Upstate stakeholders oppose the development of water filtering facilities in their communities. The development of the Catskill and Delaware systems has a detrimental effect on the economic and social aspects of eight different upstate communities– Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Delaware, Greene, Schoharie, Sullivan and Ulster. Its essential to consider the implications that the new water filtering facilities will have on the business, recreational and agricultural uses of the land. The plan for the new watershed facilities will provide a solution to the drinking water problem for NYC residents, however the eminent domain land acquisitions will devalue property and make it useless for development.
The initial agreement between the upstate residents and the city’s Dept. of Environmental Protection ended abruptly as the city proposed its new plans of land acquisitions. The new filtering facility, which follows federal guidelines costs over $6 billion and has an operating expense greater than $500 million. The expenses are tremendous, but not only would the facility be expensive to set up and operate, but it will disrupt the economic growth of the affected areas as well. The land acquisitions required to for such a facility will greatly devalue natural resources and cause economic harm to upstate communities. New York City has the largest per capita water use in the world, and its consumption is continually increasing, therefore it is not ethical to eliminate or move farms, businesses and even whole towns just to make way for a watershed for a city with such high water consumption rates. (Perrin 1963) Such a proposal would undermine economic development and could cause farmers to lose over twenty-five percent of tillable land because of new land-use restrictions to prevent runoff. (NRC 2000)
In addition to the economic harms caused by the new water filtering facilities, land regulations and acquisitions. The controversy over rural land use brings up the question of social conflict and whether it is ethical for New York City to regulate the social and biophysical landscape of rural upstate communities. The controversy is similar to a usual trend where rural communities are only valuable because of their contributions to large cities. The upstate communities are not mere raw materials for industrial growth and must not be sacrificed to propel growth of another city. It is highly unethical to subject a local economy to further the interests of a dominant one. The areas east of the Hudson, in the Croton area of the NYC watershed, are predominantly suburban and have a developed economy. Expanding into these lands will greatly disrupt the economic system. It is a major violation of property rights and the New York Home rule.
The expansion plan is unacceptable by upstate communities for economic and social reasons. It disrupts local economies, limits land-use and forces businesses to relocate or liquidate. It is also a major violation of property rights and undermines the value of upstate communities. It is absolutely essential that NYC takes all these factors into account before furthering its acquisition programs. A proper compensation is absolutely necessary for further development plans.
Sources:
“Value-Laden Technocratic Management and Environmental Conflicts: : The Case of the New York City Watershed Controversy” Leland L. Glenna http://sth.sagepub.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/content/35/1/81.full.pdf+html
“The making of a regulatory crisis: restructuring New York City’s water supply” Matthew Gandy
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.0020-2754.1997.00338.x/asset/j.0020-2754.1997.00338.x.pdf?v=1&t=hab45bl1&s=9fb688c51919dc64664a248fb7ebd2f8b2331fa7&systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+8+December+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+GMT+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EST%29+for+essential+maintenance
