Boondocks No. 68

Monday, May 12, 2008

Today's Stupid Times Union Editorial. They are going off about the fact that you can still buy ammonium nitrate at farm stores for use as a fertilizer:

Ammonium nitrate was the key component used by Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing. He had used 4,800 pounds to build a truck bomb that brought down the nine-story Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. Before the attack, ammonium nitrate was widely sold in farm supply stores for use as fertilizer. Afterward, new controls were put in place to alert authorities to suspicious purchases.

But that precaution is apparently still filled with holes. As recently as 2006, The New York Times revealed how easy it was for six New York City counterterrorism officers to buy enough ammonium nitrate to build a 1.3-ton truck bomb. They purchased some of the material in Schaghticoke, and more in Yardley, Pa., ostensibly for an apple orchard. In Schaghticoke, the officers merely showed their drivers' licenses to make the purchase. It was only later in the day that the sale was reported to federal officials.

"Essentially it showed us that it is still easy to acquire the material needed" to make a bomb, Paul J. Browne, a spokesman for the New York City Police department, told the Times. And now an unhappy high school senior in South Carolina has shown the nation how easy it still is to acquire deadly material.

Since the Oklahoma City bombing, there have been efforts by some states and the Agriculture Department to regulate sales of ammonium nitrate. But they are obviously inadequate. Congress must do more now. It should not take another deadly attack to spur action.

So what? It's a needed farm fertilizer that can be also used to make bombs. We have enough things already tipping government too suspicious activities, why should they be reporting when people are buying reasonable quantities of high nitrogen fertilizer to apply to their crops?

What's next? Special tipping off of government when somebody buys a sports car because they might speed and cause an accident by aggressive driving? Maybe the federal government needs a report to be generated for each Mustang bought and sold with special address info, beyond the normal registration process.

It would make more sense to go after the conditions that create terrorism. How about attacking unhappiness in our country and poverty? How about offering help to people who might otherwise hurt others—for free?

Read Learning nothing in the Times Union. P'Link

Paterson's Protectionism Backfires. Some Apple growers are unhappy with a state program that's supposed to promote local hiring. From the New York Sun:

New York farmers say Governor Paterson's crackdown on foreign farm workers and promotion of domestic labor is backfiring, leaving them with a shortage of hands in the fields that they say will lead to crop losses this harvest season.

Farmers, who have for years relied on seasonal labor mostly from Jamaica and Mexico obtained through federal guest-worker contracts, say the governor's Department of Labor has disrupted their supply chain in an effort to force them to hire less experienced domestic workers from Puerto Rico and other areas.

The farmers, predominantly apple growers, say they fear the labor department won't be able to replace the H-2A foreign workers with enough people who have the skills and who are willing to harvest the fruit all season long. They are predicting that their fruit will rot on the trees this fall.

Representatives of the farmers say they will press their concerns at a town hall meeting with Mr. Paterson and Senator Schumer scheduled for tomorrow in Batavia.

"No one is saying that the labor department's initiative to source these jobs domestically is not well-intentioned," a spokesman for the New York Farm Bureau, Peter Gregg, said. "However, the problem is that it is just not practical. We can't have a group of workers on our farms who don't know what they're doing. It would be dangerous and also result in major crop losses for our farmers."

Read Paterson's Protectionism Backfires in The New York Sun. P'Link

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

State Considers Requiring Pistol Cameras on Cops Guns. This little device that attaches to the picatinny rail would reduce lingering questions about the judgment calls of officers, keep everybody honest, and best of all, bring lots of business to a Keeseville manufacturing company.

New York state is considering requiring a Keeseville company's digital-video handgun camera be used on all police handguns.

In a flash, a police officer draws a handgun from its holster. Less than two seconds later, a red laser and bright light shine at whatever is in the gun barrel's path while a mini-camera records it all.

That's how mini-cams on police handguns would work under a proposal gaining support in New York, which would be the first state in the nation to require the technology. State police were briefed on the technology and are reviewing it for a possible pilot program, said Michael Balboni, the state's deputy secretary for public safety.

Pistol-Cam is the creation of Legend Technologies, based in Keesville. It is the brainchild of Legend Technologies owner Terry Gordon, who holds six patents on it and similar devices, including SmartScope, a rifle-based digital camera and scope for hunting applications.

The device could create a critical visual and audio record of police shootings for use in court, said state Sen. Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat and former police officer. He is drumming up support for testing the cameras with the state police SWAT squad.

Adams said recordings from the $695 cameras couldn't be altered by a police officer and would quell many questions after controversial police shootings, like the deaths in New York City of Amadou Diallo in 1999 and Sean Bell in 2006.

"That's definitely a new thing," said Meredith Mays of the International Association of Chiefs of Police based in Virginia. She said police have known the technology existed, but no state has required it.

Some police departments have put cameras on Tasers in the last couple years, but there is no major national effort by police to seek or block gun cameras at the federal level, according to the National Association of Police Organizations, a major lobbyist.

The cost of $700 a gun isn't a big thing for municipalities. Police don't buy new guns everyday, and most police departments have far bigger costs then such a simple device. I would be interested to here what the weight and balance impacts of it.

Also, assuming it works. It could break from the repeated impact of the recoil or be accidentally/purposefully detached from picatinny rail in a crisis. The size of it seems like it could also be problematic.

Jacob over at NYSRPA has a video of Eric Adams demonstrating how the pistol camera works:

I think it's something worth some consideration, particularly if it saves lives. We might have a lot better understanding of what happens in crisis situations, and save officer and suspect lives at the same.

Not all police would like having big brother look over their shoulders. But figuring many police cars have GPS on them and the dispatchers already knows where they are at all times, to say nothing of truck drivers, people's privacy at work is already pretty much violated.

We are simply talking about the limited number of firearms that police officers, when on duty carry, as part of their official duties. If they want to carry a regular pistol without the camera off-duty, then so be it. Nobody is suggesting that all pistols and long-guns have cameras on them (although some hunters do use cameras for analysis).

Read State considering requiring Keeseville product be used on police handguns in the Press Republican. P'Link

Farmers Criticize Paterson. They say his labor department is too slow at approving skilled workers for apple farms and the alike.

The H-2A program allows employers to hire foreign workers temporarily if they show that they were not able to find U.S. workers for the jobs.

Paterson said the state's handling of applications is dictated by federal law. His labor commissioner, Patricia Smith, said the Labor Department has been accused of falling short in its efforts to recruit domestic workers.

"We are balancing right now our legal requirements imposed upon us by the federal government with your needs to get as much labor as possible," she told farmers.

Farmers said they doubt the new hires will possess the experience, skill and reliability of longtime workers from places like Jamaica and Mexico, and fear their crops and business will suffer.

"We advertise for workers who can drive tractors and work in other areas of harvesting and during the year, trimming trees and that sort of thing," said Behling, who grows about 200 acres of apples. "It's like they're pushing people onto us that are perhaps not qualified. Are they qualified to drive a tractor?"

Paterson said he would look to find a compromise in the federal farm agriculture bill. In the meantime, Smith said she will work with labor officials in Puerto Rico to enlist more qualified workers.

Read N.Y. farmers fear a shortage of skilled workers in the Press Republican. P'Link

Spitzer, Paterson Pose. This picture painted on a barn is posed in front by Paterson and Spitzer. Yes, that's our governor and our Senator.

From the Press Republican:

P'Link

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Congresswoman Gillibrand Announces Support for Farm Bill. From the Press Release:

Today, local Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, a Member of the House Agriculture Committee, announced that the new Farm Bill will be the best yet for New York farmers. Later today, the House is expected to pass the measure with bi-partisan support.

“When I came to Congress last year, one of my top goals was to help strengthen the rural economy of Upstate New York,” said Congresswoman Gillibrand. “This Farm Bill will help our local economy through strengthening the safety net for dairy farmers, encouraging industry to save money by buying locally, increasing conservation funding by $4 billion - including the creation of an organic transition program – and creating a program to provide more public land for hunting, fishing and recreation.”

Congresswoman Gillibrand’s most significant accomplishment was succeeding in increasing the MILC payment limit from 35% to 45% and increasing the size of herds covered from 120 cows to about 165 cows. Both provisions were main components in the first bill the Congresswoman ever introduced, the American Dairy Farmer Protection Act.

Read Congresswoman Gillibrand Announces Support for Farm Bill. P'Link

DEC Announces Regulations To Ban All Backyard Burning. They are proposing a comprehensive ban on all burning of anything from brush to trash to many agricultural wastes with a few very narrow exceptions.

Here is the brief DEC description of the proposal:

Currently, the burning of all residential wastes is banned in any city or village; or in any town with a total town population, including incorporated or unincorporated areas, of greater than 20,000. The Department of Environmental Conservation is proposing to strengthen the rule to reduce the impacts of pollutants such as dioxins, particulate matter and carbon monoxide. A strengthened ban will have the additional benefit of reducing forest fires and the impacts from them. The proposed rule change would extend the ban to all open burning statewide, including those towns with populations under 20,000 residents.

Here is the in-depth regulatory change:

Express Terms 6 NYCRR Parts 215, 191 and 621

Existing Part 215 is repealed.

A new Part 215 is added as follows:

215.1 Definitions

215.2 Prohibitions

215.3 Exceptions and restricted burning

Section 215.1 Definitions.

(a) Open Fire - Any outdoor fire or outdoor smoke producing process from which air contaminants are emitted directly into the outdoor atmosphere. Open fires include burning in barrels or modifications thereof. Open fires do not include burning in outdoor furnaces or boilers that are used to heat buildings when the devices are actually used for such purpose.

(b) Agricultural Land - The land and on-farm buildings , equipment, manure processing and handling facilities, and practices that contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products as a commercial enterprise, including a 'commercial horse boarding operation' and 'timber processing'. Such farm operation may consist of one or more parcels of owned or rented land, which parcels may be contiguous or noncontiguous to each other.

c) Camp Fire - any outdoor open fire less than three feet in height, length and width or diameter.

d) Agricultural Waste - Any waste from naturally grown products such as vines, trees and branches from orchards, leaves and stubble. Agricultural waste does not include pesticide containers, fertilizer bags, large plastic storage bags (including bags commonly known as "Ag bags"), offal, tires, plastic grain bags, and other plastic or synthetic materials.

e) Acquired Structure - A structure donated or loaned from a property owner for the purpose of conducting fire training.

Section 215.2 Prohibitions.

Except as permitted by section 215.3 of this Part, no person shall burn, cause, suffer, allow or permit the burning of any materials in an open fire.

Section 215.3 Exceptions and restricted burning.

Burning in an open fire, provided it is not contrary to other law or regulation, will be allowed as follows:

(a) Barbecue grills, maple sugar arches, and similar outdoor cooking devices when actually used for cooking or processing food.

(b) Small fires for cooking and camp fires provided that only charcoal or natural untreated wood is used as fuel and the fire is not left unattended until extinguished.

(c) On-site burning of agricultural wastes as part of a valid agricultural operation on contiguous agricultural lands larger than five acres actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use, provided such waste is actually grown on those lands and such waste is capable of being fully burned within a 24-hour period.

(d) The use of liquid petroleum fueled smudge pots to prevent frost damage to crops.

(e) Ceremonial or celebratory bonfires where not otherwise prohibited by law, provided that only natural untreated wood or other agricultural products are used as fuel and the fire is not left unattended until extinguished.

(f) Small fires that are used to dispose of a flag or religious item, and small fires or other smoke producing process where not otherwise prohibited by law that are used in connection with a religious ceremony.

(g) Burning on an emergency basis of explosive or other dangerous or contraband materials by police or other public safety organization.

(h) Prescribed burns performed according to Part 194 of this Title.

(i) Fire training, including firefighting, fire rescue, and fire/arson investigation training, performed under applicable rules and guidelines of the New York State Department of State's Office of Fire Prevention and Control. For fire training performed on acquired structures, the structures must be emptied and stripped of any material that is toxic, hazardous or likely to emit toxic smoke (such as asbestos, asphalt shingles and vinyl siding or other vinyl products) prior to burning and must be at least 300 feet from other occupied structures. No more than one structure per lot or within a 300 foot radius (whichever is bigger) may be burned in a training exercise.

(j) Individual open fires as approved by the Director of the Division of Air Resources as may be required in response to an outbreak of an animal disease upon request by the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets.

(k) Individual open fires that are otherwise authorized under the environmental conservation law, or by rule or regulation of the Department.

6 NYCRR Part 191, Forest Fire Prevention

Sections 191.1 and 191.5 are repealed

Sections 191.2-191.4 are renumbered to be sections 191.1-191.3

6 NYCRR Part 621, Uniform Procedures

Subdivision (g) of section 621.1 is amended to read as follows:

(g) Air Pollution Control, ECL article 19, (implemented by 6 NYCRR Parts 201, 203, [215,] and 231): including construction and operation of a new emission source or a modification to an existing emission source of air contamination, and construction of indirect sources of air contamination [and restricted open burning for air pollution control purposes (Note: permits for restricted open burning for the purpose of forest fire control, under authority of section 9-1105 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 191, are not subject to this Part)];

The Rural Area Flexibility Analysis statement gives a good description of the pros and cons of this proposed regulation, including the cost to rural residents and farms who currently burn part or all of their trash and other wastes:

6 NYCRR Parts 215, 191 and 621 Rural Area Flexibility Analysis

The purpose of revising Part 215 is to update regulatory requirements in regard to open fires and open burning. The need to update is based on the changes in both the type of materials burned in such fires and the increase in scientific knowledge about the contaminants released into the air by the combustion of those materials.

The purpose of revising Part 191 is to repeal outdated portions of the rule and portions that will become redundant if Part 215 is revised as recommended.

The purpose of revising Part 621 is to remove references to the permits required by current versions of Parts 191 and 215 that will become outdated if those rules are revised as recommended.

Types and Estimated Number of Rural Areas Affected

Part 215 applies statewide. The proposed revision may have a greater impact in rural areas. Although there are no firm statistics, the Department believes that many rural residents do not properly dispose of their household trash but instead burn the trash in open fires, typically in a 55-gallon drum known colloquially as a "burn barrel."

Section 191.1 applies in "the following areas, excepting therein within the corporation tax limits of any city or village; or in any town with a total town population, including incorporated or unincorporated areas, of greater than 10,000 people; all of Columbia County; all of Dutchess County except the town of Poughkeepsie; the town of New Bremen in Lewis County; all of Orange County; all of Putnam County; all of Rensselaer County; the towns of Brasher, Hermon, Lawrence, Russell and Stockholm in St. Lawrence County; the towns of Galway, Greenfield, Milton, Moreau, Northumberland, Providence, Saratoga and Wilton, and the city of Saratoga Springs outside the corporation tax limits, all in Saratoga County; the towns of Bethel, Callicoon, Cochecton, Delaware, Fallsburg, Forestburg, Fremont, Highland, Liberty, Lumberland, Mamakating, Thompson and Tusten, all in Sullivan County."

Repealing this section will have no impact on local municipalities since the activity needing the 191 permit is, for the most part, being banned by the new Part 215. Those open burning activities that will continue to be authorized by the new Part 215 (campfires, ceremonial fires, explosive demolition) are not directly regulated by current ECL or 6NYCRR statutes. Municipalities may need to revise their current statutes and ordinances to further regulate those authorized activities by the new Part 215 but most will have included these types of burning in their current regulations. Implementing the new Part 215 will simplify the enforcement of open burning by making most traditional debris fires illegal. Department police officers (ECOs and Rangers) as well as state police, sheriff deputies and local police are already authorized by State Fire Code to take action (issue a ticket or make an arrest) as they deem appropriate. Fire and local code enforcement officers will also have authority to demand an open debris fire be extinguished since State Fire Code prohibits open fires that are prohibited by State laws and regulations.

Compliance Requirements

The changes that the Department is proposing will establish a general ban on open burning with some limited exceptions. This means that no one can dispose of their trash by burning it in an open fire anywhere in the state. Currently residents of towns with populations under 20,000 are not subject to any statewide prohibition that would prevent them from burning rubbish; under the new rule this practice would be banned.

The revisions to Part 191 and Part 215 will eliminate the need for permits for those types of open fires that will still be allowed.

Costs

The following is an estimate of the costs to implement Part 215, Part 191 and Part 621. It is being done in this manner since these rules must be implemented together. These costs are somewhat difficult to estimate since the implementation of these rules will have a financial affect only on the section of the general public which currently disposes of their solid waste by burning. Difficulty arises since costs of solid waste are sometimes included in the tax base of the community. Therefore, estimating is typically done by two methods, one being the cost to the individual who is disposing of his waste, the other being the cost to the Community in which that individual lives.

Costs to the Individual:

For those who dispose of their household trash by burning it in an open fire and will no longer be able to do so under the new rule, there will be some costs for proper disposal of their household refuse. Some individual households will choose to have their refuse picked up by a waste hauler at their homes. The cost of household refuse pickup varies, but typical amounts range from $20.00 - $80.00 per month. Other households will choose to drop off their refuse at the local landfill or transfer station. According to the Departments' Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, a survey of rural counties across New York State found the average per bag (approximately 30 gallons) disposal rate at transfer stations ranged from $1.00 to $3.00 per bag. Assuming a two bag per week average, this represents a cost of $104.00 to $312.00 per year. Transfer stations may also charge an annual fee for a permit. This cost could be as much as $100.00 per year. Combining all these costs gives us an average range of $104.00 to $412.00 per household per year.

Costs to the Community:

Most transfer stations are owned and run by municipalities (cities, towns and villages). This is due, for the most part, to the 6 NYCRR Part 360 Regulations which were promulgated on December 15, 1988. These regulations required each county to be responsible for the management and disposal all municipal solid waste generated in their area. Most counties formed solid waste management associations and either built a landfill, built a series of transfer stations, or both. In turn, the municipalities which were now responsible for waste disposal would pay for the cost of disposal by raising taxes, charging fees at transfer stations, or both. For example, a rural community with a population of 1000 might expect their cost of transport and disposal of solid waste to increase by as much as $12,155.00 per year. This is based on data provided by the Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials and assumes the following worst case factors: one resident in three currently uses a burn barrel to dispose of their waste; an average person produces four pounds of solid waste a day; and the cost of transport and disposal of solid waste is $50.00 per ton. Comparing these minimal garbage disposal costs to the costs associated with burning barrels such as the degradation of air quality, accidental forest fires, and foremost, the possible public health effects and loss of quality of life, the costs seem even more inconsequential.

The proposed rule allows exemptions for agricultural materials. These exempted materials would include wastes which are actually grown on agricultural land such as cover crops, grape vines and orchard trimmings. However, agricultural operations that currently burn plastic materials will now be required to dispose of those materials properly. Materials that fall into this category are pesticide containers, grain bags, fertilizer bags, "ag" bags (large plastic silage bags), and other packaging. Some of these materials cannot be recycled due to contamination (by the materials they contained, such as pesticides) or to the limitations of local recycling programs which may take only certain kinds of plastic (e.g., only number one or only number two plastic). For some agricultural operations these may represent a significant amount of material, potentially hundreds or even thousands of pounds of waste material.

Minimizing Adverse Impacts

There are limited exemptions for agricultural operations which should mitigate some of the costs. These are for the burning of agricultural wastes generated on-site as part of a valid agricultural operation on lands which are devoted to agricultural or horticultural use.

In addition, societal savings of health related costs in affected rural areas should more than make up for the increased costs of solid waste disposal. A single hospitalization for asthma outside of New York City cost over $8,900 and the total cost for asthma hospitalizations amounted to over $284 million in 2002.¹ This does not account for other societal costs related to asthma such as medications, lost work time, etc. Even modest reductions in the rate of asthma incidence would amount to savings of millions of dollars as well as the increased quality of life for asthma sufferers.

Rural Area Participation

The State Administrative Procedures Act requires agencies to provide public and private interests in rural areas the opportunity to participate in the rule making process and or public hearings. The Department will hold public hearings on Part 215 in upstate areas and will notify interested parties of this proposed rulemaking.

__________

¹ NYSDOH, "New York State Asthma Surveillance Summary Report", October 2005, pp. 71-72.

That's interesting. It's good that the DEC at least took a realistic approach at their analysis and noted some of the downsides of their proposal and the real costs it poses to rural residents. A $12,155 increase per 1,000 residents could be significant tax increase for many poor rural communities—that's $121 in new property taxes per capita—assuming the DEC isn't too conservative in their estimate.

Individual households in rural areas could expect to pay from $104.00 - $412.00 for trash pickup or hauling trash long distances to the nearest transfer station. Certainly this more true the more rural you get in our state. There are some pretty spread out places far out in our state.

So do you have $400 dollars (a year) to hand over to the DEC today? That seems like a good use for the stimulus check. Everybody likes paying more in taxes, after all.

And By the Way: From the DEC, expect to spend lots of money building new rural transfer stations, expanding landfills, and other ways to raise taxes. After all—there is a lot of land in rural New York to build new landfills and transfer stations—so it makes sense, umm... right ?!

Due to the potential increase in the amount of household waste, brush, and land clearing debris, communities may need to upgrade these transfer facilities. Most rural transfer stations are located on adequate land for expansion; many of them being located at a former landfill which was closed under 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations. Upgrades would primarily consist of large trash compactors for household refuse, and wood chippers or tub grinders for brush and land clearing debris. Some communities currently rent tub grinders on a weekly or monthly basis to reduce brush/limbs to wood chips or mulch. These products can in turn be given back to the residents or used in municipal landscaping projects.

The DEC says that it makes sense as it would actually save money by theoretically reducing asthma attacks.

In addition, societal savings of health related costs in affected rural areas should more than make up for the increased costs of solid waste disposal. A single hospitalization for asthma outside of New York City costs over $8,900 and the total cost for asthma hospitalizations amounted to over $284 million in 2002.1 This does not account for other societal costs related to asthma such as medications, lost work time, etc. Even modest reductions in the rate of asthma incidence would amount to savings of millions of dollars as well as the increased quality of life for asthma sufferers.

How many of them actually happen in rural areas from backyard trash burning, versus urban areas polluted by superhighways and factories emitting toxic chemicals?

The DEC pursuant to SERQA gives an alternative—the solution that is currently working well for many New York communities, that preserves local control over a local nuisance problem:

Alternatives

The primary alternative is to leave the scheme as is, that is to do nothing. Another alternative is to keep the current mostly as is but lower the population threshold. Neither of these alternatives would be as protective of both the environment and human health as the proposed changes. A third alternative would be to change the threshold to one of population density; this also would not be as protective of both the environment and human health as the proposed changes. Several municipalities do have open burning restrictions. The towns of Depew and Lancaster in Western NY and the county of Monroe (Rochester) have bans on all open burning. However, a state regulation insures consistency across the state (although municipal/county bans can be more stringent) and, when it comes to crafting an air pollution regulation, the Division of Air Resources has a higher level of expertise than municipalities. Other states such as New Jersey have regulations which ban "open burning for the purpose of disposal". We prefer an option which does not require "determination of intent". A ban on all open burning is easier to understand and enforce. In addition, the Department is charged under Article 19 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) with the task of setting standards that are protective of the public health. Municipalities are encouraged to share solid waste facilities and equipment.

You can write the DEC with your thoughts through Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 5 PM by one of the following ways (remember no-anonymous comments and be nice to those morons on the 2nd and 3rd Floors of the DEC Building):

Robert Stanton
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Air Resources
625 Broadway, 2nd Floor
Albany, NY 12233-3254

Telephone (518) 402-8403
Email: 215fires@gw.dec.state.ny.us

There are many public hearings planned across the state:

Monday, June 23, 2008, 5-8 p.m.
Cortlandville Fire Department, 999 Route 13, Cortland, NY 13045

Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 5-8 p.m.
Norrie Point Environmental Center, Margaret Lewis Norrie StatePark, 256 Norrie Point Way, Staatsburg, NY 12580

Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 9:30 a.m. - Noon.
DEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Public Assembly Room 129, Albany, NY 12233

Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 5-8 p.m.
DEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Public Assembly Room 129, Albany, NY 12233

Thursday, June 26, 2008, 5-8 p.m.
Harrietstown Town Hall, Main Street and Lake Flower Avenue,Saranac Lake, NY 12983

Monday, June 30, 2008, 5-8 p.m.
Dulles State Office Building, 1st Floor Auditorium, 317 Washington Street,Watertown, NY 13601

Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 5-8 p.m.
Genesee Community College, College Drive, Conable Technology Building,Room T102, Batavia, NY 14020

The ones in Albany are highlighted, including a series of hearing that will take place in the evening.

P'Link

Auburn Citizen on the Proposed Burn Barrel Ban. Like usual, the great paper from Auburn, has some excellent coverage of one of the big issues effecting rural New York State:

The ban on open burning will be extended statewide if a proposal submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is upheld. This means that no one can dispose of their trash by burning it in an open fire anywhere in the state. The state will conduct a series of public hearings on the proposal.

The proposed rule allows for exceptions: camp fires, prescribed burns, celebratory bonfires (where allowed), fire training exercises, specialized burning to protect crops from frostbite, and burning of agricultural wastes (not plastics).

Cover crops, grapevines, and orchard trimmings are examples of agricultural wastes that would be exempt under the new proposal.

Lori O'Connell, DEC spokesperson, said that public comments would be reviewed by DEC staff in 45 days. That would include comments made at scheduled public hearings as well as letters and e-mails received at the DEC.

“Based on the feedback we receive,” O'Connell said, “a revised proposal could be made, or the present proposal could become a statewide regulation. We won't really know all the concerns until after the hearings.”

Currently populations under 20,000 are not subject to any statewide prohibition that would prevent such burning. Under the proposed rule this burning would be banned. Those who dispose of household refuse by burning will find that some households will have to pay for a hauler to pick up refuse at a typical cost of about $80 per month. Some will dispose of it at landfills at a cost of about $104 to $312 per year, the DEC said. But it also said any increase in costs to society at large would be more than compensated for the savings of health related costs in affected areas: hospital costs, medications, lost work time, and quality of life.

Since 1972, the ban was in place against open burning of residential wastes in any city or village or in any town with a population of 20,000 or more.

Read DEC wants to extend open burning ban in the Auburn Citizen. P'Link

Adirondack Council Complains Again About the NYS Snowmobile PAC Check Box. It looks like when you don't get your message out the first time, you just repeat yourself until somebody in the media pays attention to you.

From CBS 5 Syracuse:

Is money earmarked for snowmobile registration, finding its way into the pockets of some NYS lawmakers? That assertion is coming from the Adirondack Council, which maintains NYS Snowmobile Association members may unwittingly be sending some of the fee's collected each year, into a Political Action Committee which is then making donations to the campaign war chests of certain state legislators. The Adirondack Council is questioning this, calling it politics at its worst.

In addition, the Council is questioning a benefit given to Snowmobile Association members, which lowers the cost of registration if they join a NYS Snowmobile Association affiliated snowmobile club.

The Council plans to bring this matter to the attention of the NYS Attorney General for further investigation, since some of the lawmakers who pushed legislation allowing this change in the registration 'fee structure', are the same ones who've received PAC dollars from the Snowmobile Association.

They are complaining about the two dollar check off to donate to the NYS Snowmobile PAC on the state-wide uniform application by the NYS Snowmobile Association to join an NYSSA sanction snowmobile club. By being a member of a snowmobile club, and paying for trail maintenance, the state gives you a discount on registering your snowmobile.

So why bother to complain again about this? Nobody is forcing you to pay the $2 dollars. You can join without paying a modest $2 fee to help support lobbying efforts of similar snowmobilers who want to see their cause advanced. It's also a private organization with their own application.

Seriously, the NYS Snowmobile PAC doesn't have that much money to line the pockets of legislators' campaign funds. I think last year, they gave something like $1,000 to Joe Morelle for his work as the chair of the Tourism Committee, along with a $1,000 to Mary Lou Rath. Not exactly big time lobbying. Most of the expense goes to pay for just the basics of photocopying memos and bringing volunteers to Albany to lobby for their cause.

Read Where Does The Money Go? in Syracuse WTVH CBS 6. P'Link

Rural Folks Income Drops. From Daily Yonder Blog:

Farming counties from the Dakotas down the middle of the country to Texas showed the sharpest drop in personal income between 2005 and 2006, according to recently-released data prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The BEA reported that personal income declined in 2006 in 227 counties. In all but five of these counties, farming accounted for the entire decline in income. And, 194 of the 227 counties with declining incomes (85 percent) were rural.

(In the BEA's calculation, personal income is a comprehensive measure of the income of all persons from all sources. It includes wages, salaries, employer-provided health insurance, dividends and interest income, social security benefits, and other types of income, including farm subsidy or disaster payments. Also, in this study, "rural" counties are defined as those that are "non metro" counties according to the U.S. Census.)

In metro areas, the average personal income was $38,564, compared to $27,403 in nonmetro areas. For the third straight year, nonmetro income fell as a percent of metro personal income. In 2006, nonmetro personal income was just 74.6 percent of the U.S. average. This is down from 75.1 percent in 2005; 75.8 percent in 2004, and 76.1 percent in 2003.

This goes well with the DEC's proposed $400 a year tax hike on rural residents along with dramatically higher fuel prices leaving farmers, fire departments, and rural commuters struggling to pay for diesel and gasoline, which has also hit our communities hard.

It's a bad situation all around, and government isn't making it better for anyone.

Read Rural Personal Income Falls Behind the Cities in Daily Yonder. P'Link

The Great Natural Gas Rush. The New York Times looks impact of the discovery of massive natural gas reserves under Pennsylvania, parts of New York State and nearby states and what all this money means to the local communities.

At first, Raymond Gregoire did not want to listen to the raspy voice on his answering machine offering him money for rights to drill on his land. They want to ruin my land, he thought. But he called back anyway a week later to hear more.

A natural gas drilling site on a farm in Hickory, outside Pittsburgh, that seeks to extract gas from 600 feet below the surface.

By the end of February, he had a contract in hand for $62,000, and he pulled together a group of 75 neighbors who signed $3 million in deals.

“It’s a modern-day gold rush in our own backyard,” Mr. Gregoire said.

Not just his backyard either — a frenzy unlike any seen in decades is unfolding here in rural Pennsylvania, and it eventually could encompass a huge chunk of the East, stretching from upstate New York to eastern Ohio and as far south as West Virginia. Companies are risking big money on a bet that this area could produce billions of dollars worth of natural gas.

A layer of rock here called the Marcellus Shale has been known for more than a century to contain gas, but it was generally not seen as economical to extract. Now, improved recovery technology, sharply higher natural gas prices and strong drilling results in a similar shale formation in north Texas are changing the calculus. A result is that a part of the country where energy supplies were long thought to be largely tapped out is suddenly ripe for gas prospecting.

A map of the discovery:

That's a great discovery whose impact has be fully understood. Many people will benefit from being able to lease natural gas rights to their farmland and other places, and will help keep them above the line.

The benefits to poor communities and to clean energy will be great, as natural gas increasingly becomes the fossil fuel of choice to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and clean the air.

Read There’s Gas in Those Hills in the New York Times. P'Link

King Corn Documentary. I happened to find this video on Google Video and wanted to pass it along. It's largely critical of modern agriculture and how food gets to our table, and why it's so toxic to us. The move is around 80 minutes long.

More about it on IMDB Movie Page and King Corn Website. P'Link

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Friday, May 16, 2008

ATV riders hitting the trails for good cause. From the article:

Rain or shine, members of the Soggy Bottom Riders of Dolgeville will take their ATVs through about 60 miles of trails Saturday in honor of three local children with cystic fibrosis.

The charity event will support the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, particularly Morgan Baeulieu of Dolgeville and Rhionah and Cayden Egelston of Fonda.

“This is the first time a family has approached us for this cause,” said Bryan Steele, vice president of the ATV club. “Soggy Bottom Riders are kicking it off rain or shine. That's how we got our name.”

Read ATV riders hitting the trails for good cause. P'Link

Penn DEP Secretary Reminds Pennsylvanians to Stay Out of Mines, Quarries. While we don't have as many old abandoned mines in New York, Penn DEP reminds of the dangers they can pose in this Press Release:

The idle equipment, steep cliffs, serene pools of water, and mysterious shaft openings of active and abandoned mines can be alluring for adventure seekers, but many times are deadly, according to Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty. The secretary visited an abandoned strip mine in Joffre today that is less than 10 feet from the Pan Handle Trail--a popular recreation spot in the community--to warn residents to stay out of mines, quarries and abandoned mine lands because of the many dangers these sites can hold.

Read DEP Secretary Reminds Pennsylvanians to Stay Out of Mines, Quarries. P'Link

Action Needed to Halt Staggering Cost of Beer. NPR news reports on a yet another crisis brewing in our streets today, the kind known to bring down whole civilizations.

The world's most important liquid is more expensive than it used to be. No, not oil. Beer.

The price of hops has jumped from 80 to 450 percent thanks to a worldwide shortage. A 20 pound bag of malted barley, whatever that is, is up as much as 57 percent. As a result, microbrews and imports are often $3 more per six-pack than a year ago.

And yet our politicians prattle on about the war in Iraq, health care and the mortgage crisis. ... Enough! Let's talk substance. Let's talk beer.

This is a crisis of major proportions. To make matters worst, I'm empty on beer in my apartment and I need to go shopping tonight. That said, I'm not going for the expensive stuff.

That or one could always just drink whiskey. Now that's an idea. It's more concentrated, so it should be cheaper.

Read Action Needed to Halt Staggering Cost of Beer from NPR news. P'Link

Milk Wars. David Gumpert in The Nation takes a look at the raw milk wars arguing the demand for raw milk is slowly changing the face of agriculture.

For the past sixty years, there hasn't been much good news for America's small dairies. Thanks to rising land costs and intensifying price pressures, the bucolic sight of cows grazing in the countryside has become ever less common. Since 1970 alone, the number of dairies has plunged an astounding 88 percent, to 75,000, according to the US Department of Agriculture. The consolidation means that factory-style dairies with between 1,000 and 5,000 cows have become increasingly common.

The one bit of encouraging news for small dairies has been the growing market among health-conscious consumers for unpasteurized milk and dairy products like yogurt, butter and cream. There may be a half-million or more raw-milk drinkers in the United States, with the number growing "exponentially," says Sally Fallon, co-founder of the Weston A. Price Foundation, which encourages consumption of raw milk for its healthful enzymes, bacteria and proteins.

Small dairies have rushed to meet this need via a completely new business model. Instead of selling milk in bulk to processors who offer take-it-or-leave-it prices of $1.50 to $2 a gallon, some small dairies sell directly to consumers at whatever price the market will bear, typically from $5 a gallon to as much as $10 a gallon. At those prices, dairy farmers actually begin thinking in terms of a long-forgotten word: profit.

In New York state, which regulates direct sales of raw milk to consumers by issuing permits to dairies, the number of raw-milk dairies with permits has doubled to twenty from ten in 2005. The same sort of minirevival has occurred in other states that allow raw-milk sales direct from the farm, like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. In California--one of the few states that allow sales of raw milk via Whole Foods Market and other retail outlets--the largest raw-milk dairy, the 350-cow Organic Pastures Dairy Company, has seen its annual sales climb by 25 percent annually, to more than $5 million.

Arguing that raw milk isn't safe and that consumers must be protected from its dangers, some government regulators and legislators are targeting small raw-milk dairies for tough enforcement actions, focusing most intensively on dairies in New York and California.

I know I grew up drinking raw goat milk and I'm still here today to live.

Of course, it's important to drink milk fresh, and you can get very sick from drinking raw milk or any sort of the wrong kind of bacteria gets in it. That's why it's so important to have a very clean milking parlor, and take aggressive steps to keep dust, mud, and muck out of the milk.

Read Milk Wars in the Nation. P'Link