Judge rules proposed Kiryas Joel pipeline needs more study - Pipeline continues to be controversial

Goshen - Some county lawmakers are ecstatic over a judge’s ruling that the environmental statement for the Village of Kiryas Joel’s proposed pipeline is deficient. However, they warn, it is only a first step, and there’s a lot more work to be done. Acting state Supreme Court Justice Stewart Rosenwasser found four areas in the required environmental impact study that were inadequate or inaccurate. Kiryas Joel will have to file an amended study before the project can go forward. “I’m very happy for the people of Orange County that the judge ruled fairly in the case,” said legislator Frank Fornario of Chester. “It was a big moment for us in court, but there’s a lot more to do.” Fornario said he intends to study the amended environmental impact statement closely. If it is still inadequate or inaccurate, he will press for further court action, he said. The Hasidic village plans a $22 million pipeline to carry water from New York City’s Catskill reservoir to the village - a distance of 13 miles through the towns of New Windsor, Blooming Grove and Woodbury. The state Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires an extensive study of all the ways a project of this size will impact the environment. Acting Orange County Attorney David Darwin said Rosenwasser found four areas that will need further study, to be presented in a “supplemental environmental impact statement.” The area that has aroused the greatest controversy is the impact of increased water usage by the village on the available sewage treatment facilities. Wastewater from Kiryas Joel now goes to the county sewage treatment plant or to a plant within the village. The treated water goes into the Ramapo River. The village must assess in more detail the impact of the pipeline on archaeological resources. The impact on wetlands is not fully covered in the study, Darwin said. Finally, Kiryas Joel did not give enough attention to possible alternatives to the tap and pipeline and to the growth that an increase in the water supply would induce. Darwin said the timing of future action would depend on how quickly Kiryas Joel could put together a supplemental study to cover these areas. Once the new study is published, there must be a period for public comment, and, if a hearing is scheduled, at least 14 days notice. He estimated that it would be several months before anything more can be done. Both Fornario and Roxanne Donnery of Highland Falls said the fact that the issue ever got to court is a victory for the people. “The county wasn’t very interested in this issue at first, but the people of Woodbury and other surrounding areas sent hundreds of letters, and then e-mails were coming in from all over the county,” Donnery said. “This shows the power of the grass roots; it’s part of our democracy.” Like Fornario, Donnery said the county government and people must “stay on top of it, make sure the process is followed.” The court ruled that all people must be treated equally, and that there should be no special favors for large voting blocs, Donnery said. Fornario agreed that “the judge ruled fairly in this case; there was no special consideration for either party. The judge said we were correct in saying that SEQRA wasn’t followed.” “Most important is that it made people feel they could make a difference. Two years ago, this was a done deal, but pressure from the people made it change.” Fornario said he was disappointed that the county did not challenge the sections of the impact study that addressed economic and social impacts. The rapid growth of Kiryas Joel has had a negative impact on surrounding areas that was not adequately covered in the study, he said. Legislator Michael Amo, whose district includes Kiryas Joel, also said he feels the judge’s decision is fair. “Our consultants told us their environmental impact statement was solid, so I was surprised that the judge found it inadequate. I was against starting this lawsuit, because I didn’t think there were any problems with the EIS, but if a Supreme Court judge says there were, I’ll accept that.” Amos said he expects Kiryas Joel to assemble the needed information and present a supplemental study, on which Judge Rosenwasser will rule. He said he believes that the questions raised in Rosenwasser’s opinion can be answered, and that the project will eventually be completed. “I have said all along that the alternative of looking for more ground water in this area is not the solution,” Amo said. “We need a regional water plan. Perhaps the good that can come out of this lawsuit is that all parties will get together and find a long-term solution to our water problems.” Fornario also criticized Orange County Executive Edward Diana for not having gotten involved sooner. The administration had the information about the pipeline before either Fornario or Donnery had it, but did not take action until the legislators brought the matter before the full Legislature. In a prepared statement on the county Web site, Diana noted that he had always believed that “a lawsuit is always a last resort.” In this case, “the court has taken an objective look and issued its decision. At this point in time, the project will not proceed until a supplemental environmental impact statement has been completed following a public comment period,” he added. Donnery cited a recent transportation and traffic study the county completed. “We can’t do transportation studies without looking at the elephant in the room - unchecked growth,” she said. Bringing the lawsuit helped focus the county on the issue of growth in general, she said, and that is a discussion the county must have.