|
Older Posts
August 15, 2013
Under the permitting schedule adopted by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for issuing
water withdrawal permits pursuant to the DEC's new water withdrawal regulations, water users that withdraw or are designed to withdraw 100 million gallons per
day (MGD) or more are required to apply for permits this year.
See Table 1 below. Twenty water users in the state have a maximum daily usage above this
threshold. See Table 2 below. Two of these top 20 users are hydropower facilities that are exempt from
the permitting requirements. Two other top 20 users are public
water supplies that are grandfathered under existing permits. In
addition, four of the top 20 users are using a combined 3.2 billion
gallons per day (BGD) of water from New York harbor which is not
fresh water.
The total freshwater maximum usage of the remaining
12 facilities required to obtain permits this year, each of which
is a power generating station, is almost 7.9 BGD. (The amount was
determined by adding the maximum daily usages of the facilities
shown in bold in Table 2 below.) A comparison of this amount with New York State's total fresh water
usage of 7.1 BGD as determined by USGS for 2000, the last year
for which I could find data, shows that the maximum daily usage
of these facilities is 111% of New York's total daily freshwater
usage. Continue reading . . .
Posted by Rachel Treichler at 08/15/13
4:30 PM. Updated 08/16/13.
August 8, 2013
The first noticed application for a water withdrawal
permit under New York's new water withdrawal laws and regulations,
the application of the Ravenswood Generating Station in Queens,
does not establish a comforting precedent for the handling of such
applications by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). Notice of the Ravenswood application is given
in the DEC's August 7, 2013, Environmental Notice Bulletin,
No hearings are scheduled on the application for
a permit to withdraw approximately 1.5 billion gallons per day
from the East River in New York City, and the DEC determined that
the project is not subject to SEQRA because, according to the notice, "it is a Type II action." Comments are due on Aug 22, 2013. The entire comment period on this very first
application by one of the state's largest water users is only two
weeks long and is located in the middle of August, when summer
vacations are often taken.
The categorization of the project as a Type II
action is difficult to fathom because projects that "would use ground or surface water in excess of 2,000,000 gallons per day," are explicitly defined as Type I actions in Section 617.4(6)(ii) of the SEQRA regulations.
Although this is the first noticed application
under the new water withdrawal regulations and as such can be expected
to be the subject of considerable interest across the state, the
filed application documents and DEC's draft permit are available
for inspection only during normal business hours at the address
of the DEC contact person in Albany. Members of the public who
wish to comment on the application, but do not live in Albany,
are likely to find that it takes most of the two week comment period
just to obtain a copy of the application and draft permit. Continue reading . . .
April 7, 2013
Surprisingly, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (the DEC), the state agency charged
with administering the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
did not conduct an environmental impact review pursuant to SEQRA
of its new water withdrawal permitting regulations, which became
effective on April 1, 2013. So the environmental impacts of the
new program have not yet been assessed. (The new water withdrawal
regulations, amending 6 NYCRR Parts 601 and 621, are posted on the DEC website here and here.)
But environmental impact assessments are required
under SEQRA before the DEC processes the individual permit applications
it receives under the new program. Under the water withdrawal regulations,
applications for systems withdrawing 100 million gallons per day
(MGD) or more are due June 1, 2013. See 6 NYCRR 601.7(2).
Under the SEQRA regulations, 6 NYCRR 617.4(6)(ii),
any project or action that would use ground or surface water in
excess of two MGD is a Type I action, requiring an environmental
impact review under SEQRA. A water withdrawal application for 100
MGD or more is without a doubt a Type I action. Continue reading . . .
March 26, 2013
As the Corning Leader reports
this morning, Judge Kenneth Fisher issued his ruling yesterday in Sierra Club v. Painted Post, Index No. 2012-0810, a legal challenge to the agreement made by the Village
of Painted Post in Steuben County, New York to sell water to
SWEPI, LP (an affiliate of Shell Oil Company) for gas drilling
in Pennsylvania. I worked with attorney Richard J. Lippes from
Buffalo to represent the petitioners in the case. In a learned
and scholarly opinion, the court determined:
"In sum, the Village Board acted
arbitrarily and capriciously when it classified the Surplus Water
Sale Agreement as a Type II action and failed to apply the criteria
set out in the regulations to determine whether an EIS should
issue, and when it improperly segmented the SEQRA review of the
Lease from the Surplus Water Sale Agreement. . . . Accordingly,
searching the record, summary judgment is granted to petitioners
as follows: The Village resolutions designating the Surplus Water
Agreement as a Type II action is annulled. Similarly, the Negative
Declaration as to the Lease Agreement must be annulled, as in
reaching the decision as to a negative declaration, the Village
Board improperly segmented its review of the Lease from the Surplus
Water Sale Agreement.
Petitioners also seek the annulment of the
Village approvals of the Surplus Water Sale agreement and the
Lease. . . . [H]ere . . . the Village short circuited the SEQRA
process as to the Surplus Water Sale Agreement by an improper
Type II designation and failed to consider the Surplus Water
Sale Agreement when issuing its negative determination as to
the Lease due to improper segmentation. Accordingly, the Village
Board resolutions approving the Surplus Water Sale Agreement
and Lease agreement of February 23, 2012, are annulled.
Petitioners are granted an injunction enjoining
further water withdrawals pursuant to the Surplus Water Sale
Agreement pending the Village respondent’s compliance with SEQRA.
Continue
reading . . .
March 16, 2013
A USGS report released this week on the
hydrogeology of the aquifer system in the Susquehanna River Valley
in parts of Broome and Chenango Counties, New York highlights the role of aquifer protection in the context of gas drilling
impacts. In the section, "Considerations for Aquifer Protection," the report states:
"Aquifer protection in the study
area is a topic of public concern in relation to the potential
for natural gas drilling in this part of New York. Aquifer protection
efforts likely will focus on currently used resources. Information
provided in this report may help managers prioritize protection
of largely unused aquifers whose characteristics suggest that
they are capable of providing large public or commercial water
supplies." p. 17.
In the press
release accompanying the report, the author of the report, USGS scientist Paul Heisig,
states,"This study is intended to put basic facts into the hands of those tasked with
making decisions on future groundwater use and protection. We
have identified and mapped a variety of aquifer types and described
their current use and their potential as groundwater sources."
Local officials and concerned citizens in the
study area now have excellent information to assist efforts to
put appropriate aquifer protections in place. Because the study
area is located in an area that is likely to be the target of some
of the first high volume horizontal hydrofracking (HVHF) activity
in New York if HVHF is allowed to go forward in the state, if local
aquifer protections are sought in the area, such efforts should
be initiated quickly. Continue reading . . .
March 7, 2013
The first hearing in the lawsuit challenging water
exports to a gas drilling company in Pennsylvania by the Village
of Painted Post in Steuben County, NY, was held Friday, March 1,
2013, before Judge Kenneth R. Fisher in Rochester. Several environmental
organizations in Rochester held a rally outside the courthouse
before the hearing. See Rally opposes possible water sale deal, and Groups rally outside Hall of Justice over fracking lawsuit.
As previously
reported, the Article 78 proceeding was filed on June 25, 2012, in Steuben County Supreme
Court in Bath by the Sierra Club, the Coalition to Protect New
York, People for a Healthy Environment and five individual petitioners
against the Village of Painted Post, Painted Post Development
LLC, SWEPI, LP (an affiliate of Shell Oil Company) and the Wellsboro & Corning Railroad. See Lawsuit Filed Against PP Bulk Water Sale Project. I am working with attorney Richard J. Lippes from Buffalo to represent the
petitioners.
November 28, 2012
In my post two days ago, I pointed
out some of the problems with the new water withdrawal regulations released by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
on Nov. 21, 2012. In this post, I give a more detailed overview of the new requirements. Until
the new permit conditions are made publicly available, it is
not possible to fully evaluate the new requirements. The new
regulations, prepared as amendments to 6 NYCRR Parts 601 and 621, are posted on the DEC website here and here. The regulations become effective April 1, 2013. Applications for systems withdrawing
100 million gpd or more are due June 1, 2013.
New York's new water withdrawal regulations implement
the Water Resources Protection Act of 2011. The Act amended the
law previously requiring permits for public drinking water suppliers
and certain other users to require that all persons withdrawing
100,000 gallons or more per day from any of the state's waters
obtain a permit, except for certain exempt users. The new permitting
requirements contained in the legislation did not become applicable
until the DEC promulgated new regulations. Continue reading . . .
Posted by Rachel Treichler at 11/24/12 4:05
PM, updated 11/28/12 11:10 AM
November 22, 2012
Governor Cuomo announced a delay in issuing the
state's proposed gas drilling regulations on Tuesday, but yesterday
his Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) went ahead and issued the state's new water withdrawal permitting regulations. The gas industry and
other large water users in the state have a generous gift to be
thankful for this Thanksgiving Day.
Despite the widely
noted inadequacies of the proposed regulations released a year ago on Nov. 23, 2011,
the final regulations are virtually unchanged, as a comparison of the two documents shows. The regulations, prepared as amendments to 6 NYCRR Parts 601 and 621,
are posted on the DEC website at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/78258.html.
So what are the problems? As noted
in our post on the proposed regulations:
- No water usage or application fees are imposed
- A staggered schedule is being used to issue
permits with the largest permits being issued first, thereby
prioritizing the state's largest water users
- The new permit language has not been made
available for review
- The regulations do not require permits for
all withdrawals for the consumptive use of gas drilling and because
of the thresholds will not cover most withdrawals for this purpose
- There has been no cumulative impact analysis
of water usage in the state to provide a basis for determining
permitted capacity
- No public hearings are required before permits
are issued
Many of these deficiencies will not apply in the
Delaware and Susquehanna River Basins because withdrawals in those
watersheds are subject to regulatory commissions whose water withdrawal
regulations are more sufficient. Continue reading . . .
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Reuters reported yesterday that U.S. District
Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn dismissed a lawsuit seeking
environmental studies to determine the effect of gas drilling on
the Delaware River Basin. See Judge dismisses New York's anti-drilling lawsuit by Jessica Dye. The suit was filed May 31, 2011, by New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman on behalf of the citizens of New York and was
joined in by several environmental groups. We previously reported
on the suit here and here. The Delaware River and its tributaries supply water to about 15 million people,
including 9 million New Yorkers.
Judge Garaufis dismissed the suit on procedural
grounds, saying there was no basis for the lawsuit since the regulations
it sought to halt had not yet been finalized. "The court concludes that this dispute is not currently fit for judicial review," Garaufis wrote. "The harms that plaintiffs ultimately are concerned about are speculative, and
rely on a chain of inferences that may never come to pass."
The suit was filed against the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Environmental Protection Agency for their failure
to commit to a full environmental review of proposed regulations
by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) that would allow natural gas drilling in the Delaware River Basin. The
complaint, which is posted on the AG's website, sought an injunction ordering the Defendants to comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by preparing
a draft EIS. The complaint was subsequently amended to add the
DRBC as a defendant.
The DRBC issued draft regulations in 2010 and
revised draft regulations in 2011 that would govern natural gas
exploration and extraction in the Delaware River basin. The proposed
regulations would allow as many as 18,000 gas wells in the basin.
The regulations have not been finalized.
According to Reuters, a spokesman for the New
York attorney general's office declined to comment on the dismissal.
July 9, 2012
The Corning Leader reported
Friday on a lawsuit challenging the plans of the Village of Painted
Post to engage in bulk water sales for gas drilling in Pennsylvania.
The suit was filed in Steuben County Supreme Court in Bath by the
Sierra Club, the Coalition to Protect New York, People for a Healthy
Environment and five individual petitioners against the Village
of Painted Post, Painted Post Development LLC, SWEPI and the Wellsboro & Corning Railroad on June 25, 2012. See Lawsuit Filed Against PP Bulk Water Sale Project by Derrick Ek. I am working with attorney Richard J. Lippes from Buffalo to
represent the petitioners.
The suit alleges that the Village should have
conducted a full environmental review of the impacts of the proposed
water sales and the proposed rail-loading facility for the water
shipments before signing a bulk water sale agreement and entering
into a lease of Village land for the rail-loading facility.
The papers filed in the case are
posted on my law office website.
May 7, 2012
Two New York water withdrawal applications and
a number of Pennsylvania applications are on the agenda for the
May 10, 2012 public hearing of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) in Harrisburg, PA and are scheduled for action by SRBC at its June 7,
2012 business meeting in Binghamton, NY. Both New York projects
are to withdraw water from the Elmira-Horseheads-Big Flats Aquifer
on the Chemung River. The Elmira-Horseheads-Big Flats Aquifer is
one of only 14 primary aquifers in New York state.
It was reported
in December that the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) adopted a resolution at its meeting on December 8, 2011, postponing action
on any applications for water withdrawals for natural gas drilling
in New York state until the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) has completed its environmental review of
hydraulic fracturing, and that the decision was made at the request
of DEC Commissioner Joe Martens. Three water withdrawal applications
in Broome County were postponed by the DRBC's decision. The SRBC
should be urged to do likewise and put all water withdrawals
in New York on hold, including these renewal applications.
But putting withdrawals in New York on hold is
not enough: the SRBC must put all withdrawals in the Susquehanna
River Basin on hold until it conducts a basin-wide cumulative impact
study of the impacts of gas drilling on water resources in the
basin. On November 9, 2011, 44 organizations in the Susquehanna
River Basin called on the SRBC "to exercise its Compact powers to: (1) disclose the science behind this rulemaking
[granting water withdrawal permits for the consumptive use of gas
drilling]; [and] (2) conduct a Basin-wide study analyzing the impacts
of unconventional shale gas development on water resources and
water resources management; . . ." Continue reading . . .
March 20, 2012
On March 7, I spoke at a
forum in Bath, NY about legal issues presented by municipal water exports to Pennsylvania. The
forum was sponsored by the Bath Peace and Justice Group and the
Steuben County League of Women Voters. An overview of the issues
discussed at the forum is contained in an op-ed piece, Municipal water export: Whose water? Whose rights? I wrote with Bath attorney Mark Schlechter that appeared in the Steuben Courier Advocate on March 17, 2012.
February 11, 2012
A state court in Westchester County has annulled
the general permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems (the MS4 General Permit) on the ground that it fails to comply with the federal Clean Water Act and
the provisions of New York law that implement it. Two key reasons
for the ruling were that the general permit process allowed municipalities
to self-certify compliance without oversight by the DEC and that
the process did not provide for hearings on individual applications.
The decision may have repercussions for other general permits issued
by the DEC, including the General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activity, the Multi-Sector General Permit, the General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, and the proposed General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing.
Judge Joan Lefkowitz of the Westchester County
Supreme Court ruled against the MS4 General Permit on January 10,
2012, in a lawsuit brought by NRDC, Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance,
Soundkeeper, Save the Sound, Peconic Baykeeper, NY/NJ Baykeeper,
and Hackensack Riverkeeper. The decision, NRDC v. NYS DEC, can be downloaded here.
As noted by Larry Levine in his blog at NRDC
Switchboard, Court Finds New York State's Program to Stem Biggest Source of Water Pollution
Too Lax, the basic principles in the MS4 permit case—that municipalities cannot self-certify compliance without oversight by environmental
regulators, and that the public has important rights to participate
in decisionmaking on these matters—should be uncontroversial. In issuing her ruling, Judge Lefkowitz followed the
ruling of a federal appeals court, EDC v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003) cert. denied 541 U.S. 1085 (2004), that rejected portions of EPA’s stormwater regulations for having precisely the same flaws as the MS4 General
Permit. Mr. Levine is the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. The
case is also discussed in a post by Vicki Shiah on the Sive, Paget & Riesel Environmental Law Blog. Continue reading . . .
January 30, 2012
The Susquehanna
River Basin Commission (SRBC) has announced changes to its public participation process. It will now conduct a public hearing
on project applications one month before the Commission acts
on the projects. In accordance with these changes, the SRBC will
conduct a public hearing on February 16 to accept public comments
on water withdrawal and consumptive use project applications
scheduled for action by SRBC at its next business meeting in
mid-March. The SRBC will accept written comments on the project
applications until February 27.
The project applications scheduled for the February
16 hearing include those that were approved at SRBC’s December 15, 2011 hearing in Wilkes-Barre. Pa. “The Commission has decided to reconsider its December action on those project
applications because the disruptive behavior of certain individuals
prevented interested persons from offering testimony at the time,” SRBC Executive Director Paul Swartz said in the January 23, 2012, press release announcing the changes. “We are committed to preserving the due process rights of all citizens so they
can provide constructive and meaningful comments on proposed projects.”
“Conducting a public hearing on project
applications one month before the Commission acts on the projects
is a new procedure and represents an improvement over our past
practice,” said Swartz. “This change will give the public ample opportunities for commenting and will
give the commissioners more time to review and consider comments
before voting on proposed projects.”
The change is one of a several procedural changes
recently adopted by the SRBC to its public participation process.
Other changes include not accepting comments at its business meetings
on project applications or other actions scheduled for vote, having
the commission's business meetings streamed live via webcast and
requiring that all persons attending the hearing must sign-in and
show photo identification. Signage, posters, banners or other display
media will be permitted only in designated areas. The press will
be permitted to set up and use video and recording devices. The
public will be permitted to use small, hand-held devices in a non-disruptive
manner. The full set of procedures is available on SRBC’s web site at www.srbc.net/pubinfo/publicparticipation.htm.
The announcement of the new procedures comes
following a letter to the SRBC submitted on December 22, 2011, by a group of environmental organizations. The
letter pointed out that the Commission’s approval of water withdrawal applications at its December 15, 2011, meeting
may not have been legally effective because the approvals occurred
after the meeting was adjourned. The letter pointed out that by
adjourning the meeting prematurely, the SRBC prevented the testimony
of non-protesting members of the public who wished to testify on
individual water withdrawal applications. The letter asserted that
by not allowing public testimony and approving water permits off-the-record,
the SRBC penalized the entire public and violated its own rules
and procedures. Continue reading . .
January 20, 2012
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) has extended the public comment period for the
department's proposed water withdrawal regulations discussed on
our post earlier this week by 15 days. The new deadline for comments is 5:00 PM on Monday, February 6,
2012. For more information about the proposed regulations and how
to submit comments, visit the DEC website at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/78258.html.
January 16, 2012
My initial review of the proposed water withdrawal
regulations published by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) in the New York State Register on November 23, 2011, discloses six preliminary areas of concern:
- The proposed regulations are being issued
without a cumulative impact analysis of water usage in the state,
including water usage for hydrofracking
- The proposed regulations are being issued
without the revised permit language being available for review.
- The proposed withdrawal regulations do not
address the consumptive use of water for gas drilling and will
not cover most withdrawals for this purpose, leaving the Great
Lakes Basin less protected than the Delaware and Susquehanna
River Basins
- A staggered schedule of implementation is
proposed, with the largest permits being issued first, thereby
prioritizing the state's largest water users
- No public hearings are required before permits
are issued, leaving residents of the Great Lakes Basin with fewer
rights than residents of the Delaware and Susquehanna River Basins
- No water usage fees are imposed for withdrawals
in the Great Lakes Basin although fees are imposed by the DRBC
and the SRBC for withdrawals in the Delaware and Susquehanna
River Basins
I urge the DEC to withdraw the proposed regulations
and offer new regulations for comment that address these concerns. Continue reading . . .
December 27, 2011
At its December 15, 2011, meeting in Wilkes Barre,
PA, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) voted to amend its project review regulations for gas drilling and approved 22 water withdrawal and consumptive use applications, as reported on the SRBC website. The amended SRBC rules become effective April 1, 2012. The official Final Rule
will be published in the Federal Register. Both the full text of the new rules and an executive summary are posted on the SRBC website. The revised deadline for written comments on
the proposed regulations was November 10, 2011.
The SRBC’s Project Review
Regulations, codified at 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts
801, 806, 807 and 808), contain the standards and procedures used
by the Commission for the review and approval of water resources
projects, and for related enforcement and oversight activities.
The SRBC's Project Review Regulations were previously amended in
September 2010, effective November 1, 2010.
In response to some outspoken
members of the public, the SRBC's December 15th meeting was adjourned before the agenda was completed.
After adjourning, the Commissioners voted off-the-record to approve
the majority of the water withdrawal applications on the agenda.
On December 22, 2011, a group of environmental organizations submitted a letter to the SRBC pointing out that the Commission’s approval of the water withdrawal applications may not be legally effective
because the approvals occurred after the meeting was adjourned.
The letter also points out that by adjourning the meeting prematurely,
the SRBC prevented the testimony of non-protesting members of
the public who wished to testify on individual water withdrawal
applications. The letter asserts that by not allowing public
testimony and approving water permits off-the-record, the SRBC
penalized the entire public and violated its own rules and procedures.
Prior to the meeting, a number of commentators
had urged the SRBC to announce a moratorium on water withdrawals
for hydraulic fracturing until the Commission has in place a comprehensive
plan for water use and management based on a study of the cumulative
impacts of projected gas development in the Susquehanna River Basin. Continue reading . .
December 12, 2011
The Binghamton
Press and Sun Bulletin and the Ithaca Journal report that the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) adopted a resolution at its meeting on December 8, 2011, postponing action
on any applications for water withdrawals for natural gas drilling
in New York state until the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) has completed its environmental review of
hydraulic fracturing. The decision was made at the request of
DEC Commissioner Joe Martens.
The DRBC's decision to postpone consideration
of applications from New York puts on hold a controversial application
from XTO Energy—a subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil—to withdraw up to 250,000 gallons of water per day from Oquaga Creek, a pristine
trout stream in eastern Broome County. Two other water withdrawal
applications, both in Broome County, were also postponed by the
commission's decision.
December 5, 2011
With little fanfare, in the midst of the public
hearing schedule for its environmental review of hydrofracking,
proposed gas drilling regulations and proposed stormwater permit
for gas development activities, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) has published its proposed regulations
to implement the water withdrawal legislation passed unanimously by both houses of the legislature earlier this year and signed into law by Governor Cuomo on August. 15, 2011.
The proposed water withdrawal regulations, amendments
to 6 NYCRR Parts 601 and 621, were announced in the New York State Register on November 23, 2011, and are posted on the DEC website.
Written public comments on the proposed regulations
are being accepted for 60 days through January 22, 2012. No public
hearings on the proposed regulations have been scheduled. On Dec.
2, 2011, the DEC announced public information sessions in New Paltz
on December 6, 2011, in Henrietta on December 13, 2011, and in
Albany on December 12, 2011.
We will be posting a detailed analysis of the
proposed regulations.
November 22, 2011
On November 18, 2011, the Delaware
River Basin Commission (DRBC) issued a news release announcing that the Commission's special meeting scheduled for November 21,
2011, in Trenton, NJ would be postponed. The announcement came
after reports that Governor Markell of Delaware and Governor Cuomo of New York would vote
no on the proposed regulations that would have opened the Delaware
River Watershed for gas drilling and fracking, which were to
be voted on at the meeting. The provisions of the proposed regulations
were discussed in last week's post, DRBC Revises Proposed Water Withdrawal Regs for Gas Drilling. A new meeting date is still to be determined.
November 15, 2011
The Delaware
River Basin Commission (DRBC) published a revised draft of its proposed regulations applicable to water withdrawals for gas drilling
in the Delaware River Basin on November 8, 2011. The revised
regulations reflect comments received on the initial draft of
the proposed rules published on December 9, 2010. The public
comment period on the proposed rules closed April 15, 2011. A
record number of comments were submitted on the initial draft—69,800 comments—breaking all records for public involvement. The Commission is not holding a
public hearing or accepting comments on the revised proposed
regulations. While it considers the new rules, the DRBC has a
moratorium on issuing approvals for water withdrawals for gas
wells.
The DRBC has scheduled a vote on the revised draft
regulations on November 21, 2011 at a special meeting in Trenton,
NJ. A vote to approve gas regulations would lift the current moratorium.
If rules permitting gas drilling in the Basin are adopted, it is
estimated that 15,000 to 18,000 gas wells could cover the four-state,
13,500 square mile Basin over the next 30 years. The Basin covers
2,300 square miles of New York, including portions of Broome, Chenango,
Delaware, Schoharie, Greene, Ulster, Orange and Sullivan Counties.
Water from the Delaware River Basin supplies New York City and
Philadelphia—a total of over 15 million people—with their drinking water.
As noted in previous posts, the federal agencies
overseeing the DRBC and the DRBC have been sued by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and a group of environmental organizations for their failure to conduct a full environmental review of the proposed regulations
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Continue reading . . .
August 22, 2011
On August 15, 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed
into law the water withdrawal permitting legislation unanimously
passed by the State Senate and Assembly, A5318A/S3798. The new law (Chapters 400-402, Laws of 2011) expands the permitting requirements
contained in §§15-1501 et seq. of the Environmental Conservation Law to require that persons withdrawing 100,000
gallons or more per day of the state's waters obtain permits from
the the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) . The law imposes no fees for water usage or permit issuance.
The new permitting requirements do not become applicable until
the DEC promulgates new regulations implementing the legislation.
The governor's
press release announcing the signing of the law states that, "[T]his law will enable DEC to comply with commitments under the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (Compact) by regulating
all significant water withdrawals occurring in the New York portion
of the Great Lakes Basin."
The release notes that the Great Lakes and their
watersheds contain more than 18 percent of the world's supply and
nearly 90 percent of the United States' supply of fresh surface
water. Only about one percent of the water volume is renewed or
replaced by precipitation and tributary inflow each year. "Consequently," the release states, "Great Lakes levels can be drawn down dramatically by sizeable water withdrawals.
Large withdrawals could adversely affect wetland habitat, spawning
grounds, municipal and agricultural water supplies, recreational
boating access and hydropower production. As the nation's population
increases and water supplies in other regions are consumed, pressure
to utilize Great Lakes water outside the region will grow. This
valuable resource must be carefully managed to ensure that it continues
to provide environmental and economic benefits for future generations.
This law will ensure that New York upholds its commitments under
the Compact."
August 15, 2011
A coalition of nonprofit organizations filed
suit last week against the Army Corps of Engineers and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) for their failure to comply with federal law by proposing to allow gas
drilling within the Basin without first conducting a full environmental
review as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Plaintiffs include the National Parks Conservation Association,
Riverkeeper, and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. The lawsuit
was filed on August 4, 2011, in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn,
New York where the Army Corps office is located. A similar suit was filed in the same court by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on
May 31, 2011.
The Plaintiffs' joint
press release states that modern advances in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, are granting
access to the country’s shale gas reserves. "Fracking involves pumping millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals
into a well, fracturing the shale and releasing the natural gas
trapped within. Companies are not required to share information
publicly about the chemicals used in this process. While all
harmful impacts of natural gas development have yet to be fully
understood, impacts may include: Health concerns for local communities
and the environment including water contamination related to
drilling and the disposal of drilling fluid; Reductions in stream
flow and ground water levels; [and] Air quality degradation.
. . ." Continue reading . . .
August 10, 2011
Two Pennsylvania groups, Clean Water Action and
Three Rivers Waterkeeper, filed suit in federal court on July 19,
2011, against the Municipal Authority of the City of McKeesport
seeking to enjoin the Authority from accepting wastewater from
gas drilling operations and discharging it into the Monongahela
River. The river supplies drinking water for nearly a half million
people, including a portion of the City of Pittsburgh. This is
the first time a federal court case has been filed to stop the
discharge of drilling wastewater in Pennsylvania.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the
Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the Clean Water Act
and Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law, claims that the Authority
is in violation of the terms of its discharge permit because it
did not disclose that it receives oil and gas wastewater at the
time it applied for the permit. The complaint alleges that a subsequent
order of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) allowing McKeesport to discharge up to 100,000 gallons per
day of Marcellus drilling wastewater into the Monongahela River
cannot serve to modify the terms of the permit because a change
in the wastestream processed pursuant to a permit requires approval
from the permitting agency and public participation in the permitting
process, including a public notice and comment period, before commencement
of the discharge. Continue reading . . .
July 5, 2011
Brett Walton reports
in Circle of Blue that a lawsuit has been filed in Federal District Court in Massachusetts demanding
that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) release a crucial study
on water supply and energy demand that was ordered by Congress
in 2005 and has never been made public. The Massachusetts-based
Civil Society Institute (CSI) has brought suit under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) and the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) seeking release of the study, known as the National Energy-Water
Roadmap, and a score of documents used in the study’s preparation. Continue reading . . .
June 20, 2011
On June 16, the NYS Senate became the second house
of the NYS legislature to pass the pending water withdrawal permitting
legislation, A5318A/S3798. The senate vote was 62-0. The assembly had passed the legislation on May 2nd
with a vote of 101-0. Although the assembly and senate have taken
divergent views on a number of bills before the legislature this
year, it is notable that they were united in unanimous support
of this legislation. The bills await the governor's signature,
which is expected. The legislation provides that the new permitting
requirements it contains do not become applicable until the department
promulgates new regulations implementing the legislation.
The legislation expands the permitting requirements
for public drinking water supplies and certain other limited purposes
contained in §§15-1501 et seq. of Title 5 of Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) to require
the DEC to issue water withdrawal permit for withdrawals of 100,000
gallons or more per day by any user for any purpose from any of
the state's waters, except that agricultural users are exempt from
the permit requirements.
The legislation was actively supported by the
Business Council, the Farm Bureau and a number of major environmental
groups. It was opposed by some grassroots environmental groups
out of concerns that the legislation did not address water withdrawals
for use in gas drilling, did not address riparian rights and public
trust issues and did not impose fees for water usage or permits.
June 5, 2011
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed
suit May 31, 2011, against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency for their failure to commit to
a full environmental review of proposed regulations by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) that would allow natural gas drilling in the Delaware River Basin. The
Basin includes a portion of the New York City watershed and parts
of Broome, Chenango, Delaware, Schoharie, Green, Ulster, Orange
and Sullivan Counties.
The complaint, which is posted on
the AG's website, seeks various forms of relief, including an injunction
ordering the Defendants to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) by promptly preparing a draft EIS subject to
public comment, which shall include consideration as an alternative
to the proposed DRBC regulations a prohibition on natural gas development
within the New York City Watershed within the Basin, and which
shall also include an analysis of reasonable measures to mitigate
all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The
suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, New York where
the Army Corps office is located. Continue reading . . .
May 5, 2011
The Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition (CWCWC)
has filed suit against the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) challenging the failure of the DEC's final Strategic
Plan for State Forest Management (SPSFM) issued on December 29,
2010 to prohibit High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHHF)
in New York State Forests. I am one of several individuals living
adjacent to state forests who are named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The complaint, filed on April 28, 2011, in Ulster
County Supreme Court, Case No. 11-1833, seeks judgment to void
the SPSFM and its accompanying Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for the DEC's failure to take a hard look at the environmental
impacts related to the action as required by the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The complaint also seeks
a determination that industrializing State Forests with the newly
proposed natural gas extraction process known as High Volume Horizontal
Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHHF) is contrary to the enabling legislation
authorizing the purchase of lands for State Forests and is inconsistent
with the responsible stewardship of State Forests, sustainability
and policies of New York State as set forth in the State Constitution,
Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), and the Common Law Public Trust Doctrine. The plaintiffs are represented in the suit by Attorney
James Bacon from New Paltz.
For an independent analysis of the biological
impacts of HVHHF in the State Forests, CWCWC retained Hudsonia,
a nonprofit, non-advocacy institute that conducts research and
provides information for land use planning and environmental management.
Hudsonia and Hickory Creek Consulting prepared a report analyzing
a number of potential impacts to biological resources, particularly
including the toxicity of spilled or leaked wastewater affecting
streams and wetlands, and the fragmentation of forests by drilling
pads, access roads, and pipelines. An affidavit of Erik Kiviat,
Executive Director of Hudsonia, outlining Hudsonia's research has
been filed with the complaint.
April 28, 2011
It is urgent to understand the ongoing debate
among environmental activists about the merits of two companion
water withdrawal bills on the floor of the New York legislature,
A5318A/S3798, because both bills are scheduled for a vote on Monday,
May 2nd according to an April 22nd article in the Binghamton Press and Sun Bulletin.
Will the bills protect New York's waters or not?
A simple way to address that question is to compare the permitting
system proposed by the legislation with the permitting system currently
in place in the Susquehanna River Basin (SRB). Permits issued by
the SRB Commission offer better protection than proposed in the
bills in three key ways:
- The SRB Compact states that nothing in the
compact, i.e. the issuance of permits, affects riparian rights.
The proposed legislation does not contain a comparable provision
preserving riparian rights. This is important because riparian
rights prevent users from harming other users in the watershed
and provide that all users have equal rights.
- The SRB Commission charges fees for permitted
water usage. The proposed legislation does not provide for fees
to be charged for water usage authorized by a permit.
- The SRB Commission requires permits for
any amount used for the consumptive use of gas drilling. The
proposed legislation does not give the DEC authority to require
permits for any amount of water withdrawn for use in gas drilling.
The DEC is limited by the proposed legislation to permitting
persons withdrawing 100,000 gallons or more per day without regard
to use or to the amount used by the end user. Under the proposed
legislation, independent haulers withdrawing less than 100,000
per day for gas drilling purposes will not be subject to permitting
requirements.
If the purpose of the legislation is to put protections
in place in the Great Lakes basin so that waters in that basin
are protected like waters in the Susquehanna River Basin and the
Delaware River Basin, why put in place legislation that will not
give comparable protections?
March 11, 2011
In a Marten
Law briefing, Meline MacCurdy reports a recent Ninth Circuit holding that a “perceived” decrease in value of private property following EPA’s approval of a state’s “impaired waters” listing under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is sufficient to establish
the standing of a private plaintiff to challenge the agency’s decision. The case of first impression, Barnum Timber Co. v. EPA, 2011 WL 383012 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2009), gives private property owners adjacent
to creeks, rivers and other waterbodies in the West a seat at
the table in CWA listing decisions, a step that often occurs
long before affirmative obligations are imposed on uses of the
private properties through the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
program.
March 10, 2011
Dan Tarlock's paper on Water
Law’s Climate Disruption Adaptation Potential, prepared for the upcoming Research Roundtable on Climate Change, Adaptation,
and Environmental Law, at Northwestern Law's Searle Center, April
7, 2011—April 18, 2011, has just been posted online. The paper raises pertinent issues for the discussion going on in New York now
about the proposed legislation to issue water withdrawal permits to large private water users. This legislation
would move New York from a riparian rights system to a regulated
riparian system of water rights law.
The paper points out that while permits in regulated
riparian systems are not perpetual as they are under prior appropriation
systems in the Western United States, they are still "hard to dislodge . . . even though the law permits the reassignment of rights." The paper describes the role permits played in Georgia’s law making responses to a severe drought and notes that, "[t]he reality is that the permit system entrenches large withdrawals."
The paper begins with a discussion of how Global
Climate Change (GCC) will alter many of the fundamental hydrologic
assumptions upon which water allocation, water pollution control
and aquatic ecosystem conservation are based, and says this will
stress both the laws of prior appropriation and riparian rights.
Prof. Tarlock notes that the assumption that regional water balances
will remain relatively constant or stationary over time is no longer
viable, and says this will create conflicts between present right
holders and future claimants and between consumptive and non-consumptive,
especially environmental, uses. "The hard question," he says, "is how the law and those charged with applying it and managing water within its
framework should react to this new, even more, uncertain world." Continue reading . . .
March 9, 2011
The water withdrawal legislation considered by
the New York legislature in its 2009-2010 session has been reintroduced
and is advancing. A5318 was introduced by the chair of the Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee,
Robert Sweeney (D-Lindenhurst) on February 16, 2011. The wording
of A5318 is identical to A11436B-2009 sponsored by Mr. Sweeney in the 2009-2010 legislative session. A companion bill
to A5318, S3455 was introduced by the chair of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee,
Mark Grisanti (R-Buffalo) on Feb. 24th. On March 2nd, Mr. Grisanti
introduced a similar bill, S3798, a Department of Environmental Conservation departmental bill, at the request
of the DEC. S3798 has several relatively small differences from
S3455. S3798 was voted out of the Senate En Con committee yesterday.
Today, A5318A was amended to match S3798.
This legislation would move New York from a riparian
rights system to a regulated riparian system of water rights law.
The bills would amend the permitting requirements for public drinking
water supplies and certain other limited purposes contained in §§15-1501 et seq. of Title 5 of Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) to allow
the DEC to issue water withdrawal permit for withdrawals of 100,000
gallons or more per day by any user for any purpose from any of
the state's waters, except that agricultural users are exempt from
the permit requirements. The bills would remove the requirement
that public drinking water supplies under the 100,000 gallons per
day threshold be permitted. The bills provide that the new permitting
requirements contained in the legislation do not become applicable
until the department promulgates new regulations.
The switch from a from a riparian rights system
to a regulated riparian system would have a profound impact on
water rights in New York. The permits authorized by the legislation
are available only to non-agricultural users of 100,000 gallons
or more per day. The issuance of permits to certain users and not
to other users may give permit holders an advantage over non-permit
holders should a dispute over scarce water resources occur between
them. Continue reading . . .
January 12, 2011
The Wisconsin
Bar Journal reports that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has accepted review of a dispute over the permitting
of a high-capacity water well. Oral argument on the case is scheduled
for March 9, 2011. Local conservation organizations had contested
a permit issued for a high-capacity water well 1,400 feet from
Lake Beulah in Walworth County, arguing that in issuing the permit
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) violated its obligation
under the public trust doctrine to “protect navigable waters, groundwater and the environment as a whole.”
The conservancies lost at the administrative and
circuit court levels, but the appeals court decided that the DNR
may consider the public trust doctrine in deciding whether to grant
applications for new wells. In Lake Beulah Management District et al. v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2008AP3170, the appeals court ordered the DNR to reconsider the permit in light
of scientific evidence that a high-capacity well would have adverse
impacts.
After consideration of scientific evidence, the
DNR reissued the well permit. Whereupon the Lake Beulah Management
District–which operates with the powers of a municipal corporation–adopted an ordinance that prohibited ground and surface water transfers from
the area that included the location of the disputed well.
The Village of East Troy then brought an action
seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was invalid and
unenforceable. The appeals court ruled that the ordinance was preempted
by state legislation, giving the DNR exclusive authority to regulate
waters in the state.
Upon review, the supreme court is expected to
decide the reach of the public trust doctrine. The supreme court
will also decide whether a municipal ordinance governing groundwater
transfers is preempted by state law and, therefore, invalid and
unenforceable.
Noah Hall has posted a
detailed report of the decision in Anglers of the AuSable v. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Merit
Energy Company, a signficant new decision of the Michigan Supreme Court addressing water law
and standing issues on his Great Lakes Law blog.
Prof. Hall characterizes the majority’s
decision in the case of as "a huge legal victory for Anglers of the AuSable and other environmental groups
on several very important state law issues." He notes, however, that the decision was issued right before a major change
in the Court’s balance and composition as a result of the 2010 elections, and that the dissenting
justices have now regained a majority on the court.
In addition to issues in interpreting the
ability of citizens to sue under the Michigan Environmental Protection
Act (MEPA), the Court was faced with several legal issues under
Michigan riparian water law. The Court was asked to rule on the
appropriate legal test for discharge of polluted water and whether
a proposed diversion of contaminated water from the Manistee
River watershed into Kolke Creek and the AuSable River watershed
was lawful. The Court declined to clarify the relevant legal
test, concluding that the discharge, in the circumstances presented,
was “manifestly unreasonable”.
The Court declined to address the issue of
whether a riparian landowner (in this case the state) may convey
riparian rights by easement to a non-riparian (in this case Merit
Energy). According to the majority, that issue was not “outcome-determinative”.
On the MEPA issues, the Court expressly overruled
the Court’s 2004 decision in Preserve the Dunes, Inc v Department of Environmental Quality (684 NW2d 847) and held that state agencies can be sued under MEPA and held
accountable for pollution that will result from issuing permits.
Chief Justice Kelly, who dissented in Preserve the Dunes and joined the Anglers of the AuSable majority in overruling that prior decision, wrote a separate concurrence to
justify the decision under the doctrine of stare decisis.
The Court in Anglers
of the AuSable also overruled the restrictive standing test used in the Court’s 2007 decision in Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. (727 NW2d 447), and instead relied on its 2010 decision in Lansing Schools Education Association v Lansing Board of Education to apply MEPA’s express statutory language and allow any citizen to bring suit under the law.
January 10, 2011
In a case that may have implications for the
interpretation of other interstate water compacts, the U.S. Supreme
Court will hear oral arguments today on Montana’s claim that Wyoming is violating the provisions of the Yellowstone River Compact. Among the improper
uses alleged by Montana is the permitting of more than 20,000
coal bed methane wells in the Powder River Basin and a smaller
number in the Tongue River Basin.
Both parties rely on a plain reading of the
relevant sections of the Compact but come to incompatible interpretations.
Montana argues that the Compact’s stated purpose of preventing controversy is undermined if upstream appropriators
can use more efficient irrigation methods to reduce return flows
at the downstream appropriators’ expense. In response, Wyoming contends that its usage does not conflict with
any limits set forth in the Compact, that Montana’s interpretation creates an amorphous and impractical limitation the drafters
never intended, and that public policy supports a reading which
allows Wyoming to reap the benefits of increased efficiency,
especially in dry western regions. While currently the controversy
only involves the Tongue and Powder Rivers, the Court’s decision here may impact other rivers regulated by this Compact.
The Compact has a three-tiered framework:
The first tier adopts the doctrine of “prior appropriation,” which generally holds that the first people to put water to a beneficial use
retain a continuing right to the water. The second tier of the
Compact concerns the “unused and unapportioned” waters of interstate tributaries, and permits each state to divert amounts of
water to supplement first-tier appropriation rights. Finally,
the third tier of the Compact gives each state a specified percentage
of any remaining “unused and unapportioned” water, the percentages to be calculated annually.
Cornell's Legal Information Institute reports that
the Special Master appointed by the Court concluded that Montana
has asserted valid claims, but has recommended that the Court
deny Montana’s claim that Wyoming’s use of improved irrigation techniques violates the Compact, and has further
recommended that Montana show that it lacks an intrastate remedy
before calling on Wyoming to adjust usage.
The NYS DEC's environmental notice bulletin reported
on Dec. 29, 2010, that the DEC, as lead agency, has accepted a Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed Final Strategic Plan for State Forest
Management. Copies of the Final Strategic Plan and Final GEIS
are available online at: www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html.
The final plan calls for permitting gas drilling
using the techniques of horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic
fracturing in the state forests. Many comments received on the
draft plan issued Sept. 1, 2010, objected to this aspect of the
plan. The comments filed by the Adirondack Mountain Club (ADK) assert that "the DEC is incorrect in concluding that high volume hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking
for natural gas drilling and deep water injection for fracking
fluid is a consistent use for any state forest. Such uses would
not only put the forests' health at risk, but could also compromise
water supplies for many southern tier communities."
Law Seminars International is offering a seminar
on litigating Natural Resource Damages: The Ground, Groundwater and the Gulf: New Developments
and Best Strategies, January 20 & 21, 2011, Hotel InterContinental Miami in Miami, FL. Seminar presenters will
address handling natural resource damages administrative claims
and lawsuits. Presenters include knowledgeable NRD lawyers at
the Justice Department and the Department of Interior as well
as a geographically diverse group of skilled NRD practitioners
and experts.
Responding to public concern, the Board of
the Village of Owego, New York, near Binghamton, decided at their
meeting on Dec. 20, 2010, to conduct an environmental assessment
before voting on a proposed wastewater sale to Inflection Energy.
The citizens of Owego complained before the meeting about not
having been able to review the terms of proposed sale. The village
had denied all FOIL requests for documents related to the sale.
Read Sue Heavenrich's article about the meeting in her Marcellus Effect Blog.
Alex Basilevsky offers this
update in his Water Law blog: "[F]oes of hydraulic fracturing have won a minor victory in a recent federal court
decision coming out of the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
In Fiorentino v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., No. 09-cv-2284 (M.D. Pa., Nov. 15, 2010), Judge John Jones refused to dismiss
a suit against Cabot arising out of allegations that Cabot's
hydraulic fracturing operations contaminated the plaintiffs’ property and water with methane, natural gas, and other toxins. The decision
is significant because one of the questions before the court
was whether a claim of strict liability can be brought against
a hydraulic fracturing operation."
I have started this website and blog as a
resource for citizens and lawyers studying water law issues in
New York. Greater understanding of New York's laws governing
water usage and protection from water contamination is needed
as we evaluate the water impacts that may result from increased
gas drilling activities in New York and adjacent states.
The scope and adequacy of New York's existing
water laws are under debate. Proposed regulatory changes currently
under consideration by the NYS Department of Enviornmental Conservation
(DEC) would permit gas well drilling companies to use the techniques
of horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing to
increase gas production. See Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and
Solution Mining Regulatory Program, Well Permit Issuance for
Horizontal Drilling And High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop
the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. If these techniques are permitted, billions of gallons of the state's fresh
water will be used by gas drilling companies for hydraulic fracturing
(hydro-fracking) of gas wells at a time when fresh water is becoming
an increasingly scarce commodity in the United States and the
world.
Gas drilling is certainly not the only source
of demand for New York's water. According to the DEC website,
more than 15 billion gallons of water are withdrawn each day
from the lakes, rivers, streams, estuaries and groundwaters of
New York for uses that include domestic consumption, industrial
use, irrigation and livestock watering, mining and thermoelectric
power generation. Thermoelectric power is by far the most significant
of all water use categories in the state, accounting for nearly
80% of total water withdrawn. Public water supply accounts for
nearly 17%. About two-thirds of the total water withdrawn is
fresh water. The other third is taken from saline waters and
is used primarily for thermoelectric power generation. Surface
water withdrawals account for nearly 94% of all freshwater withdrawals
in New York State, the remaining 6% of withdrawals are taken from groundwater
sources. See the DEC webpage on Water Use in New York.
In the 2010 legislative session, Governor
Patterson offered Governor's Program Bill #51 to require large water users to obtain permits from the DEC. The bill was introduced in the the New York senate as S8280 and passed in 2010. The companion bill, A11436B, in the assembly did not come to the floor for a vote. Similar legislation is
expected to be introduced in 2011.
|
|
|
About NY Water Law
New York Water
Law covers legal developments relating to water usage in New York
and elsewhere. The
author, Rachel Treichler, practices law in the Finger Lakes region. .
Search NY Water Law
Enter search terms:
Index of Posts
Index
of Posts by Month
Recommended Reading
|
|