Resolutions on two critical environmental issues will come before Buffalo's Common Council at its session at 2PM Tuesday: an anti-hydrofracking measure, and a call for a merger of bridge authorities into one border crossing authority.
Council members involved in the measures say that, despite the timing, the two issues aren't linked. Nevertheless, this confluence means this week's council session will be especially high-energy, with highly invested citizens expected to demonstrate their support for these actions.
Stopin' the frackin' mess
The anti-fracking measure has been in the works for some time, in partnership with Frack Action, and takes a similar tack to the City of Pittsburgh, PA. All sides in the struggle over hydrofracking have taken note of Pittsburgh's "groundbreaking" (no pun intended) action, and now eyes are on Buffalo (see this item in Rochester's alt weekly, City).
Even more important than the ban on hydrofracking within the city is the prohibition on the Buffalo Sewer Authority from accepting hydrofracking fluid from anywhere else, according to UB Professor Emeritus Lynda Schneekloth. A founder of Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, Lynda has been following this issue closely, and spoke about it during a talk Monday evening at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site, sponsored by the Western New York Land Conservancy. Lynda pointed out that gas companies won't disclose the chemicals they add to to the millions of gallons of water they use to hydrofrack each well--but some of the chemicals known to be used are known carcinogens.
Even more frightening, if you've been following coverage in Artvoice, is the high likelihood that the Buffalo Sewer Authority has already been accepting hydrofracking fluid, without knowing or being able to verify. If you haven't already, read the Artvoice coverage and be afraid, be very afraid! Here, here, and here. In response, last week Lovejoy Councilmember Richard Fontana filed a resolution calling for Commissioner Comerford of the Buffalo Sewer Authority to appear to answer questions about this.
Mergin' the border crossing authorities
For far too long, the Peace Bridge Authority (officially the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority) has been operating as its own fiefdom, and law unto itself. With a half-Canadian board, and a Canadian leader as popular here as Voldemort (check out this Buffalo Rising interview with him), they operate--like Seneca Gaming--as if they are above local laws and regulations meant to protect the community. Their high-handed and heavy-handed tactics have held a neighborhood and the entire community hostage.
But it appears, as West Coast Perspective lays out, that the times, they are a-changin'. This week's resolution (Resolution Common Council Merge Authorites.pdf) comes amid a flurry of announcements which appear to set back both the timing and viability of the PBA's plan to build a massive truck plaza on the waterfront, and add capacity to the existing bridge.
What effect will this resolution likely have? "It's more a case of us using our bully pulpit," resolution co-sponsor Councilmember Joe Golombek told me. "And timing is everything," suggesting that with recent developments this resolution can add impetus to an idea which has been raised by elected officials at the state and federal levels such as Assemblyman Sam Hoyt and US Senator Chuck Schumer.
"We would like them to take a more regional approach," co-sponsor Councilmember David Rivera told me. He also sees this resolution as speaking to the concerns of the residents and the community that are most affected by the PBA's current plans, "which include the demolition of over 100 homes and businesses," and air quality issues on the lower west side. Rivera told me that he and Golombek have been working together on border crossing issues for some time, as their riverfront council districts adjoin each other and are most directly affected by border crossing plans--the Peace Bridge being in the Niagara district, and the Ambassador Bridge proposal in the North district. Both councilmembers told me that they're not fans of the Ambassador Bridge proposal, as residents of the neighborhoods that would be affected have similar concerns to those relating to the Peace Bridge proposals.
It's expected that the resolution will receive wide support and be well received across a broad spectrum of interests, from advocates for Olmsted parks, to the lower west side community most directly affected, to community planners, waterfront advocates, environmentalists, and advocates of governmental agency reform. Joe told me that he even heard from a member of a conservative thinktank who likes the resolution, being in keeping with principles of downsizing and rationalizing government.
Can't come to Common Council this week? Council is now covered with streaming video. Find it on the City of Buffalo web site -- click on the Government TV icon (down on the left).
View image
Council members involved in the measures say that, despite the timing, the two issues aren't linked. Nevertheless, this confluence means this week's council session will be especially high-energy, with highly invested citizens expected to demonstrate their support for these actions.
Stopin' the frackin' mess
The anti-fracking measure has been in the works for some time, in partnership with Frack Action, and takes a similar tack to the City of Pittsburgh, PA. All sides in the struggle over hydrofracking have taken note of Pittsburgh's "groundbreaking" (no pun intended) action, and now eyes are on Buffalo (see this item in Rochester's alt weekly, City).
Even more important than the ban on hydrofracking within the city is the prohibition on the Buffalo Sewer Authority from accepting hydrofracking fluid from anywhere else, according to UB Professor Emeritus Lynda Schneekloth. A founder of Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, Lynda has been following this issue closely, and spoke about it during a talk Monday evening at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site, sponsored by the Western New York Land Conservancy. Lynda pointed out that gas companies won't disclose the chemicals they add to to the millions of gallons of water they use to hydrofrack each well--but some of the chemicals known to be used are known carcinogens.
Even more frightening, if you've been following coverage in Artvoice, is the high likelihood that the Buffalo Sewer Authority has already been accepting hydrofracking fluid, without knowing or being able to verify. If you haven't already, read the Artvoice coverage and be afraid, be very afraid! Here, here, and here. In response, last week Lovejoy Councilmember Richard Fontana filed a resolution calling for Commissioner Comerford of the Buffalo Sewer Authority to appear to answer questions about this.
Mergin' the border crossing authorities
For far too long, the Peace Bridge Authority (officially the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority) has been operating as its own fiefdom, and law unto itself. With a half-Canadian board, and a Canadian leader as popular here as Voldemort (check out this Buffalo Rising interview with him), they operate--like Seneca Gaming--as if they are above local laws and regulations meant to protect the community. Their high-handed and heavy-handed tactics have held a neighborhood and the entire community hostage.
But it appears, as West Coast Perspective lays out, that the times, they are a-changin'. This week's resolution (Resolution Common Council Merge Authorites.pdf) comes amid a flurry of announcements which appear to set back both the timing and viability of the PBA's plan to build a massive truck plaza on the waterfront, and add capacity to the existing bridge.
What effect will this resolution likely have? "It's more a case of us using our bully pulpit," resolution co-sponsor Councilmember Joe Golombek told me. "And timing is everything," suggesting that with recent developments this resolution can add impetus to an idea which has been raised by elected officials at the state and federal levels such as Assemblyman Sam Hoyt and US Senator Chuck Schumer."We would like them to take a more regional approach," co-sponsor Councilmember David Rivera told me. He also sees this resolution as speaking to the concerns of the residents and the community that are most affected by the PBA's current plans, "which include the demolition of over 100 homes and businesses," and air quality issues on the lower west side. Rivera told me that he and Golombek have been working together on border crossing issues for some time, as their riverfront council districts adjoin each other and are most directly affected by border crossing plans--the Peace Bridge being in the Niagara district, and the Ambassador Bridge proposal in the North district. Both councilmembers told me that they're not fans of the Ambassador Bridge proposal, as residents of the neighborhoods that would be affected have similar concerns to those relating to the Peace Bridge proposals.It's expected that the resolution will receive wide support and be well received across a broad spectrum of interests, from advocates for Olmsted parks, to the lower west side community most directly affected, to community planners, waterfront advocates, environmentalists, and advocates of governmental agency reform. Joe told me that he even heard from a member of a conservative thinktank who likes the resolution, being in keeping with principles of downsizing and rationalizing government.
Can't come to Common Council this week? Council is now covered with streaming video. Find it on the City of Buffalo web site -- click on the Government TV icon (down on the left).
I support fracking but even if I didn't, this is a waste of the council's time (and taxpayer's money). Does anyone actually want to extract natural gas in Buffalo's city limits? Isn't there a moratorium for fracking in all of New York State?
The city council should just show their hand and outlaw all jobs. Just get to the final endpoint already.
In case my wording doesn't connect the dots clearly enough, the second (under-reported) part of the hydrofracking legislation before Council is arguably the most important: banning the Buffalo Sewer Authority from accepting spent fluid that's been used to hydrofrack wells elsewhere in the state. In other words, preventing us from becoming the dumping ground for someone else's problem. Several things about this spent fluid: the drillers won't disclose the chemical makeup, but some of the chemicals known to be used are carcinogenic (causing cancer), and the fluid returned to the surface can include contamination from the rock layers -- including high salt concentrations and even radiation (neither of which municipalities are equipped to handle).
The state-level moratorium is only temporary, and many legislators would like to overturn it. Council's legislation is a wakeup call that reminds everyone involved that huge environmental effects from horizonal hydrofracturing would impact not only off-the-beaten-track places where the rock layer is generally found, but also the wastewater systems that serve our largest populations centers.
The series in Artvoice shows the serious need to take this step -- currently, BSA may be accepting fracking wastewater without even knowing it. Remember, anything that BSA doesn't adequately process (for example, by not knowing what they're receiving and what's in it) goes into the same lake from whence we get our drinking water.
Buffalo Common Council is doing the right thing here, and I commend them for it.
Then why have the first part of the hydrofracking legislation? Is this just a sloppy bill? Did someone 'sneak' in 50% of the bill?
My broader point is that a progressive city would bring together the natural gas companies, city-based research universities, local manufacturers and public policy consultants to work on improving natural gas drilling and making Buffalo an energy center. Natural gas is 50% less polluting than coal, and 99% if used in fuel cells. Beyond the benefits of reducing emissions, it represents trillions of dollars in revenue and millions of jobs. The one, surmountable drawback, is that there is potential for water contamination if done improperly. Solutions exist and Buffalo should be jumping on this. Instead, we get this luddite reaction from the Common Council. Pathetic.
A progressive city would be working towards developing a renewable energy industry....
Do both. We can't exist on renewables alone though.
I don't believe Radioactive substances are of any concern in this debate. I'm more concerned about my tap water catching on fire.
>Its apparent you know nothing of radiation or radioactive isotopes. Theres radiation all around us, what is being brought up from hydrofracking is really nothing to worry about
Kind of on that topic, radioactive or not, University at Buffalo researchers found that hydrofracking causes uranium that is naturally trapped inside Marcellus shale to be released. Google “uranium poisoning” to see the results from this deadly toxic mineral. The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver on Nov. 2 2010
Its apparent you know nothing of radiation or radioactive isotopes. Theres radiation all around us, what is being brought up from hydrofracking is really nothing to worry about
Are you picketing today at Dupont, any photo developer, Invitrogen, Greatbatch, Roswwell, New Era, Kodak, etc? Seems you should be. Carcinogens are all around you bud. Enjoy.