MINUTES
COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
Monday, March 17, 2003
3:00 P.M.
JOINT MEETING WITH BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS, PUBLIC WORKS, AND CULTURAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY
PRESENT: ENV/H: M. Kaplowitz (Chair), U. LaMotte, V. Pinto, J. Maisano, B. Ryan
B&A: R. Wishnie (Chair), T. Abinanti, G. Oros
CED: C. Young (Chair)
PW: V. Pinto (Chair), G. Oros, B. Ryan, R. Wishnie
BOL STAFF: T. Bernard, P. Neglia, J. Perez
GUESTS: H. Corbin (Intern), C. Kennan (New Castle Republicans),
G. Klein (Sierra Club), M. Rose (Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition), B. Randolph (CEO), A. Neuman (CEO), R. Butler (WCPW), G. D’Agrosa (Planning Dept.) S. Gerry (Law), G. Williams (TJN), C. Lowe, S. Glidden (Hands Across the Border), M. Greene (Hudson River Clearwater) N. Wolf Spero (FCWC Ludlow Park Homeowner’s Assn.), N Rertz (NCN). J. Marcogliese (Health)
Chair Kaplowitz called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.
Agenda Item #186: Sewage Diversion Proposal (SEQR)
Chair Kaplowitz discussed the Revised Legislation to Access $1,400,000 in East of Hudson Monies to Fund Preliminary Design and Environmental Review. The amended version of the SEQRA proposals from the county executive is based on the public input at the Public Hearings meetings.
MINUTES
COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
Monday, March 17, 2003 PAGE 2
Chair Kaplowitz reported on a meeting that took placed in the field, where we had an opportunity to visit Yorktown, New Castle, the affected two of the treatment plants, and some of the surrounding septic areas.
Chair Kaplowitz discussed the various Public Hearings Meetings that took place and thanked the legislators who attended the various meetings (R. Wishnie, V. Pinto, C. Young, J. Alvarado, G. Oros, A. Stewart-Cousins, M. Rogowsky).
Chair Kaplowitz, reported that as the Chair of the Environment & Health Committee, and as the legislator who is dealing with two of the four affected areas (Yorktown and New Castle) that there are more questions than answers as he understands the proposal. There is a very compelling case that the proposal before us is one that we should study and it merits our study. The goal is to have clean drinking water, understanding what the legislative Clean Water Act requirements are. There is an equally and compelling argument on the part of some individuals that in fact there are in the pursuit of this same goal others ways to get there. And that you could upgrade sewer treatment plans in Yorktown and New Castle. That you could look to divert perhaps to other locations. That you could upgrade septic fields and look to alternatives using modern technology and new modalities. In hearing these comments, Mr. Pinto and myself, asked the Administration to revise the SEQRA that was before us in the following way. First, to break the SEQRA proposal into two pieces (Diversion North and Diversion South). The reason for two different programs is because it became obvious that while the concept of clean water is the same but that geographically is very different. Yorktown is a single plant with lots of people that are on septic and lots of people in the district. New Castle is two very small plants with lots of people in areas that are also on septic and they have some similar concerns but they are different concerns and they are very different proposals. As when Peach Lake comes to us or when Bedford, Katonah Village comes to us we have to review whether in fact there are similar or different and we will deal with the SEQRA at that particular point. But in breaking it in two, I will say for the record, that does not mean anything in terms of one not getting the full SEQRA and the full
MINUTES
COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
Monday, March 17, 2003 PAGE 3
attention that will get simply if it was in one or two proposals. It’s simply that they are two proposals and they stand on their own. One could fail, one could go to an upgrade, one could go to diversion or any number of combinations since they are very different proposals.
The second piece is the issue of going right to the heart of it. If diversion is all that we are studying, diversion is assume therefore to be the course of action. Because not all the facts are available, we though it was best that the board considers what the people have asked us for, which is, upgrade is viable and doable - study upgrade. Some contingencies say sewage diversion is viable and relevant and should be done – study that. And others again have introduced the concept of septic alternatives and others ways of using technologies and modalities to upgrade existing septics, that also should be considered obviously within this discussion. So upgrade versus diversion study them all. Who is going to pay for it, no one wants to pay a dollar more that you have to but here we have this influx in money, it is to be invested in the watershed for clean drinking water. What better way to invest those dollars than pursue the good faith arguments and alternatives that are put out there. The money is therefore set aside and it should be invested accordingly.
The final piece is the issue of design work. At the appropriate time we will turn to the experts to comment on it.
Legislator Pinto expressed appreciation for the attendance made at each of the meetings, in which we all educated ourselves and new information came out. He is equally concern about the comments on environmental injustice and we need to respond to this concern. We need additional information as to what is the best thing to do in this case.
Chair Kaplowitz stated that some communities might have felt left out but all we can do, as Legislators, is set up a process that is fair, democratic and open to everyone and get to hear from different points of view from citizens to elected officials.
MINUTES
COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
Monday, March 17, 2003 PAGE 4
Legislator LaMotte asked about the updated revised Legislation. In taking the two components Diversion North and Diversion South, the list of areas does not mention the family homes in Bedford (40 to 60 homes) and she wants to make sure that the Stanwood portion of Bedford is included in this diversion or upgrade.
R. Wishnie stated that we have to go back to the principles so that he can understand it as a Legislator. The Legislation received from the County Executive, does it summarizes the desires of the Watershed Community (NWWC). We are only the caretakers of the money. We are not driving this train; we are alone for the ride, the way I look at it. Have the Watershed Committees develop new legislation and telling us that they want to study both. Legislator Wishnie stated that we are on grounds that we do not have jurisdiction and further commented that he would like to see an updated resolution from the Northern Westchester Watershed Committee (NWWC) to match this revised proposed legislation.
Chair Kaplowitz acknowledged that would be a good idea and would ask that committee for an updated resolution.
S. Gerry (Law) stated that whenever a study is performed alternatives are always looked at in the process as required by law. She also added that we cannot due an upgrade only diversion.
Legislator T. Abinanti stated his concern that this Legislation would be studying primarily diversion. If the goal was to study diversion and upgrading equally, then should we be doing two studies? Legislator Abinanti noted that he was appreciative of Legislator Kaplowitz’s effort to try and study both issues equally.
Legislator Oros stated that the public hearings were the right thing to do. He also made reference to a study that was done years ago. However, we should focus on upgrade and not diversion. He added that environmental issues have been addressed but not the socioeconomic issues.
MINUTES
COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
Monday, March 17, 2003 PAGE 5
Chair Kaplowitz noted that this is a study and that a year from now we will be using the results to make a decision and vote on which action to take.
Further discussion on the SEQRA process continued.
Legislator LaMotte noted her intention to comply with the objectives of the NWWC.
Chair Kaplowitz again stressed that the primary issue is clean drinking water.
Legislator Young stated the purpose of the involvement of the Committee on Cultural and Ethnic Diversity (CED) was to addressed constituents concerns regarding environmental justice. He also questioned the opportunity for minority contractors to partake in any aspect of this process.
A. Neuman (CE Office) responded that he was unsure of whether or not the responders to the RFP were minority owned or women owned businesses.
Legislator Young stated that he would like to see more specific language in the proposed legislation as it relates to concern with environmental justice issues.
Chair Kaplowitz acknowledged everyone’s concerns and point of discussion and instructed the County Attorney’s Office to make the appropriate changes to the proposed legislation and the four committees will meet again in about two weeks to discuss those changes.
Chair Kaplowitz adjourned meeting at 4:55 p.m.