Proposition 3 proposes to amend the state’s Forever Wild provisions for the NYS forests to allow for new public utility rights of way for ostensibly broadband and bike paths. Great way to appeal to nature lovers who want to use their cell phone while biking through the forests. But it could also open the door to interstate pipelines. While the bill prohibits intrastate pipelines it DOES NOT PROHIBIT INTERSTATE PIPELINES. WHY? Two groups pushing this have close ties to pipeline companies. Nature Conservancy received money from Millennium Pipeline. League of Conservation Voters has been very helpful to Spectra Pipeline in its efforts to build the AIM pipeline. Moreover there is no reason why broadband can’t be built using existing structures. Moreover if this is for broadband and water wells, WHY ISN’T IT LIMITED TO THAT. We see this as a RUSE by exploiting the public’s desire for more broadband. Moreover it is linked to complex legislation that few have seen and even fewer understand. Here is a more detailed analysis: Links below on evidence that two NGO proponents of this amendment received money from pipeline companies.
Dear Pipeline opponents, friends and fellow environmental activists:
I have just finished a very careful read of Proposition #3 and I've also looked up and read Article 14, of the NYS Consititution, with all the added amendments, that concern the Catskill Park and the Adirondack Park.
(Don't confuse the thousands of acres of other state lands with the Catskill and Adirondack Parks. Proposition #3 does not apply to them at all.)
I found that Article 14 in the Constitution contains many amendments that transfer specific acreages of, again, Catskill and Adirondack Parks, but for certain, well-defined and limited, purposes and projects.
But, Section 1 of Proposition #3 allocates a block of 250 acres for a range of uses, with NO specifics. It does not specify location of, and what type of lands would be provided for a project, whether it be forest, wetlands, lands of special concern, wetland buffers, bogs, rare species habitat, land containing streams, ponds, vernal pools, unusual geological formations, whatever.
The proposition also does not provide for environmental review under SEQRA before a transfer is made. It states “. . . .other criteria established by the legislature are satisfied. . “ but does not define the criteria or tell us when and how the legislature (should we assume the State legislature?) would establish this “criteria”.
To quote, “..a town, village or county may apply, pursuant to a process determined by the legislature. “ . So what is this “process”? This is not explained or provided in the proposal. Does it involve, again, any SEQRA studies? Public hearings?
Stated purposes, in Section 1, for applying for land is for “health and safety” and applies to road and bridge work on county and town highways. I don't know how I would feel about straightening curves and flattening grades. Then the traffic moves faster, leading to more collisions with wildlife, for example.
But a larger problem looms in the last sentence of the paragraph that says that a condition for creating this “health and safety land account” is that the state (NY) would, “acquire (how? Buy? Condemn?) 250 acres of land for incorporation into the forest preserve, on condition that the legislature shall approve such lands to be added to the forest preserve.” (emphasis added)
If the legislature's approval is needed to add these acres to the forest preserve, that could take a very long time. And would that approval come before or after lands are given to a local project? We are not told.
In Section 2 of Proposition #3, we are now talking about State, county or town highways where they traverse the Forest Preserves lands, and reference is made to lists of highways maintained by the DOT.
The plan is to lay public utilities, such as electric, telephone, broadband, and also water or sewer lines. This could include cell towers. What about switching stations, pumping stations, multi-use towers, etc.
And think how broad a swath would be needed for water or sewer lines.
These kinds of installations would not be consistent with the aesthetics and nature of the Parks. They would also drive and encourage sprawl. It would lead to further incursions. We're talking land degradation here.
And, again, there are no specifics. Where, which, why? In Article 14 of the Constitution, with previous amendments, highways were identified, an airport was identified. Not here. It could be any road, at any time.
Thanks for the bicycle paths, which are already in parts of the Forests, but the prohibition on oil and gas pipelines is very limited. If you know of a pipeline that begins and ends only in New York (intrastate as opposed to interstate), that would penetrate the Catskill or Adirondack Parks, Proposition # 3 would prohibit it. But this makes no difference to the AIM pipeline or the Pilgrim Pipelines, for example, since they are nowhere near the Parks. Also, they are interstate pipes. The Valley Lateral pipeline is also not within the Parks boundaries, so not affected.
Finally, as environmentalists we should, on principle, defend the integrity of our parklands. Otherwise, who will?
We realize, especially at this time, when the President's policies are attacking open lands, parks, waters, from every direction, that there is a dire threat to our world.
I want to save and protect every tree, every scrap of the landscape, that I possibly can.
I am saying “NO” to Proposition #3. Please join me. And consider forwarding this message to others.
https://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/Elections/2017/proposals/2017StatewideBallotProposals.pdf
ANALYSIS OF ENABLING LEGISLATION
I have heard from several people, pro and con, re the email I sent rejecting Proposal #3.
Roger Downs, of Sierra Club, Atlantic Chapter, mentioned that some of my concerns were answered in the”enabling legislation”.
Enabling legislation? Didn't know there had been any, but it was apparently passed in the last hours of the legislative session this past June 2017, by the Senate and Assembly, and can be read in Section L of the 'omnibus bill'. (See link below)
I've carefully read the legislation, (what a slog), and found some serious flaws, but before I mention them I want to again refer to the amendments contained in Article 14 of the State Constitution.
For every land transfer, the amendment spelled out land to be provided in exchange: examples include Village of Saranac Lake where 10 acres were conveyed and 30 other acres had to be returned in exchange; the town of Arietta receiving 28 acres for airport use and providing 30 acres of town lands in exchange; International Paper Company received 8500 acres of Forest Preserve lands and conveying the same number of acres to the Forest in return; the Sagamore Institute in the Town of Long Lake granted 10 acres of land and buildings and conveying to the State 200 acres of wild forest; and there are almost ½ dozen other land swaps---also with the stipulation that the lands replaced be as valuable as those received. ( Article 14 is on the NYS DEC website)
Not so with this enabling legislation. There are no land paybacks spelled out here. After the 250 acre land bank has been established , the sponsor of an approved project will pay monies into the “forest preserve expansion fund”, that “are at least equivalent to the fair market value of the state land proposed to be conveyed”. This applies to approved projects that are at least ¼ linear mile. ( If a project is less that ¼ linear mile, there is no provision for payment of monies to the referenced account.)
I looked up the referenced fund.( NYS Finance Law, Section 97-e, “Forest Preserve Expansion Fund”), which says “Upon appropriation by the legislature, the conservation department may use such moneys or any portion thereof for the acquisition of such additional lands subject to the approval of title thereto by the attorney general.” The final statement only says that NYS DEC's commissioner can also receive gifts and bequests of moneys into this fund. By the way, a donor might be quite influential and have an agenda.
That's it, re requirements specified for that fund. The key language here is, “Upon appropriation by the legislature” and “may use such moneys”.
This language does NOT require that the lands provided for these projects must be replaced in the forest. Isn't that what we care about? The land? Not losing Catskill and Adirondack Parkland?
Now For My Carefully Considered Opinion(s)
Paying monies instead of directly replacing acreage is a serious trapdoor here, that was never part of previous amendments. Further, the fact that the state legislature has to approve allocating the funds for purchasing additional (?) --not replacement, lands?, is a veritable hornet's nest (no insult to hornets intended). Again, we are left with “where, what, why, when”?
Peter Bauer (in the Adirondack Almanac) carefully reviews the legislative provisions, showing that lots of paperwork will be needed from project applicants to prove they meet the guidelines, we'll have some type of public hearing for every desired project, and that we have a really long list of Proposition supporters, including legislators, Chambers of Commerce, and established conservation orgs.
I'm sorry, but the fact is that this proposal brings us to a slope more slippery than ever before: there is no real provision for replacing the lands taken, no real assurance that the usage of lands taken can't be changed by legislative action (read the legislation, lines 51 and 52), and the environmental orgs have missed a rare opportunity!
To explain, Roger Downs says that if we pass this Proposal #3 it will “alleviate...local tensions and foster a more unified approach to protecting New York's wilderness legacy.”
If he means getting the local communities to feel friendly and agreeing to sell private lands within the Park boundaries to expand the State holdings, then that should have been insisted upon by these same groups and made a part of the Proposal. It would have been powerful leverage to acquire key private inholdings.
Proposal #3 must be defeated. If adopted it will make it much more easy to take our beautiful lands and our decision will come back to haunt us. Maybe next time the land bank might expand to 500 acres.
Thank you for reading this very long email. (the link to the enabling legislation is below, scroll to end of the text)
Sandra Kissam,
Chair, Orange Residents Against Pilgrim Pipelines
Member, CAPP NY
President, Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition (SPARC)
845 564-3018
http://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=A40001&term=2017&Summary=Y&Text=Y
Update Nov 5 : Greetings Pipeline opponents and fellow environmental activists:
First, I think it is important to know that Kathy Nolan has been a leader in the fight to save Belleayre ski center, located in the Catskill Forest Preserve, from grandiose and environmentally degrading expansion plans. I have a keen interest in this struggle because I was raised in Woodstock and I love these mountains that framed my childhood.
Also, Kathy doesn't mention it, but she is running in this Tuesday's election for the Ulster County Legislature after decisively winning a primary. She would be representing a number of communities, such as Shandakan and Olive, that are contained within the Catskill Park. I respect her for being gutsy enough to take on a political fight, and I think she will win. I wonder if the town she describes, that wants to build a water well, would be part of her district, and wish she had mentioned it by name.
I also miss a reference for language that specifies purchasing 250 additional acres from “key private inholdings and connecting acreage”. The reference I read in the enabling legislation, underlying the proposal, only says “following approval by the legislature of two hundred and fifty acres of land to be added to the forest preserve”---it does not say approval and purchase. Although Kathy tells us that “The net number of acres in the Forest Preserve under this proposal will therefore remain unchanged”, I could not find that assurance anywhere in the documents.
When it comes legal language, we cannot be too careful. Consider Paragraph 9 of the 'enabling legislation', (for Proposal #3) which states that property acquired under this amendment cannot be exchanged or appropriated or converted for other than the use for which it was approved (I paraphrase), “WITHOUT the express authority of an act of the legislature”.
Which means that the legislature can grant a convenient exception to the rules and who knows what we'll get.
And regarding pipelines, although the Proposal prohibits new intrastate natural gas and oil pipelines, a fossil fuel company could argue that since interstate pipelines are not expressly forbidden, and that the infrastructure is needed to transport vital energy resources to communities (playing devil's advocate here), they fit the regulations and should be allowed. This speculation is a stretch, but strange stuff happens.
Finally, I've given serious consideration to the points that have been raised. And I notice that so called “solutions” to problems often do not correct the problem and instead cause more problems.
My perception is that the amendment would spur sprawl development, putting more pressure on the saved lands, which we should discourage in the Catskill and Adirondack Parks. And not every town should need growth to consider itself successful.
Wild undeveloped lands are more precious than gold, and what we have saved must be energetically defended from intrusion.
Because open lands are a major key to saving our planet .
I remain opposed to Proposal #3 and will vote “NO”. I hope others will do the same.
Sandra Kissam
Chair, Orange Residents Against Pilgrim Pipelines
Member, CAPP NY
President, Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition (SPARC)
845 564-3018
P.S. I would like to recommend two books I've read that inform some of my beliefs:
The Crabgrass Frontier by Kenneth T. Jackson, and Losing Ground by Mark Dowie.
https://www.scribd.com/document/332576752/Final-Millennium-Pipeline-MOU