predictions in the new National Climate Assessment come true. (File photo)
The National Science Foundation blames Lake Erie's algal blooms on farm runoff – exactly what the Obama-era rule was created to control.
"It's everybody's responsibility to protect our water," said Brian Smith, associate executive director of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment in Buffalo. "And these are rules really apply to everyone, including farmers. They need to follow the rules like everybody else."
Only the federal government can ensure that farm runoff from all the Great Lakes states doesn't seep into Lake Erie and create problems there, Smith added.
Jedlicka, of Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, said the Trump administration's move will remove federal protections from upward of 1,000 miles of waterways in the four-county Buffalo River watershed.
And Lauren Rubin, director of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, said Trump's action will create problems far beyond Buffalo.
"This move undermines efforts to restore the Great Lakes, threatens our drinking water, jeopardizes our public health, harms our outdoor recreation economy, and diminishes our quality of life," Rubin said.
Farmers say, though, that their quality of life sank as soon as Obama tried regulating every pond and puddle on their property.
"It's so ridiculous when you come down to it," said Ashur Terwillinger, a Chemung County beef farmer and a persistent critic of the Obama regulations. "Now the way they had that worded, if you have a heavy rainstorm or have melt-off in the spring and there's a puddle of water in a field, that becomes 'waters of the U.S.' and is subject to regulation – which is crazy."
And that's not all. A ditch that a farmer digs that becomes filled with rain could be seen as subject to regulation under the Obama rule. So could a gully on the edge of a farm that only fills with water when the snow melts or when there's a big rainstorm.
McCormick, who owns a 600-cow dairy farm in Java Center, said the definitions in the new rule were so vague that he couldn't tell if a pool of water that formed after a rainstorm, and then seeped into the ground, would be subject to regulation.
He also bristled at the Obama officials' apparent assumption that farmers couldn't be trusted to be good environmental stewards of their own land. He said most now take great care in using fertilizer so that it does not run off into waterways and cause problems downstream – as they must under existing state regulations.
That being the case, Lauren Williams, senior associate director of national affairs at the New York Farm Bureau, indicated environmentalists are exaggerating the impact of Trump's move.
"I think that's probably a bit overstated, that they say that we're not going to have clean water anymore," she said. "You know, in New York State, we regulate how manure is spread, how nutrients are applied."
New York long has been a national leader in environmental regulation. And if anything, Trump's move may make the state crack down even harder on water pollution.
Two bills pending before the State Legislature would extend clean-water protections to smaller streams and wetlands, and environmentalists said Trump's deregulatory efforts might give that state legislation new momentum in Albany next year.
Beyond that, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced earlier this month that his 2020 State of the State address will include a "Revive Mother Nature" initiative.
"The essence of it is: Let's restore habitats but also restore healthy levels of fish and shellfish in our state's waters while protecting wetlands," said Basil Seggos, commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Like Obama's new regulations, Trump's deregulatory effort is likely to be challenged in court, Seggos said. But he said the state isn't going to wait for any court opinions before strengthening its own clean-water protections.
"Washington is backsliding, and for the sake of our state, we’ve chosen to lead the nation," he said.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has “ordered” the town of Brookhaven to take immediate steps to address landfill-related odor issues that have affected communities near the facility. Under the terms of a new consent order with DEC the town is required to evaluate odor-producing conditions and take aggressive corrective measures that will prevent odors in the future, enhance community air monitoring, further improve landfill gas collection, and invest $150,000 in an Environmental Benefit Project. The order also includes a $178,000 suspended penalty, payable to DEC if the town does not fulfill the terms of the enforcement action.
A discussion of a proposed wind farm in Lake Erie took center stage in the Erie County Legislature chamber on Thursday. The request was made by legislators Lynne Dixon and John Mills, both of whom oppose the installation of wind turbines off the shore of the lake in the Town of Evans.
County Legislators oppose building wind farms in Lake Erie
Earlier in the day, in front of the Rath Building, environmental groups voiced their support of the wind farm. Citizens Campaign for the Environment Executive Director Brian Smith said the Great Lakes have suffered from previous energy choices, particularly from fossil fuels.
“Wind power creates zero emissions at the point of production, helps to fight climate change,” he said. “And ultimately can create numerous jobs for our community.”
Erie County Fisheries Advisory Board member Rich Davenport said much and more has been done to repair the damage done to the lake in decades past.
“Over the last 50 years, with the billions of dollars spent, and the efforts from conservationists, environmentalists, the New York State DEC and the EPA has turned this lake around 180 degrees,” he said. “From a dead lake in 1970, to perhaps the greatest fresh water fishery and healthiest of the lakes on the planet today.”
Environmentalist groups standing outside Rath building in support of the wind farms.
Credit Thomas O'Neil-White
Davenport said the power generated by the turbines would only be intermittent because of the intermittent nature of wind.
Both sides stressed the environmental pros and cons of the turbines, yet there was no formal vote on the matter. A return date has yet to be specified.
Lawmakers hear clashing views on offshore wind turbines in Lake Erie
By Sandra Tan
Published September 19, 2019|Updated September 19, 2019
There is no formal proposal to install wind turbines in Lake Erie waters off Western New York. But nearly 100 people showed up at an Erie County Legislature meeting on Thursday anticipating or fearing that day is coming soon.
Clean energy advocates pressed legislators to be open-minded about wind energy use. Though there are currently no freshwater wind farms in the United States, a six-turbine project is expected to be installed eight miles off the Lake Erie shores of Cleveland.
What has been informally introduced by the California-based Diamond Generating Corp., a subsidiary of Mitsubishi, is much larger. It would involve the installation of 50 wind turbines off the shores of the Town of Evans. Residents and public officials there have mounted an energetic campaign against any wind farm proposal off the shore of the town's 12-mile waterfront.
Wind energy advocates showed up by the dozens Thursday to decry a resolution by legislators Lynne Dixon and John Mills that preemptively opposes the construction of a Lake Erie wind farm.
Will Kempton, a published wind farm expert and professor with the University of Delaware, said a 200-megawatt wind farm could save seven lives a year.
"People actually die, you know, if you don’t reduce the amount of dirty energy that is produced," said Kempton, who was asked by the wind energy industry to appear at Thursday's hearing.
Chautauqua County Executive George Borrello referred to the "devastating environmental impact" such a project would have on the lake, leading to that county's bipartisan opposition to such a project.
"These industrial wind turbines are nothing but an investment scam," he said, referring to state and federal money these industries would be in line to receive. "The only green involved here, folks, is money."
Opponents referred to the stirring up of toxins on the lake floor and the harm and displacement of fish due to the noise and vibration of the wind turbines' installation and operation. They recounted Lake Erie's polluted past as a "dead lake." Now that the lake is rebounding, they said, nothing should set back that progress.
Proponents said that due to the shale bottom of the lake, wind turbines would not be hammered into the lake floor. Instead, companies would need to use new, innovative methods that would rely on giant "gravity" foundations that would sit on the floor's surface. Kempton also said that fish actually cluster around turbine structures and are popular spots for fishing charters.
Clarke Gocker, director for policy and strategy at PUSH Buffalo, also referred to recent state climate law that requires the state to transition from fossil fuels by 2050 and to meet zero emission targets by 2040.
The wind industry is interested in offshore wind farming because wind picks up speed as it moves across the water, creating more potential energy. Because wind energy is considered pollution and emissions-free, Brian Smith, associate director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said local governments should not shut the door on green energy and green jobs due to "misinformation and fear."
"Give wind a chance," he said.
Dixon and Mills reasserted their opposition to the project, adding their voices to that of Rep. Chris Collins and State Sen. Chris Jacobs. But Energy and Environment Chairman Timothy Meyers said the Legislature has no reason to weigh in on the matter yet since no formal wind farm proposal has been brought forward by anyone.
Republicans Lynne Dixon and John Mills have submitted a resolution to the Erie Co. Legislature to BAN all wind turbine projects either in Lake Erie or along the shores of Lake Erie in Erie County. Diamond Energy has been doing some exploratory meetings, etc. to determine if they want to propose a wind turbine project off the shores of Erie County. There is no official project yet.
SOURCE:
http://liherald.com/fivetowns/stories/five-towners-are-paying-a-lot-for-dirty-water,117611
Posted August 29, 2019
Water discoloration adds to the frustration of paying a high water bill every month, Inwood resident Nathan Wein said.
MOST EXPENSIVE WATER DISTRICTS ON LONG ISLAND
1. New York American Water Service Area 2 (North Shore-Sea Cliff): $1,124.52 per year
2. Shelter Island Heights: $1,090
3. New York American Water Service Area 1: $936.12
4. East Williston: $814.80
5. City of Long Beach: $765.78
6. New York American Water Service Area 2 (Merrick): $719.28
Source: Citizens Campaign for the Environment
For the past two years, Inwood resident Nathan Wein said, his monthly water bill has been steadily in-creasing, despite his use of what he described as an “average amount” of water — his household of three uses roughly 23,000 gallons per month.
Wein, who grew up in the Five Towns, said that when he bought his Inwood house in 2017, he paid roughly $50 per month for water. His most recent water bill was $231. “It’s pretty shocking to me how much my bill has gone up the past two years,” said Wein, who is aiming to become more vocal as the Republican candidate for the seat in the Nassau County Legislature representing the 3rd District, which includes Inwood. “It already is expensive enough to live in this area, and now the water bill has become another big monthly expense.”
Wein’s experience is similar to those of many New York American Watercustomers on the South Shore, who have seen a sharp rise in their water bills over the past two years. The increases have been attributed in part to the implementation of “conservation” rates intended to encourage homeowners to use less water.
In 2017, the state Public Service Commission approved NYAW’s request for a four-year phase-in of the new rate structure, and last year homeowners began noticing higher bills — in some cases, double what they had paid the year before for similar water use, according to previous Herald reporting.
For customers in NYAW’s Service Area 1, which includes the Five Towns, the hikes were especially pronounced because of service costs added to their bills, which at a hearing last August were revealed to be the result of infrastructure upgrades, such as the construction of iron-removal plants and maintenance. And because NYAW is a private company, the cost of property taxes it pays on its facilities is also passed on to customers.
Residents are also frustrated about the quality of their water. In the past, NYAW has held community forums in the Five Towns that have focused on discolored water. Utility officials have said it is caused by iron buildup in water pipes. “Most of the water pipes in the Five Towns area were built before 1952,” NYAW Vice President of Operations Richard Kern said at a forum on June 26. “The older pipes tend to get iron buildup which sticks to the wall of the pipe. The buildup then gets reactive and breaks loose, causing the discoloration.”
Wein, who attended that forum, said he wanted to see more of an effort from NYAW to solve the problem. He noted that the water quality has been “sporadic” in recent months. “One week, the water will be clear, and the following week, the water will be brown,” he said. “It’s frustrating, to say the least.” The utility’s latest work in the Five Towns began in June, when it installed a new water main along Hewlett Parkway, Westervelt Place and Wheatley Street in Hewlett. The project took roughly six weeks.
Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a Farmingdale-based advocacy group, confirmed in an Aug. 14 report that NYAW customers on Long Island typically pay more than those who get water from publicly owned and operated utilities.
The report, which compared the average annual cost of water in each of Long Island’s 48 water districts, determined that customers in Service Area 1 pay the third-highest rates on Long Island, roughly $936 per year. Only residents of NYAW’s North Shore-Sea Cliff service area and the Village of Shelter Island pay more annually, $1,125 and $1,090, respectively.
Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, attributed the higher costs to property taxes as well as NYAW’s obligation to maximize its shareholders’ profits. “People don’t understand that just because water is inexpensive doesn’t mean it’s not valuable,” Esposito said. “To get people to understand the true cost of water, the total cost needs to be in the bill.”
Esposito said her team encountered wide discrepancies in how residents are billed, with different metrics — such as cubic feet and cubic meters — used to measure water, as well as differing billing periods. Additionally, some districts include service costs in homeowners’ or business owner’s property tax bills, while others include them in their water bills.
NYAW acknowledged that the added expenses passed on to home and business owners are due to its status as a private utility, but maintained that it provides some of the best service in the area. “New York American Water is aware of the inequity of the tax system, which places a burden on New York American Water customers while all other Long Islanders are exempted,” the company’s president, Lynda DiMenna, said in a statement. “For our Service Area 1 customers, taxes make up 33 percent of their bill. We will continue to work with elected officials to right this wrong for the benefit of our customers. Furthermore, we would caution against comparing rates between public and private water systems, as there are significant differences between the two in terms of taxes, rate structures and investments.”
