Village of Morris Joins National Historic Site Register

April 6, 2013

Village of Morris joins national historic site register

By Joe Mahoney The Daily Star

The village of Morris has joined both the New York and National Register of Historic Places, giving residents the opportunity to take advantage of generous tax credits when they make improvements to their property.
“Having this designation is really an expression of the pride we have in our community,” said Stacia Norman of the Morris Historical Society.
The initial bid to have the village be nominated for the National Register began in 1980, but enthusiasm waned after a couple of years, she said.
Those seeking the designation renewed the effort several years ago and hired a consultant, Jessie Ravage of Cooperstown, to guide the group and develop the nomination that was officially approved by the National Register in late February.
The earliest settlers of the village of Morris were French immigrants fleeing the Reign of Terror following the French Revolution. What drew them to the hamlet was water — specifically Butternut Creek, which was ripe for industrial applications, such as mills.
The initial settlers called the place Louisville, but as the village fell more and more under the influence of settlers with English backgrounds, it became known as Morris. The village, which has structures that date as far back as 1790, was established officially in 1870. Today, it has a population of just fewer than 600 people.
The historic district, according to the National Register, encompasses not only the properties within the village boundaries but also several properties partially or just outside the village. These include the Hillington Cemetery, a Quaker cemetery associated with the early settlement, and the Otsego County fairground, which straddles the village’s boundary.
“Morris was a great industrial hamlet in the 19th century,” Norman said. “We’re at a crossroads, and a lot of traffic went through Morris. The were all sorts of woolen factories and cotton factories, and there was a cheese factory. Many of these stone buildings that were here then are intact.”
It was this unusually large assemblage of stone buildings — with domestic, religious and commercial purposes — that helped propel the village’s nomination for inclusion on the National Register.
The National Register is the official list of the nation’s historic places deemed worthy of preservation. It was authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is the official listing of buildings, structures, districts, objects and sites that have been significant in the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture of the state and the nation.
For personal reasons, Norman noted that she is thrilled to have the new designation because she will now qualify for tax credits by making upgrades to her own house in Morris.
“It’s another reason to be excited,” she said.
Ravage, the consultant, said getting the designation “opens up a lot of opportunities for tax credits for rehabilitation work on homes, and that credit has just been extended for another five years in the state of New York.”
In New York, the National Register program is administered by the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Places.
“I think many people whose families have been in Morris for generations certainly understand the village’s historical significance,” Norman said. “One of the things that draws people here in the first place is the small-village charge and the historic charm of the buildings.”

Genetically modified foods must be labelled

CEDC Calls on Gov. Cuomo to Demonstrate Leadership

CEDC calls on Governor Cuomo to Lead In a full-page ad in the Albany's Legislative Gazette the grassroots organization Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy and the environmental law firm Community Environmental Defense Council (CEDC) call on Governor Andrew Cuomo to demonstrate leadership on hydraulic fracturing. The question of whether New York should permit high volume fracking has been debated for years, but the state still has not developed a coherent approach to the issue. "Governor Cuomo has repeatedly promised us that 'science, not politics' will decide the fate of fracking, but where's the science?" asks Catskill Citizens' Kate Bowers. "After two years in office, the governor still hasn't ordered an independent health impact assessment, something the medical community insists is vital if the state is to make an informed decision." Economist Jannette Barth also signed onto the ad. She's been calling for an in depth, economic analysis of shale gas extraction for years. "The notion that fracking the Marcellus Shale will automatically benefit the state and local communities is simply not supported by the facts. One only has to look at the extreme poverty and endemic health problems in the coal mining regions of Appalachia to realize extractive industries can impoverish communities." CEDC Attorneys Helen and David Slottje are concerned that the governor will not stand up to the gas industry and protect rural residents. "The right of a community to control its own destiny is guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, but the governor has indicated he might try to overturn local laws if they get in the way of fracking" says David Slottje. (Last summer Governor Cuomo was quoted as saying "You could override local government, or you could say, 'Well we're going to respect home rule if it coincides with the obvious and necessary ramp up period anyway.'") Over the last three years CEDC has helped scores of municipalities enact moratoria and zoning ordinances that prohibit fracking. Another signatory, author and Riverkeeper founder Robert H. Boyle, has been at the forefront of environmental battles in New York for decades.  He says the governor's failure to reform the DEC's Division of Mineral Resources is a troubling sign.  "It's well known that Mineral Resources is a captive agency that's been doing the bidding of industry lobbyists for years. If Governor Cuomo cannot, or will not, put his own house in order, then he cannot be trusted to protect New York State." CEDC is a nonprofit, public interest law firm. We largely rely on the generous donations of individuals to enable our work to protect our environment, promote democracy and justice, and advocate for sustainable development.

AMERICANS AGAINST FRACKING

Dear Friends:

I am writing to thank you for your support in stopping fracking in New York and also alert you to an urgent situation at the federal level that we are moving on. This email is only received by organizational leaders, and it's crucial that you take action and share this with your networks.  

First, the great news from New York, where the Commissioner from the Department of Health just put the brakes on fracking, saying that, "...the impacts on the public health are properly considered before a state permits drilling."  Our thanks to Governor Cuomo and Dr. Shah for listening to the concerns of countless scientists and health professionals, not to mention the will of the people.  This campaign is far from over and New Yorkers Against Fracking will continue to keep the pressure on, but this is a major development. This success came right on the heals of our running an ad in the Des Moines Register signed onto by over 100 of your organizations, which called on Governor Cuomo to proceed with, "NOT ONE WELL." The ad was covered in Politico, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere and sent a strong message that fracking is a major issue that national leaders must respond to our growing movement.

Americans Against Fracking, thank you!  

We now have another looming and urgent challenge on the horizon:  The Obama Administration is about to tap Ernest Moniz, a fracking cheeleader, as his Energy Secretary.  Moniz serves as director of MIT’s Energy Initiative, whose founding members include Shell, Saudi Aramco, ENI and BP Technology Ventures, Inc. He supports fracked natural gas as a “bridge fuel” and has testified to congress that the environmental problems associated with fracking are “challenging but manageable.” This appointment could come as early as later today.  

On Monday, while 50,000 people were marching in Washington DC opposing the Keystone pipeline, fracking, and climate change, the president was enjoying a day of golf with gas and oil executives at a private club in Florida.  If this is a sign of things to come, we're in big trouble.  

Take action - and share this in your networks!  We need to get the word out and send a strong message to President Obama that if he is serious about climate change, he should not appoint someone who promotes our reliance on fracked gas. Below are two action alerts from Food & Water Watch and CREDO Action.  We encourage you to circulate one of these alerts, or create a petition of your own to put a stop to this disastrous decision!  

See Food & Water Watch's alert here.
See CREDO Action's alert here. 

Also, click to share this meme on your organization's Facebook page.

As this decision could be imminent, we are going to submit the letter below later today to President Obama to tell him that we need a climate leader in the Department of Energy - and Ernest Moniz is not that leader.  

Finally, we are a young coalition and we have a lot to figure out, but in the coming weeks, we will be sending out a survey to help determine how we can increase our impact and more fully involve all the organizations that make up Americans Against Fracking!  Stay tuned. 

Thanks for all you do!

David and the Americans Against Fracking Team 


Here is the Letter to President Obama:

Dear President Obama,

We are writing on behalf on Americans Against Fracking, a national coalition of over 190 national, state and local organizations, to oppose the rumored appointment of Dr. Ernest Moniz to the position of Secretary of Energy. While we appreciate your recent public comments about the need to address climate change, appointing Dr. Moniz, a proponent of hydraulic fracturing with close ties to the oil and gas industry, would be a major step backwards.

Fracking and drilling for gas and oil gas pose direct threats to our water, air, health, and climate. The risks and impacts on air and water have been well documented and are supported by extensive research (see attached partial list of citations). While effects on air and water are reason enough to reject fracking, research shows that drilling and fracking for natural gas contributes to climate change. The carbon dioxide emitted from burning natural gas contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions driving global climate change (Myhrvold and Caldeira, 2012). And, in addition to carbon dioxide, high-volume hydraulic fracturing releases significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere during the extraction, transport and processing of the gas.  Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, 33 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide over 100 years, and about 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 20 years (Shindell et al. 2009).

As such, even small amounts of gas leaked into the atmosphere make enormous contributions to global warming. (Myhrvold and Caldeira, 2012). Increasing evidence, including a study led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, indicates that methane emissions from high volume hydraulic fracturing and related operations have been significantly underestimated by both the gas industry and the Environmental Protection Agency (Petron et al. 2012). The widespread use of natural gas is not a solution to climate change.

This is why your rumored appointment of Dr. Moniz is so disturbing. Moniz serves as director of MIT’s Energy Initiative, whose founding members include Shell, Saudi Aramco, ENI and BP Technology Ventures, Inc. The rest of the sustaining and associate members read as a who’s who of the oil and gas industry. Moniz views natural gas obtained by drilling and fracking as a key piece of our energy plan over the “next couple of decades.” In testimony before Congress in July 2011, he called “environmental risks, which arise from shale development” including “contamination of groundwater aquifers with drilling fluids or natural gas” “challenging but manageable.” He referred to natural gas as “a cost-effective bridge to…a low carbon future,” but we know based on research that natural gas is a bridge to nowhere.

Mr. President, we were heartened when you proclaimed your intention to act quickly to combat climate change in your 2013 inaugural address, stating that “we will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” Those words were inspiring, and last weekend 50,000 people came to Washington D.C., to support you in those efforts. But actions speak louder than words and appointing a strong proponent of extracting dirty fossil fuels as our nation’s energy secretary will lead us in the wrong direction.

The person you choose as Secretary of Energy will be key to charting how we address climate change. We desperately need to move away from dirty fossil fuels towards a clean energy future, and we need an energy secretary who has the vision and the independence to do this. Please select someone who will fill that vision and do not appoint Dr. Ernest Moniz.



   
Citations for documentation of risks and impacts to air and water:

Bamberger, Michelle and Robert E. Oswald. “Impacts of gas drilling on human and animal health.” New Solutions, Scientific Solutions, vol. 22, iss. 1. January 2012 at 51 to 77

Colborn, Theo et al. “Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective." International Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, vol. 17, iss. 5. September 2011 at 1041 and 1042

Entrekin, Sally et al. “Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters.” Frontiers in Ecology, vol. 9, iss. 9. October 2011 at 503

Finley, Bruce. “Drilling spills rise in Colorado, but fines rare.” The Denver Post. September 9, 2011.

Gilman, Jessica B. et al. “Source signature of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from oil and natural gas operations in northeastern Colorado.” Environmental Science & Technology. Accepted for publication January 14, 2013.

Kusnetz, Nicholas. “North Dakota’s oil boom brings damage along with prosperity.” ProPublica. June 7, 2012.

Lustgarten, Abrahm. “Buried Secrets: Is natural gas drilling endangering U.S. water supplies?” ProPublica. November 13, 2008.

McKenzie, Lisa M. et al. “Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources.” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 424. May 2012 at 79 to 87

Myers, Tom. “Potential contaminant pathways from hydraulically fractured shale to aquifers.” Ground Water. April 17, 2012 at 3 to 4

Osborn, Stephen G. et al. “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, iss. 20. May 17, 2011 at 8173 and 8175.
 

Advocates for Morris Was There!

Dangers of Hydrofracking

Dangers of hydrofracking revealed

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2013

ARTICLE OPTIONS

A A

I expect our elected officials to do the right thing and look out for our common welfare. I also expect the press to call officials on their “stuff” when they try to deceive the public. So I was (once more) appalled by all the information that we have not been told about hydrofracking. For those who haven’t watched it, I am referring to the information shown on Canadian TV. The program was “the Nature of Things.” The show was “Shattered Ground.” I recommend that everyone who hasn’t seen it try to get a copy of this show.

I can’t go into all the issues, but I do want to mention the most important facts presented. The gas drillers do not know which wells will shatter as planned and which wells will shatter vertically into an aquifer. The drillers do not know how to clean up the contamination once it enters the aquifer. They do not know which wells will have their cement liners crack under the force of the high pressure water used in the process. What we do know is that contaminated water can’t be cleaned properly and changed back into drinkable water. I had thought that the water was being sent to filtration plants, but apparently it didn’t work.

We know that vast amounts of our drinking water are used to drill each well, and it is brought in by an army of huge trucks. This water must then be trucked away and buried deep underground, where it is lost for human consumption forever. This process has caused earthquakes. We are talking of whole lakes’ worth of our water gone forever with no one saying “No, we can’t afford to lose this much drinkable water!” Why is only this lone Canadian show talking about this?

The show also reported that the poisonous fumes from the operating wells are allowed to release over 1,300 tons of toxic fumes including neurotoxins into the air every day, and wells can be within 350 feet of a residence. Kids are coming down with all kinds of respiratory symptoms. No one has done any long-term studies of health effects. What has happened to environmental impact studies?

According to the show, methane gas levels reached explosive levels in homes after a well as put in..
The industry has rushed in for profits before the technology is ready and only Vermont has banned hydrofracking. Who really benefits from the drilling, and who is really paying the price?
The madness must end. The problems need to be solved first. Please write our state officials.
Claudia Smith
Watertown

NYS Health Commissioner Shah: DOH Needs More Time

Shah: Fracking health review needs time (updated)

Posted on February 12, 2013 at 3:31 pm by Casey Seiler, Capitol bureau chief in Hydrofracking

E-mail

|

Print

State Health Commissioner Dr. Nirav Shah has sent a letter to DEC Commissioner Joe Martens that says the DOH will need more time to complete its review of the health impact assessment of hydrofracking contained in DEC’s mammoth environmental impact statement.
From the letter:

The time to ensure the impacts on public health are properly considered is before a state permits drilling. Other states began serious health reviews only after proceeding with widespread HVHF.
In my view, that is not the right approach for New York to take if we are serious that public health is the paramount question in making the HVHF decision. And as Health Commissioner, protecting the public health is my primary job.
The Department of Health review of the EIS is on-going. In particular we are focused on the relationship of HVHF to the health impacts of drinking water contamination, but also other areas such as air quality and community impacts.
In recent weeks, work has been initiated or published by the scientific community to analyze these health impacts and which may help in addressing these areas. These are the first comprehensive studies of HVHF health impacts at either the state or federal level. They include:

• The US EPA hydraulic fracturing study. This is a study of potential impacts of HVHF on drinking water resources. Commissioned by Congress, this includes 18 research related projects. The EPA published a 278 page progress report a few weeks ago which we are reviewing.
• Geisinger Health Systems study. Geisinger, which cares for many patients in areas where shale gas is being developed in Pennsylvania, is undertaking studies to analyze health records for asthma and other respiratory diseases, accidents and injuries, as well as birth outcomes.
• University of Pennsylvania study. A study of HVHF health impacts was recently announced, led by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and in collaboration with scientists from Columbia, Johns Hopkins and the University of North Carolina.

As we have been reviewing the scope of these studies, I have determined — and prudence dictates — that the DOH Public Health Review will require additional time to complete based on the complexity of the issues. My team and I will be in Pennsylvania and Washington in the coming days for first-hand briefings on these studies and their progress, which will assist in informing the New York review. I have also extended the term of the DOH outside expert researchers to continue to assist my review. I anticipate delivering the completed Public Health Review to you within a few weeks, along with my recommendations.
From the inception of this process, the Governor’s instruction has been to let the science determine the outcome. As a physician and scientist, I could not agree more.
Whatever the ultimate decision on HVHF going ahead, New Yorkers can be assured that it will be pursuant to a rigorous review that takes the time to examine the relevant health issues.

Here’s Martens’ statement in response:

Commissioner Shah advised me today that the Public Health Review of the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) of high-volume hydraulic fracturing is still on-going.
The Department of Health’s (DOH) Public Health Review, which was undertaken at my request, is important to our consideration of high-volume hydraulic fracturing and I will not issue a final SGEIS until that review is complete and I have received Dr. Shah’s recommendations. He has indicated he expects his review to be complete in a few weeks after he has had an opportunity to review recent studies underway which are pertinent to the evaluation of high-volume hydraulic fracturing impacts on public health.
The previously proposed high-volume hydraulic fracturing regulations cannot be finalized until the SGEIS is complete. However, this does not mean that the issuance of permits for high-volume hydraulic fracturing would be delayed. If the DOH Public Health Review finds that the SGEIS has adequately addressed health concerns, and I adopt the SGEIS on that basis, DEC can accept and process high-volume hydraulic fracturing permit applications 10 days after issuance of the SGEIS. The regulations simply codify the program requirements.
If, on the other hand, the DOH review finds that there is a public health concern that has not been assessed in the SGEIS or properly mitigated, we would not proceed, as I have stated in the past.
In either event, the science, not emotion, will determine the outcome.