Marcellus Shale

Callicoon Comprehensive Plan Generates NIMBY Opposition to Natural Gas

The Town Board of the Town of Callicoon, New York, Sullivan County held a public hearing last week on their draft Town of Callicoon Comprehensive Plan.  We’ve seen a few comprehensive plans recently that were meant to do little more than lay the groundwork for zoning out natural gas development, leading to unintended consequences, but this draft plan, while it hardly gives a carte blanche approval of it, is actually open to natural gas exploration in Callicoon.  Unsurprisingly, the anti-natural gas crowd is opposed to any plan that isn’t adamantly opposed to shale gas development and they came out to say so, while advocates of such development showed up in support of the plan.

The draft comprehensive plan has been in preparation for three years now and is an update of a Natural and Cultural Resource Inventory and Comprehensive Plan prepared in 1980. The new draft addresses natural gas a few times and makes these statements (among others):

Natural Gas Drilling:  Given the presence of the Marcellus Shale in the town, it is possible that natural gas drilling may come to town in the future.  Because of the high volume of water and the chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing, there is a concern for the safety of the area’s drinking water.  The storing of water used during the the hydraulic fracturing process also presents a potential source of pollution of our water supply.

Gas drilling is a controversial issue, as evidenced by the survey results, because it raises questions about private property rights and brings potential economic benefits for landowners, businesses and municipalities, but also brings environmental, aesthetic and public health concerns. This plan establishes the intent of the Town of Callicoon community to promote the safety, health, and well ‐ being of the residents of the town, and to protect and enhance the town’s natural environment and character while simultaneously promoting smart growth and economic development. The town recognizes the concerns shared by many of the citizens of the town about the impacts that could be associated with heavy industry and high intensity uses, in particular the operation of natural gas wells, and activities associated with their operation. So that the important resources identified in this Comprehensive Plan Update are maintained in the future, the town will aggressively work with the regulations set forth by the NYSDEC, on any industrial land use permit being reviewed in the Town of Callicoon, to ensure safety and eliminate adverse impacts that may be associated with high intensity uses, including but not limited to natural gas drilling.

This is anything but a ringing endorsement.  We certainly take issue, in fact, with the notion hydraulic fracturing is a pollution threat, when no less an authority than Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator, has said “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”  Additionally, the notion that “storing of water used during the the hydraulic fracturing process also presents a potential source of pollution of our water supply” is completely off-base as only closed loop systems will be permitted in New York State and this is how it’s being done in our region anyway.  Nonetheless, we cannot oppose the core position of the Town of Callicoon, which balances economic and environmental considerations.  That’s never good enough for our friends on the other side, however, who demand nothing less than 100% capitulation to their narrow views.  They are classic “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) types, anti-growth activists or both.

Many people against natural gas development who attended the public hearing were, of course, from the New York City or Northern New Jersey areas, a number of whom have retired to the Town of Callicoon area after careers in the city and, therefore, have no stake in the economy of the area.  Residents who have lived in the town their whole lives, many being farmers or forest owners, feel they have a pretty solid sense of what the area needs in the way of economic development and natural gas exploration is part of that mix.  They came out to show support for a plan that at least allows for it.  It’s a conflict of visions we’ve seen often in this debate, where those who have made money elsewhere move into a struggling community for its scenic beauty and show little concern for the residents who crafted this reality and need economic development opportunities to maintain it.  Their goal of the former has been succinctly described as “pastoral poverty.”

Town of Callicoon, NY Landscape
Town of Callicoon, New York

Several people inquired as to the possibility of sending out a survey to every resident in the town asking them one simple question, “Do you, or do you not, support natural gas development in the town?” While this might be a good idea in theory, surveys typically only have a 15%-20% return rate.  The Town of Callicoon did one in 2010 that produced a 17% return – see page 27 of the plan), and such surveys are hugely biased toward the views of respondents accustomed to such techniques of surveying opinion or with time on their hands.  Working people seldom complete such surveys in the same proportions as retirees, for example.  More importantly, in a representative democracy, we depend upon elected officials to do their own surveys of voters in their day to day interactions with constituents and we ask them to develop policy not only based upon opinion but also on constitutional rights and obligations.

Bruce Ferguson of Catskill Citizens attended and, of course, commented (11:00 in video below).  He is a resident of the Town of Callicoon who ran for Supervisor in 2011 and received a whopping 39.87% of the vote, compared to 60.13% for his opponent, the current Supervisor.  Most of us might consider that a pretty valid survey of public opinion, given Bruce’s outspoken opposition to natural gas.  Ferguson said the town had sent out a survey to the residents in 2010 and claimed 88% of the people who commented did not want natural gas development.  His method of calculation is not apparent but, no matter, as the actual data may be found on page 31 of the plan.  What he left out is very revealing as to the tactics of our friends and their lack of popular support, except, of course, among the second-home and retiree crowd.

The survey (taken in 2010) asked property owners, as opposed to residents or voters, to “rank the importance that each of the topic below have to you and your family.  How important is it to have the following in the Town of Callicoon?”.  It then listed several types of development and characteristics for evaluation, among which was “gas drilling.”  Here are the results, conveniently organized into a pie chart.

Importance of Gas Drilling to Town of Callicoon Property Owners
Importance of Gas Drilling to Town of Callicoon Property Owners

Some 421 property owners (second home owners included) filled out the survey and sent it back, out of 2,475 to whom it was mailed.  A total of 29% were part-time residents and another 9% only owned land in the Town of Callicoon (a total of 157), which means a minimum of 37% of the surveys were non-voters.  Undoubtedly, some of the others were also non-voters, so this is anything but a representative source of opinion from either residents or voters.  Even more significant is the fact 66% of the respondents were 55 years or more of age, 81% had no children and 32% were not employed.  Talk about bias!  This thing has more tilt than a Catskill peak.

Even so, the survey only produced 215 respondents who said they thought natural gas development wasn’t important and some of them surely didn’t actually oppose it.  Some 25% said it was important or very important and 18% didn’t care enough to offer an opinion; and this was from a group where 37% lived elsewhere and, therefore, had no particular stake in the local economy! Sure, 215 people sounds like a lot, but when you actually look at the numbers it’s shocking how insignificant the number really is and, of course, it represents less than 9% of those individuals who had an opportunity to respond!  And, if that were not enough, the survey was done two years ago, prior to the draft SGEIS and technological advances such as recycling of produced water and closed loop systems.  Bruce Ferguson can raise his voice, he can stomp, he can pontificate and he can cry, but nothing in this survey supports his point of view as being the majority of either residents or voters.

People in support of natural gas exploration spoke a little later in the hearing. One man discussed how his family had been in the area for over 150 years. He didn’t personally have anything to gain from natural gas development other than the money to be brought in from the ad valorem tax.  Nevertheless, he said he wanted to see his children stay in the area and understands there is no work here for them. He closed his remarks by saying how disappointed he was with his neighbors, noting farmers had never let the population down, but now a minority of the population is letting them down.

Another man was 4th generation to the area and 63 years old. He served on several different boards in the area. He said he wanted the board to accept the Comprehensive Plan they have worked so hard on and move on!

Yet another resident said it was very easy to be against something, but Texas University, Buffalo University and Penn State have all said it can be and has been done safely.  He observed that, in over 60 years there have been no cases of fracturing fluid contaminating any aquifer. He told the board to let the Department of Environmental Conservation regulate the industry and indicated the area could benefit greatly from the ad valorem tax.

A female resident said New Yorkers never fail to miss an opportunity. She argued this has been going on in other states for years and no other states have news stories of people dying or getting sick from natural gas.  If we look at health studies, of course, we see people in Dish, Texas are actually getting healthier because they can now afford health insurance.  Check out some of the comments below!

Near the end of the meeting, as comments were wrapping up a man stated, no doubt accurately, 75% of the town’s dairy farmers are in support of natural gas exploration. He said the last 4-5 years farming has been rough for farmers and they are barely making ends meet. He said 49% of the land was farm land, 40% is woodland and the other approximately 11% percent were homes.  He then wryly observed most of the room was made of the 11% who don’t have to pay the taxes on the open space they now enjoy (in so many words).

[myyoutubeplaylist UlXbPgt4T64, fUfOCXVhR_g]

Noel van Swol spoke last and eloquently. He mentioned he attended the meeting to speak for the Sullivan-Delaware Property Association in support of natural gas exploration. He mentioned a Wall Street Journal article indicating there were no health issues in the million wells that have been hydraulically fractured over the last sixty years.  The anti-natural gas crowd harassed him and Bruce Ferguson burst out in childish laughter but Noel is no slouch and is accustomed to going against the second-home grain.  Watch him in action in the video below.

By the end of the hearing, it was clear. The majority of the town residents and voters who owned land completely supported the Comprehensive Plan the Town of Callicoon Town Board proposed.  The only people against it were the people against natural gas exploration and they’re pretty much against everything.  Proving my point, the same survey Bruce Ferguson quoted also produced 51% who said “more residential development” was “not important to have in the town” and 27% said the same about “commercial wind farms.”  So, as you can see, Ferguson and company aren’t just opposed to natural gas, they’re opposed to more of you.  They want everything to themselves.  No wonder he couldn’t break 40% of the vote!

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

5 Comments
  • Bruce Ferguosn
    Posted at 11:35h, 06 July Reply

    I’m not going to bother with most of what’s said here, just a couple of points:

    1. EID Claim: “Ferguson said the town had sent out a survey to the residents in 2010 and claimed 88% of the people who commented did not want natural gas development. His method of calculation is not apparent but, no matter, as the actual data may be found on page 31 of the plan. ”

    Actually I said 88% of the people who expressed an opinion did not want fracking. The relevant figures are on page 32, not page 31:

    ” In total, 82 respondents made negative comments, 11 made positive comments, and 10 made comments that could not be classified as negative or positive.”

    Even a second string EID shill should be able to do the math here: 82 is 88% of 93.

    (Incidentally the original (2011) draft of our Comp Plan under counted the number of people who made negative comments about gas drilling while correctly counting the number of positive comments. It read:

    “Gas drilling received the most written comments (62). Fifty‐two were negative, and ranged from the word “no” to concerns over water quality, community character and other issues. Several respondents with negative comments also checked “very important,” indicating that the topic is very important to them, rather than that it is very important to have gas drilling in Town. One respondent included a positive comment concerning the potential for gas drilling to make all of the other survey topics more affordable. Seven commenters were neither positive nor negative, but indicated a
    need for adequate regulations and safety assurances.”

    (Note how the opinion of one of the ten who favor drilling was featured in the plan. None of the anti-fracking comments were featured in the same way.)

    Fun fact: The only reason the current plan correctly counts the number of people opposed to drilling is because of this email I sent to a committee member in August 2011.

    “Hi —
    Thanks for getting back to me.

    Here’s the figures I came up with after reviewing all 421 questionnaires. If my figures disagree with yours, I’d be happy to discuss them with you further.

    One hundred and three (103) respondents commented on “gas drilling”. Many made multiple comments at various points in the survey.

    Eighty-two (82) respondents made negative comments, eleven (11) make positive comments.

    Nine (9) respondents made negative comments about “gas drilling” and also indicated that it was “very important”. Nine (9) made positive comments and indicated it was “very important”.

    Ten (10) respondents made statements about gas drilling that could not be classified as positive or negative.”

    2. EID Claim: “Some 421 property owners (second home owners included) filled out the survey and sent it back, out of 2,475 to whom it was mailed. A total of 29% were part-time residents and another 9% only owned land in the Town of Callicoon (a total of 157), which means a minimum of 37% of the surveys were non-voters. Undoubtedly, some of the others were also non-voters, so this is anything but a representative source of opinion from either residents or voters. Even more significant is the fact 66% of the respondents were 55 years or more of age, 81% had no children and 32% were not employed.”

    So much misinformation packed into one paragraph, where, where to begin?

    Our town is probably at least 29% second home owners, so this figure is roughly representative of the population as a whole.

    Dual homeowners can choose where they want to vote. Second homeowners can, and do, vote in the Town of Callicoon.

    A look at page 28 of the survey shows the the claim the that 81% of the “had no children” is false. That wasn’t the question asked, or answered.

    The decision to exclude renters was made by the Comprehensive Plan Committee; I told them I thought it was a mistake.

    Why go on? The bottom line is this – the town has received over 500 letters, emails, public comments and petition signatures in opposition to fracking and there’s been no comparable support for drilling from the other side. In a long-winded and nasty article on our public hearing, EID fails top mention that 44 people spoke in opposition to fracking and only ten spoke in favor of it. As with survey, more than 80% of the residents who voiced an opinion made it clear that they want to preserve the rural character of our town. They don’t want our town rezoned for industrial activity or mancamps, as expressly called for in the draft plan concocted by the town.

    At the public meeting the Town was asked to hold off until on finalizing the Comp Plan pending a survey that asks all the town’s residents to voice their opinion on drilling/fracking. Residents of the town are willing to pay for the survey themselves. What could be more fair? Why is the town balking at the offer?

    • Tom Shepstone
      Posted at 15:31h, 06 July Reply

      “Not bother with most of what’s said,” Bruce? Heck, you wrote a book in reply! Notwithstanding this, I’m glad you’re reading and engaging. Actually, you and I have never had a cross word that I can remember, so I’m pleased you’re here!

      What you’re doing is trying to pretend a survey that produced equivocal results at best somehow reveals tremendous support for your cause. It doesn’t. The data is there for all to see and interpret. The comments are just that – comments and not answers. They are as subjective as it gets because they were volunteered. It hardly surprises anyone that your side generated most of those because you directly or indirectly campaigned to produce those results among your folks. The other side simply chose not to volunteer additional comments, but they answered the question, didn’t they? And, with a town made up of one-third second home owners (something we actually agree upon) and huge numbers of retirees and households without children and, therefore, no need for the jobs natural gas might provide, the anti-gas side still only got 51%. That’s the reality, Bruce. Sorry!

      As for the “no children” claim you make, I notice you don’t say what the question was. It was “How many K-12 school-aged children currently
      live in your household?” and 81% said zero. These are people with little or no stake in Callicoon’s economic future, wouldn’t you say? As far the other criticisms you make, well, let’s just say the data speaks for itself.

      Best wishes!

  • susan dorsey
    Posted at 02:43h, 07 July Reply

    don’t ignore the fact that a simple majority does not rule on land use changes under NY State law

    sections 264 & 265 gives a remedy to the control of the majority over upstate acreage
    (20% of the owners of the surface area of a municipality or a contiguous municipality within a specific distance can require a supermajority and there are notice requirements to be met when changing any zoning/land use law)
    all of this acts as counterbalance to the ‘quarter acre club’ dictating use of a commodity, surface of the land,
    which they have no real interest in, and pay no taxes upon

    so no matter what the percentages of a poll’s results are, they alone do not indicate proper determination of land use change in NY

  • VICTOR FURMAN
    Posted at 09:07h, 07 July Reply

    Vote 4 Energy

    You got it right Sue

  • Fred
    Posted at 09:51h, 07 July Reply

    If the voters in Callicoon are that opposed to ng devlopment they would have elected you but they aren’t and did not.

    The election results tell the real story in Callicoon, those that choose to live there chose to support private property rights, and have rejected the progressive agenda the anties have pushed.

Post A Comment