Author Archives: kingstonnavigator

Corporation Council Andy Zweben: “The City of Kingston is not an “Involved” Agency

By Rebecca Martin

Perhaps the most disappointing letter that I have seen in the past four weeks since beginning this work is one initiated by the City of Kingston’s Corporation Council Andrew Zweben – a public sector lawyer dated 10/24/14 – working against our Common Council.

I received a copy of it last evening, and I’m assuming on behalf of Mayor Shayne Gallo, that the City of Kingston does not feel it should be a “Involved Agency” in the proposed water sale for the Niagara Water Bottling Proposal.

Even after a recommendation to do so by the Kingston Conservation Advisory Council. And then, a letter from the prestigious advocacy group “Riverkeeper” for the same. After which, a memorializing resolution passing through the Council’s General Government/Public Safety Committee that will be voted on by the Common Council on November 4th to make it official.  Or the hundreds upon hundreds of citizens who have shared their concerns since this project became public.

 

1488640_331206973728641_3104022249176087242_n

Click on the image to view the letter in full.

 

 

1.  WATER BOARD TERMS AND LIMITS:   At the top of page “2” it speaks to the Water Board being appointed for a five (5) year term by the Mayor. Recently, we have FOILed the City Clerk’s office to learn of the appointments and terms served by the current Water Board.  We suspect that some are beyond that limit, and probably way beyond it.  I had wondered if re-appointments were allowed as I haven’t seen anything in the Charter thus far that states as such.  Therefore, can the Water Board’s possible violation of term limits, rotation etc. invalidate its ability to protect the public interest?  Maybe it’s time to remove those Board Commissioners who are beyond their term, and replace them with new blood.

2. WATER BOARD POLICY AND PUBLIC INTEREST: “…the (Water) Board sets Department policy and establishes all rules and regulations which it deems essential to the protection of the public interest in management of the Water Department…” How is the public interest  vs. private and political interests identified?

I’d say the public has so far been quite thoughtful and eloquent about their concerns. That has been met with a great deal of defensiveness and eye rolling. What gives?

2. WATER BOARD REVENUE: Andy Zweben points out that 95% of the Department’s revenue comes from the sale of water. Where does the remaining 5% come from?

3. SELLING THE PUBLIC’S WATER AND SCIENCE: In the charter, as is pointed out here, in “B” it says that the “Board of Water Commissioners…is to furnish such water without inconvenience, risk or peril to the residents of the City of Kingston, and that the circumstances described in the application must, in the opinion of the Board, justify the sale of city Water.”

Given that the proposed sale of water to a national water bottling company looking to purchase 1.75 million GPD is an unprecedented situation for Kingston, what Science is the Water board looking at to make that decision and is it sufficient? An Engineering Analysis was performed this year based on Niagara’s request, but the ‘Will Serve’ letter was issued prior to a final draft being presented to the Water Board. They expect a copy of the final draft at their November 12th meeting.

4. IT’S THE DEC (NOT THE DEP).  Luckily, in “C” it goes on to say that such sale or sales must be approved by the NYS Water Power and Control Commission (which today is the DEC and not the DEP as Andy Zweben incorrectly noted in his footnote).  On what grounds?  Is this where their authority and the Public Trust Doctrine can be tested?

5. COMMON COUNCIL AUTHORITY: In “H”, it speaks of any water facilities provided outside of the corporate limits of the city requires permission of the government authority of the area to construct, inspect and repair its water facilities.  Several side notes include the authority of Kingston’s Common Council in these cases (construction) where also in the charter it states that:

“Said Board, with the assent of the Common Council, may construct and maintain waterworks for supplying said city and its inhabitants with pure and wholesome water; exercise such powers as are necessary and proper to accomplish such purpose and shall proceed in the manner hereinafter prescribed.”

Additionally,  in the 1954 Water Supply Application it states:

“Under this decision and approval the city of Kingston is authorized to furnish a water supply to the new plant of IBM Corp in the Town of Ulster. No authority, however, is given hereby to the city for the sale of water to any others from the supply main to be installed to such new plant without further consent and approval of the Commission.”

Luckily that was written into the 1954 application.  There are more checks and balances it appears – and checks and balances are good.

We support the Kingston Common Council passing through a memorializing resolution on November 4th that requests the City of Kingston to be listed as an ‘Involved’ Agency in the SEQR process. In doing so, you are acting on behalf of your public. There is enough evidence that our city as well as the Water Board have an important role in all of this. 

 

 

DEC Declines Lead Agency Role. Requests the SEQR Action Expand Its Scope.

By Rebecca Martin

Although the DEC declined to take Lead Agency of the SEQR for the proposed Niagara Bottling Company project, they do bring many important things to light in their letter. All of which can help us to ultimately assure a fair SEQR process which is our aim.

Thank you all for being engaged here and for hitting each and every mark thus far. It is in that effort that things can and will improve as we have seen.   Although we may be disappointed that the DEC at this point is not stepping in to take Lead Agency, the comments that they make will certainly be useful to us in expanding the scope of SEQR and even perhaps municipalities that would be impacted by the project as ‘involved’ agencies. That is what we have to go for now – and we will.

10354873_330864797096192_1928456473160620501_n

Click on the image to read the DEC’s letter in full.

 

FROM THE DEC’S LETTER TO THE TOWN OF ULSTER RE: WATER SERVICE
#3. Water Service- It appears that the project site is located within the Town of Ulster Water District and will be provided with water purchased from the City of Kingston. Any Determination of Significance should address the full buildMout of the facility, specifically the source of the estimated

1.75 MGD of water that will be required from the City of Kingston. This is consistent with the SEQR requirement of reviewing the “whole action”. Therefore, DEC suggests that all known or reasonable anticipated phases of the proposed project be considered in the determination of significance. If later phases are uncertain as to design or timing, t11eir likely ,environmental significance sl1ould still be examined as part of the whole action by considering the potential impacts of the total known build-out.

If the proposal causes the City of Kingston to require a change or amendment to any permit condition that is currently in force, including an increase the amount of water to be withdrawn greater than what is currently permitted, in order to prevent over-allocation or use of a water source or to protect the environment and the health, safety and welfare of the public then the City of Kingston will be required to modify its existing Water Withdrawal Permit, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 601.

ACTION: Contact Martin Brand of DEC Regarding SEQR Action and Lead Agency.

By Rebecca Martin

ACTIONContact all listed below to alert them that the ACTION in the current Environment Assessment Form (EAF) for SEQR (drafted by Niagara/The Chazen Companies) is too narrow in scope. It does not include the SALE of water from its supply sources in Woodstock to Niagara and is a critical part of the entire project that needs to be environmentally reviewed by SEQR under ONE Lead Agency (that being the DEC) before any decisions can be made or actions taken by any involved agency, including the City of Kingston Water Department.

CONTACT:

1. Martin Brand, DEC Region 3 Director at  845/256-3000  or write martin.brand@dec.ny.gov
2. Joe Martens, DEC Commissioner at joe.martens@dec.ny.gov
3. Judy Hansen, Superintendent, Kingston Water Department  845/331-0175  (press ‘1’)
4. Mayor Shayne Gallo, Voting Member of the Kingston Water Board   845/334-3902  sgallo@kingston-ny.gov
5. Gregg Swanzey, Director of Economic Development 845/334-3962   gswanzey@kingston-ny.gov
6. Mike Hein, County Executive Ulster County  845/340-3800  exec@co.ulster.ny.us   
7. Peter Romano, The Chazen Companies (Niagara Consultant)
518/598-9804      promano@chazencompanies.com
8. Supervisor James Quigley, Town of Ulster   845/382-2765    ulstersupervisor@townofulster.org

 

SUGGESTED DRAFT TEXT FOR EMAIL:

To: CONTACT NAME

I am writing to alert you that the Action in the current Environment Assessment Form (EAF) for SEQR is too narrow in scope. It does not include the sale of water from its supply sources in Woodstock to Niagara and is a critical part of the entire project that needs to be environmentally reviewed by SEQR under one Lead Agency (preferably the DEC).

Recently, I have seen the City of Kingston’s Water Department’s ‘Will Serve’ letter  to Niagara Bottling Company.   Although the Kingston Water Department is currently independent in the City of Kingston, in the SEQR process they are not.  In order for the KWD to make a decision to sign off on a contract with Niagara for Water, it is subject to the SEQR process which hasn’t yet gotten underway.  The Kingston Water Board next meets on Tuesday, November 12th. It isn’t clear whether they are considering signing a contract with Niagara committing Kinston’s water this early or not. If it does, the City of Kingston’s Water Department would be violating SEQR’s legal requirements.

Therefore, I encourage a dialogue between all ‘Involved’ and ‘Interested’ Agencies to work together to create a SEQR that includes all aspects of this project so that a fair SEQR determination can be had.

Thank you.
YOUR NAME
Municipality

 

 

1900081_330777413771597_233083405449834429_n

Recently, we shared the City of Kingston’s Water Department WILL SERVE letter that was crafted by William N. Cloonan (the Water Department’s legal counsel). In its closing statement it says:

“….therefore, in consideration of the aforementioned conditions and subject to agreement by the Kingston Water Department Board and Niagara Bottling Company, LLC, the Kingston Water Board is able to provide Niagara with the requested flows subject to the above. Please let me know if this meets your requirements so that we can execute a more formal agreement that is acceptable to both parties. The Board of Water Commissioners looks forward to working with Niagara and welcomes you to the City of Kingston.”

 

10710738_330073630508642_3790367212757041308_n
What does this suggest?   That the Kingston Water Department, though perhaps independent in the City of Kingston, may misunderstand that in SEQR, it is not – and that if they have it in mind to make a decision to sign off on a contract with Niagara for Water, it is subject to the SEQR process which hasn’t yet gotten underway.  The Kingston Water Board next meets on Tuesday, November 12th. It isn’t clear whether the Water Board is considering signing a contract with Niagara committing Kinston’s water this early or not. If it does, the City of Kingston’s Water Department would be violating SEQR’s legal requirements.

 

SEQR Determination 

1. The SEQR EAF (Environmental Assessment Form) written by the Chazen Companies on behalf of Niagara is too narrow, only proposing the ‘construction of a water bottling facility’.

2. The Kingston Water Board is an ‘involved ‘agency in the EAF and water is necessary for a Water bottling facility. The ACTION does not include the sale of water from its supply sources in Woodstock to Niagara and is a critical part of the entire project that needs to be environmentally reviewed by SEQR under ONE Lead Agency (that being the DEC) before any decisions can be made or actions taken by any involved agency, including the City of Kingston Water Department.

3. Therefore, the impression is perhaps that the facility build and the Water for bottling purchase/delivery are two separate ACTIONS.  Without the ACTION including both together, a fair SEQR Determination may be jeopardized.

A SEQR Determination helps to decide whether or not a proposed project will have any significant adverse impact on the environment.  A SEQR Determination is one of the following:

 ‘Negative’
the action is determined not to have significant adverse environmental impacts.

‘Conditioned’
a non-significant action through enforceable terms.

‘Positive’
when an action is determined to have potentially significant adverse environmental impacts and requires and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) where the public’s input will become a part of the process.

 

VIDEO: Kingston Common Council General Government / Public Safety Meeting 10/22/14

By Rebecca Martin

The Town of Ulster Planning Board from 10/21/14. Special thanks to Clark Richters of Kingston News for capturing the evening.

 

Starts at: 0:43 – 14:47
Julie Noble, Chair of the Kingston Conservation Advisory Council presents recommendation for the DEC to be lead agency of the Niagara Bottling Company SEQR.

Watch the entire thing to watch the memorializing resolutions be read and passed on to council.
1: The DEC to assume Lead Agency for the Proposed Niagara Bottling Company  SEQR
2: For the City of Kingston to be changed to “Involved Agency”.

The entire video.  WATCH THIS!
A very interesting presentation regarding asset management. What is revealed here is that the City of Kingston does not have a cohesive strategy to manage its infrastructure. Throughout, elected and appointed officials were called ‘Stewards’ of our infrastructure.  Key word. STEWARDS.

VIDEO: Town of Ulster Planning Board Meeting 10/21/14

By Rebecca Martin

The Town of Ulster Planning Board from 10/21/14. Special thanks to Clark Richters of Kingston News for capturing the evening.

Starts at: 16:09
SUNY ULSTER –P-598 Change of Use
101 Frank Sottile Blvd. SBL# 48.8-1-1.212 Review

Starts at 40:13
NEW BUSINESS
NIAGARA WATER- BOTTLING FACILITY P-599 Site Plan
605 Boices Lane
SBL# 48.7-1-29.200
Review

 

In Solidarity.

unity-is-strength

 

By Rebecca Martin

Over the past four weeks KingstonCitizens.org, which was created almost a decade ago to help to connect Kingston residents to its local government so to encourage transparency and better communication, has become the hub for information for our entire region regarding the proposed Niagara Bottling Company project.

Without a doubt, the project concerns are many. But it is the potential of selling our most precious natural resource – the public’s water to a national bottling company –  that is our most pressing concern.  Sure, many of us would like to eliminate plastic bottles. Some may not be fond of ‘Corporate America’ (as Supervisor Quigley proclaimed last week on-air). But the real problem here….is the concept of selling off the public’s WATER to a national bottling company.  You can’t compare it to beer, to milk, to soda. We are talking about millions and millions of gallons of water each day being drained from our water source.  There isn’t any comparison.

Last week, the Town of Ulster amended the proposed Niagara Bottling Company SEQR ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ agencies. The NYC DEP was the only new ‘involved’ agency – and having them included is good. The others – the City of Kingston, Town of Woodstock, Town of Saugerties, Village of Saugerties, Town of Esopus and Town of Kingston were all categorized as ‘interested’ agencies.

Prior to October 16th, none of our municipalities were even listed. Good job citizens! Your hard earned efforts to show up at meetings, to write letters and to inquire ‘what can I do?’ made this critical step possible.   But as a municipality impacted by the project, ‘interested’ agency may be a step, but it is just not enough.

Tonight, the City of Kingston passed through two memorializing resolutions. One of which was to request that the City of Kingston be changed from ‘interested’ agency to ‘involved’ agency. It is most appropriate that it did so.

On November 4th, the Kingston Common Council will vote on whether or not to pass this through.  If it does, a communication could immediately be sent to the Town of Ulster. Hopefully, in time before the Lead Agency conversation in SEQR closes which might be on November 16th. Many of us have asked that the DEC take Lead Agency here given that originally, the DEC, Town of Ulster and Kingston Water Board were the three main ayers listed as ‘involved’ agencies. As a multi-jurisdiction project, the DEC as lead just makes sense.

Then why is including impacted agencies as ‘involved’?  Looking closely at the difference between ‘Interested’ and ‘Involved’ Agencies in SEQR, an interested agency has about as ‘much authority as the public‘.  However, as an involved agency,  the agency ‘has or will have a discretionary decision to make regarding some aspect of the action in SEQR’.

There is some debate as to the Kingston’s Common Council’s authority in the Charter over the Kingston Water Board as it is currently described, but there is no doubt that the public has come to the table to say that it wants to have a say in how its public water source is sold or how its 100 year old infrastructure that was paid for by the public is used. Could the Kingston Water Department have predicted or anticipated water bottling as it is done today back in 1895 when it organized itself as independent?  The purpose of which was to keep politics OUT of the public’s water supply. Now, as it appears, that may be working against us.  For any elected or appointed official to deny the Kingston public to have a say through its Common Council  in my opinion is wrong.

I’d like to publicly thank those who were present tonight – all of our Alderpersons who sit on the general government/public safety committee, Alderman-at-large James Noble, Alderpersons in attendance that included Matt Dunn and Brad Will and the Kingston Conservation Advisory Council for submitting such a thoughtful letter in response to the public’s attendance to their recent educational forum where they hosted Superintendent Judy Hansen.

On the subject of ‘involved’ agencies. Are there other neighboring communities now listed as ‘interested’  that should also consider passing the same sort of memorializing resolution to the Town of Ulster requesting ‘involved’ agency status?

Absolutely. Do it, and do it soon. You’ve got until November 16th.

Because this project isn’t just about building a facility in the Town of Ulster. It’s about using a neighboring municipality’s water source. A source that happens to be in the Town of Woodstock, that may not only be a sacred place to all living in and around it,  but could also be feeding its aquifer. A projected 260 trucks going in and out of a plant all day and night long.  Trucks potentially coming and going in addition from Spring sources from places such as Dutchess County (we have heard, though haven’t confirmed yet, that Niagara has isolated a spring in the Red Hook area). Air Quality. Congestion. Traffic Concerns. About water discharges that may or may not be questionable into the Esopus Creek.  About climate change and drought. And for what? 40 – 80 jobs?   It’s enough to stop any thinking person in their tracks in regard to going any further

In addition, how does a business like Niagara being in a ‘tax free’ zone impact our taxes? The town of Ulster residents will be footing the bill. So might the City of Kingston on the School tax front.  What dialogue is being had about that?  Hey listen, now that Tech City is in a ‘tax free zone’ trying to partner with SUNY UCCC to take advantage of 1o years of tax abatements – why settle on Niagara? Start-Up NY is a new program as of January. What are we doing going with our first shovel ready inquiry? Come on fellas. If the public is footing the bill, at the very least you could provide us with options to choose from with some  forward thinking companies.

When I started this process – it was quite like the great unknown. I knew I wanted to be involved, and I knew that I could rally at least 100 people to attend that first common council meeting on October 7th. Little did I know that in doing so, I would step into a work that would end up requiring a seven day a week, 12-15 hour day commitment in reading, speaking, writing, strategizing, researching and reaching out.  Given that the project was far enough along to be submitted to SEQR,   a great amount of catch-up was necessary.

On the subject of Kingston and its citizens, I want everyone to know far and wide that many of us understand that the City of Kingston making the decision to sell off its water not only impacts us here. It impacts us all.  Along in building a stronger citizen base in Kingston, it has been a most rewarding experience to also work side by side with citizens from Woodstock, Saugerties, Esopus and the Town of Ulster.  We want to connect with everyone to not only help to make this situation right, but to eventually enter into another chapter in all of this. Where we work to protect our ground and surface waters State wide by implementing the Public Trust Doctrine and to STOP DRINKING BOTTLED WATER.  To improve how our communities function and to think about connecting with our neighbors as we proceed into what is yet another great unknown in new and unpredictable ways.

What is absolute is that we will need one another.

Thank you for lending a hand. Without a doubt, I may be asking for two.

My warmest regards and thank you.

– Rebecca Martin

 

IMPORTANT MEETING / IMPORTANT VOTE: Kingston Common Council on November 4th at 7:30pm

content_Kingston_City_Hall_2

WHAT
Kingston Common Council Meeting

WHEN
Tuesday, November 4th, 2014
7:30pm

WHERE
Kingston City Hall
Council Chambers
420 Broadway
Kingston, NY

WHY
The Kingston Common Council will vote to pass through two important memorializing resolutions. The first in support of the DEC as Lead Agency of the SEQR process for the proposed Niagara Bottling Company. The second in support of the City of Kingston being listed as ‘involved’ agency in the SEQR process.  READ: SEQR: Interested vs. Involved Agencies

FACEBOOK EVENT INVITATION

 

By Rebecca Martin

Tonight at Kingston’s Common Council General Government/Public Safety Meeting, members of the Common Council passed through two key memorializing resolutions.  Please come to the next Kingston Common Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 4th where the council will discuss and take an action on passing them both through…or not. The public to witness is key to its success.

###

#1: Based on the Kingston Conservation Advisory Council’s recommendation given the multi-jurisdictional nature of the proposal, to request that the DEC take Lead Agency in the Niagara Bottling Company SEQR. 

READ The Kingston Conservation Advisory Council’s Recommendation.

###

Last week, the Town of Ulster made an amendment to the ‘Interested’ and ‘Involved’ agencies, adding the City of Kingston as an ‘Interested’ agencies. Prior to that, the City of Kingston was not listed at all.

#2: In response to this, the Common Council passed through another memorializing resolution that the City of Kingston be changed from ‘Interested’ to ‘Involved’ agency on the SEQR review.

READ Ward 3 Alderman Brad Will’s letter to the Committee. 

Lets rally.

Kingston Water Department ‘Will Serve’ Letter Issued on September 15th, 2014

10482222_330073593841979_8625357505781479902_n

Click on the image for a PDF copy.

 

By Rebecca Martin

Today, we received a copy of the the ‘Will Serve’ letter (we had heard others and ourselves had been calling it a ‘Will Share’ letter.  The proper term is ‘Will Serve’) issued by the Kingston Water Department to Niagara Bottling, LLC on September 15th, 2014.

It was done the day before Peter Romano of The Chazen Companies gave their presentation to the Town of Ulster Planning Board on September 16th (click on link to listen. Romano’s presentation begins at 1:15:26), 2014.  As you recall, the Planning Board that evening agreed to pass ‘Lead Agency’ of the SEQR process along to the Town of Ulster Town Board. A resolution passed on September 18th, 2014 for The Town of Ulster as ‘Lead Agency‘ (click on link to listen. The Town Board discussion on Lead Agency begins at 16:30).

The letter ends by saying “Please let me know if this meets your requirements so that we can execute a more formal agreement that is acceptable to both parties” and  “The Board of Water Commissioners looks forward to working with Niagara and welcomes you to the City of Kingston.”

10710738_330073630508642_3790367212757041308_n

 

From the Water Board meeting, 10/8/14. Supervisor Jim Quigley addressing the Water Board after the public had left.

7:29 Unidentified Commissioner: How long did it take us to get them to acknowledge that they wanted to negotiate with us for the amount of water and the price. It wasnʼt, you said, I guess April, but I think it was later than that. I mean, the email may have come…
7:43 Hansen: The email came, the initial email asking for the will serve letter came following the County meeting in April. But it was August before they started to actually negotiate directly with us.
7:58 Quigley: And the reason that was..
8:00 Unidentified Commissioner: I just didnʼt think it was late in the summer.
8:03 Hansen: It was August.
8:04 Quigley: Mr Ginsburg didnʼt sign the contract for sale till August, okay? They did not know they had a deal.
8:11Hansen: Right, right.
8:14 Unidentified Commissioner: And thatʼs why the will serve stuff sat from April until September.
8:19 Hansen: Exactly.

 

 

 

10/21/14: PLANNING BOARD MEETING PRIMER: Town of Ulster Planning Board Meeting regarding Niagara Bottling Facility

10689911_329726130543392_8329692587907503461_n

 

By Rebecca Martin

This is a great primer for the Planning Board meeting this evening created by Jennifer Schwartz Berky, a Kingston resident and planning professional. It should help you a great deal in following along.

If you have any questions regarding this document, please contact Jennifer at:

jsberky@honestrategic.com

 

City of Kingston: Water Supply Permit and Water Supply Applications of 1954 & 1929.

FOIL Request DEC
By Rebecca Martin

Recently, we reached out to the DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) to see if we could receive a copy of the most recent Water Supply Permit by the City of Kingston.  They asked that we FOIL (NYS’s Freedom of Information Law) for their records, which we did.

According to the DEC Region 3 office, no records could be located in the Environmental Permits Office that was ‘pertinent to your (our) request’.  It appears that the COK will need to apply for a new Water Supply Permit in February of 2015, though we don’t have all the information on this yet. Check back in.

What we do have, is a 1954 application that was filed with a hearing in Kingston on March 31st, 1954 and a decision on April 6th, 1954 for the ‘approval of the installation of a 12-inch supply main from the existing conduits in the Town of Ulster to a proposed connection with the internal water supply system of the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) in the Town of Ulster in which Town of Board of Water Commissioners have not heretofore legally supplied water in large quantities.”

That the DEC has nothing new on file, all that can be done at this moment is assume that the last application submitted was in 1954. Lets say for now that is the case.

WATER SUPPLY APPLICATION NO. 2510 “For approval of the installation of a 12-inch supply main from the existing conduits in the Town of Ulster to a proposed connection with the internal water supply system of the IBM Corportaion in the Town of Ulster in which Town of the Board of Water Commissioners have not heretofore legally supplied water in large quantities.”  

What’s in the application?  Here are some items that we’ve found to process and research. Check back periodically as we become more familiar with the documents to share more for your information.

###

1. The Water Department says it has full authority to make the decision to sell the public’s water to the proposed Niagara Bottling Company project independently from City Government.

QUESTION:  However, the Mayor of Kingston is a voting member of the Water Commission and appoints each of its members.  What role might Kingston’s Common Council have in influencing the Mayor’s vote on the Water Commission?  How can we work to re-write the charter as it pertains to the Water Department for better checks and balances on water sales and infrastructure needs?

 ***

2.  In “Findings of Fact” point #10 (page 3), it says that in 1954, the Safe Yield was at 8 million GPD.  According to Kingston Water Department Superintendent, in 1961 it was estimated to be at 6.1 million GPD.

QUESTION: That would be a drop of 1,900,000 million GPD in the safe yield between 1954 and 1961.  Today, Hansen admits to using the 6.1 million GPD as a basis for their decision making – but that data is now over 50 years old and is not taking into consideration any modeling for climate change, future growth and future Economic Development for the City of Kingston.

 ***

3. In “Findings of Fact” point #9 (page 2), it speaks to a May 27th, 1929 Decision (see above for a copy of the decision).  It says:  “For approval of its acquisition of an additional source of water supply, for increasing the storage in Cooper Lake, for constructing the Mink Hollow conduits and Cooper Lake conduit, for constructing Binnewater equalizing reservoir, and for reinforcing the distribution system.”  It goes on to say “the project proposed under this application was never fully carried out and the Commission, in its resolution of November 14th 1947 in approving the works as then completed, rescinded such parts of its decision of May 27th, 1929 as referred to works proposed for future construction but not then completed.”

QUESTION: There appear to be some significant items here, though more research is necessary. TBA.

 ***

4.  In “Findings of Fact” point #14 (page 3)  it states that the maximum demands of the new plant of IBM were expected to be at 1 million GPD.  Following this statement, in point #15 it states that the ‘officials of the City of Kingston should be made aware of the fact that by meeting the demands of the new plant the limit of the capacity of its water supply facilities will be closely approached.’

QUESTION:  This is more of a thought process rather than a question.  At 1 million GPD, the Water Power and Control Commission (today known as the DEC) in essence is a warning to Kingston City Officials that the amount given to IBM on a daily basis is placing them at the potential risk to push the limit of the Safe Yield.  

***

5.  In “Conditions” (page 4) “A” – it states that ‘under the decision and approval the City of Kingston is authorized to furnish a water supply to the new plant of IBM Corp.  NO AUTHORITY, however, is given hereby to the city for the sales of water to any others from the supply main to be installed to such a new plant without further consent approval of the Commission.”

QUESTION:  What this means to me, is that that 12-inch supply main that was created to bring water to IBM in the Town of Ulster cannot be used for any other corporation without the approval of the Commission (the DEC).   How might that be applied in Niagara’s case? 

 ***

6.  In “Conditions” (page 4)  #1  it states that “Under this decision and approval the city of Kingston is authorized to furnish a water supply to the new plant of IBM Corp. NO AUTHORITY however, is given hereby to the city for the sales of water to any others from the supply main to be installed to such a new plant without further consent approval of the Commission”

QUESTION:  Once more, it appears that the City of Kingston hasn’t the authority to sell water to any other corporation through the existing 12-inch main except IBM without the consent of the Commission (DEC).  How might that impact the sale to Niagara today? Was Kingston Water Board aware of this, taking it into consideration before offering it’s ‘will share’ letter?

 

 ***

7.   In ‘Statutory Determiniations” (page 5) in the “Fifth” it says that said plans are ‘just and equitable to the other muncipalities and civil divisons of the State affected thereby and to the inhabitants thereof, particular consideration being given to their present and future necessities for sources of water supply.”

QUESTION:  What Science does the Water Department have to determine that ‘particular consideration’ was given to Kingston’s ‘present and future necessities for sources of water supply’ in the supplying Niagara Bottling Company with 1 million GPD – 1.75 million GPD where they, unlike IBM will use the full amount to bottle and to sell? 

***

HYPOTHETICAL:  It occurs to me as a thought process:   the 12-inch supply main installed for IBM can move 1 million GPD of water which Niagara wishes to utilize, probably in the first 4-5 years.   In their proposal, an additional 12-inch supply main is mentioned for future expansion. Although they are only requesting an additional 750,000 GPD from that pipeline as I understand it,  what’s to say that they wouldn’t push to get the additional 250,000 GPD that the main would have the capacity to bring. Are these numbers accurate?