Ethanol in the Finger Lakes?

Is it good for the environment? Is it good for the economy? Is it good for the residents of Seneca County? Give us an Environmental Impact Statement, and we'll give you our answer!!

Monday, July 23, 2007

"Our Opinion"--Finger Lakes Times

FINGER LAKES TIMES
July 22, 2007

THE ISSUE: THE FIGHT FOR THE ETHANOL PLAN EIS

CAN'T HAVE TOO MANY FACTS!

You only need to read the Times' Letters to the Editor column to know how divided local opinion is on the ethanol plant proposed for the former Seneca Army Depot. On the one side is the irrefutable cry for more family-wage jobs in Seneca County. On the other are environmental concerns.

And you only need to go online or to the library to find extensive research dealing with the controversy over ethanol and its production: Concerns about energy and water use; air pollution; tapping into conservation land to grow enough corn; foreign investments in ethanol here, when the goal is to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil; how much farmers actually benefit, or don't, financially; how small a dent ethanol is expected to make in reducing global warming.

The list goes on, but, locally, the concern that matters most, at the moment, is that not enough information is being provided by Empire Green Biofuels, the project developer, which has refused to do a full environmental review. Since local officials accepted the less-detailed assessment, declaring the plant would not have an adverse impact, the company doesn't have to.

The law requires that such an assessment look at physical impacts, impacts on population patterns and impacts on community character. When you think about it, it's surprising that an environmental assessment of any $115 million project--this one includes a biomass steam production facility--could accurately determine that not a single adverse impact would result in any of those areas. Interestingly, 17 months ago, when roughly 100 local investors comprised what was then called Empire Biofuels, the ethanol project came to a standstill when a Seneca Falls site was being considered.

The investors didn't want to spend an estimated $400,000 on the environmental impact statement, especially since one town board member had made it clear that its results wouldn't alter her opinion.

Now that Cilion Corp. of California is in the picture and would take over the complex once it's built, cost isn't reason enough to forgo the full review. As we said in this space when the ball was in Seneca Falls' court, the full review should be done. Environmental studies and safeguards are not too much to ask for. Residents deserve as much assurance as possible that the safety of the environment they live and work in is being protected.

That's why the Finger Lakes Future Alliance was formed and is using the courts to challenge local officials' decision to accept the assessment instead of insisting on the full review. Yes, many of their addresses suggest there's an element of "not in my backyard" involved, but what they’re doing--fighting for more information--will benefit people well beyond their properties.

This project is too important, and its long-term ramifications are too significant, to limit the amount of research into its local impact.

Posted by Finger Lakes Future Alliance

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Sign our Petition for an EIS

October 22, 2007

Our position from the beginning has been that the ethanol plant project in Seneca County needs an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The more we learn about this project, the more we realize just how essential this is.

The Seneca County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) sees its main role as promoting industrial development---especially industrial development that benefits members of the SCIDA themselves, their family members, and their friends and business associates. However, when the SCIDA saw to it they they were named "lead agency" under SEQRA, New York's environmental review law, they took on a legal obligation to defend the public by making sure any negative environmental impacts were identified and studied.

They have shown little interest in doing that. Despite overwhelming evidence that there would be huge environmental impacts, they issued a "negative declaration", and refused to require an EIS. In effect, they gave a free pass to a huge project with enormous giveaways of public lands and taxpayer funds. It would destroy a sensitive ecosystem and degrade air and water quality. There is little evidence that this project would benefit the public in any way. But there is overwhelming evidence that there would be serious negative consequences to the public.

But it's not too late.

Under the SEQRA law, the lead agency is not just permitted, but OBLIGATED, to rescind a negative declaration when it becomes clear that the scope of the project has changed, or new information has come to light. Both of those conditions clearly apply. The project as it is now discussed is different in many respects from the preliminary documents presented by the developers, which were used as a basis for the negative declaration. These documents were full of omissions and misrepresentations.

Will the IDA do its duty and rescind the negative declaration, and now require an EIS?

Maybe---but only if we hold their feet to the fire, and hold our public officials accountable.

That's where the petitions come in. Let it be known that we demand that the IDA do its duty and RESCIND THE NEGDEC!! We need an EIS for this project!

SIGN OUR PETITION:

There are two ways to express your support for Finger Lakes Future, and demand that the IDA do the right thing and REQUIRE AN EIS :

1) Click here to sign our petition on the Care2 website.

or

2) Email us at fingerlakesfuture@gmail.com and we'll add your name to our petition. Or, if you prefer, we'll send you a pdf of our petition, suitable for gathering written signatures.