Consolidation: Top-down, or Bottom-up?

[This article was originally published in the November 2008 "Utica Phoenix":]

Credit must be given to Mr. Picente for starting the conversation about consolidation in local government, in this case, police services. Clearly, our current structure of mini-jurisdictions is expensive, duplicative, and inefficient.

However, Mr. Picente's proposal to regionalize police at the county level is troubling based on the county's prior experimentation with regionalization of Utica's sewer, water, and Youth Bureau services, and attempts to regionalize industrial development and 911 services. This "top down" approach has resulted in those paying for the services not necessarily being those controlling them or receiving the benefits.

For consolidation to be palatable (not just for police, but for any service), people need to feel that they will have meaningful control and will get value for their money -- not just save money.

Consolidation at the county level would make sense for geographically small counties like Onondaga and Schenectady, or densely populated counties like Erie and Suffolk, because the interests of the residents to be affected will be similar -- in the former owing to limited geography, in the latter owing to a similar environment. (Try distinguishing between adjoining towns on Long Island and you will get the picture -- everything looks pretty much the same everywhere).

Oneida County residents, however, have diverse interests because the county is geographically large with densely populated jurisdictions adjoining sparsely populated ones. A county level police force will likely become like EDGE, or the Sewer District, or the Water Authority: perceived to respond to special interests rather than the public at large.

It is neither practical nor efficient to provide the same level of services everywhere, but some people feel entitled to this, and that is the direction that the county has moved. This has resulted in sprawl, requiring the public to maintain far more infrastructure than necessary, driving expenses up and development out of our cities and villages which we previously equipped for same. Economic "winners" and "losers" have been created, with the "winners" being the "newer" areas that are easy to develop, the "losers" being the older areas left behind, and the quality of life of both being degraded. Of course, "winners" have also been the areas where the most influential people at any particular point in time live.

Instead of imposing consolidation from the "top down," the County should encourage consolidation from the "bottom up."

It can start by employing differential tax rates to eliminate county charges for services that residents of municipalities already provide to themselves through their city/village/town taxes. Imagine only paying the county for services NOT already provided locally! No more Utica and New Hartford paying for county 911. No more Utica or village residents paying for the Sheriff's patrol or toward snowplowing county roads. Of course, this will increase expenses for people living in the outlying areas, but why should it not? It costs more to service people who choose to locate at distances from everyone else. If they want the service, they can either pay the county its true cost, negotiate an annexation with a neighboring jurisdiction having the service, or do without. No arm twisting -- just people being made to pay their own way.

It can continue by eliminating the tax breaks and special grants for "greenfield" developments that encourage sprawl. If private businesses need public investments, then they can at least be required to locate where infrastructure is already in place but is underutilized.

It can continue by the county getting out of the water and sewer businesses, and turning responsibility for these over to the municipalities served, letting the municipalities figure out for themselves how these services will be governed and paid for.

The suburban communities could NEVER have afforded the cost of sewage treatment themselves. Had the county NOT stepped in, fiscal survival would have ultimately resulted in some consolidation (by annexation) with Utica. Non-annexed suburban areas would have retained a more rural character, because they would have depended on septic fields. We would not see the sprawl that we see today. Town and City taxes would both likely have been lower, and the qualities that make people choose city or suburban life would have been maintained. The county actually enabled suburban areas to avoid consolidation by creating the part county sewer district.

Consolidation is needed, but it must come from the "bottom up," not the "top down." It will not, and should not, be accepted until people know they will maintain control, and get fair value for their tax dollars in return.


[Be sure to pick up the December "Utica Phoenix" to read "NYRI: Manipulating 'Public Need'."]

Wrong Regionalization: The Oneida County Sewer District

[This article was originally published in the October 2008 "Utica Phoenix":]

Over 40 years ago Oneida County made the first "regionalization" effort in Greater Utica by forming the Oneida County Sewer District to serve 12 area municipalities. The goal was noble: build a system of sanitary sewer interceptors, pumping stations and a treatment plant to clean up water pollution in the Mohawk River, and make it affordable by spreading the cost over all system users by charges attached to water bills. The goal was accomplished, but flaws in the scheme have produced harmful results.

Dilution of representation: One flaw is that sewer district residents ceded control of the system to many disinterested parties, specifically, the county legislators from places untouched by the sewer district. This meant that decisions would not necessarily be made from the perspective of the customers receiving the service and paying the bills, but rather by many people who would not be held accountable for their actions - people who could use their controlling position to advance other agendas.

Uncoordinated decision-making: Another flaw is that decisions over sewers are made by people with no responsibility for other municipal services, making it unlikely that decision makers will be aware of how their decisions could adversely affect the supply of other services.

Diluted representation and uncoordinated-decision making have contributed to urban sprawl, the county's violation of water pollution laws, and the people of Utica subsidizing suburban growth.

Utica is geographically small, with most of its land previously developed. In an older age when people gravitated to cities for convenience, as structures aged and fell into disuse, they were replaced with something bigger and better. Utica was no different. With the automobile and improved highways, outlying areas also became convenient to reach. Since it usually is cheaper to build on undeveloped land ("green fields") than tearing down an old structure and rebuilding, both people and businesses started to migrate to the suburban areas as city structures aged, paying to extend the city's water and sewer services.

With the advent of the Part County Sewer District and its interceptor lines, far-flung localities were able to tap into the treatment plant located in Utica. These places could never have afforded on their own the level of service that they received. Since the vast bulk of the population lived in Utica, Utica residents paid for most of the cost of this system. In effect, Utica residents were financing suburban growth while encouraging the rotting of their city from within.

In the last 15 years or so, suburban and county leaders adopted a "growth" policy -- both wanting to increase their tax bases and encourage the creation of jobs. Extension of the sewer system was a necessary ingredient. New developments were permitted to attach their sanitary sewer lines into a county interceptor that had an overflow into the Mohawk River. The overflow, however, was there to relieve pressure from storm water from the older sections of the region, places that had combined sewers built before storm water and sewage were required to travel in separate lines. Attaching the new sanitary waste-only lines into this combined overflow was illegal because it increased the amount of sewage that would spill into the river. The county and suburbs could have avoided the problem by constructing a separate interceptor for the sanitary waste-only lines that would bypass the overflow, but that would have been very expensive. Instead, the suburbs and county avoided this cost, and expanded their tax bases by degrading the environment.

The law eventually caught up with the county, and a Consent Order was proposed to clean up the river and settle the violation with the state. This complicated document was kept under wraps, then plopped into our legislators' laps in July 2007 literally hours before they were supposed to vote on it. No time was given for anyone to digest it or come up with alternatives. The cost was estimated at $66 million, but there was little discussion of who would pay for it other than an assurance that the county taxpayers would not. That left the sewer users, the bulk of whom still are Utica residents, to pay the bill. Again, Utica residents would be tapped to finance suburban expansion. Approval of the Consent Order was proposed and seconded by legislators from Boonville and Ava, places outside the sewer district, and the rest of the legislators "rubber-stamped" the deal.

About two weeks later, the legislature "rubber-stamped" the hiring of consultants to resolve the problem. Only the "affected" municipalities were invited to participate in their selection, which meant "not Utica," and that only the places that created the problem would choose. Not surprisingly, Shumaker Engineering, which performs a lot of work for the Town of New Hartford, was one of those chosen. Through sewer user fees, Utica residents will pay New Hartford's chosen vendor to solve a problem largely created by New Hartford.

As if that were not enough, the county (i.e., the sewer users) was permitted to pay part of its fine to the State in the form of an "environmental benefit project." What project was chosen? A parking lot for New Hartford's Rayhill Trail. The Town that benefited the most from the violations got rewarded with a parking lot paid for, in significant part, by Utica residents' sewer user fees!

Reviewing other documents, it appears that the county has more "stick it to Utica residents" in store for the future, such as planning to require Utica to remove storm water from its combined sewers that will to free up capacity at the treatment plant – which could later be reallocated for suburban use.

Suburban and county policies have not resulted in "growth." Regional populations and jobs continue to decline. Instead, economic activity is merely moved from one part of the region to another. What has grown is the public infrastructure that we all must pay to maintain. While the suburbs increase their tax bases, they also increase their expenses, and lose their "suburban" character.

County and municipal leaders need to restructure how the sewer district is governed. Meanwhile, Utica city officials and county legislators need to oppose policies that shift the cost of suburban development onto Utica residents. That would not only make Utica a more affordable place to live, it will also help to preserve the suburban quality of life.

[Be sure to pick up the November "Utica Phoenix" to read "Consolidation: Top-down, or Bottom-up?"]

OC Sewer Gestapo: Looking for YOU!

In one of the most brazen displays of blame shifting, Oneida County Government claims that the "Source of sewer problem may be private residences"

In other words Oneida County says that YOU are the problem!

“We are pretty convinced that a major part of this problem is on the private side of things between the line in the street and the house,” Oneida County Water Quality and Water Pollution Control Commissioner Steven Devan said Tuesday. . .

In heavy rains, stormwater floods into sanitary sewers, overwhelming the Sauquoit Creek pumpstation. Raw sewage then is mixed in with stormwater that pours into the Mohawk River.

County studies show much of the stormwater that enters the sewer system might come from private residences, Devan said.

For example, some older homes might have roof gutters or sump pumps that are connected to the sanitary sewer lines, he said.

“If we don’t solve the private side of this thing and make repairs on the private side, we probably will never get a handle on this,” Devan said.

No doubt storm water is entering the sewer system through private residences. Some people may have illegally tied their sump pumps into separated sanitary waste lines, and those people should be expected to fix their situations.

But roof gutters and sump pumps leading to combined (sanitary + storm water) sewers was common practice many years ago, and is one of the reasons why the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) was originally permitted at the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station in Yorkville: Pressure in the combined system caused by storm water was allowed to be released by an overflow into the river, rather than by backing up into people's basements. The system was intended to work that way . . . and it was perfectly legal.

The system was never a "problem" -- and there was no illegality -- until Oneida County and (primarily) Suburban Towns decided it was to their benefit to "grow," and allowed new developments -- which have separate sanitary waste and storm water lines -- to tie their sanitary waste lines into the old combined sewer system. This allowed tax bases to expand while the County and municipalities avoided the cost of constructing new treatment facilities to handle the concentrated sanitary waste from the separate lines. Once "the problem" was discovered, the US EPA declared the CSO illegal and, effectively, all the old developments with combined sewers are now going to have to remove storm water from their systems -- systems that were designed to convey storm water.

The villages of Clayville, New York Mills, Yorkville, Whitesboro, New Hartford and Oriskany are the places most likely to have combined sewers, because they were settled many years ago when combined sewers were accepted practice. As long as combined sewers continue to exist, making people unhook their roof drains and sump pumps from combined sewers accomplishes little. The storm water has to go somewhere, and will simply run off the land, into the street and back into the combined system. But today's article suggests that this may be what people will be expected to do.

Ultimately, separate waste and storm water lines will be the solution to the now-illegal CSO. But the problem was not caused by the people with roof drains connected to the sewers. It was caused by the County allowing developments with separated sanitary lines to tie into a combined sewer system.

Before the County sends its sewer Gestapo to make people disconnect roof drains and sump pumps, it needs to identify where the combined sewers are located, and hold the people connected to those sewers harmless.

A Black Eye for DEC

According to yesterday's Post Standard, the Department of Environmental Conservation has admitted to violating federal law by extending water pollution discharge permits without the required review.

In many cases, the DEC allowed five-year permits to be extended more than 20 years without scrutiny. . . .

The Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Facility, which discharges into Cayuga Lake, hasn't received a thorough technical review since 1987. Cayuga Lake provides drinking water for five municipalities in Tompkins County and is dotted with beaches and parks that extend into Cayuga County.

EEEWWWW!

We, of course, have our own dereliction of duty story with Oneida County spilling raw sewage into the Mohawk. (At least we don't have to drink Mohawk River water . . . yet.) Had DEC been on the ball, the violation could have been caught in the early stages.

Predictably, lack of funding and staffing is getting the blame:

"We simply did not have enough staff to grind out extensive technical reviews every five years for all SPDES permits," DEC officials wrote in an agency document.

During Gov. George Pataki's administration, nearly 800 scientists, engineers and enforcement agents were cut from the DEC. By the end of 2006, the agency had only 11.5 people reviewing more than 13,000 permits . . .

Uh . . . Wasn't 1987 before Pataki came to office with his cuts? The Ithaca WWTF permit should have been reviewed again in 1992, before Pataki, but it was not. Since many permits were extended for more than 20 years without scrutiny, the problem certainly seems to predate Pataki and the cuts.

DEC is a big agency with many, many programs. The 800 or so allegedly cut from staff were not all working on water programs and we are not told how many permit reviewers there were before the cuts. If the cuts were so bad, why did the public not hear about these problems with reviews before?

Of course, government officials looking the other way on pollution laws allows for development to occur on the cheap ... The developers cultivate symbiotic relationships with the politicians who run things ... The politicians can point to Development as "progress" and a sign of their leadership abilities. Meanwhile, the developers, who are subsidized by our degraded environment, fatten their profit margins.

I have no doubt that DEC's civil servants are doing the best they can, but they are supervised by political appointees. Look how our Oneida County Consent Order was handled: when the civil servants were pretty much on their own during the change in administrations, action seemed to be taken. After the new crew of appointees started settling in, a resolution was quickly reached . . . one that permitted "development" to occur . . . one that actually gave Oneida County (and New Hartford) credits for work that had already been performed . . . and one that rewarded the largest polluter with a parking lot as an "environmental benefit" project.

The problem with DEC isn't staffing or funding. The problem is politics. . . . and it has been that way no matter which party has been in charge.

Sewer Incompetency and Irresponsibility

There was a rather annoying editorial in today's Observer-Dispatch: State, federal help needed to fix sewers. It reflects the attitudes of the people running government in Oneida County -- and tells us why we are at the bottom of the country, economically:

Our leaders are incompetent and irresponsible:

• Incompetent because they created the situation complained of.
• Irresponsible because they demand that the state and federal governments pay to fix the mess that they created.

My "Consent Order Primer" series explains the sewer system and what went wrong: Part 1: Plumbing Part 2: Legalizing Pollution Part 3: Laws Working Together Part 4: Dissecting What Happened.

Our local officials at the County and Town levels need to be held accountable for what happened ... County legislators from the City of Utica and nearby Villages are perfectly positioned to do this, because their constituents are paying to fix a Town-created problem from which they derive no benefit.

We deserve better government.

OC's Stealth Rate Increase . . .

While everyone seems to be outraged over the 8+% increase in water rates proposed by the Mohawk Valley Water Authority, there is another part of our water bill that has just increased at almost double that rate . . . but with little notice . . . at least not until you get the bill.

That is the Oneida County Sewer Use Charge.

This was approved as one of the last acts of the County Legislature in 2007: Bill 423 to be exact, introduced by Messrs. Wood (Westmoreland area) and Porter (Boonville area) and seconded by Mrs. Mandryck (Ava area).

Was this done out of the public eye in secret? Of course not. It was done out in the open for all to see. The new rates were all set forth back in November. There was even a legal notice in the paper, and a public hearing down at the County Sewage Treatment Plant. And the Board of Legislators approved it in one of their famous public rubber stamping sessions with at 26-0 vote.

Of course, no where in the proposed rate schedule does it say that there is an INCREASE . . . .

And apparently no one on the legislature thought to ask or make an issue of it. Maybe no one raised a fuss because the bill was introduced and seconded by people from areas having nothing to do with the Part County Sewer District.

Everything was there out in the open . . . but no one noticed.

That's why it is a stealth increase.

Tuesday's Sewer Meeting

It was an interesting meeting, reported upon in the Sentinel, the OD, WKTV, and News 10 Now.

It was admitted that 50% of the sewer users who will pay to fix the situation reside in Utica. However, no one representing Utica was invited to participate in the selection of the engineers who would study solutions. This omission was never adequately explained. The representative from Utica at the meeting voiced no protest, and had practically nothing to say.

The impression was made that this was a "storm water" problem and a "lack of maintenance" problem. However, while storm water management and proper maintenance will be part of the solution, it was the connection of separated sanitary sewers to a combined sewer overflow that caused the violations that DEC and EPA complained of (already pointed out in earlier posts on this subject).

Another impression was that a lot of people stand to make a lot of money from this problem -- and if things can be kept complicated, more work will be "justified." Beneficiaries/Participants present at this meeting were several engineering firms, two law firms, and a public relations outfit. Many ladles will be dipping into this big pot that rate payers will be tossing into.

A steering committee composed of residents and officials is going to be formed -- a good idea. But this begs the question, what is the role of the Sewer District Advisory Board? It almost sounds like a duplication. It was good to see that Concerned Citizens for Honest and Open Government is trying to be involved. Officials should be receptive to their participation.

Hopefully the steering committee idea will work out, and this problem will be resolved in a manner that is fair to all municipalities and sewer users. But with so many players involved, and with so much money to be made, the committee will have its work cut out.

Meeting Tuesday on Sewer Repairs

There will be a meeting on Tuesday, 8/28/07, 7 PM at the Whitestown Community Center to address the County's sewer repairs under the Consent Order. Per the Sentinel:

"Picente said the meeting will update all of the communities involved with the process of complying with the consent order and allow community representatives who serve on the Sewer Advisory Board to meet the professional staff that will be providing engineering services to the project. . . .

". . . The cost of the correction will be borne by those who use the part-county sewer district."

As noted in yesterday's post's analysis, the situation was caused by (1) the County allowing hook ups that caused separated waste to pass through its over flow untreated and (2) the individual municipalities' failure to recognize that this would happen due to their own inadequate environmental reviews of new development projects.

It will be interesting to see if "all of the communities involved" will include the one whose residents will be paying the bulk of the costs through sewer usage fees -- Utica.

It will be interesting to see if the process for selecting the engineering firms (who will probably bill $3-5 million for the study alone) will be explained and justified.

It will be interesting to see if financial relief will be discussed for the residents of the municipalities that were innocent of wrongdoing or negligence.

It will be interesting to see if the County will reveal its plan to shaft the residents of Utica by denying them the treatment plant capacity that Utica residents paid for to accommodate Utica's Combined Sewer Overflows.

The County should be responsible for the Consent Order's fines, because the County violated the law. The Towns and Villages that authorized the developments which are sending separated sanitary waste into the river should pay the tab to fix the projects that the Towns and Villages authorized.

Individual sewer users are innocent, and should be held harmless. The Consent Order's costs should not show up on our water bills.

Interesting indeed . . .

A Consent Order Primer, Part 4: Dissecting What Happened

Part 1 of this series focused on sewage systems; Part 2 on how laws are developed to control water pollution; and Part 3 on the roles of the federal, state and local governments. This post examines the Consent Order and other documentation of the local situation to understand the nature of the County's violations. At the end is an analysis of what went wrong and what is going wrong.

The County's SPDES permit allows discharges to the Mohawk River from 2 places (1) at the sewage treatment plant in Utica and (2) at the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station in Yorkville. The latter, which receives sewage mainly from New Hartford and Whitestown, was permitted as a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), recognizing that sewers in older developed areas combined storm water with sanitary waste; that it would be burdensome and financially unreasonable to make older areas put in separate lines for sanitary waste; and that if an overflow point were not provided, the wastewater would back up into people's basements.

However, new developments all have separate sanitary sewage collection systems, and New Hartford and Whitestown both have a lot of new developments. These have been allowed to connect to the County's System via the line leading to the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station.

During early February, 2006, the US EPA conducted an inspection and notified the County and DEC that separate sanitary sewer systems were feeding the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station, and that the discharge from the SCPS should be regulated as a Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO). DEC agreed, and notified the County a few days later that its CSO would be considered an SSO, its SPDES permit would be modified to reflect the change, that the County also appeared to be exceeding the capacity of its sewage treatment plant, that to address the excess it needed to submit a flow management plan (6NYCRR§750-2.9(c)) within 120 days, and that it needed to participate with the City of Utica in the CSO Long Term Control Plan.

Oneida County responded with resistance.

The County argued that the discharge point was a CSO based on a 1982 study, data on the quality of the discharge, and the combined nature of the collection systems built in the villages 70-80 years ago. The County argued that it should not be held responsible for the actions of the communities sending it sewage, claiming that it had no legal authority to regulate what went on in those communities. The County alleged that the DEC was causing a financial hardship to the County and the satellite communities. The County also resisted certain aspects of participating with the City of Utica in the CSO Long Term Control Plan essentially contending that evaluation of how County facilities would interact with Utica's CSOs would be expensive and should be Utica's responsibility. The County further took the position that Utica should be exploring other alternatives for treating Utica's CSOs rather than sending them to the treatment plant.

DEC did not accept the County's argument that it was not operating an SSO, and followed it up with an enforcement action that charged the County with illegally operating an SSO, illegally discharging sewage without secondary treatment, not submitting a flow management plan, and not having an effective sewer use ordinance in all parts of its service area.

Ultimately last month, the DEC and Oneida County entered into the Consent Order to get DEC to lift its ban on new sewer hookups.

Analysis:

Certainly, at the time the County's treatment works and collection system were built, "CSO" would have been the proper classification for the discharge from the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station. Again, CSOs were allowed in recognition that it would have been financially prohibitive to require areas previously developed to conform to new standards, and the old sections of the Villages of New Hartford, Whitesboro, Yorkville and NY Mills could be expected to fall into this category.

But the 1982 study the County attempted to rely upon could not have addressed the new developments of the 1990s and later that we have seen in New Hartford and Whitestown -- all of which were required to have separated sanitary sewer systems. The County did not have to let the new developments connect to its system on the same pipe that carried combined sewage and storm water. The fact that the County allowed this defeated the purpose of requiring separated systems for new developments because, at times of high flow, the waste from the separated systems would be discharged directly to the river untreated -- which is a clear violation of the law. The County could have required a second line for separated waste that would have avoided the CSO, but it did not.

The County's arguing that it should not be held responsible for the actions of the communities sending it sewage because it had no legal authority to regulate what went on in those communities was actually an admission of another violation. The US EPA has long required that the owners of treatment works have the legal authority to control the use of their facilities. This is done through ownership of the facilities themselves, the passing of a local ordinance governing use of the facilities, and then preventing connections by (or cutting connections from) any municipalities who do not cooperate by passing their own ordinances or devising some other method to ensure that the owner's requirements would be met.

The DEC enforcing its requirements is not the cause of financial hardships to the County and the satellite communities. Any hardships are the result of (1) the County allowing hook ups that caused separated waste to pass through its over flow untreated and (2) the individual municipalities' failure to recognize that this was happening to the waste from the developments that they not only authorized but encouraged (i.e., the environmental reviews of the developments were inadequate).

Instead of protecting the CSO which was intended to relieve established communities from a monumental burden, the County abused the CSO as a way to reduce the cost of new developments. Now that the abuse has been stopped, the County is going to cause what the CSOs were supposed to prevent: visiting additional costs on old established communities. The County will use its authority over sewer usage fees to make ALL users of the system pay for the solution, including the residents of the established communities that received no increases to their tax bases.

The County's approach to Utica is especially reprehensible.

"It is the County's position that the City of Utica and the NYSDEC should be exploring other alternatives for treating CSO's rather than sending them to the WPCP. The capacity of the WPCP should be reserved for treating sanitary wastes rather than combined wastes"

The treatment works were originally designed to accommodate the flows from Utica's old CSOs. Utica residents have been paying into this system for years, not only the County charges, but separate City sewer charges. Uticans have already paid for the treatment works to be adequately sized to meet their CSO needs. But the County now has signaled an intent to deprive Uticans of the use of the treatment plant for their CSOs which they have paid for. This would be a County requirement, not EPA's or DEC's.

It is amazing that Utica leaders and Utica legislators are not screaming in anger over this, but it is unlikely that they are even aware that this is being done to them . . . Things are rushed through the County legislature at the request of political bosses who appear to be answering to the desires of developers . . . And it is possible that even the County level bosses don't understand that this is happening.

Perhaps ultimately having everyone sharing the costs makes the most sense, but if this is going to happen, everyone needs to share in the benefits as well.

The innocent should not be made to pay for the violations of the guilty.


[Note: Articles in this series may be revised from time to time to provide additional detail and explanation as time allows, and as current events warrant.]

A Consent Order Primer, Part 3: Laws Working Together

A few weeks ago, Oneida County entered into a Consent Order with the Department of Environmental Conservation to solve the problem of raw sewage being spilled into the Mohawk River. This is the third of a series of posts covering some of the concepts and terminology to help clarify the issues. On 7/15 Part 1,"Plumbing" focused on the sewage disposal system itself, talking about POTWs, CSOs, SSOs, Inflow and Infiltration, and the different levels of treatment . On 7/29, Part 2, "Legalizing Pollution" examined how laws are developed to control water pollution, describing water classification, water quality standards, point sources, permits and effluent limitations. Today in Part 3 the roles of the federal, state and local governments are examined.

The Federal authority to control water pollution is grounded on the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the first federal environmental law, made it a misdemeanor to discharge refuse of any kind into navigable waters of the USA. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (a/k/a the Clean Water Act) came later in 1948 and has been amended many times since, with a major revision in 1972.

Currently, the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is well over 200 pages! Section 101 made national goals that (by 1983) wherever attainable,water quality would support recreation and fish propagation, and (by 1985) the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters would be eliminated. Section 301 and others made the discharge of any pollutant unlawful, and required the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to prescribe effluent limitations based on "best practicable control technology" for point sources other than sewage treatment works; secondary treatment for treatment works; and more stringent limitations necessary to meet water quality standards and other state requirements. Section 306 requires the USEPA to set national performance standards for discharges from particular groups of industries. Section 307 requires "pre-treatment" standards for discharges into sewage systems: to prevent discharges from overwhelming, passing through, or upsetting POTWs. A federal discharge permit system, the "National Pollution Discharge Elimination System" (NPDES), is provided by Section 402, which contains provisions enabling individual States to implement the federal program and write their own permits in lieu of federal permits (i.e., creating a "State Pollution Discharge Elimination System" or SPDES). And if the state or federal government don't do their jobs, the CWA in Section 505 gives individual citizens the right to bring suit to abate violations of the CWA under certain conditions. There are also many sections devoted to funding for research and pollution abatement facilities, as well as to address special situations in particular parts of the country such as the Great Lakes, the Hudson River, and Long Island Sound. The federal law contemplates a ratcheting down over time the amount of allowable pollution to ultimately meet the national goal of no pollution.

The CWA is exceedingly complex, and this is barely scratching the surface. The regulations implementing this law are even more overwhelming. Key ideas to remember, however, are that the Federal government relies heavily on State governments to implement the Federal requirements, that the Federal government will provide big bucks to the states to do this, that it is expected that the States will have their own requirements (often more stringent) to address their own particular needs, and that it is more efficient for the States to implement their own and the Federal requirements at the same time rather than each government doing things separately.

New York State has its own water pollution control laws which are found in Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law. If you page through, you will note that the state law makes numerous references to elements of the Federal system -- an intent to implement the Federal system. The Department of Environmental Conservation is charged with classifying waters and adopting standards of purity. There is a general prohibition on discharges of pollutants except when in compliance the state's requirements. Permits are required for discharges. The State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is created in Article 17 Title 8.

Since they discharge pollutants to the state's waters, the owners of treatment works (POTWs), such as Oneida County, are required to have a SPDES permit. It is through the SPDES permit that particular federal and state requirements are imposed locally.

Like water rolling down hill, Oneida County is required to impose its own requirements on the entities using its facilities. This is for self protection, and to ensure that people don't use the County's treatment works as a way of avoiding the requirements that they would face if they were discharging directly to a stream. No one should be allowed to put things into the County system that would overload it, allow pollution to spill from it, simply pass through it without treatment, upset its treatment processes, or damage the County's facilities. The County imposes its own requirements through the county's sewer use ordinance. And since multiple municipalities have their own facilities that feed into the County's facilities, the County, in turn, requires its municipal customers to have their own laws and ordinances to control their own individual users, to prevent them from doing things that would cause the County's facility to violate its SPDES permit.

In a very real sense, there is a legal "pecking order" that leads from the Federal Government to you, the person with a toilet or drain who can cause a problem if the wrong thing gets flushed away. It can be summed up in this diagram:

Federal Government [CWA] -> NY State [ECL Article 17, SPDES Permit]-> Oneida County, POTW Operator [Sewer Use Ordinance] -> Towns/Villages/City [Local Ordinances] -> You.

In Part 4 we will look at what the Consent Order reveals.

[Note: Articles in this series may be revised from time to time to provide additional detail and explanation as time allows, and as current events warrant]

A Rubber-Stamped Backroom Deal . . .

Here we go again . . . more back-room dealing by Oneida County and more rubber-stamping by our uninvolved, know-nothing County Legislature. Two weeks ago Oneida County entered into a Consent Order with the DEC. Last Wednesday (we find out Today in the Sentinel) OC Legislators (27-0, Resolution 215) approved hiring a partnership of Shumaker Engineering, Stearns & Wheler, and Brown & Caldwell.

Seems rather rushed, no? Where was the RFP advertised? Was it advertised? Or was this an "invitation only" deal?

What is really interesting is how these firms were picked.

"Four proposals were received and reviewed by a committee of county officials and representatives of three municipalities impacted by the situation."

I wonder which municipalities those might be? I wonder which county officials those might be? Were they the ones that permitted the sewer overflow situation to develop? Were any of the firms involved with projects or reviews or plans that may have contributed to the overflow situation?

Is the wolf being allowed to guard the hen house? No one rubber stamping this seems to have been interested enough to ask.

And they don't even know what it will cost! But why should they be concerned about cost? They are not paying for it.

""Any fix is going to be a district cost," said County Attorney Linda M.H. Dillon ...."

"A district cost" -- again the Dirty Little Secret. Most of the people that live in the Part County Sewer District live in Utica.

While Mr. D'Onofrio may feel it is premature to know who will wind up paying the cost, WE know that unless the Board of Legislators takes some action to allocate the costs differently, Ms. Dillon's assessment is correct - the "district" will pay -- i.e., primarily Uticans. We also have known for over a year that the cost of the study alone has been estimated at $3-5 Million. So if primarily Uticans are going to be paying for this study, why were they not permitted to participate in the solicitation and review of proposals?

Why were Legislators Wood (Westmoreland) and Porter (Boonville) the ones who introduced the legislation authorizing the hiring of consultants? Their districts have no relationship to the Part County Sewer District. Legislator Miller (New Hartford), who seconded the legislation, is from a district where the problem may have been created.

The suburbs wheel and deal. They dream and scheme. Their political friends in more distant parts of the county cooperate. The County cheer leads and participates. They create problems, control the solutions, and cover their tracks. But they can't afford to do it on their own. They will send the bill to the people of Utica . . .

There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this story:

1) County Government is not up to the task of handling this issue without oversight.

2) Greater Utica's municipalities, since they are creating problems for each other, are too closely linked to remain separated.

The solution to the sewer problem, and probably many others, seems to be to (1) create a municipality of Greater Utica to replace the fiefdoms we have now and (2) transfer the responsibility for sewers and other services that the County now performs only for Greater Utica to Greater Utica.

A Consent Order Primer, Part 2: Legalizing Pollution

A few weeks ago, Oneida County entered into a Consent Order with the Department of Environmental Conservation to solve the problem of raw sewage being spilled into the Mohawk River. I thought that a series of posts covering some of the concepts and terminology might help clarify the issues involved. On 7/15 Part 1, "Plumbing", was posted which focused on the different parts of the sewage disposal system (updated on 7/29 to capsulize the different levels of treatment). Today Part 2 examines how laws are developed to control water pollution.

Behavior = Benefits.

We get many benefits from the waters of our lakes and streams, but the benefits will go away if they become polluted. Pollution results from bad behavior. Laws are made to regulate our behavior to preserve the benefits. The starting place in making laws is to identify the benefits we hope to protect.

Water classification by use.

The benefits of water are associated with how it is used. Waters in their natural state lend themselves to different ranges of use depending on their purity -- the purer the water, the greater the range of potential uses. Water for drinking requires the highest degree of purity. Less pure waters may still be useful for fish propagation or swimming or fishing. If waters are classified according to their "best" use, it then becomes easier to to figure out how our behavior should be regulated to protect the stream's benefits. New York has already classified all its waters [see 6 NYCRR Part 701] , with each stream or portion of stream having an assigned classification [see 6 NYCRR Parts 800, et. seq.]. For example, the Mohawk River where Oneida County has its problem has been classified as a Class C stream. This water is supposed to be suitable for fish reproduction. It normally is purer than Class D water, which is suitable for fish survival (but not reproduction), but not as pure as Class B, which is suitable for swimming.

Water quality standards.

Once the best use of a stream is identified, it becomes possible to define the quality of the water (e.g. in terms of chemical content, odor, clarity, etc.) that must be maintained to preserve its use. These definitions are called water quality standards. New York has used its water classifications to develop water quality standards. [see 6 NYCRR Part 702 regarding development and 6 NYCRR Part 703 for the standards themselves].

Once water quality standards have been identified, it then becomes possible know what behavior is "right" vs. what is "wrong." Any behavior that causes a stream to be of lesser quality than an applicable water quality standard would be "wrong."

However, even assuming that one has knowledge of the water quality standards for a particular stream, the connection between a particular activity and the violation of a water quality standard may not be clear, making enforcement of the standard a problem. That is where regulation of the "behavior" end of the "Behavior=Benefits" equation becomes important. But where to begin?

Point Sources, Permits and Effluent Limitations.

With all the different ways that contaminants can make their way into streams, it would be impossible to simply prohibit all discharges to streams without drastic consequences to our lifestyles. Since pollution most often enters streams from specific points (e.g. a drain pipe or a ditch), what happens at the "point source" is the logical thing to regulate. The scheme often adopted is to prohibit all discharges from "point sources" that do not have a permit. If someone has a "point source" on their property that does not have a permit, they are in violation of the law.

As suggested above, the connection between a particular discharge and the violation of a water quality standard may not be clear to the person owning the point source. The government regulator, however, should be in the position of being able to calculate the kinds of discharges that would cause a violation of water quality standards, and define limits for particular pollutants to ensure that water quality standards are not violated. These limits are called effluent limitations, which can be incorporated as conditions in a discharge permit. If a particular technology is known to work at cleaning effluent, it may be simpler for the regulator to simply require as a permit condition that the technology be used .

The permit will contain conditions intended to ensure that discharges from the point source do not cause a violation of the water quality standards in the receiving stream. If someone's discharge does not comply with the conditions in the permit, they are in violation of the law. If persons making discharges comply with all the terms of their permits, assuming that the government did its calculations and wrote permit conditions correctly, they should be able to rest assured that they are causing no problems.

So, a water pollution permit is permission to pollute - in the sense of a person being allowed to put something into a stream that normally would not be there. The permit, hopefully, will control the nature of the pollution so that no harm results.

Part 3 will look at how Federal, State and Local laws work together -- or not.

[Note: Articles in this series may be revised from time to time to provide additional detail and explanation as time allows, and as current events warrant.]

The Dirty Little Secret ...

The dirty little secret is revealed today about who pays for the Consent Order -- though it was couched in vague terms.

On July 12: "Picente said the burden will likely land on the taxpayers of the part county sewer district, which includes New Hartford, Paris and Whitestown." ...
"This is a problem everybody knew about and nobody wanted to deal with it," Picente said. "The towns and villages knew about this — it's a violation issue and we're responding to that."

On May 24: "Within the next week, Picente said he also is planning to meet with representatives from the towns and areas affected, which include areas in the villages of New York Mills, Yorkville, Whitesboro, New Hartford and Oriskany and in the towns of New Hartford and Whitestown."

Today we discover:

"Ratepayers in the sewer district, not all county residents, will have to pick up the tab if state or federal grants can't be found to defray the costs of what could become a $66 million project."

No, the cost will not fall on taxpayers of New Hartford and Whitestown, who have benefited from increases in their tax base by their new development.

The cost falls on "Ratepayers in the sewer district"

And the sewer district includes Utica.

"In the end, the executive of a county where population has dropped and business has been stagnant could ill afford to appear to be indifferent to the needs of developers who plan to add jobs and bolster New Hartford's and Whitestown's property tax base."

Mr. Picente does developers' bidding. He does New Hartford's bidding. He does Whitetown's bidding.

But he sends the Bill to the People of Utica.

And the Utica legislators were either too stupid or too politically connected to see that their constituents were going to get screwed.

Nothing short of complete merger of all the jurisdictions of Greater Utica can make this fair.

A Consent Order Primer, Part 1: Plumbing

The Consent Order resolving Oneida County's sewage dispute with the State has been posted at the Oneida County website. It reveals some interesting details on how the situation leading to the State's action unfolded, and what the solution will involve. Some of the words may be confusing. I will try to sort out the Consent Order's terminology over a few posts and provide a bit of background to make its meaning more clear. "Plumbing" is today's subject.

CSOs, SSOs, POTWs, and Inflow and Infiltration . . .

People living in isolated areas usually get their water from wells and dispose of their waste through septic fields. This works as long as enough space is maintained to keep the waste from contaminating the well.

As settlements become more densely populated, interference between one person's septic field and another's water well can become a health problem. Urbanization also causes runoff from roofs and paving, which can cause flooding. The solution for both problems is for residents to pool their resources and build facilities to take the storm and waste water away.

When our older urban areas were constructed (e.g. Utica and nearby villages), the practice was for storm water, industrial and and sanitary waste to be combined and collected by the same system (i.e., a Combined Sewer) and discharged to the nearest stream. This was "state of the art" and made sense at that time. It was believed that "The Solution to Pollution is Dilution" -- that is, if wastewater was combined with enough clean water, pollutants would become too diluted to cause harm. This worked when the amount of waste was small in comparison with the flow in the receiving stream. Of course, as communities grew, the waste component grew as well, sufficient dilution did not take place, and epidemics resulted.

Communities later developed Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) to take the combined flows and treat them to make them harmless before releasing them to streams. However, because storm water was included, collection systems and POTWs had to be designed to accommodate variable amounts of water. Since communities could not afford to build systems large enough to collect and treat every drop of the largest flows (which occurred only during storms or snow melt), overflows of untreated waste mixed with storm water (Combined Sewer Overflows or CSOs) were allowed. Had these overflows not been allowed, the flows would back up into people's basements and elsewhere. The impact of the waste water, however, would be reduced by dilution since the overflows would usually happen only during periods of heavy rain or snow melt.

As time went on and people became more knowledgeable about how to handle waste, it seemed more cost effective to separate the waste water from the storm water and just treat the waste water. Newer developments are now required to build separate Sanitary Sewers, which send waste water directly to the POTW, and Storm Water Sewers, which usually discharge directly to streams without treatment. Long existing communities such as Greater Utica have both combined and separate systems in place.

In theory, Sanitary Sewers should be sized to never overflow, however overflow points to streams (Sanitary Sewer Overflows or SSOs) sometimes develop in those situations when the sewer's capacity is exceeded, e.g. when sewage backs up into people's homes. SSOs are unintentional. Overflows of sanitary sewers can occur when storm water somehow finds its way into the Sanitary Sewer -- for example, when people hook downspouts or floor drains into the sewer (inflow), or as the sewer pipes age and crack, allowing seepage to go in (infiltration). SSOs can also occur when something gets into the system that blocks the flow.

Treatment at the POTW - Primary, Secondary, Tertiary...

Primary, secondary, and tertiary treatments represent a progression in technology, going from the simple to the complex.

Primary treatment is essentially mechanical, removing pollutants that can be easily separated from the waste stream. The waste stream can be passed through screens to remove larger objects. It can then be directed into tanks where the flow is stilled. In the tanks, dense materials will settle to the bottom, and light materials will float to the top, allowing the materials to be separated from the liquid.

Secondary treatment involves biological processes and filtration. Bacteria can be used to break down pollutants such as fats and grease in the waste stream. Liquid pollutants can be used to grow biomass, which then can be removed from the waste stream by filters.

Tertiary treatment is the last before the waste water is discharged into the receiving body of water. The emphasis here is disinfection (e.g., by chlorination, ultraviolet light, or ozone). It can also involve more complex biological processes and filtering.

For a more detailed explanation of sewage treatment, see Wikipedia.

That's the plumbing.

A Consent Order Primer, Part 2 will address how laws are used to protect streams.

[Note: Articles in this series may be revised from time to time to provide additional detail and explanation as time allows, and as current events warrant.]

Done Deal ...

The Oneida County Legislature has approved a deal with the State to resolve its sewage overflow violation, although few details have been reported in the media. Halted construction projects will now be able to proceed.

The troubling aspect of this approval is that details of the deal were kept under wraps until after the vote. Some legislators felt that they did not have enough time to consider what they were voting upon. But their leadership made the decision for them. And their vote was "rubber stamp" unanimous. If you ever wanted proof that the O.C. Republicans and Democrats are in bed with each other, consider:

""I've been briefed, and time is of the essence," said Majority Leader James D'Onofrio, R-New Hartford. "This thing really needs to move forward today and we should be criticized if we don't.""

"Minority Leader Harry Hertline, D-Utica, said the sewer problem had been ongoing. He said he thought it was reasonable the legislators were expected to vote quickly."

No, time is not of the essence. The matter has been brewing for months. One of the most expensive projects to be undertaken by the County should warrant at least a couple weeks of deliberation with public disclosure.

"Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente and Judy Drabicki, a regional director for the state Department of Environmental Conservation, said negotiations were made just between the two parties for legal reasons.

""I don't think you could have done that under the scrutiny of the media," Drabicki said."

While keeping negotiations private between the players having the most knowledge of the situation was a good way to expedite a resolution, once the agreement had been reached it should have been made public.

There were no legal reasons to have kept this quiet. In fact, the opposite is true because both parties are government and the costs/impacts of the deal will fall on the public.

Our government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Keeping the people and their representatives in the dark and then essentially telling them how to vote violates the spirit of our system of laws, if not the letter.

"Cost and responsibility of the $66 million problem. Picente said the burden will likely land on the taxpayers of the part county sewer district, which includes New Hartford, Paris and Whitestown." [emphasis supplied]

Who will wind up paying the cost will probably be the most interesting part of this story as time goes on. Will it be only the taxpayers residing in the municipalities that created the problem -- or will all taxpayers residing in the district -- including those in Utica with its eroding tax base -- be expected to chip in? This article is not clear. The impression is left that the deal was signed without knowing who would pay for it.

"Whitestown Supervisor Matthew Shannon said it's a costly problem, and thinks the cost could be shared with the county.

"The county is the operator of the system," he said. "I think it may need to be looked at more regionally."

From an affected Town's perspective, Mr. Shannon is correct. The County took on the responsibility of sewage disposal, but allowed the situation to get out of control. It would seem fair that the County should pay to fix the problem.

But from the perspective of Rome or Ava, why should taxpayers there pay? They do not get the service.

As time goes on, perhaps people in the County and in Greater Utica will realize that they have been mistaken in thinking that the County was the proper level of government to take care of certain "regional" issues. Perhaps people will realize that the County is too big -- and towns and villages too small -- to address such issues with the attention to detail needed to avoid costly mistakes. Perhaps they will come to understand that such issues are "city" issues, that they are part of one "city" and that they need one government and new boundaries to match the reality of what they have become.

More O. C. Sewage: Using FOIL as a Shield . . .

Another day, another story promising that an agreement between Oneida County and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to resolve the sewage overflow problem is near.

"The county Board of Legislators will likely vote Wednesday on accepting a revised state-issued order to fix the $66 million issue.

But how can the County commit to a solution before determining how to pay for it? An earlier story noted that the problem is too big for the affected Towns.

"But the project's cost is well beyond the capability of the towns and villages served by the pumping station, town officials say. Footing the bill would almost surely raise local property taxes, these leaders say."

If the Towns, where the problem has been created, cannot pay for this, who will?

""I know it's short notice, but that's the way it worked," Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente said Friday. "We need to have an order that works this time."

It sounds as though Mr. Picente and crew have already figured out who will pay, and are going to try to ram it through the legislature on Wednesday.

We can only speculate on who will pay the bill because . . .

"Details aren't being released until the order is signed."

Some frank speculation:

1) It is doubtful that the County will take this on as a County-wide charge. There are too many parts of the County totally unaffected by the problem who would never go along with picking up the cost -- in spite of the County's coffers being filled with new taxes from new developments in the areas where the problem has been created, and in spite of the fact that the County was negligent in permitting the problem with its facility to develop. The County would have to admit to its negligence and admit to having been benefited by it. Have we ever seen that happen?

2) It is doubtful that the affected/developing Towns have agreed to partner with the County to pay for this because Whitestown supervisor,

"Matthew Shannon, a Democrat, said . . . Picente, a Republican, has been keeping town officials in the dark."

And from the earlier article, it seems that town officials don't see this as their problem -- in spite of the towns' coffers being filled with new taxes from new developments in the areas where the problem has been created, and in spite of their own negligence in permitting the new developments without ensuring that the County's system could handle them. The towns would have to admit to their negligence and admit to having been benefited by it. Have we ever seen that happen?

3) That leaves the ratepayers, those paying Part-County sewer charges to foot the bill. The question there is whether ALL rate payers will pay, or just those in the affected towns. If All ratepayers pay, Oneida County style "regionalization" will triumph again, encouraging "growth" (more accurately "sprawl") in the suburbs at the cost of the city (both in money and in lost economic vitality). We have seen that happen! If only ratepayers in the towns pay, it would be more fair because they have had offsetting from increases to town tax bases. Yet, it would be similar to a utility passing on the cost of malfeasance to its ratepayers rather than to the shareholders -- which seems unfair. What ever the answer is, we are going to pay for it, whether as taxpayers or ratepayers.

No public Input:

The bigger problem is that we are being given no opportunity to comment to our legislators on the solution before it is agreed upon, because we are not going to be told of the details until after the fact.

While the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) does not require the agreement to be released until after it has been approved, FOIL does not require that it be kept from the public before approval. We have two entities, DEC and the County, who have been paid by us to act in our best interests. We already know that the County has not done so by allowing the sewer situation to develop. We won't know if the solution will be in our best interests until it is too late to do something about it. Unlike agreements with private individuals, contractors, or employee unions, there is no rational basis to keep the details from the public before being voted upon.

FOIL should not be used as a shield. The County should disclose the details of the proposed Consent Order BEFORE it is voted upon.

Breathtaking Arrogance and Recalcitrance

The arrogance and recalcitrance of New Hartford and Oneida County officials is simply breathtaking. Knowing full well of the problem with sewage pollution of the Mohawk River, they approved/allowed another sewer hookup for Lowes.

All sides seem to be scrambling to look for loopholes -- drawing distinctions between sewer extensions, laterals, and hookups -- in order to allow development to continue. Pretending that there is no problem is always easier than enforcing the law, especially when tax revenue can be gained and conflict with powerful developers can be avoided. Nevertheless, the project exacerbates the pollution problem and government at several levels appears to be allowing it to happen -- sending a clear message that the addition of another duplicative store to the tax base is more important than protecting the environment.

New Hartford can't pretend that it was unaware that there were issues here. In December 2005 DEC questioned how liquid waste from the project was to be disposed of, putting New Hartford on notice that waste disposal needed to be examined. Nevertheless, New Hartford issued a "Negative Declaration" months later, stating that there were no negative environmental impacts to the project. In issuing its Neg Dec, New Hartford simply ignored the sewer overflow problem. In September 2006 DEC called New Hartford's attention to the inadequacy of its environmental review. But New Hartford's response, apparently, was "dam the torpedoes and full speed ahead." And Oneida County, which should have been an involved agency in this process, simply let its facilities be abused.

Simply put, New Hartford's environmental review of this project was defective when it ignored the potential impacts of sewage. That alone should be enough to set aside its Negative Declaration, and, essentially, make void "ab initio" all actions/decisions based upon it, including the issuance of Lowes' building permit. Of course, setting aside the Neg Dec will require someone to go to court.

A similar situation in Watertown resulted in the court setting aside a planning board decision. Interestingly, that case involved the same developer that we have here in the Lowes project (COR), with Pyramid Corp. (a competing developer) bringing the action. But isn't it a shame that the public would have to depend on private parties to enforce the law?

Clearly, there is a case here to be made. And clearly, the government is in the best position to bring it. The question is, will the government move to protect the public's interest, or will the public be forced to hope that some aggrieved private party will move to protect its interest. It raises the question: Why have government if it does not enforce the law?

Moratorium Remains

The State Department of Environmental Conservation is not backing down on Oneida County 's sewer overflow fiasco: the connection moratorium remains ... as well as the fines. [An updated story is here.]

GOOD !

"The county plans to meet with state environmental officials within the next 10 days to discuss the order further."

There is nothing to discuss. . . The problem needs to be solved ASAP.

If the county does not like the consent order, it can always ask the agency for a adjudicatory hearing. . . . It would be interesting to see how the county would fare then.

Paying for Poop: Oneida County's Dereliction of Duty

Last week we were told that Oneida County faces a state DEC order that bans new sewer hookups in several communities until the County stops polluting the Mohawk with sewage. The Lowe's project and others will be put on hold. County Executive Picente is shocked at the consent order, and does not want to agree to anything that would bar "economic development."

Some local officials in New Hartford are in a snit and point a finger at the State.

"The state is being unrealistic," Planning Board Chair Hans G. Arnold said. "They have to re-examine. It is a highly damaging move on DEC's part."

Meanwhile, some County officials point a finger at local officials. Rome Legislator David J. Wood said,

"It should have been dealt with at a local level before . . . These are the things the municipalities should have been on top of. Now the state's coming in with a big stick."

The state is being practical. "Economic development" causes poop and other waste products which need proper disposal. Since everyone was told of the pollution well over a year ago, we have heard neither expressions of concern nor suggestions of solutions from Mr. Arnold or other local officials, especially from those involved with planning or approving new developments -- who should know where the new poop is going to go! In fact, while New Hartford acknowledges that the pollution problem exists (see 7.1.1) , it plans for even more development (see p. 21). The state's ban is a logical and necessary move to prevent the problem from worsening. The lack of action this past year makes it quite clear that no one will fix the problem until they are forced to do so.

The County must assume responsibility for this violation. While the local municipalities should not have permitted developments without knowing that the resultant waste would be properly handled, the County looked the other way while the local municipalities overwhelmed County facilities. In fact, the County seems to have rewarded them for doing it: witness New Hartford's receipt of a fat $150,000 check from County Taxpayers for NH's development efforts (see p. 6).

The County has the legal authority to control what goes into its facilities. If it wanted, it could have limited their use to the urbanized acreage that existed at the time the facilities were designed. It could have made hookup of new areas to the system contingent upon receipt of a fee that would go toward expanding the capacity of the facilities to accommodate the additions. It did neither. Instead it makes excuses and looks for a bailout.

"We’ll look for federal and state assistance," Picente said in commenting on how to pay for the upgrades. "It’s a problem across the nation. It just can’t go on the taxpayers and the county."

No, Mr. Picente, this is not a problem across the nation. The national problem you refer to was cured by all the federal Clean Water Act funding during the 1970s. Oneida County's current problem is one of local making. It is the result of incompetence, negligence, lack of attention, or catering to special interests -- the costs of which, unfortunately, always come down to local taxpayers and ratepayers.

Innocent people will be hurt. Health risk aside, there will be a financial impact. The problem must be fixed by 2011 at a cost of up to $66 million. As I blogged a year ago here and here, the users of the County System will likely pay the price -- if not all users, then at least those in the portion served by the Sauquoit Creek collection system. Unfortunately a lot of innocent homeowners and businesses, the people who are located in the oldest parts of the sewered area, the people who have paid for years into the system through their user fees, are going to be financially hurt. They will be forced to pay for the remediation needed which is the share that should have been paid by the developers before they were allowed to simply hook on.

The County's propensity for passing on poop extends to other areas. Now the County wants to inject itself into the dispute between the Mohawk Valley Water Authority and the State Canal Corp. which is holding up expansion of the water system. Kirkland wells polluted by E. coli have been cited as a reason why city water must be brought to the hinterlands. But where does e. coli come from? It comes from fecal material -- i.e., POOP AGAIN. Somehow, waste material is getting into people's drinking water wells. There is simply no excuse for this to happen in this day and age. Long Island's Suffolk County with over a million inhabitants is almost entirely dependent on ground water for drinking AND on cesspools for wastewater disposal, but does not have this e. coli problem. Suffolk County achieves this astounding feat by carefully regulating what people can do. Why is Oneida County not able to protect its ground water resources? Instead of solving another poop-pollution problem, the County uses it to justify extending a city water system. Could it just be an another way of pandering to developers?

The County has been derelict in its duty to the environment. The $177,000 fine (which should not be passed on to the rate payers, and which is only a small fraction of what DEC could have levied or what DEC would have levied had this been a private business) is well deserved.

* * *

From subsidized water and sewer for developers, go to CNY Snakepit to read how other business interests seek subsidies of a different sort.