Science & Technology in NYC, Fall 2012

Source: James M. Clinton, “Rats in Urban America” Public Health Rep. 1969 January; 84(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031432/?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract

In the study, researchers discuss the evolution of rat populations in urban cities of American and how their rising presence has led to the problem of rat bites and their sequelae. Prior to the 1960’s, metropolitan areas were not highly developed and had a relatively lower population compared to the rural areas. As a result, rat-bite incidences were not as prevalent and almost unheard of in urban cities. As cities developed, the problem of rat-bites rapidly increased and led to the development of public laws, which require documentation of rodent bites. In NYC, the department of health keeps year-to-year records of rat-bites and diseases transmitted through them.

According to the study, public health problems are generally caused by three rat species that are Norway rat, the roof rat and the house mouse. The Norway rat exhibits less fear around humans and will make contact with motionless persons, whereas the roof rat better adapts to the environment than the Norway rat, but generally stays hidden in lofts, attics and trees. Nevertheless, the house mouse usually contributes the greatest to property damage and food contamination. Americans incur over $900 million/year in property and grain crop damages. In terms of diseases, rats contribute to greater than 6000 cases/year of diseases and serve as vectors and reservoirs of salmonellosis, leptospirosis, rat-bite fever and murine typhus.  Out of the three primary urban rat species, Norway rats inflict the greatest number of diseases caused by bites. Furthermore, the total incidence of rat bites is currently at 10/100,000 in urban areas. These rodents quickly access homes through plumbing fixtures, doors and windows and cause a major public health concern.

The rodent population is a major concern to NYC, because its environment does provide suitable breeding grounds for all three major urban rats. They are vectors of several diseases, and due to the high population density the spread of these diseases can significantly multiply just after few outbreaks. It is highly essential to monitor rat-bite incidences and the potential threat of disease associated with it.

Source: Cavia, Regino, Gerardo Rubén Cueto, and Olga Virginia Suárez. “Changes in Rodent Communities According to the Landscape Structure in an Urban Ecosystem.”Landscape and Urban Planning 90.1-2 (2009): 11-19. Print.

In this study, the researches wanted to understand the community structure of rodents and the abundance of individual species based on local conditions and the landscape. Information on rodent distribution is important because rodents are carriers for disease and are often involved in the transmission of disease to humans and domestic animals. Since urban ecosystems are more prone to pest outbreaks, the researchers wanted to provide a study to assist urban planning in future.

Cavia et al. designed the study in Buenos Aries, Argentina, to test the population densities of various rodents based on an environmental gradient. The sites varied from tree cover, to low vegetative cover, to simply buildings. The researchers collected data from 9 sites in total. One assumption in the study was that rodent population did not significantly change based on the season in which the data was collected.

The results of the study showed that native rodents clustered in vegetated environments. R. Norvegicus, M. Musculus, and R. Rattus were the most common species. The most important conclusion is that urbanization resulted in the decrease in species diversity and richness. Specifically, the results form this study helps New York City because it can be useful in mapping the distribution of species. However, the researchers pointed out that New York City saw a slightly different distribution of rodent species because of the difference in geography (dominated by R. Norvegicus because of colder climate). Nonetheless, NYC can use this study to plan pest control and help protect urban residents from seeing an outbreak of rodents because they will have a better idea of how the landscape affects the rodent population.

http://www.ege.fcen.uba.ar/urbanizacion/files/CAVIA/Cavia%20et%20al%202008.pdf

Regino, Cavia, Gerardo Rubén Cueto, Olga Virginia Suárez, Changes in rodent communities according to the landscape structure in an urban ecosystem, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 90, Issues 1-2, 15 March 2009, 11-19 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204608001692

This paper describes research done on rats in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Throughout the city, and across various landscapes and land-cover types, rodent communities composition and diversity were analyzed. Four landscapes – a natural reserve, a parkland, a shantytown, and an industrial-residential neighborhood – were studied, and certain rat species were found in each one. Native species were found only in vegetated environments, which would be natural reserves and some parklands. Meanwhile, introduced species were found in dwellings, shops, and factories, which would mostly be shantytowns and industrial-residential neighborhoods. Overall, introduced species of rats were more common in the most urbanized areas of the city.

This research is significant to public health/rat control in NYC  because rats are extremely common here and are known to transmit diseases. There are a great deal of different environments within the five boroughs, so this research can give insight as to where to find certain rats (especially the introduced species) known to carry certain viruses, and then we can implement rat control. On another note, this research shows that native rats are found in the least urban areas, which is good to know for conservation purposes if the intent is to restore native species.

Gardner-Santana, L.C. Gardner. Norris, D.E. Fornadel, C.M. Hinson, E.R. Klein, S.L. Glass, G.E. 2009. Commensal ecology, urban landscapes, and their influence on the genetic characteristics of city-dwelling Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus). Molecular Ecology. 2766-2778.

Norway rats are found in urban areas and are usually concentrated into high-density populations, such as in Baltimore, Maryland. While there has been significant research on Norway rats in Baltimore since the 1940s, little has been done to genetically characterize (diversity, population structure) this rat population, one that is valuable to society for pest control efforts and measuring rodent-developed diseases that can harm humans. This study aims to explain the ecology and examine the genetic characteristics of Norway rats in Baltimore – a unique population for its short gestation times, high fecundity, dominant hierarchies, and long-distance movement despite coming from “a small number of founders with limited activity ranges” (2767).

A total of 277 Norway rats collected from 11 locations in Baltimore were genotyped, tested for allelic diversity, and other genetic characteristics. “Genetic distances between sample sites” were also calculated (2768). The authors of the study examined “isolation by distance” in order to best understand the “genetic dynamics across Baltimore” (2768). Neighborhood size and the rats’ genetic structuring were estimated using various statistical methods. The authors tried to account for areas in Baltimore that do not support large rat populations by surveying neighborhoods for “signs of rat activity” (2770).

The results of the study support the authors’ hypothesis that “city rat populations would be geographically isolated and genetically structured…However, the biology and ecology of commensal Norway rats temper the genetic isolation and serve to homogenize the global population to a limited geographical extent” (2773). Most rats used in the study could be assigned to a specific capture area, suggesting that there is a geographical limit and elements of isolation to the Norway rat population; yet, there are statistically low levels of philopatry – or, returning to an individual’s birthplace – among this rat population, and moderate levels of genetic structuring that are indicative of the uniqueness of Baltimore city rats.

Because Norway rats in particular are not as genetically isolated as expected in an urban and habitat-fragmented area, the authors of the study recommend that control over urban rat populations “must occur at a larger scale” rather than focusing on independent units of city blocks (2775). The application of the authors’ conclusions may be limited to places such as Baltimore with high and unusually characterized populations of rats, such that in order to apply their conclusions to New York City, one must first consider and account for the differences in neighborhood development between the two cities.

A study is done in the urban city Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2012 about helminths-carrying rats in two different areas in the city, the wet market in Chow kit and the more affluent area at Bangsar with mixed residential sites. At Bangsar, restaurants and roadside stalls sell cooked food and rodents used the leftovers as a dominant source of nutrition. These disease-carrying rats occupy wall cavities, paneling of buildings, refuse and garbage tips and stores. The point of the study is to compare the proportion of helminths between the rats of two opposite sites. The result yields an interesting insight. Even though Bangsar is considerably cleaner compared to Chow Kit, and even though fewer rats were collected from Bangsar than from Chow Kit, there was no difference in helmonths recovered from each of the two sites. Moreover, the rats from Bangsar are larger and more aggressive, these typical brown rats burrow together with more disease-proned black rats and are more resistant to weather extremes. Yet, it is shown that due to the management policy of rodents in Bangsar, the rate of disease transmission was kept down.

The importance of this research paper brings about great similarities to New York City’s rat controlling situation, despite the discrepancy in weather between the two regions. Even though city rats are maybe more resistant to harsh city weather, more aggressive, and carrying more diseases than rats from less populated areas, with effecting rodents and disease management policy from the city, the rate of disease transmission can be checked effectively.

Source: Mohd Zain, Siti N, Jerzy M Behnke, and John W Lewis. “Helminth communities from two urban rat populations in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.” Mohd Zain et al. Parasites & Vectors 5:47 (2012): 23. Print.

As someone representing the Gas companies I have to say that although Hydraulic Fracking has some negative effects to the water supply for certain people, all in all it is more beneficial to the environment and the world than detrimental.  Fracking is helpful to the US in both an economic standpoint as well as an environmental standpoint.

Regarding the economic standpoint, it created an influence in the price of gases and it also creates jobs as well. President Obama said that he believes in the near future, fracking could provide about six hundred thousand jobs to citizens of the United States. Fracking increased gas reserves in the US over the past seven years and this influx of natural gas caused the price of gas to be a third the price of oil in the US. Furthermore, at this rate the US will have a surplus of gas and they will be able to sell the extra gas to Europe and Asia, which will then lower the price of gas there and stimulate global economy.

Natural gas caused by fracking also has a positive effect on the environment as a whole, in the US alone Carbon Dioxide emissions decreased by almost 15% which is good for the global environment because it is limiting the amount of greenhouse gases which is a step in the right direction regarding climate change. Also, quite surprisingly, natural gas has more of an effect on the reducing of megatonnes of Carbon dioxide, it even prevents more than solar panels and wind turbines.

However, there is a problem with this point of view regarding how fracking has detrimental effects on the water supply. However, gas companies are saying that the wells are encased in cement and it is seems unlikely that the chemicals travel through the casing since it is supposed to be durable especially since it has to endure the pressure from the fracking. So, to conclude fracking is helpful for the economic as well as the environmental factor of the US and the wells’ casings should protect the water supply from harmful chemicals.

Works Cited:

Clarke, Chad. 2012. Fracking Politics: A case study of Policy in New York and Pennsylvania from 2008-2011. Colorado State University.

Pierce, Richard. Natural Gas Fracking Addresses All of Our Major Problems. George Washington University Law School.

Lomborg, Bjørn. 2012. A Fracking Good Story. Project-Syndicate. September 13.

In order to better understand the impact that watersheds may have on society we must first understand the definition of a watershed, which according to Sandra Postel and Barton Thompson’s article “Watershed protection: Capturing the benefits of nature’s water supply services,” is an “area of land that drains into a common water source.” The article goes on to mention that due to the fact that watersheds connect different freshwater and coastal ecosystems they provide us with many services that are undervalued and under appreciated. To name a few of the many services, they supply and purify fresh water, provide for a habitat that safeguards and preserves biological diversity, assist in flood control, regulate the flow of water, control erosion of sediment and help with the stabilization of the climate.

The article states that before we make decisions regarding the use and management of watershed lands, we must take into account the value of the natural services that it provides us with.Changing the land into urban settlements reduces the ability of the watersheds to perform these services, thereby reducing the benefits that society derives from it. An analysis of the 106 primary watersheds has found that in almost one third of them more than half of the land has been converted into an urban-industrial use. Furthermore, in Europe 13 watershed lost at least 90 percent of their vegetation and China’s Yangtze and Yellow Rivers have lost 85 and 78 percent of their vegetation.

The loss of natural and healthy watersheds has diminished its ability to perform one of its most important tasks, which is the purification of drinking water. The article states that the loss of this ability will contribute to harm to human health, lower water quality and high water costs as new methods of purification are pursued. Watersheds that have a high proportion of vegetative cover are effective at purifying water supplies. The vegetation and soil has the ability to filter out contaminants and trap sediments that would enter rivers, lakes and streams, thereby providing for a cleaner water source. This high reliability of the water source would also provide for lower treatment and maintenance costs of the watershed. If the watersheds aren’t adequately protected they will provide their dependents with “less clean, less reliable water.” Furthermore, the increase of pollution in the water due to the fact that the watersheds were unable to trap sediments and filter out contaminants can degrade the quality of the water of aquatic habitats.

As a result, I believe that it is important that we attempt to solve this issue from the start, in order to avoid the detrimental effects that it may have on society. We fail to recognize the value that theses ecosystem services provide us with and it is imperative that we gain this understanding before it is too late. People neglect to take into account these services due to the fact that they are provided with no charge and fail to recognize the cost that we would have to pay in order to replace these services. Therefore, it is important that we educate ourselves and strive to maintain these watersheds before it is too late.

Source:

Postel, Sandra L., and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. “Watershed Protection: Capturing the Benefits of Nature’s Water Supply Services.” Natural Resources Forum 29 (2005): 98-108. Print.

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

Downstate New York is home to approximately 9 million people and countless flora and fauna, not to mention the never-ending flow of tourists. Having such exceptional traffic, it is imperative that New York City has an equally exceptional quality of water. Currently, New York City’s water is derived from unfiltered upstate watersheds.

If nothing is done, water quality will go down and New York City will have to engage a filtration plant. In order to accommodate a population the size of downstate New York, that water filtration plant will cost $6-8 billion. The majority of the burden will fall on New York City residents and businesses. Many of these people may not be in a position to afford paying double rates, namely rent-controlled housing units. Therefore, we must avoid the creation of a filtration plant.

The NYC Watershed Agricultural Program (WAP) is an integral part of the Department of Environmental Protection’s Long-Term Long-Term Watershed Protection Strategy. This program is facilitated by the City and voluntary farmers whose lands are used as watersheds. As of September 2007, over 95% of commercial farms are enrolled in this program (US EPA). The WAP utilizes farm Best Management Practices (BMP) which “prevent or reduce the amount of pollution generated by non point sources (in this case agriculture) in order to protect and enhance water quality” (Watershed Agricultural Council). In other words, BMP stops potential risks to the water before they get into farm streams with the multiple barrier approach. Potential pollutants include: parasites and phosphorus: Animal Waste; Pesticides; Phosphorus: Fertilizer Storage; Nutrient Management; Sediment; Pesticides; Fuel Storage; Other Toxic Materials; and more (Watershed Agricultural Council).

This approach effectively bypasses the need of a filtration system by not letting harmful byproducts get into the water. Funding for the NYC WAP is from the federal government, state, and private funding, which address the monetary problems associated with implementing a filtration system (US EPA).

“Agriculture | Region 2 | US EPA.” US Environmental Protection Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.epa.gov/region2/agriculture/nycwatershed.html>.

“Watershed Agricultural Council.”Watershed Agricultural Council. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.nycwatershed.org/>.

The debate continues on today, as residents and companies fight for against hydraulic fracturing. This article in the New York Times reports about the E.P.A. weighing the cost and effects of hydraulic fracturing.

Hydraulic fracturing is the act of drilling wells into Marcellus Shale to extract large amounts of natural gas. If done correctly, the amount of natural gas that is to be extracted is great and if fracking was to be adopted everywhere, the United States would be able to obtain energy independence. They will be able to spend less money on importing fuel and it will cause less pollution as it does not burn as greatly as fossil fuels. However, despite these pros, have we ever thought about what this could potentially do to our land? Our country is urban, but this does not mean that we must lose all of the nature we have left today.

Landowners are lining up to gas prospectors to lease their land for the price of them drilling holes into the ground to find natural gases. What will happen to this land? Countless wells will be constructed to extract the gases from the ground, and if they are not constructed properly, great amounts of chemicals will seep into our air. The integrity and the process of which the wells are built lead to chance of spilling chemicals into the ground and water as well. Many chemicals are used in this process and most of them do not have to be disclose by the companies so we do not know the exact relationship between the two. But do we really want to take this risk? The fact that the water absorbed and used through this process will not be received back does not help this situation too.

The risks does not stop here. Hydraulic fracturing is also have said to be linked to increasing the cause of earthquakes that we experience. This is merely a theory but if there’s a possibility where this can be true, once again, why risk it? Should we gain all of these possible threats and risks to our environment for natural gases, while killing the beautiful nature we have left today? Should we really kill off the rest of the land that we have so scarcely of?

The NYTimes article posts, “Corporations have no conscience… The E.P.A. must give them that conscience.” This is completely true. Businesses are started and built for the mere objective of profit. It is up to us, the people, to stop this and show them that nature and our environment does really matter. Money is not everything. There are things that you cannot put a price on. In this case, the harms do outweigh the pros that this can do for our environment. Not merely because of the lack of information we have on this, but because of the fact that we need to realize what we are destroying. Nature can be destroyed within a few minutes. But rebuilding it will take a lot longer than that. We need to learn to appreciate what we have now, rather than trying to change everything for the “better.”

Jr., Tom Zeller. “Far From Gulf, Due Diligence.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 July 2010. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/business/energy-environment/24gas.html?pagewanted=all>

Hydraulic fracturing is a process that many natural gas companies practices today to stimulate oil and gas production. The significant practice of hydraulic fracturing and growing number of complaints regarding water quality led to various investigations against hydraulic fracturing technology. As a result, government agencies started to dig into the activity and set up various restrictions on water drilling.

“Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting into production wells large volumes of water, sand or other proppant, and specialized chemicals under enough pressure to fracture low-permeability geologic formations containing oil and/or natural gas. The sand and other proppant holds the new fractures open to allow the oil or gas to flow freely out of the formation and into a production well. Fracturing fluid and water remaining in the fracture zone can inhibit oil and gas production, and must be pumped back to the surface.”

Hydraulic fracturing is a worldwide practice that many natural gas companies use to generate energy sources. Many people were concern that hydraulic fracturing will cause underground water pollutions; however, there are not enough evidences proving that there is a direct link between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination. When a water well is not constructed and cased properly it might cause contaminated water flows from the land surface into the water well, and degraded water quality in the well. However research suggests, “contamination incidents have been attributed to poor well construction or surface activities, rather than the specific hydraulic fracturing process.” Also, many oil and gas producing States claimed that there is no direction relationship between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination.

Hydraulic fracturing is responsible for providing major share of domestically produced natural gas. However, many government policies and restrictions are making it harder for natural gas companies to use this technology to generate our own energy supplies. Although as the practice of hydraulic fracturing increases, many people are concerned of water contamination; there are no sufficient scientific evidences that suggest hydraulic fracturing is the cause of groundwater contamination.

Source: “Hydraulic Fracturing Overview: Growth Of The Process And Safe Drinking Water Concerns.” Congressional Digest 91.3 (2012): 71-75. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Dec. 2012.

Sprawl, defined as  “low-density, land consumptive, centerless, autooriented development, typically located on the outer suburban fringes,” negatively impacts New York City’s water quality and NYC’s drinking water supply watersheds (1). Sprawl’s greatest threat to water quality is the “resulting increase in impervious surfaces,” defined as “surfaces that prevent infiltration of water into soil” (2, 4). As the population of NYC increases and New York continues to develop economically, alternatives must be considered to impervious surfaces in order to protect the state’s water supply, ecosystem services, and biodiversity.

In addition to creating excess pollution, impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and rooftops increase “the volume and magnitude of stormwater and facilitate the delivery of pollutants into receiving waters” (4). This process potentially contaminates receiving waters and can cause significant health issues and illnesses for people consuming this water. For example, “when stormwater scours pollutants off of pavement into surface waters, it can contribute Cryptosporidium and Giardia cysts, which lead to gastrointestinal illnesses and other health problems, from human and animal fecal waste” (4). Impervious surfaces can cause runoff from “suburban residential development,” causing significant water degradation  and water toxicity (4). Also important to note is that stormwater runoff created from impervious surfaces can harm stream biodiversity and can “be directly toxic to organisms or can cause conditions in the receiving waters that are detrimental to aquatic organisms and even humans” (6).

It is critical to municipal and state governments to develop and readily use alternatives to impervious surfaces, such as pervious pavement and gravel pavement. Costs for alternatives may be “higher than traditional pavement, but it can eliminate the need for stormwater drainage and collection systems,” the latter of which refers to impervious surfaces (7). Various innovative legal mechanisms supported by public opinion can incentivize the use of alternative surfaces for private companies and the passing of ordinances and acts that would limit the use of impervious surfaces.

In conclusion, impervious surfaces pose a serious environmental threat to New York City’s water supply and New Yorkers’ general health, and ways to avoid the negative effects of these surfaces should be developed and enacted.

Yaggi Marc. 2001.”Impervious Surfaces in the New York City Watershed.” Fordham Environmental Law Journal Volume 489: 1-32.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04232.x/abstract

GARDNER-SANTANA, L.C. “Commensal Ecology, Urban Landscapes, and Their Influence on the Genetic Characteristics of City-dwelling Norway Rats (Rattus Norvegicus).” Molecular Ecology. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 2766-778. Wiley Online Library. July 2009. Web. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04232.x/abstract>.

Very little is known about wild Norway rats even though they live in urbanized communities and may spread disease and invade new areas. The movement of people can spread these infectious diseases that these pests contain. Wild Norway rats are also known as Rattus norvegicus. The experiment sampled 11 individuals different locations within Baltimore, Maryland to characterize the genetic structure and extent of gene flow between areas within the city. Most people were assigned to their area of capture, and the rats were of an axial dispersal distance of 62meters, which fell within typical alley length. There were some rats that were assigned to area which were 2-11.5 kilometers away and demonstrated long distance movement within the city.  Although the individual movement of each rat seems to be limited, locations up to 1.7 kilometers are made up of relatives. The differentiation between identified clusters of rats indicates that the regular genes flow either via recruitment of other rats or migration leading to the prevention of isolation. This information shows that the ecology of rodents in urban areas and the life-history characteristics of Norway rats likely counter many expected effects of isolation. This is important to public health because these rodents possess the ability to spread diseases and now that they show signs of movement within urban areas, people should be aware that their health is at risk.

With the growing demand for a reliable water source, watersheds in upstate New York quickly became a popular solution. These systems stretch “downstate to NYC via a complex of aqueducts and tunnels to supply 5.3 billion liters of safe drinking water per day to millions of customers…” (Vintinner). New York City uses three watersheds (the Croton, Catskill, and Delaware) as main sources for an acceptable water supply. There are some environmental concerns, however, with these systems.

Delaware County has the highest “density of farms than other counties in the watershed, and farming is presumed to be the largest source of phosphorus, according to Keith Porter, the director of the New York State WaterResources Institute, at Cornell University” (Brown). This means that there is a risk of phosphorus getting into the watershed system and possibly tainting the water supply for New Yorkers. Phosphorus is a powerful fertilizer, and if it gets into the water supply, toxins from algae that begin to thrive in the water contaminate it. Phosphate (PO₄) can also lead to problems because it lowers the pH of the water, making it acidic (Harmful Algae). Not only are humans affected, but

A process to filter out the phosphorus pollution is necessary not only to make sure the water supply is considered safe for consumption/use by millions of people in NYC, but also to make it safe for nature upstate (e.g. the animal diversity on the farm and the biodiversity in its surrounding environments).

References:

Brown, Jeff L. “Protecting The Source.” Civil Engineering (08857024) 70.12 (2000): 50. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

“Harmful Algae.” The Harmful Algae. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Center. 31 July 2012. Web. 3 Dec 2012. < http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/>.

John L. Campbell, et al. “A Cross-Site Comparison Of Factors Influencing Soil Nitrification Rates In Northeastern USA Forested Watersheds.” Ecosystems 12.1 (2009): 158-178. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Dec. 2012.

New York City’s water is known for being safe to drink from the tap. The quality of the water is also better than many other locations around the area. However, hydraulic fracturing has caused concerns with the contamination of the water supply. Natural gas is necessary in many things in our everyday lives. Some may say that the benefits received from hydraulic fracturing overweigh the potential risk of tainting the water supply.

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of extracting natural gases from shale formations underground. It involves injecting large amounts of water with chemicals to release the gases to be captured. Many benefits of hydraulic fracturing includes extracting large amounts of gas not normally unavailable and it allows us to extract natural gas from within the country rather than importing gas from other countries. Hydraulic fracturing also creates many jobs for people that are unemployed. Natural gas is also more “eco-friendly” than other forms of fuel.

The argument for all these benefits include the numerous amounts of undisclosed chemicals that are injected along with the water. These chemicals are not required to be revealed but are known to be toxic. The Marcellus shale formation is known to be a drilling site for natural gas. The problem that occurs with this location is that the clean water reservoirs for New York City is located in this region. The contaminated water by hydraulic fracturing can release chemicals into the air when combined with exhaust fumes can be detrimental and harmful to the environment. Ever since fracturing began, research for solar and wind power has significantly declined.

With the pros and cons of hydraulic fracturing, the benefits that are provided still seem to outweigh the potential disadvantages. Natural gas is imperative as an energy source. Therefore, hydraulic fracturing is necessary to help benefit the use of energy by the country. FAD (Filtration Avoidance Determination) is a policy that claims that hydraulic fracturing affects drinking water for New York City. Therefore, hydraulic fracturing should be used to help benefit the need of energy in the US. Even though the drinking water can be contaminated, there can be potential methods to filter or clean the water in the future. Since natural gases are in high demand, FAD should not be implemented to help meet the energy consumption needs of the country.

Source:
Arthur, J.D., M. Uretsky, and P. Wilson (ALL Consulting). ―Water Resources and Use for Hydraulic
Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Region.‖ Prepared in conjunction with Co-Researchers including
the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Susquehanna River Basin
Commission, and the Delaware River Basin Commission under U.S. Department of Energy Research
Project DE-FE0000797. Presented at the International Petroleum and Biofuels Environmental
Conference, San Antonio, Texas, August 30 – September 2, 2010.

As a spokesperson for natural gas companies that partake in hydraulic fracturing, the main argument that I am putting forward is that there is no solid evidence that the processes of my industry are negatively affecting the drinking water supply. Changes to the 1993 Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) could pose a great threat to the industry, so it is essential that I make known the truth about the supposed connection between hydraulic fracturing and contaminated water.

A Congressional Research Service report from July 12, 2012 entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues,” by Mary Tiemann and Adam Vann, addresses public concerns about drinking water being effected by nearby fracturing. The report states that there have been no reports from published studies and agency investigations that show a direct correlation between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. It also implies that the actual migration of gas or fracturing fluids into an aquifer in the case of shale formations would cover a rather large distance, so it is quite difficult and almost impossible.

The report identifies the more probable cause of contaminated drinking water as an issue with the casing or cementing of the natural gas or oil well. Since this also happens with oil wells that have nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing, the industry cannot be solely blamed for any incidents of contamination. In addition, there is usually little information on the water wells that are tested for contamination, which means that they could have already been contaminated before the hydraulic fracturing began.

The industry and process of hydraulic fracturing is undoubtedly something that must be continued. Oil and gas reservoirs around the world are continually decreasing, so there has to be an alternative method available. If there are restrictions placed on hydraulic fracturing, which there shouldn’t be since there is no concrete proof that makes it the definite cause of contaminated drinking water, the United States will eventually lose its resources for gas and oil entirely, and that is something that it absolutely cannot afford to do.

Tiemann, Mary. Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues. Washington, D.C.. UNT Digital Library. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc83959/. Accessed December 2, 2012.

The New York City supply serves approximately 9 million people primarily through surface water retained from 19 reservoirs and 3 lakes. These sources of water, deliver approximately 1.1 billion gallons per day of water to the city. Recently the Marcellus Shale has been viewed as a source of natural gas. It covers about 95,000 square miles, which underlies the entire NYC watershed.

Hydrofracking, is the process of injecting water along with chemicals into the gas which results in the release of natural gas. This brings numerous risks to the NYC water supply. One of the impacts is the potential small scale surface spills and contamination incidents which will be inevitable with the magnitude of these projects. These spills will cause operational impacts, potential MCL violations and further undermine confidence in the ability to maintain current high water quality standards. One of the major risks is that the wastewater and gas resulting from operations will produce an industrial strength water stream with potential for adverse health and water quality effects. This problem occurs because of the complicated disposal options of the wastewater and gas. Other risks may include direct penetration by drilling, differential pressure, migration of gas and induced seismicity. The risk to the NYC water supply for our 9 million people must be looked at differently than to a private homeowner or small community because this is an enormous number of people that a bad mistake could impact. It has been proposed to ban drilling using high volume fracturing within the watershed and 4,0000 buffer. Along with that, we could reopen SEQRA if drilling using low volume hydraulic fracturing is proposed within the watershed. Finally, there are Delaware tunnels that have 2 mile exclusion zones and the Catskill and Delaware Aqueducts that can have 7 mile exclusion zones. The impact of natural gas hydrofracking has many chances to impact NYC’s population adversely and any decision made must be assessed incredibly because the possible negative impacts are unlimited.

Garcia, Kathryn. “Natural Gas Development and the NYC Water Supply.” American Academy of Environmental Engineers. AAEE, 14 May 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://aaee.net/>.

Natural gas companies are against the changes to the conditional Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) in 1993. We believe that the FAD if implemented will negatively affect the natural gas industry based on false concerns that hydraulic fracturing contaminates drinking water.

Hydraulic fracturing is one of the most important and effective ways to access underground resources including natural gas. With increased use of hydraulic fracturing, there has also been increased concerns for possible detrimental effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking and ground water supplies. However, extensive studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency examining any potential effects of hydraulic fracturing concluded no to very little risk of contamination of underground sources of drinking water during its processes. EPA found no confirmed links between the degradation of drinking water wells and hydraulic fracturing injection into coalbed methane wells.

EPA also reviewed four cases reported by  citizens regarding contaminated water as a result of hydraulic fracturing. They once again found that the latter was not the cause of the concerns raised by citizens which included drinking water with unpleasant taste and odor, impacts on fish, vegetation and wildlife, and loss of water in wells. Rather than hydraulic fracturing, such water problems seem to have occurred from contributions of other factors including population growth, resource development, natural conditions and practice of abandoned or historical well-completion (EPA, ES-13). Also, EPA conclude that the removal of groundwater  soon after hydraulic fracturing as well as injected fluid recovery along with dilution and dispersion, adsorption all significantly reduce the risk of hazardous chemicals contaminating drinking water (EPA, 7-5).

Hydraulic fracturing plays an importnat role in the nation’s energy demands. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, looking forward in about 20 years, demand for natural gas is projected to reach at least 45 percent (EPA, ES-2). Hydraulic fracturing play a crucial role in meeting that demand. FAD will only be a hindrance to adequately keeping up with the nation’s demand for natural gas.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, “Evaluation of Impacts of Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs Study ( June 2004)” Accessed 01 Dec. 2012.<http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/upload/completestudy.zip>

Tiemann, Mary. Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues. Washington,

D.C..UNT Digital Library. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc83959/.

The natural gas industry is essential for day-to-day function and is literally what fuels other industries and the world. The implementation of the changes to the Filtration Avoidance Determination would be detrimental to the natural gas industry and will have a great impact on our daily lives.

The number of onshore gas wells in the United States nearly doubled in the past twenty years to about 500,000 wells and according to the Independent Petroleum Association of America, more than 90% of new natural gas wells in the United States rely on hydraulic fracturing and together they have accounted for the production of more than 600 trillion cubic feet of gas. Fracturing is similarly applied in the production of US oil and nearly 7 billion barrels of oil have been produced using the same process.

As hydraulic fracturing is one of the primary means of oil and gas extraction, we strongly suggest reevaluating the decision to add changes to the Filtration Avoidance Determination. Though there have been several cases of well-water contamination, the source of the problem mostly remains undetermined. In numerous cases, the contamination incidents have been attributed to poor well construction or surface activities rather than hydraulic fracturing.

Evidence of hydraulic fracturing directly causing water contamination is simply non-existent and the natural gas industry should not have to pay as a result of numerous speculations.

Postel and Barton’s study outlines the risks that development poses to New York City’s water supply if its watershed is not protected. In addition, the study also compares the cost of implementing filtration plants against the natural protection provided by our watershed. Finally, they propose several programs that will help New York preserve the watershed and prevent it from further development and destruction.

According to the study, the continued loss of watershed services poses harm to human health by affecting the quality of water, the cost of supplying that water, and crop productivity. Studies have shown that vegetation and soils of forests have a great ability to filter contaminants and trap sediments that often end up in our water source. With this in mind, Postel and Barton analyzed 27 US water suppliers to understand the filtration cost that is abated through the watershed. Their data predicts that the treatment costs of drinking water will increase significantly as forest cover decreases. Hence, forest cover is a natural filter that reduces expenditure. To avoid future spending, Postel suggests a partnership program between landowners, loggers, and timber companies to better manage forests and keep the watershed intact. These goals go hand in hand with the environmental cause because they limit development to areas that are less likely to affect our water quality and supply.

In addition, deforestation, road construction, and poor farming techniques have all contributed to the contamination of drinking water. Without the forest, there will be an increase of sedimentation from hillside erosion. This will cause sediment to runoff into streams and continually reduce reservoir storage each year. Hence, the need for a new supply of water will soon arise. Likewise, fertilizers and pesticides used on crops also reduce water supply.  They enter groundwater, pollute a source of clean water and also disrupt aquatic habitats. As advocate against the deterioration of our environment, such practices should be penalized because they directly correlated to the reduction of clean water sources and the loss of habitats that rely on them.

As a result, this study supports the environmental cause because it shows that further development will hurt New York City’s water quality and supply. Furthermore, destruction of the watershed is also an economical problem because nature provides a free resource to help filter sediment, pollutants, and some toxins out of the water before it reaches our streams, lakes, and rivers. Consequently, aquatic habitats are also preserved in the process. Altogether, the environmental group his highly opposed to any plans that intend to alter the watershed for construction and development because the risks induce massive costs both to human health and to the City’s budget.

Source:

Postel, Sandra L., and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. “Watershed Protection: Capturing the Benefits of Nature’s Water Supply Services.” Natural Resources Forum 29 (2005): 98-108. Web.

Government agencies like the NYDEP and the EPA have a common goal with the Catskills and Delaware watersheds, which is having suitable water quality to meet the criteria of the FAD. The protection of watersheds and the surrounding ecosystems from harmful development is the best method that benefits most stakeholders in the land. In order to comply with the SWTR, there are only two options for New York State to take, filtration or protection. The costs associated to watershed protection is much smaller than the costs to filtrate; it can cost 6 billion dollars to create a filtration facility and about 300 million dollars per year to maintain it. The most important factor that makes watershed protection very crucial to government agencies is the cost, but watersheds also provide plenty ecosystem services.

The journal article, “Watershed protection: Capturing the benefits of nature’s water supply services” by Sandra Postel and Barton Thompson Jr. provides useful information on how healthy watersheds benefit growing communities and urban areas. They examined watersheds around the country and the world to see what was done and how communities are taking action to protect the watersheds. Expenses are the main determinant in protecting watersheds. NYC spent 1.5 billion over 10 years in order for the Catskills/Delaware watershed to avoid the capital and operating costs (6 bil, 300mil/year) of filtration. The reason that NY/C is able to save so much money is due to the past agreements between the stakeholders in the area.

In the Catskills/Delaware watershed area, ¾ of the lands are still forested and ¾ of the lands are privately owned. The journal article emphasizes the importance of forests and undeveloped lands. These factors are important because forested and undeveloped areas are much better are protecting the watershed, due to the runoff moderation and purification provided by forests. Data from 27 US watershed systems show that if 60% of the watersheds are still forested then treatment costs will be low and treatment costs would increase to 211% if only 10% of forests remain. This makes forests extremely important to the watersheds and it makes land ownership extremely important. Also, agricultural practices must be maintained efficiently because nitrogen runoff from agriculture is very high and can lead to reduced water quality NYC has to continue to acquire land in order to stop development from occurring, or collaborate with other stakeholders. Land acquisition costs are not very high; within 5 years of the starting to buy land, it only cost NYC $94 million to prevent filtration. If filtration occurs, taxes will increase for a major of the populations. In Denmark and Germany, average cost of drinking water is 3 times higher than the US due to the filtration needed.

It is in the government’s best interest to continue watershed protection. Cooperation must be achieved with lumber companies, land owners and farmers in order to prevent watershed contamination and maintain water quality. NYC already encountered a problem with the Croton watershed being overly developed, and had to build a 687 million dollar plant to filter water. All of this data on costs and savings support the government’s cause. For New York, government ownership of lands and incentive payments to protect the watersheds are the most cost effective way to protect watersheds.

Source:Postel, Sandra L. and Barton H. Thompson. 2005. “Watershed Protection: Capturing the Benefits of Nature’s Water Supply Services.” Natural Resources Forum 29 (2): 98-108.

Upstate New York residence has right to use the land for whatever they want. The landowners bought the land legally in exchange for using the land freely without external regulation. The hydrofracking does not only benefit the nation with the abundant natural gas but also benefits the landowners financially with continuing recession.

For few years hydrofracking received bad reputation as it was reported that it might harm the environment and human health. However, the expected damage outweighs definite benefits. In the current case of excessive recession, any action that may help the economy must be supported. Therefore, the hydrofracking, which brings tremendous amount of revenue and benefits, must be supported and carried out.

In exchange of the usage of the land, the landowners lease their backyards to the hydrofracking company to install drills that can extract natural gas. With the agreed-lease-payments, the landowners also get extract incentives from the gas produced in their land. It is hard to deny that the deal is very sweet to anyone who has a land.

In Chemung County, NY an economic boost was observed. The observers say that the boost was from the hydrofracking that was done in the Chemung County. The additional consumption of hydrofracking users boosts the community’s sale up to 60 percent. The workers are buying foods, clothes, and gifts from Chemung sellers. Since the county is getting external injection of money, it is inevitable for the county’s economy to boost. In addition of the sale revenue, the landowners of the county are also having a good real estate market too. The demand of the rents from the workers increase and it results higher price and then higher profit for the landowners. “Nonetheless, the report said that Chemung and other counties in the state’s Southern Tier where shale gas is assumed to be plentiful can expect a surge in retail sales and tax revenue from those workers once drilling begins.”

With the local economy, the airplane industry are also benefitting from traveling hydrofracking workers. “Ann Crook, the manager of Elmira Corning Regional Airport in Big Flats, estimates one of five passengers flying in or out has some tie to the gas industry.” It is evident that the hydrofracking industry causes chain reaction that benefits surrounding area’s economy.

If the Upstate residents sign the lease papers and let the hydrofraking to start, it is evident that the financial boost that happened in Chemung and other counties in New York will occur once more. Once again, in the recession, economic recovery has priority over other aspects. The hydrofracking bring economic benefit to the nation with natural gas and to the local individuals with great sales and revenues.

Mirreya Navarro. (2011, Dec 28). With Gas Drilling Next Door, County In New York Gets An Economic Lift. New York Times, pp. A.18.

Government agencies have a huge stake in the NYC Water Supply.  There are many government agencies impacted by the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC).  The EPA is unique because it does not have one set procedure for protection of New York’s water supply.  In 1993, the EPA accepted a waiver from NYC from filtration of the water coming down from the Catskills.  The reason behind NYC’s request was because of cost.  The EPA also added over 150 conditions, in a compromise.  The conditions were mostly watershed protection and reservoir monitoring matters.

The NYC DEP issued a harder approach for farmers, homeowners, and businesses in response to this action by the EPA.  Residents of the towns where the reservoirs were located felt alienated by the act and felt that urban NYC was going to stunt their slowly growing economy by placing additional restrictions on local upstate residents.  In 1994, a coalition representing 34 towns provided so much support that NYC was unable to put their agreement with the EPA in effect.

In 1997, the Watershed Memorandum of Agreement came into play.  This Memo attempted to please all parties and has placed restrictions on NYC with use of eminent domain.  It also says the city will spend greater than 1.2 billion on infrastructure improvements.

Since the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the EPA has regulated water so that it is safe to consume.  After the Surface Water Treatment Rule, the NYC DEP has made sure that water is filtered, and if it is not there must be several safety measures taken to make sure it is also safe for consumption.

Taking these rules into consideration the government has an obligation to protect the people from hazardous chemicals that may be found in the waters.  With New York City, one of the world’s most important cities, at risk, this matter is serious.  The question of who is to blame and who must pay for all this regulation is what the hoopla is about.  Should the city fit the bill or is it the Federal Government’s responsibility?  Both governments have large roles; the city has the more important one, however.  In many studies done, most people would say the water is safe to drink in NYC.  Because of the Watershed Memo Agreement, many stakeholders had to compromise.  Ultimately, the health of New York City residents must have to come before any profits or development is to be made on these lands.

SOURCE:

Blaine, James G., Bernard W. Sweeney, and David B. Arscott. “Enhanced Source-water Monitoring for New York City: Historical Framework, Political Context, and Project Design.” Http://www.stroudcenter.org/. The North American Benthological Society, 2006. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.

As stated in the case study of New York City drinking water issues, upstate stakeholders are against development of filtering facilities in watershed communities. According to an article from EPA Journal by Keith Porter in 1994, the watershed residents believe that installing filters would incur “unknown economic and social costs” to protect water that are mainly used by people outside of the watershed communities.

Not only does filters facilities affect the economic and social aspects of watershed communities, some alternative plans would also do damages as well. According to James Kavanaugh in an academic journal from Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, watershed protection plan as an alternative would do similar harms to watershed communities. The Watershed Memorandum of Agreement was adopted in May, 1997. This watershed protection plan has three phrases. The first phrase is land acquisition of undeveloped land around the watersheds, which may devalue properties and restrict economic development of properties in the communities. The second stage is the launch of protection and partnership programs. However, most of the negative effects of these programs will incur on upstate stakeholders instead of the primary user of the clean water. Since the watersheds are 120 miles away from NYC, NYC do not need to suffer the restrictions and limitations under the watershed protection plan. NYC will also enjoy benefits from the result of the program without having to bear any substantial cost of filtration. Those restrictions would be imposed on the watershed communities in the form of “landuse restrictions, such as restrictions on development, increased property taxes, decreased property values, and delays in the issuance of building permits”.  In my opinion, those effects on watersheds community will be similar if filtration facilities are in placed.

Also, as Kavanaugh stated, filtration facilities may create a false sense of security that can promote water contamination. It encourages a misconception that no mater how bad quality of water is before filtration, the final products would be clean and safe water because of filtration. Such misconception would reduce protection of the watersheds and affect the natural beauty of the watershed communities.

As a result, another alternative would represent both parties. According to Porter, the Whole Farm Planning program can help reduce pollutions to watersheds to ensure high quality drinking water. The program is to reduce the release of contaminants from source of pollutions like “barnyard areas, silage systems, stored manure, and sheds containing chemicals”. Besides managing the sources of pollution, the plan also desire to minimize farm field’s runoff by reducing amount realeased, and managing soil and crops. If contaminants are only released without runoff, drinking water source would be less polluted. Lastly, the program wants farms to keep a buffer zone with the water to prevent contaminants from reaching the water.

Besides that plan, the Whole Community Planning Program (WCP) would also be a feasible alternative. According to Kavanaugh, the WCP program allows residents of watershed communities to design and to implement their own protection plans instead of being subjected to NYC regulations and restrictions. The plan has to be submitted by municipal government and is approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation under the guidelines including zoning, local landuse planning, site plan review, comprehensive planning, critical environmental area designation, land conservancies, housing density guidelines, and provisions to transfer and purchase development rights. As a result, WCP would help ensure drinking water quality in NYC under the government’s guidelines without the negative effects that filtration and watershed protection plans would cause to watershed communities.

SOURCES:

Porter, Keith S. “New York City: Case Of A Threatened Watershed.” EPA Journal20.1/2 (1994): 24. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

Kavanaugh, James. “To Filter Or Not To Filter: A Discussion And Analysis Of The Massachusetts Filtration Conflict In T.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 26.4 (1999): 809. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

As others have mentioned, the main approach to maintaining quality drinking water has been through conserving watershed integrity. Adherence to the filtration avoidance criteria are a great basis for protecting the water supply and has led to a massive project on controlling the watershed. The costs of acquiring lands, setting rules and regulations, and initiating programs to protect the watershed are all justified for the protection of water. Prevention, making sure that pollutants do not enter the water in the first place, is a much less expensive and more desirable means of maintaining quality than filtering. However, leaving water unfiltered does mean that measures like these are not enough, especially if NYC govt agencies are primarily concerned with public health. Using chlorine to disinfect is only the most basic step. With microbial pathogens, especially antibiotic-resistant strains, toxic compounds, and other harmful substances in the water, money should be invested in technology that can detect and control these. Additionally, monitoring of content in the water and disease surveillance is extremely important if the city’s agencies want to stay aware of the drinking water quality. The National Research Council found that NYC’s monitoring program to be “informed”, “extensive”, and “of high quality”, but there is room for improvement. NRC suggests analyses of groundwater, randomly checking tap water in homes, and conducting rick assessments on Cryptosporidium. These are not cheap to perform, but would be important complements to an unfiltered system.

Though it is in the City’s best interests to find a cheaper way to protect the water, this is just the local agencies’ wants for the short run. If and when the quality of unfiltered water becomes too difficult to manage, the supply system will have to filtered. This is not undesirable to agencies like the EPA, who value healthy and clean water foremost, but balancing watershed management and water treatment is a big question of agencies with limited resources. As the NRC mentions in the conclusion, watershed management planning “is not a guarantee of permanent filtration avoidance”. With the growth of populations along the watersheds, and subsequent economic development, rules and regulations about activity in these areas cannot be considered a foolproof solution. Neither can simple disinfection and on-site inspections. It is in the local agencies’ best interest to continue pushing for environmental health of the basin and water source, but also to begin pursuing the more expensive technological treatments like filtration. It may seem obvious but, basic protection of the watershed area is the foundation of managing safe drinking water, which means that it needs to be both expanded into other measures when necessary, and well-maintained even when other measures are included.

Ehlers, Laura J., Max J. Pfeffer, and Charles R. O’Melia. “Making Watershed Management Work.” Environmental Science & Technology 34.21 (2000): 464A-471A. General Science Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

http://pubs.acs.org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/doi/pdf/10.1021/es003466q

One of the four primary stakeholder groups are the upstate stakeholders. According to E.C. Vintinner’s case study, “Thirsty Metropolis: A Case Study of New York City’s Drinking Water”, these upstate stakeholders include the Coalition of Watershed Towns and representatives of eight upstate counties. Although there are some residents who advocate for watershed land acquisition, there are just as many who oppose it. Aware that any action would immediately and directly affect those who reside in nearby counties, these anti-development upstate stakeholders believe the impact would be detrimental environmentally.

Land acquisition for watersheds will ultimately involve the process of hydraulic fracturing, also known as “hydrofracking”. Hydrofracking uses a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to extract natural gas from shale rock. Although the extraction of the country’s own natural gas seems ideal, it is not. The industry has not regulated drilling processes. The mixture goes well into millions of gallons, which means that the chemical portion is also great. Most of these chemicals are known carcinogens, such as benzene (known to cause cancer). Not only will these harmful toxins pollute the environment and harm wildlife, they will also adversely affect the health of many residents.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, “Experts’ Review of NY Fracking Soon to be Complete”, “unregulated drilling processes numbering in the hundreds of thousands have impacts on air quality including global warming, drinking water and other waters, soils, air quality, and nearby populations.” Drinking water quality would decline. Some may even see their water supply change in color or become flammable. In addition, workers in the industry will first be exposed to these adverse effects. Serious worker exposures may cause many deadly diseases such as silicosis. In a health impact assessment for hydraulic fracturing study done in Colorado, several health threats were identified. Hence, anti-development upstate stakeholders will not allow such a process to take place in their counties. They will certainly not allow it because the drilling process is unregulated.

Supporters of hydraulic fracturing insist that drilling for natural gas would have more pros than cons. They believe that with better regulation, hydrofracking would boost the economy for the long run. They also believe that the adverse health effects would be monitored to be little to none. But despite EPA’s strengthening of the right-to-know provision for chemicals used by drilling companies, there is still company censorship of toxins released into the environment. This makes anti-development upstate stakeholders further doubt any good land acquisition for watersheds would do.

Source:

Wall Street Journal. “Experts’ review of NY fracking soon to be complete – WSJ.com.” Business News & Financial News – The Wall Street Journal – Wsj.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://online.wsj.com/article/AP0708f481ec2844cca10389aca8a10053.html>.

This article supports the group of anti-development Upstate stakeholders by discussing the effects of the natural gas drilling occurring in Pennsylvania on the countryside. The Marcellus shale is a rock formation of 95,000 square-miles that extends from West Virginia to New York. This formation contains large amounts of natural gas which can be obtained by a hydraulic fracturing process. Since the affected areas in Pennsylvania are located on the same rock formation as Upstate New York, similar conclusions can be drawn from the effects of the hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania. The natural gas drilling has caused a decrease in property values and in the beauty of the surrounding natural environment.

The Hallowich family, who own 10 acres of farmland in a drilling area of Pennsylvania have witnessed the degradation of their surrounding environment and a decrease in their property value due to the fracking in their area. The onset of drilling near their home brought “a gas processing plant, a compressor station, buried pipelines, a three-acre plastic-lined holding pond, and a gravel road with heavy truck traffic,” clearly ruining the natural surrounding landscape they once enjoyed. Along with the eyesore of industrial equipment, loud noises from the traffic and operations interrupted the Hallowich’s lives. Also, since many residents extract their drinking water from shallow pumps, there is a danger of water contamination from the fracking fluids. While these fluids are usually contained, “at least 130 cases documented since 2008 by the DEP, drilling waste-water has spilled into creeks and tributaries due to holding pond overflows, pump failures, and other errors,” proving that there is a chance for dangerous fluids to enter nearby waterways and contaminate resident drinking water pumps. The Hallowich family also complained about a bad smell and dangerous gasses coming to their house through the air and causing burning throats and eyes. All of these disturbances have lowered the property value of their land, with a real estate agent pricing it at $200,000, though the Hallowichs are looking to sell for $500,000.

The problems faces by residents in Pennsylvania on the same Marcellus shale formation can be viewed as a cautionary tale to what could happen to residents of Upstate New York. For these reasons natural gas hydraulic fracking should not be developed in Upstate New York. The industrial compounds will ruin the beauty of the surrounding nature by taking up a lot of space and introducing new roads with high traffic. The danger of the fluids polluting the air and waterways is also an issue which would contribute to the decrease in property value and would have a very adverse effect on property owners in the area.

Works Cited:

Lavelle, Marianne. “A Dream Dashed by the Rush on Gas.” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 17 Oct. 2010. Web. 02 Dec. 2012. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101022-energy-marcellus-shale-gas-environment/>.

ANTI-DEVELOPMENT UPSTATE STAKEHOLDERS

The New York City Watershed Economic Impact Assessment Report. Rep. N.p., May 2009. Web. <http://dcecodev.com/documents/NYCWatershedImpactStudy-FinalReport.pdf>.

PG 39-47

Upstate New York counties have a relatively higher employment rate than NYC. Most of this employment is proprietorship. However, high proprietorship also indicates that the region “does not offer enough viable employment opportunities, which forces people to create their own businesses.  Delaware County’s unusually high proprietary employment rates when coupled with lower income rates indicate that the county’s job opportunities may be low. This could also be the result of the given nature of a rural county that is highly reliant on natural resources and agriculture.  This may be the case in Delaware County as both the natural resource and agriculture sectors have a disposition toward proprietorships and lower earnings.”

Many of the small businesses are doing well, however they heavily rely on natural resources for their business and are vulnerable to new environmental changes like the land acquisition by NYC for water filtration.

The infrastructure supporting agriculture has declined significantly over the past few decades and will continue to decline. Agriculture is a demanding industry that is labor intensive and requires high capital investments.  It remains a high risk for personal and financial safety. For these reasons the average age of farmer’s increases as young adults, who are willing to become farmers, do not take on the line of work because of all the burdens.

NYC’s plans for upstate watershed land acquisition have increased the demand for land. Not only does this increase the price for land, it also limits farmers from purchasing land for their agricultural business. Due to these reasons, agriculture has been decreasing in the upstate region. It is traditional for farmers to own the land they farm on in order to stay in business. Without the ability to own land, young farmers are leaving upstate NY county areas in search of cheaper and readily available land in areas like Pennsylvania. Farmers in these areas have expressed their concerns about the agricultural situation as they have had friends and family leave the County to farm elsewhere in recent years.

Manufacturing in the Delaware County is the largest economic sector in the area. It has remained relatively stable however recent flooding from NYC’s water filtration systems “has increased concerns about the sector’s concentrated nature and the potential disruption to the economy.” The most recent data on increases in unemployment has shown that the majority of job loss has occurred in this sector. “While the sector is the economy’s largest generator of jobs, it also faces some of the greatest challenges in terms of growing global competition. The general lack of diversity within the sector itself is another cause for concern as the sector has a small number of large enterprises, any one of which could create considerable local disruption if it were to encounter further difficulties or reduced profitability.”

In recent years, hydro-fracking has become an extremely important issue amongst leading conservationists, especially in the Northeastern United States, also known as the Marcellus Shale. In deciding whether or not to lease their land for hydro-fracking, stakeholders must consider the benefits associated with this method. When it comes to producing domestic energy sources, the potential for hydro-fracking in the U.S is astronomical; the amount of energy produced domestically currently pales in comparison to the potential output of hydro-fracking. The future of hydro-fracking is looking bright, as current resources seem to be diminishing each day. To meet the growing demand for energy, safer and green-er methods of fracking seem to be paving the way the future. However, fracking has a bad reputation amongst most conservationists, and furthermore, in order to change their opinions regarding hydro-fracking, authorities must look for ways to make it safer and more regulated.
As contemporary society continues to create and innovate, the need for energy resources gros exponentially every day. Most of the natural gas that could potentially be accessed by hydro-fracking is largely un-tapped and in great abundance. Numerous reports have come out noting that the amount of recoverable oil and natural gas have soared over the years; the EPA reported that from 2010-2011, global natural gas supplies rose by 40%. And, if the government allows fracking on a federal level, the number of recoverable oil will grow dramatically. Coupled with the benefits of harvesting the oil itself, are the economic benefits. Thousands upon thousands of potential high-paying jobs could be created, at a time when gas prices continue to rise.
An over-zealous campaign against hydro-fracking is taking a serious toll on fracking’s credibility and popularity. Films such as HBO’s Gasland depict hydro-fracking as life threatening and ecologically detrimental. The narrator frightens viewers with tales of flammable faucet water and over exaggerated claims of water and chemicals being shot 8,000 feet into the ground. In reality, hydro-fracking creates small fissures in the ground (roughly 1mm thick) as a result of carefully engineered electric pulses. The film also claims that a mixture of 596 harmful chemicals is mixed with water, when truthfully 99.5% of the mixture itself is water and sand. That .05% largely consists of commonly used chemicals such as guar gum, an emulsifier used in ice cream. Generally, opposition to hydro-fracking stems from the notion that hydro-fracking can lead to contaminated drinking water, groundwater depletion, toxic air pollution, radiation, etc. However, with the exception of groundwater depletion, many of these findings have not been demonstrated and no correlation exists.

Fracking currently takes place in much of the American South, Midwest, and parts of the Northeast; however, states like New York have barred hydro-fracking, for now. The benefits of hydraulic fracturing certainly outweigh the cons as our society continues to grow. Kathleen White’s article sheds light on a highly debated topic and offers the truths about a potential booming industry.

Source: “The Fracas about Fracking.” National Review; 6/20/2011, Vol. 63 Issue 11, p38-41.

Upstate New Yorkers should have the right to use the natural resources they have for economic development. Hydraulic fracturing is one way they can do this.

Hydraulic fracturing, or hydro-fracking, is a process that extracts natural gas from shale formations. Water mixed with sand and a small amount of chemicals is pumped into the shale formation. The pressure from pumping this mixture into the shale formation creates fractures. These fractures allow for the release of natural gas from the shale formation. This natural gas can provide an economic boost to the regions where it can be obtained through this process.

In regions with shale formations, hydraulic fracturing can be extremely beneficial to the economy. Natural gas is very valuable and our country currently imports much of its gas from other countries. Utilizing the natural gas that exists in our own shale formations would allow the communities of Upstate New York and other regions with shale formations to grow and develop. These regions could profit from fulfilling the country’s energy needs instead of allowing those profits to go to another country.

Upstate New York is located on the Marcellus Shale, which could boost the economy of the region, creating jobs and making it a valuable source of energy for the country. It has been estimated that the value of the natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could be up to two trillion dollars. That would greatly help development of this region that needs it.

There are environmental concerns regarding hydraulic fracturing. The chemicals used in the process may be harmful and there is a risk that they may contaminate the water supply. However, these risks can be minimized and the benefits are so great that a large number of people support hydraulic fracturing. One of the biggest problems with hydraulic fracturing in the past was a lack of regulation. Hydraulic fracturing companies failed to follow regulations such as Safe Drinking Water Act and they were able to get away with it. As a result, in certain places where hydraulic fracturing was taking place, the water was contaminated and it was unsafe for people living there to drink water from their sinks.

These types of environmental issues have given hydraulic fracturing a bad reputation. This has led many people to support a ban on hydraulic fracturing. Banning hydraulic fracturing would mean missing out on an economic opportunity that could greatly benefit region Upstate New York. Of course, allowing hydraulic fracturing to harm the region in an attempt to improve the economy would be counterproductive and would hurt development of the region. Therefore, the best solution is to allow hydraulic fracturing with proper regulation.

With proper regulation, hydraulic fracturing could help development without being as harmful to the environment. Technology has advanced so there are now greener fracking fluids. Proper design and management of hydraulic fracturing methods could minimize the risks while allowing the benefits.

Jenkins, H. W., & Jr. (2010, Oct 06). Americans (sort of) fracking. Wall Street Journal, pp. A.19.

Drinking water is essential to everyday life and New York City is facing a critical dilemma of increasing costs in their lifestyle to maintain safe drinking water. New York City has been known for the safety and quality of its drinking water.To maintain this consistency of water, New York City may have to pay a large sum of money totally up to billions of dollars for a filtration plant. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed that New York City plan for a construction of a filtration plant for its Catskill and Delaware water supply, which has been estimated to surpass the city’s annual budget. This would have a large affect on Downtown stakeholders as they are the ones receiving the water supply. There is a large chance that Downtown stakeholders will have to shoulder the costs of the construction of this filtration plant, which is a heavy burden as most of these stakeholders are of low income.

New York City has entered a deal with the Environmental Protection Agency to avoid building a filtration plant. In exchange for not having to building a costly filtration plant, New York City must take measures to safeguard the water supply to ensure its safety and quality. Actions the city had to take involved updating its sewage plants with new equipment and buying land around reservoirs to prevent development that may lead to chemical runoff. So far, “the city bought 20,000 acres around city reservoirs, which includes 5,400 acres around the West Branch Reservoir-a crucial reservoir of the Catskills.” The city also “upgraded six city-owned sewage plants that produce 40 percent of the total discharge into the Catskill reservoirs.”

Although New York City did well in some areas, there were areas that lacked in comparison. To continue avoiding the construction of the filtration plant, New York City must work harder and faster on protecting their upstate reservoirs. These reservoirs are our main source of drinking water supply and by protecting them we are not only ensuring the quality and safety of the city’s water, but also avoiding construction of a filtration plant that would be out of the city’s budget. Upholding their end of the deal, New York City will not have to build a costly plant that Downtown stakeholders will most likely bear the costs of.

Source: Hu, Winnie. “U.S. Says New York City May Have to Spend $6 Billion on Filtration.” New York Times 1 June 2000, sec. B: 1. Print.

Government agencies are all primarily concerned with keeping the New York City water supply system safe for everyone as well as compiling with the SWTR. In order to maintain the water quality, government agencies can either ensure the quality of unfiltered water to satisfy the provisions of the SWTR for unfiltered water, or filter the water if the quality drops. The cost of constructing a filtration facility would be $6-8 billion and would cost $500 million annually to operate. This is extremely costly, and government agencies would be in favor of the most cost-effective solution, which would to continue to allow water to flow into New York City unfiltered. The City regularly issues reports on the DEP’s source water protection programs established to maintain the Filtration Determination Avoidance for the Catskills and Delaware portion of the NYC water supply. The Filtration Avoidance Annual Report for 2011 and well as other reports show why it is unnecessary for the NYC water supply to be filtered.

New York City first applied a waiver from the filtration requirements of the Surface Water Treatment rule in 1991 for the Catskill/Delaware system. Since then, the DEP has spent more the $1.5 billion to maintain the quality of the source waters of the Catskills and Delaware watersheds. The DEP’s source water protection program is based on research done by DEP scientists about existing and potential sources of water contamination. SWTR monitoring includes monitoring raw water for fecal coliform concentrations, turbidity, disinfection values, entry point monitoring for chlorine residuals, distribution monitoring for chlorine residuals, coliform bacteria levels, trihalomethanes, and haloaceitc acids. The percentage of positive raw water fecal samples was below the maximum percentage allowed by the SWTR. During 2011, there was only one occasion when the raw water turbidity level was greater than 5 NTU, at 5.1 NTU, but the regulatory limit is 5.4 NTU, so the water was still safe. All chlorine residuals were detectable in the 15,020 samples collected, and all of the other monitoring samples complied with the standard set by the SWTR.  Since the City is able to meet the Filtration Avoidance criteria and has also laid out a plan for the DEP’s proposed source water protection program activities for 2012 to 2017 as well as a Long-Term Watershed Protection Plan, it is unnecessary for New York City to filter it’s water. It is much more cost-effective to leave the water unfiltered.

Source:

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. March 2012. Filtration Avoidance Annual Report for the Period January 1 through December 31, 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/2011_bws_fad_annual.pdf>.

Currently, about 90% of New York City’s drinking water comes from the Catskill-Delaware watershed system west of the Hudson River. The area encompasses most of the Catskill Mountains, a rural area of farms, forests, small towns and a growing number of vacation home developments. Unlike most other major metropolitan cities with surface water systems, until the last quarter of the 20^th century, New York had been able to avoid the enormous expense of building filtration works to treat and purify its drinking water.

In the recent decades, the Catskill-Delaware area has become much more developed and agriculture-heavy, which has been negatively impacting the watershed system that Upstate and Downstate stakeholders relied on. The City decided that instead of paying to clean up the results of polluting and degrading the pure water producing Catskill watershed, it would pay to protect the rural Catskill environment that was providing it with the world’s best urban drinking water. It wanted to continue to use the ecosystem services that the Catskills provided and preserve them so that it would not have to spend billions on a filtration plant.

Ecosystem services not only produce superior environmental and social results, it produces them far more cheaply than traditional environmental strategies. Therefore, investing in the City’s watershed environment, both its natural and human resources, was the best way to insure the City a long-term source of pure drinking water. Ecosystem services are potential profit centers, not cost centers, so the protection of these services is environmentally and financially beneficial for Upstate and Downstate New Yorkers. It is clearly observed and calculated that the cost of creating a filtration plant and maintaining it would cost the city billions of dollars, while protecting land and using it for its ecosystem services costs much less and results in a higher water quality for all.

If existing institutional structures and existing patterns of environmental regulation and investment do not allow for those environmental benefits to be obtained, those economic profits to be realized, then we need to create new ones, using the political capital that getting something better for less always creates. This entire watershed system that New York has in place shows the value of identifying and targeting a high level of ecosystem services, since the higher the level of service the level of economic benefit. It is clear that maintaining the current system of New York’s watershed program is beneficial for both Upstate and Downstate stakeholders since it provides everyone with clean drinking water while minimizing expenses.

Source: Appleton, Albert F. “How New York City Used an Ecosystem Services Strategy Carried out Through an Urban-Rural Partnership to Preserve the Pristine Quality of Its Drinking Water and Save Billions of Dollars and What Lessons It Teaches about Using Ecosystem Services.” (2002): n.pag. Web. 2 Dec 2012. <http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/8095.pdf>.

From a Natural Gas Company Point of View:

The changes implemented from the Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) can greatly limit the growth of the natural gas industry. Hydraulic fracturing has widely been known to be a method to efficiently stimulate oil and gas production. Over the years, hydraulic fracturing has expanded and kept up with the demand for energy. While we do understand that people may be concern about fracturing causing contamination, there has been little evidence that fracturing actually contaminates water supplies.

There have been many published studies and agency investigations that have reported that there is no direct connection between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. Cases where hydraulic fracturing was involved with contamination often had gas migration that was caused by improperly cased and cemented wells, or excessive pressure from the outside. For example, in Pennsylvania, contamination was caused by methane that had migrated to the water wells that were improperly cased and cemented. There were similar incidents in other areas too. In other words, many groundwater contamination incidents were caused by poor well construction or surface activities rather than a specific hydraulic fracturing process.

In addition, there have been many people who stated that additional regulation is unnecessary. Many state agencies argue against additional regulation because hydraulic fracturing has a long successful history in developing oil and gas resources. Our industry representatives have also stated that additional regulation on fracturing would likely slow domestic gas development and increase energy prices. For these reasons, regulation could cause additional and unnecessary problems.

Since the FAD limits us from performing hydraulic fracturing near the watershed areas, we are forced to choose other areas to perform this task. There is currently no evidence that hydraulic fracturing cause contamination in water supplies. We strongly encourage the EPA and the city to rethink about this requirement.

Source of Information:

Tiemann, Mary. Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues. Washington, D.C.. UNT Digital Library. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc83959/. Accessed December 2, 2012.

As a downstate stakeholder, maintaining a safe drinking water quality is important. The water supply upstate not only is a vital resource for billions of people, but also is a defining marker of New York City. The proposed water filtration plant to ensure a clean supply is a solution; however, it is extremely costly to build and maintain and is a cost that a percentage of New York City residents cannot afford. Land acquisition is the far better option. Acquiring land is much less expensive at an estimate cost at $500 million, with the majority of the money going towards purchasing “undeveloped and sensitive land” near the water supply. On the other hand, building a filtration plant costs between $3-8 billions dollars and requires additional taxes to pay for it. Acquiring land is a very cost effective way to protect the water quality.

According to the study conducted by Mehaffey, Nash, Wade, et al., different land uses affect the water quality. This was done by looking at areas with different land covers and measuring the change in land cover and comparing it to change in total phosphorus, total nitrogen and fecal bacteria levels in six watersheds that feed the New York City population. The study concluded that agricultural land use was the major contributor to total nitrogen and total phosphorus in the streams as a result of runoff from erosion. On the other hand it does not have too much influence on fecal coliform bacteria trends, which if consumed by humans, can make them sick. Urban land use also has negatively influences water quality through pollutant runoff to streams and reservoirs. Areas with barely any change in human land use or forest cover have shown to have almost no change in nutrient concentrations. This shows that preventing further human development through land acquisition would protect the water quality.

Acquiring the land would also have other added benefits of protecting the environment, a and adding green space. Conservation practices can help protect hundreds of stream miles and preserve thousands of acres of natural land. Though New York City is far from this area, it can make a great impact on the environment of this area. New York City has been working on becoming more green recently and though the results cannot be seen directly by New York City residents, New York City would be consistent in its efforts. Acquiring land near the watershed would not only benefit the humans who drink the water, but also the natural environment where the watershed is located.

Mehaffey, M. H., M. S. Nash, T. G. Wade, D. W. Ebert, K. B. Jones, and A. Rager. “Linking Land Cover and Water Quality in New York City’s Water Supply Watersheds.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 107.1-3 (2005): 29-44.

Safe water is undoubtedly the greatest necessity to humans, yet 1.1 billion out of the 7 billion in the world don’t have that. There are approximately 2.2 million deaths due to water borne diseases and hazardous sanitation issues. There is indeed a problem, but rather then continuing on there are multiple ways to treat contaminated water from the past, resulting in enhanced health of people along with an increase in development and productivity.

Water Supply and Sanitation has cost the U.S upwards of a $100 billion dollars, in the past but has often left us with disappointing results. In this commentary, Not Just a Drop in the Bucket, the authors identify two different low cost decentralized methods to clean up our water supply: Point of use chemical disinfection, point of use solar disinfection.

In areas where the water sources are already polluted and there is no function water treatment system, ultimately the responsibility goes to the people living around there because they are most at risk. The most obvious and practical way people think to decontaminate water is by boiling however there is “no residual protection” and rather impractical in terms of, one can’t exactly boil an entire river. However, the other method is to use “safe and inexpensive chemical disinfectants.” For instance, sodium hypocholorite has shown to be the most effective of all chemicals, and it is a simple agent found in most commercial laundry bleach solutions. Using a dilute version of this chemical has been used in the based and has “reduced diarrheal illness by up to 85%, from contaminated water,” and most importantly has helped those to quickly get safe drinking water who have been displaced by a natural disaster. The con is that the water is left tasting a bit bitter, especially water that has major sewage contamination, but this method does protect the water from the residual effect and is also cheap in cost.

Solar radiation is already harnessed for many other circumstances, and the authors of this commentary say it can also be used for water disinfection. This method is achieved by the use of “clear plastic soda bottles or bags,” whose ends are painted black, and are used because they contain a substance that automatically allows them to harness and transfer Ultraviolet light as well as their low cost. This method is most effective with turbidity greater than 30, and water temperature greater than 45 degrees Celsius. Solar radiation has proved to inactivate the pathogens of the water and is already used in many developing countries. Originally initiated and researched by called SODIS, a solar water disinfection project initiated by the Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (SANDEC), this has been heavily implemented in Kenya with results being positive. This method is cost-effective, safe and it leaves the taste of the water unchanged.

In general these are two different methods to consider when thinking about cleaning up water. Rather than spending billions of dollars on projects that may or may not work, to immeaditely fix the problem there are many options and should be implemented in the extremely contaminated water ways.

Eric Mintz, Jamie Bartram, Peter Lochery, and Martin Wegelin.  Not Just a Drop in the Bucket: Expanding Access to Point-of-Use Water Treatment Systems. American Journal of Public Health: October 2001, Vol. 91, No. 10, pp. 1565-1570.

Source:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005794

Glass GE, Gardner-Santana LC, Holt RD, Chen J, Shields TM, et al. (2009) Trophic Garnishes: Cat–Rat Interactions in an Urban Environment. PLoS ONE 4(6): e5794. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005794

This article questioned the potential negative impacts of decreasing predator species and the resulting effects this decline could have on an ecosystem, including on prey inter-specie disease and the resulting impact this could have on humans. The focus of this study was on cats and rats in the urban environment of Baltimore, Maryland.  The study was specifically concerned with the ratio of cats to rats in the urban environment of an alley. The experimenters seemed to first have hypothesized that the number of predators and prey were directly correlated. To determine if this actually were the case, experimenters manipulated the rat populations in an urban alley, in which they trapped and took away rats twice, once a year for two years. They wanted to examine the relationship between the numbers of predating creatures to the number of prey creatures, and ultimately observed that although the decrease in rats temporarily decreased the rat population, it had “no negative long-term impact on the size of the rat population” and “the sizes of the cat population during the two years were also unaffected by rat population perturbations.” This observation suggests that the rat population is not necessarily immediately impacted by predators.  This study assesses the potential benefits, or lack there of, that would result from an introduction of  predators to stabilize and control the rat population over a long-term span of time. According to this study, this does not seem to be  the best solution to excessive rat populations in an urban environment since the “structure” and not the “abundance” of rats were significantly impacted by the larger predation population in comparison to the prey population. These results lead me to question what solutions we can implement in our urban environment in New York City, where rats are cohabiting, to an extent,with humans. The “long-term goal” of this study was to ultimately examine the link between predation and prey and the resulting impacts on urban ecological systems and the spread of diseases should the prey population increase as a result. This is particularly relevant to NYC where so many people are in contact with rats. If we were to introduce, or increase, the number of rat predators to the city we would have to ensure this predator would indeed use this rat as part of a daily diet and that it would not just change the structure but rather have long-term impacts on the abundance of the rat population since this study suggests otherwise. To fully accept this study’s results it would be beneficial to conduct similar experiments or to read more experiments with a similar focus.

As a proponent of hydraulic fracturing, my concerns are with the proposed changes to the Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) condition of 1993. I fear that the proposed changes will hinder the hydraulic fracturing industry. Many opponents to hydraulic fracturing base their concerns in the perceived environmental harms. However, progress reports and several studies have proved that hydraulic fracturing has not harmed water supplies as they are thought to do.

According to a study by Samuel C. Schon, published in the Proceedings of the NAtional Academy of Sciences of the United Sates of America, many of the studies done to evaluate the chemical effects of hydraulic fracturing on nearby water supplies are conducted without full disclosure of their sample selection methods and are not a purely random sample of water samples. Schon evaluated the Osborn et al. study done in 2011 and states that the study presents “interpretations without baseline (predrill) data for comparison and without explaining any selection criteria for the small nonrandom sample (n=68) used in the study” (Schon). Schon’s reasoning demonstrates the bias and misconstruction of information regarding hydraulic fracturing on the water supply.

Based on Schon’s research, there is no reason to fear that hydraulic fracturing is contaminating the water supply, neither in terms of the hydraulic fracturing fluids used nor the natural gas released in the process. Methane and natural gas levels have maintained consistent both before and during hydraulic fracturing in local wells. Furthermore, the fracturing is conducted far below the ground, away from watersheds. Overall, hydraulic fracturing has been extremely safe and not imposed any heath risks on people drinking the water from nearby water sources.

The new proposed regulations would greatly restrict hydraulic fracturing efforts in the New York State area, despite the fact that the process has no extreme negative effects on the water supply. By imposing more restrictions on hydraulic fracturing, such as imposing a substantial border around watersheds where hydraulic fracturing cannot take place, the industry would have more difficulty finding already limited natural gas, which our country is running low on. We are not imposing a threat on the environment, but instead helping the society economically, and ask that our requests be accommodated.

Source:

Schon, Samuel C. “Hydraulic Fracturing Not Responsible for Methane Migration.”Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. N.p., 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174578/>.

Upstate New York residents should be allowed to do what they want with the land they own. Because upstate New York does not have the strongest economy, landowners should be able to lease their land for companies to perform fracking operations. Upstate New Yorkers will benefit from fracking.

Fracking will improve the United States economy. Fracking will provide the United States with so much natural gas that the U.S. will be the largest natural gas producer by 2017, which it can then export to other countries. In addition, President Obama said in his state of the union speech that fracking would provide 600,000 jobs nationwide. Some of these jobs will come in Upstate New York, a region that is economically depressed and could use this stimulus.

Fracking will replace coal as an energy source, which will benefit the environment. Replacing coal with natural gas will cut down greenhouse gases emissions from electric generation by 45 percent according to the International Energy Agency.

Finally, fracking will cut down the US reliance on the Middle East for sources of energy. Since the U.S. will have so much natural gas, it will not need as much oil from Middle Eastern countries. This could prove crucial if tensions between the U.S. and the Middle East escalate.

The benefits for Upstate New Yorkers from fracking are clear. The fracking industry will bring economic stimulus to a region that desperately needs it. In addition, fracking will help the environment as well as the whole country in economic and political terms. Upstate New Yorkers should be allowed to develop their land as they want.

Pierce, Richard J., Natural Gas Fracking Addresses All of Our Major Problems (2012). Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, May 2013; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-128; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2012-128. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2172441

When considering whether or not to lease upstate land for hydro-fracking, stakeholders need to see the benefits of the method in order to allow such use of their land. Although some individuals have environmental issues concerning the idea, the amount we can benefit from hydro-fracking is phenomenal. The industry has the potential to make the U.S. self-sufficient when it comes to energy sources.

The first case for hydro-fracking regards the constant need we have for sources of energy. The sources of natural gas accessed by hydro-fracking are a largely untapped well of such energy. As time goes on, we require more and more energy to be productive and live our lives. According to the article, sources of fuels already being used will diminish in the coming decades while the demand for these resources will increase. Experts say that renewable resources are years away from perfection so we need some sort of energy source to get us over until then. It is only logical that new sources of energy must be employed to meet this rising demand. Hydro-fracking sources are good providers of such energy. The International Energy Agency (IEA) calculates that the total recoverable resources of conventional gas are about 400 trillion cubic meters. This would be equivalent of 120 years of a steady source of energy.

There are a lot of reports that state the dangers of hydro-fracking to the surrounding communities. This article puts some of these claims to rest. For example, people had fears that earthquakes caused by the process could cause massive damage. Experts say that the strongest tremors caused by hydro-fracking (the UK is being used as the example) only measured around 2.4 magnitude and did not cause any structural damage to buildings in the area. The strength of possible earthquakes all has to do with the strength of the rock below the earth’s surface. As long as fracking companies use discretion and responsible testing, large-scale earthquakes should not occur. The key to keeping hydro-fracking as safe as possible is the precautions and care by the people doing it. As stakeholders in the land to be used for hydro-fracking, precautions can be made to only employ firms with a proven track record in safety. The article also suggested that chemicals contaminating water is an issue that might be overplayed. It says that the amount of chemicals leaked is only a few liters in a million. More contaminants are introduced by other factors at the surface than by hydro-fracking down below.

Overall, this article served as a source that stated the various benefits to be had from hydro-fracking as well as putting to rest a lot of claims that hydro-fracking does more damage than good. For an pro-development upstate stakeholder, this serves as a good example of why they should go through with allowing hydro-fracking to take place on their land.

Source: “On Shaky Ground.” Geographical (Geographical Magazine Ltd.) 84.4 (2012): 32-39.

As an upstate stakeholder, my primary concerns lie in the nature of our precious watershed communities and the impact that development would have on our property value. Development, such as that involved in building a water filtration plant or that necessary to carry out hydraulic fracking, inevitably comes with detrimental impacts to nature which results in declining property value. It is therefore essential that we prevent such plans from being further developed and ultimately executed. Due to the impacts development has on nature and the community, property values are in turn negatively impacted.
According to a study by Dr. Mark Broomfield for the “European Commission DG Environment,” the cumulative impacts of one type of development that is in question for upstate New York (fracking) have the potential of being detrimental. The “risk assessment” for fracking in Europe, as conducted by Broomfield, demonstrates the potential for negative impacts on the surrounding environment. Although a few of the impacts were only considered to be of “moderate” risk when measured in individual sites, the “high” level of noise and traffic that could accompany the type of development in question in NY can accumulate to “highly” impact such aspects of nature as biodiversity and water quality that were considered in Broomfield’s study (Broomfield).  When discussing the noise pollution that accompanies development, for example, Broomfield addressed the continuous 24 hr/day nature of this type of development that could impact nearby environments. The negative effects of the excessive noise,traffic and pollution will extend to impact both our natural world as well as the surrounding property, the value of which is often dependent on the presence and quality of natural space.
Development’s impact on nature extends beyond impacting the immediate animals and wildlife that reside in the watershed communities where the development would hypothetically take place to directly impacting the value of the upstate property that is in question. Development such as that concerning fracking is particularly detrimental for homeowners in search of a mortgage loan,for example. If homeowners have given leases for this type of development, the future property value is in question since the lease remains, regardless of whom the house owner is. Freddie Mac’s manual, as cited by the “Tompkins County Council of Governments,” says that “surface or sub surface rights within 200 feet of a residential structure would not be acceptable for conventional financing in the secondary market,” illustrating the detrimental impact development has on nearby lying property.

Sources:
Broomfield, Mark. “Support to the Identification of Potential Risks for the Environment and Human Health Arising from Hydrocarbons Operations Involving Hydraulic Fracturing in Europe.” European Commission DG Environment 17 (2012): Web. 1 Dec. 2012.

501c (3) nonprofit advocating for the Catskills: “Catskill Mountainkeeper.” Catskill Mountainkeeper. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2012. <http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/our-programs/fracking/whats-wrong-with-fracking-2/mortgage-problems/>.

Retrieved from cornell.edu: Gas and Oil Leases Impact on Residential Lending, by Greg May, VP – Residential Mortgage Lending Tompkins Trust Company, March 24, 2011. Tompkins County Council of Governments.

New York City’s water supply is responsible daily to more than eight million residents of New York City, millions other tourists, as well as another substantial volume of water for residents in Westchester, Putnam, Ulster, and Orange Counties. In order to ensure safe drinking water for New York City, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came up with a series of measures in order to limit the amount of contaminants in public water supply.

Its first measure is to implement Source Water Assessment Programs (SWAP) that comprise a series of assessment of the water and informing the public and authority of imminent contaminant for “additional precautionary measures.” According to the latest New York City Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report, New York City is still maintaining its 10-year Filtration Avoidance Determination Program, issued by the EPA. Furthermore, New York City is working toward enhancing watershed protection programs, combining with new agreement to acquire underdeveloped land in the Catskill/Delaware watershed. In accordance to this, the interest of the upstate stakeholder group is upheld, despite reallocation of the watershed residents with adequate compensation. Moreover, the interest of New York City is also upheld, as evident in the implementation of SWAP that will ensure minimum contamination of the drinking water for the residents.

As part of another more proactive measure by New York City, the Croton Water Filtration plant is being built downstream of the supply of water with comprehensive watershed protection program just like the one in Catskill/Delaware, ensuring to reduce the risk or microbiological contamination and maintain the standards of New York City’s drinking water. The project began in 2012. In Queens, the city is reactivating the groundwater supply system. Upgrades and repairs are being made to the infrastructure in order to ensure a smooth operation of the additional supply of water to New York City residents.

In conclusion, the Government Agencies stakeholder group is confident about the efficiency of New York State and New York City’s Government’s ways of handling the conflict between the upstream stakeholders and the downstream stakeholders. The authority is operating on a common ground between the two groups, protecting the interest of the residents from the upstream of the water supply by maintaining the 10-year FAD Program, all the while ensuring the health of New York City residents by extensive improvement of assessment programs, building downstream filtration plants like Croton, and enhancing the infrastructure of the New York City’s water supply system in order to make way for new sources of drinking water from groundwater.

Source: “New York City 2011 Drinking Water Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg Supply and Quality Report.” The official New York City Web site. Michael R. Bloomberg & Carter H. Strickland, Jr. Commissioner, n.d. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. <www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/wsstate11.pdf>.

New York City has one of the safest water supplies in the world. Most of New York City’s water supply comes from three watersheds located in upstate New York: the Catskill, Delaware, and Croton watersheds. Before the 1980s, the water supplied from these three watersheds was unfiltered, but with the passing of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) in 1989, the city was required to either filter the water or keep the water unfiltered and demonstrate that it met a series of water quality and operational tests. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD), which would keep the water unfiltered. Under this determination, New York City was required to regulate activities on watershed lands through restrictions and buffer zones. Also, the city was required to create a preliminary design for a filtration plant in case filtration was necessary in the future. This caused a tremendous amount of conflict between competing interests. Since 1995, the alternative to following the strict criteria of the EPA has been to construct a filtration system. However, the estimated cost of this project is $6-8 billion with operating costs of $500 million annually. While the EPA is concerned with the maintenance of water quality by any means necessary, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) is looking for the most cost-effective solution, which would be to keep the water supply unfiltered.

Looking at this scenario from the perspective of a government agency, the solution is clear: New York City’s water should be kept unfiltered. Not only does this save a tremendous amount of money, but it also is effective. The New York City 2011 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report proves this point. According to the report, New York City has one of the safest water supplies in the world and is only one of five cities in the United States not required to filter its surface water. First, the report outlines New York City’s plan under the extended FAD. This plan includes land acquisition, land management, partnership programs, and streams, farms, and forestry programs. New York City has spent over $1.5 billion on watershed protection programs. In fact, $241 million was allocated for acquiring undeveloped lands around the watersheds to protect water quality. Since 1997, the NYCDEP has secured more than 121,000 acres of land around the watersheds. Next, the report discusses the Croton Water Filtration Plant, which is expected to open in late 2012, as well as the Catskill/Delaware Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility. This facility, which is expected to begin operation in 2012, will disinfect water against harmful microorganisms using ultraviolet light. The report then goes on to discuss how New York City’s water is treated using chlorine, which disinfects it, fluoride, which helps prevent tooth decay, phosphoric acid, which reduces the release of metals (such as lead) from pipes, and sodium hydroxide, which raises the pH of the water and reduces corrosivity. Finally, the report ends with water quality testing results from 2011. The results show that every standard was met, except for the pH level, which was slightly high due to increased sodium hydroxide. In addition, there were extremely low levels of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in the water, which are intestinal illnesses. The levels were so low that they required no action by the NYCDEP.

Taking the information from this report into account, it is clear that a filtration system is not needed in New York City. New York City has one of the safest water supplies in the world. Although a filtration plant will ensure continued high water quality, instituting a filtration system will cost billions of dollars, which will put an enormous burden not only on the city, but also on taxpayers. Therefore, the best solution is to keep the water supply unfiltered and to expand on programs that protect watershed areas from pollution and hydrofracking. There is no need to fix something that is not broke.

Source:

New York City 2011 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. Rep. New York City 2011 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. NYC.gov. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.<http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/wsstate.shtml>.