August 2020 – Page 2 – Rural Tompkins County

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Whose Plan Is This Anyway” 2

WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?

At first glance; the County’s “vision” reads like a promotional brochure — but a careful inspection reveals a dictator’s boot marks among its carefully shaped phrases.

“THE TOMPKINS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN presents a vision for the future of the community. It is based on a set of principles that reflect the values of the community as expressed by the County Legislature they have elected. The Plan seeks to foster a place where individual rights are protected while recognizing the benefits that can accrue to community members from common actions. It largely focuses on voluntary collaboration between the public and private sectors, but also supports the role that local regulation can play in addressing key issues impacting the entire community and helping people to live together in harmony. Where regulation is required, it should balance the burdens placed on individuals and businesses with the restrictions needed to protect or otherwise benefit the larger community. In most cases the Plan seeks to expand individual choice in terms of where and how people live their lives.”

This “vision for the future”:

Reflects the “values of the community” but only “as expressed by the County Legislature.”
Claims to “foster a place where individual’s rights are protected” but in the same sentence subordinates this to “common actions.”
It “focuses on voluntary” but “supports the role of local regulation.”

The phrase “helping people to live together in harmony” is particularly fatuous: Harmony requires more than one voice, and that’s something that is entirely missing from this “vision.”

And while the Plan states “Where regulation is required, it should balance the burdens placed on individuals and businesses with the restrictions needed to protect or otherwise benefit the larger community,” it nowhere states who will decide what these “regulations” or “burdens” are and when they are “needed.”

By removing those portions of the Plan’s foreword that are negated by qualifiers; this seemingly contradictory policy statement becomes clear:

This plan is based on values that reflect the principles of the County’s legislature. It uses local regulations to place burdens on individuals and businesses in serving that agenda and restricts individuals in their choice of where and how they can live.

Statements like “The Plan includes policies that, when considered together, can help create both rural and urban communities” indicate that these policies are intended to “create” new communities, rather than help the existing ones. Just what these communities will be and who will benefit is the subject of Cornithaca County.

“Prosperity for All”?

The Plan’s paragraph that begins with “Prosperity for all” ends with an equivocating “encourage the payment of livable wages whenever practical and reasonable” that completely drains statement of any meaning.

The County’s assertion: “Unemployment rates in Tompkins County have experienced the same cyclical ups and downs as New York State and the U.S., but have consistently been lower than statewide,” is used to minimize rural joblessness: “Still, unemployment is considered a problem by local residents, especially rural residents, with nearly 60 percent of rural residents calling it ‘critical’” — and the County further weakens the issue’s significance by the omission of any factual data, and the use of the qualifications: “still” and “considered.”

While admitting that “Individual poverty rates here are quite high, around 20 per-cent in 2011” and “It is clear that not everyone in the community shares in the region’s economic prosperity,” it muddies the issue of rural poverty with: “this can be partially explained by the fact that about 30 percent of the local population consists of students,” and goes on to add generalized family data; thereby avoiding any specifics or insight into the very real plight of the county’s rural poor.

The Plan makes no mention of mitigating rural unemployment or poverty.

Re-colonizing Rural New York

Most frequently, however, the Plan refuses to admit that Tompkins County’s rural communities have any place in its future:

“In rural areas the Plan envisions a working landscape of farms and forests providing products and jobs that support a strong rural economy, while providing for management and protection of these resources to maintain their ability to sustain the community into the future. Rural economic activities may include businesses processing agricultural and forest products, and other small businesses appropriate to a rural setting.”

It’s easy to see this “envisioning” was never done by rural residents; because this policy would exclude the lifestyles and destroy the communities of the majority of the county’s rural population.

“Employment choices for those interested in living and working in rural areas will include full- and part time farming, independent “homestead” lifestyles, entrepreneurship in agricultural and forest product processing, and at-home workers who want to live close to nature.”

Agriculture is historically among the lowest paying of all jobs — the owners may make millions, but the workers are frequently living below the poverty level.

NY farmers were furious with the minimum wage hike even though they are the only industry to receive a tax credit for the wage increase. The NY Farm Bureau was not only a self-proclaimed “leader in the fight against $15,” it’s also an important voice opposing the farmworkers’ right to organize…and an important voice in rural policy.

A May 2016 article in Grassroots [the NY Farm Bureau’s “Voice of New York’s Agriculture”] points out that NY agriculture needs cheap labor to compete with Pennsylvania’s minimum wage of $7.25. Nowhere in the article does it mention what it is like to try to live on $7.25 an hour, or show any concern for the farmworkers who do.

While the right to organize for all workers is guaranteed in the state’s Bill of Rights, the state’s Employment Relations Act excludes farmworkers from being defined as employees, effectively denying them those same rights.

In Conclusion

The County’s “Plan” is a regressive and autocratic vision from the past — a stratified society that serves the goals of vested interests and leaves rural communities in the position of powerless suppliers of raw materials and cheap labor.

This Plan takes that big step from telling people how they should live to making them live that way. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan is a “kick out notice” for rural residents unwilling or unable to conform.

The repopulation of rural towns by affluent incomers demanding services and conveniences that local residents neither need, want, nor can afford is the death knell for their historical independence and way of life — leaving young couples unable to buy a house in the town where they were born, or even eat in the local restaurants.

“Living here is only affordable when jobs are paying wages that make household costs manageable.” proclaims the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan.

Whether by inadvertence or design, the county’s high taxes, aggressive property assessments, and high rural unemployment rates are forcing the community’s rural residents to sell the land and homes their families have lived in for generations and leave Tompkins County — a problem that the Tomkins County Comprehensive Plan neither acknowledges nor plans to prevent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This article focuses on the fate of the rural community under the Plan’s “vision.”

Once the takeover of the surrounding towns was accomplished: The vested interests/nobility were given lands and position; with the understanding that they would acknowledge the leadership/sovereignty of the College Town through its County Legislature and the Plan.

Like the unborn who are no longer human beings, and the elderly who died in their thousands from COVUD-19 while state government shrugged its shoulders; New York’s rural residents are a troublesome segment of the population already marked for the chop.

In a county based on using and taking at the highest levels; the less-educated rural poor stand out like a starveling in a field of contented cash cows.

If we don’t “wither away”; there are other means.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Urbites” Cartoon

This is from a cartoon series for the book that was never realized, but I thought I’d throw in one. It speaks for itself.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Fly Zapper Incidents”

You know what they say about factory farms: “Familiarity breeds contempt; and flies.”

Here’s a few “zap and dirt nap” scenarios that makes play on words like playing in traffic. If you’ve never experienced it; you don’t know what you’re missing.

A factory farm has flies; and their rural neighbor flees. Bug out.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Whose Plan Is This Anyway?”

These are a couple of excerpts from one of the County Comp Plan articles. This Plan is a scary document that outlines how each aspect of our lives will be directed and controlled. It may be even scarier to learn how few people want to read it.

“To make a contented slave it is necessary to make a thoughtless one.” — Frederick Douglass

In a kind of natural selection; Cornithaca attracts those who are only concerned that their place in this new society is secure and defined.

It’s strange to think that it’s a University Town where the residents refuse to look at the corruption and oppression that goes on all around them. Maybe it’s what they’re being taught.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Smoke and Mirrors”

Another excerpt. If you’ve read the previous excerpts; you’re probably thinking: “Oh, another example of elitist policy making; can’t he write about something different.” There is no other kind of policy making in Cornithaca County.

I am trying to present a strong circumstantial case by showing the reader how all the facts point in the same direction. I could write about a hundred incidents that that support this argument; but it would be a waste of time: where could I go with it?

As I point out in my Deadly Drift story, even the laws don’t matter — they have the power and the friends to ignore or even rewrite them.

This book can be seen as a cautionary tale. As they used to say when I was in grade school: “A word to the wise is sufficient.” The “unwise” become characters in their own cautionary tales.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “The Death of Meaningful Public Participation”

THE DEATH OF MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Today’s rural residents have no place in Tompkins County’s future.

This statement is based on more than two years of research and review, questions and public meetings concerning the most recent Agriculture and Comprehensive Plans of Lansing and Tompkins County, NY.

The amount of evidence that supports this conclusion is so great, that even in outline, it covers many pages. In this, and in following articles, I will present some of the evidence and research that support this viewpoint. A body of evidence that is still awaiting public review and discussion — and has so far been successfully suppressed by the interests that drafted these plans.

The Death of Public Participation in Tompkins County

From its very beginning, the Lansing Ag Plan deliberately excluded any meaningful participation by Lansing’s rural families [who comprise 95% of the proposed “Ag Zone” residents; and are the poorest, least represented and most economically depressed segment of the town’s population.]

The Lansing Ag Plan, although it is funded by the state, shaped by rich agribusinesses and controlled by Cornell through their powerful and federally connected Cooperative Extension, is always described as “local.”

The parties involved were so confident they were “untouchable” that they did not even bother to cover their tracks; in what amounts to a privatization of public policy.

The EPA’s “Public Participation Guide” states: “Public participation affords stakeholders (those that have an interest or stake in an issue, such as individuals, interest groups, communities) the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.”

The county’s rural families have never been included as stakeholders in any planning decision; and are considered an obstruction by those who covet their land.

A Brief History

In response to my email expressing concerns with Lansing’s Proposed Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan and stating “This Summary gives the overall feeling that nobody else lives [or deserves to live] in North Lansing but farmers.” Cornell’s M***** R*** lead writer of the plan; inserted the phrase “You are right.”

I have reported this many times in communications with the people involved in Lansing Ag Plan’s formulation and approval, state and local politicians, boards and planners, and of course Cornell Cooperative Extension, and have never received even one response that repudiated or expressed any fault with this discriminatory policy statement.

Following M***** R***’s disclosure, and in light of the questionable and biased nature of the proposed Ag Plan, I sent a letter to Cornell Cooperative Extension [CCE] in December of 2015, along with a Title VI Environmental Justice form detailing seven major categories of complaint, including deceptive and false plan information, ignoring mandates for meaningful participation, incidents of CCE bias, and negative impacts of the plan on the rural community. This resulted in a meeting with CCE County Director K****** S********. The only outcome of this meeting, however, was his decision that further study of the Lansing Ag Plan was needed — there was no follow up to this meeting, and all subsequent attempts at communication went unacknowledged.

I then took all the previous information and sent it to the office of the state CCE Director C********** W*******, along with quotes from the CCE website declaring that their programs “build the capacity of New York State communities to engage in and direct their own futures.” The letter I received in response admitted no accountability or wrongdoing in their actions, and placed all responsibility solely on the Town of Lansing.

Similarly, Senator N******** responded that he did not have “authority or jurisdiction” and that the Ag Plan “falls under the control of a local municipal government,” and Senator G**********’s office agreed that it fell “under the jurisdiction of your local town government” and returned my correspondence.

In addition to the above, I have not been able to find one lawyer, or Tompkins County or New York State department, not one Cornell or Ithaca College professor, administrator or student activist group willing to help in this matter — even to the extent of writing a letter of protest. And at Ithaca College, the home of rural activist Janet Fitchen’s famous studies on rural poverty, a current professor wrote back excusing himself with “Janet worked in a simpler time.“

Local Lockstep

Local Lansing government and town officials, moving in lockstep with CCE, county and state agencies and politicians, have never once responded to questions about the lack of representation for the rural families living the Ag Plan area, or to the negative impact this plan would have on these families — and not one of the letters or emails sent to them has ever been acknowledged.

The Ag Plan’s “public meeting” was announced with minimum publicity, even though Town Board members knew that few rural families received the newspapers that posted the notices, and most rural residents did not have computers to track meetings, or even know how to use them.

The publicly staged Ag Plan meeting was no more than a small part of an ordinary Town Board meeting. Attendees could ask no questions, and were told that it was only as a favor they would be allowed to speak at all. Those wishing to speak were given two minutes each; after which the Town Board immediately approved the Lansing Ag Plan without comment or discussion.

Total public meeting time: 15 minutes.

Total respect for Lansing’s rural families: 0.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the time readers of the book have gotten a few pages into Part 2; the posters, games, and “humorous” pieces in Part 1 will be viewed in a different light.

These are no “A 2-page form to register a trailer!” type stories, but “The farm polluted our well, and I can’t afford to fix it or buy bottled water for our family!” situations.

And how do government agencies help them out?

They tell them to mix bottled water and the polluted well water together to be able to afford it. It may be safe to drink [if you’re not too old, or too young, and don’t have medical conditions.]

Or:

Shut down the well for safety; so they have no water at all.

In New York City: this would be outrageous! In rural New York: it’s not even a story.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “A Cyclic History”

A CYCLIC HISTORY

Pollute-Distort-Pacify-Repeat

Politicians, bureaucrats, and agricultural interests hold hands in committee, while putting on an endless dog and pony show of ineffectual voluntary fixes and do-nothing oversight.

10 years of articles in the Auburn Citizen show that efforts to abate agricultural pollution are at a standstill — the only difference is the date of the article.

The following quotes and excerpts are grouped by article and presented in chronological order:

The Citizen May 27, 2007: Is county’s top industry the largest threat to lakes? By Shane Liebler

“Overall, farmers are very good stewards of the land” Sharon Anderson, lake steward for the Cayuga Lake Watershed network, said. “When I talk to farmers, they’re concerned about the water.”

New York leads the nation in terms of regulations on large farms, Mark James, executive director of the Farm Bureau’s Finger Lakes office said.

“The plans and practices are working,” Jon Patterson of Patterson Farms in Aurelius said. “I’m sure of it,” he said.

“They’ve all been forgotten, they haven’t been monitored, they all drain into our lakes, which are becoming impaired,” watershed resident Connie Mather said.

The Citizen Jun 19, 2014: DEC fines Scipio farm for manure runoff events By Carrie Chantler

The DEC served Gary Allen and Duane Allen, the owners of Allen Farms, of Scipio, with a consent order they signed June 3 agreeing to pay a $10,000 fine for the runoff events that contributed to the contamination of lake tributaries and of a private drinking water well.

According to the order, a Feb. 20 application of manure to a field along Rice Road caused the contamination of a neighboring private drinking well.

Additionally, a Feb. 21 manure application caused contaminated runoff to discharge into Tributary 44a of the lake.

On March 11 and 28, manure Allen Farms applied to a field along Black Street caused contaminated runoff into Tributary 9a-1 of Yawger Creek.

On April 9, manure spread on a Gilling Road field caused contaminated runoff to discharge into Tributary 16 of Crane Brook.

On March 19, the Owasco Lake Watershed Management Council sent a letter to the DEC with an accompanying photo that showed a 75-by-25 foot plume of manure along the shore line near Fire Lane 26 in the Town of Scipio.

“Ten thousand dollars, we feel, is totally out of place,” said Michael Didio, chair of the OLWMC. “It should have been more like $100,000.”

Didio’s disfavor comes from his thinking that the fine becomes “the price of doing business” for the farm.

The Citizen Oct 29, 2014: Public discusses manure runoff into Owasco Lake By Carrie Chantler

“We drink the same water as everyone else does. Our children swim in the lakes, same as everyone else does. We, as a family farm, have as much invested in making sure that our natural resources are protected as everyone else does, maybe more so,” said Jason Burroughs.

“We believe that more emphasis is needed to be placed on the inspection and enforcement of the current CAFO plan before we look to add new regulations,” Jon Patterson of Patterson Farms said.

Residents with homes around the lake discussed how grandchildren and pets were kept from enjoying the lake this summer due to the algal blooms.

“If we don’t correct the situation now we will have future problems in a much higher level. Anyone who is a lake owner, you will not have waterfront property you will have lake view property because you can’t use the lake,” Steve Fland said.

The Citizen Dec 8, 2014: County water quality officials continue discussion about winter manure spreading By Carrie Chantler

In response to a request from a Cayuga County Water Quality Management Association member to look at the science behind the issue, the EPA viewed existing research on winter manure spreading and water quality and reported that in New York, the practice should be considered as “a last resort.”

The discussion turned then to best management practices and the distinction between the word “avoid” and “prohibit.”

“To say prohibit is a whole different ballgame than avoid, I think it’s prudent to avoid,” the county’s buildings and grounds superintendent Gary Duckett said. “I’m completely comfortable with saying avoid, but I don’t recommend prohibit.”

And Stefan Lutter, from Cornell Cooperative Extension, questioned the cumulative repercussions of what would happen if area farmers were prohibited from winter spreading and had to wait to spring to deal with stored manure.

What we do know from this review (winter spreading) is not doing any good from an agronomics point of view. Avoid it if you can, but it’s OK if you can’t,” Bob Brower of the Owasco Watershed Lake Association questioned. “I don’t understand.”

The Citizen Jun 26, 2015: Cayuga County agricultural working group receives positive input during forum on manure By Carrie Chantler

The 10-member advisory committee, comprised of city leaders, farmers and environmentalists, developed the report’s 15 recommendations, flagging five of them as high priority.

“Agriculture in Cayuga County is as important as the lake is, so we need to find a way to live and work together.” Auburn City Councilor Debbie McCormick, a member of the advisory committee.

The Citizen Feb 3, 2017: DEC issues new permits for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations By Gwendolyn Craig

“The permits are an important measure to safeguard public health and the environment. I thank everyone involved for their thoughtful input throughout this process,” said DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos, in a news release.

“New York Farm Bureau was a major collaborator in a workgroup with our agricultural and environmental partners from the very beginning of the new CAFO permit process,” said David Fisher, president of the New York Farm Bureau, in a news release.

Bob Brower, president of the Owasco Watershed Lake Association, said there was “great disappointment” over the new conditions.

The Citizen Feb 22, 2017: DEC works with two Cayuga County farms on manure runoff By Gwendolyn Craig

The state Department of Environmental Conservation was busy in Cayuga County this weekend, working with two farms that had manure runoff issues in two watersheds.

The DEC recommended the public to stay away from Salmon Creek and the Cayuga Lake shore near the creek’s inlet. The DEC also said the Tompkins County Health Department advises anyone on a beach well or using lake water in the area to avoid consumption.

RE: Sunnyside Farms manure spill

“It’s not a violation necessarily because it’s a good practice,” Doug Kierst executive director of the Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District told members of the Owasco Lake Watershed Management Council Tuesday. “It was on higher ground. It wasn’t seemingly saturated.”

RE: Broadway Pork farm chicken manure runoff

“There’s no need for fines or tickets,” Kierst said. “It’s a good way to handle it, through education and outreach.”

Jim Beckwith, former president of the Owasco Watershed Lake Association, seemed incredulous that part of an emergency plan would be to spread [manure] on snow.

The Citizen Mar 3, 2017: Manure management guidelines adopted by Cayuga County water agency By Gwendolyn Craig

Besides the Water Quality Management Agency’s nutrient working group, a group of 10 farmers, four who actively participated in the process, helped draft the document

All of the 19 practices outlined are voluntary measures – “guidelines intended to encourage progress through expanded voluntary use of proven, cost effective methods, technologies, and techniques rather than force changes through legislation or rule-making.”

“It’s a lot easier and softer to know that they’re just guidelines, and they’re not rules and regulations at this time,” Doug Kierst, executive director of the Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District said.

Members voted on the guidelines, passing them with Rick Nelson, representing the Owasco Watershed Lake Association, voting against. Nelson said that OWLA believes the guidelines “are inadequate and ineffective for phosphorous reduction.”

The Citizen Jun 20, 2017: Owasco Lake watershed rules and regulations get their first public critique in decades By Gwendolyn Craig

Steve Lynch, director of the Cayuga County Department of Planning and Economic Development said that now is the opportunity to examine what’s there and what’s not, use the best science available and input from various stakeholder groups, and create a document locally that works for the watershed, which touches Cayuga, Onondaga and Tompkins counties.

From the Cayuga County Government website:

“WELCOME!

The Owasco Lake Watershed Rules & Regulations Update Project is an important water quality initiative being undertaken by the Owasco Lake Watershed Management Council. The project goal is to update and revise the 1984 Owasco Lake Watershed Rules and Regulations, through a thoughtful and engaged public participation process resulting in effective and equitable watershed regulations that will help to improve, protect and preserve water quality within Owasco Lake and it’s 205-square mile watershed for the benefit of current and future generations.”

Stracuse.com Sept 25, 2017: ‘Astronomically high’ levels of new algae toxin found in Owasco Lake By Glenn Coin

Syracuse, N.Y. — Scientists have discovered a new algae toxin in Owasco Lake, and at levels high enough to kill dogs who swim in it, said the head of a state testing lab. The sample taken from Owasco Lake had “astronomically high” levels of the new toxin.

Cayuga County health Commissioner Kathleen Cuddy declined to answer questions about the new toxin earlier today, saying she needed to get more information.

New pony, same show.

Note: The New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee is appointed by the Governor. Current 2020 Voting Members: Representative-At-Large for Farm Interests (Chairman), New York Farm Bureau representative, New York State Grange representative, Representative-At-Large for Urban, Suburban, and Rural Non-Farm Interests (a former farmer, currently Associate Director of an Agribusiness.)

In every lake and waterway pollution remediation plan in NYS: All power is placed in the hands of farmers, politicians, and bureaucrats. Rural residents are unimportant and powerless. We don’t matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A ten-year history of government doing nothing.

The New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee is appointed by the Governor. Current 2020 Voting Members: Representative-At-Large for Farm Interests (Chairman), New York Farm Bureau representative, New York State Grange representative, Representative-At-Large for Urban, Suburban, and Rural Non-Farm Interests (a former farmer, currently Associate Director of an Agribusiness.)

In the New York State of Corruption: “You have to be in it to win it” — and the deeper you’re in; the more you win.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “The Map is not the Territory”

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY

The mapmakers are

If it is ethics that give a government legitimacy; what does the County’s creation and continued use of this map represent?

The Town of Lansing’s 2016 Agricultural Property map is just one example of the deliberate misrepresentations that riddle the County’s planning agenda:

• This map misrepresents existing facts: i.e. actual acreage receiving Agricultural Exemptions in 2016.

• The County’s Assessment Department admitted that they knowingly supplied a map misrepresenting the actual acreage receiving Agricultural Exemptions: “The intention of the map is to show the parcels that receive an agricultural exemption – it is not intended to show how much of each parcel receives an exemption.” This is clearly not the representation of the map. [As an example: Contrary to the 100% shown on the map, only 40% of my neighbor’s tax parcel receives an Agricultural Assessment.]

• This map was used to support preferential agricultural policies, including the creation of an Agricultural Zone, to the exclusion and detriment of the existing rural community — an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.

A knowingly inaccurate map should neither have been created nor have been offered for inclusion in a legal document that is described in NY Town Law as follows: “Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a town government is the authority and responsibility to undertake town comprehensive planning.”

Additionally, whereas this map is offered as a proof of intent by the Town for continued agricultural land use; a different Comp Plan map shows that the Town has zoned most of the agricultural land in the southern half of town for residential and commercial development.

Just changing the legend and/or name of the map would only cover up the situation and retain any advantages that the misrepresentation has already given to the parties involved.

I sent these arguments in an email requesting that the County Legislature remove this map from its files and from any documents wherein it has been used, and to correct as much as possible the damage its use has caused.

Attachments included both the Agricultural Property map and the “clarification” email from the County Assessment Department.

There was no response or acknowledgement of my email from any of the county’s 14 legislators.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government in Cornithaca County is inaccessible to its residents. The doors that lead to meaningful participation are merely a decoration. The actual decision making process takes place out of sight; and is revealed to the people as unalterable policy decisions.

Cornithaca County is the template for a secular religion: a stratified and compartmentalized society based on 200 years of bureaucratic materialism.

One thought, One taught • One voice, One choice . . . a shiny dictatorship with a dark underbelly.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Non-disclosure Agreement?”

NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT?

Who are they really helping?

While New York State only discloses that living in an Agricultural District may expose residents to “activities that cause noise, dust and odors,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has expressed the opinion that laws in an Agricultural District “may be inadequate for ensuring the safety of our environment and for protecting citizens from serious injury.”

The current New York Agricultural District Disclosure Form and Notice helps the rural real estate market and preserves higher assessments for taxing authorities, but it also encourages prospective buyers to assume a risk of “serious injury” for themselves and their families without being made aware that this risk even exists.

New York State needs to take reasonable steps to ensure that prospective buyers understand the financial and health risks of living in an Agricultural District so that they are in a position to make an informed decision.

Updating New York’s Agricultural District Disclosure Form and Notice is an important first step.

The following is text from the cover letter FedExed to the NYS Attorney General, the NYS Dept. of Health, a NYS Senator, a NYS Assemblywoman, and the County Health Dept.:

“I am writing you to request that you update the New York State Agricultural District Disclosure Form and Notice to ensure that prospective buyers understand the financial and health risks of living in an Agricultural District so that they are in a position to make an informed decision.

From the NYS Agricultural District Disclosure Form and Notice:

‘This disclosure notice is to inform prospective residents that the property they are about to acquire lies partially or wholly within an agricultural district and that farming activities occur within the district. Such farming activities may include, but not limited to, activities that cause noise, dust and odors.’

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [Mather v. Willet Dairy] in finding against plaintiffs suffering from the effects of manure off-gassing that included brain damage in one child and the surgical removal of eyelids in an adult commented:

‘We recognize that limiting citizen suits in this respect can cause serious injury to persons living near environmental dangers if the DEC and other environmental regulatory agencies are unable to monitor and sanction polluters effectively before compliance deadlines. Given that Willet Dairy had more than seven years before it was required to comply fully with its permit, that means no citizen could have brought a suit over that entire time for CWA violations. Such regulatory agencies may be unable to ensure that polluters are acting in accordance with their compliance schedules, given the numerous violations likely to occur. Consequently, limiting the ability of ‘private attorneys general’ to bring suit until after compliance deadlines may be inadequate for ensuring the safety of our environment and for protecting citizens from serious injury. But that is the remedy that Congress has provided and to which we are bound.’

Manure lagoons have been shown to harbor and emit over 400 VOCs and toxic gases [including Hydrogen Sulfide and Methane], more than 150 dangerous pathogens [including E. coli, Cryptosporidium and Anthrax], growth hormones, heavy metals, antimicrobials and antibiotics.

Particulate matter from agricultural sources contains up to 100 times the amount of bacteria and fungi as normal air.

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites the threat of antibiotic resistance:

‘When animals are given antibiotics for growth promotion or increased feed efficiency, bacteria are exposed to low doses of these drugs over a long period of time. This is inappropriate antibiotic use and can lead to the development of resistant bacteria.’

‘Resistant germs from the animal gut can also get into the environment, like water and soil, from animal manure.’

Although decades of scientific reports have expressed concern for the health of neighbors impacted by agricultural activities and cited the need for further investigation, no comprehensive or long-term studies have ever been made.

Many Agricultural District wells have been polluted through manure spills and other agricultural activities. Buyers need to be informed that well owners are solely responsible for the safety and quality of their well water [and that remedies, such as reverse osmosis and drinking bottled water are very expensive.]

Prospective buyers need also to be made aware that ‘satellite’ lagoons containing millions of gallons of liquid manure may be constructed next to rural residences on any land owned or bought by a farm and at the sole discretion of the farmer.

And that in an Agricultural District the ‘right of use and enjoyment’ of the buyer’s property will be effectively subordinated to any agricultural activity designated as a ‘sound agricultural practice’ by the New York Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets.

From the NYS Agricultural District Disclosure Form and Notice:

‘Prospective purchasers are urged to contact the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets to obtain additional information or clarification regarding their rights and obligations under Article 25-AA of the Agricultural and Markets Law.’

Looking for clarification of risks associated with living in an Agricultural District, I called the number listed on the Ag and Markets webpage. I was answered by an operator at the NYS Dept. of Ag and Markets Call Center. The operator was surprised and said she didn’t get calls about this. After a couple of minutes of research, she forwarded me to Land and Water Resources where someone there put me through to another party to answer my questions. He stated it was a ‘complicated law’ and spoke of ‘farmers seeking protection’ from towns and neighbors and restrictive laws.

When I pressed him about the health risks, he stated everything was on a ‘case by case’ basis, and if I identified the parcel there might be some hazardous material sheets, but I should really get in touch with the Agricultural District Coordinator from Cornell Cooperative Extension. Recognizing the name of the Coordinator, and having had issues with that person’s assertion that nobody but farmers deserved to live in North Lansing, I stopped the bureaucratic handoff at this point.

According to real estate professionals; this disclosure notice is not presented to a prospective buyer until the time the contract for the offer is being drawn up.

Given the late timing of its presentation, the lack of meaningful disclosure within the Notice itself, and my inability to ‘obtain additional information or clarification regarding their rights and obligations’ — the NYS Agricultural District Disclosure Form and Notice is a document whose purpose is to limit the warranty of prospective buyers without their knowledge.

If this is an oversight, it can be fixed. If it’s deliberate, it’s an unconscionable contract.

Please let me know what steps you plan to take to correct this.”

The County and State Health Departments refused involvement. None of the others even acknowledged the receipt of the letter.

Non-disclosure Agreement? – Part 2

Three months later on August 25, 2019, I emailed the text of the same letter [with copies of that letter and the Agricultural Disclosure form attached] to the members of the County Legislature.

After an initial positive response and an indication of willingness to at least add a supplemental County disclosure statement, everything went silent.

On November 19, 2019, I received an email stating that the matter had been handed over to the local Board of Realtors and the county’s Ag and Farm Protection Committee, and that they had “passed on” my “concerns and suggestions.” It referred to those parties as the “stakeholders.”

Just as in the Deadly Drift herbicide complaint, the decision to take any action was left to the same people who were accused of the misconduct; and had the most to lose if any action on the complaint was taken. No “conflict of interest” concerns were ever expressed by any County Legislator.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By this second letter, I’m a known “troublemaker.” Faced with documented health issues from agricultural activities; authorities stonewalled with silence.

The injuries to neighbors cited included brain damage in one child and the surgical removal of eyelids in an adult.

The farm was protected from this “nuisance suit” by a NYSDEC “shield” and Agricultural Law.

When I put the issue up to the County Legislators; they handed it over to the local Board of Realtors and the county’s Ag and Farm Protection Committee: and referred to those parties as the “stakeholders.”

Once again the decision to take any action was left to the same people who were accused of the misconduct; and had the most to lose if any action on the complaint was taken. No “conflict of interest” concerns were ever expressed by any County Legislator.

The health and well-being of rural families was never mentioned: We don’t matter.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Deadly Drift” Report

DEADLY DRIFT

If there’s a law; and nobody enforces it: Does it actually exist?

“Early Sunday morning, June 4, 2017, I was sicker than I had ever been before.

Too sick to even bend over, as I vomited all over the toilet, myself, and the bathroom floor— and I didn’t even care.

The previous afternoon, when I was outside mowing the lawn, a high-clearance agricultural boom sprayer sped towards me from an adjoining field and sprayed me with a cloud of a toxic herbicide.

The subsequent conduct of the NYSDEC in the handling of their investigation of this incident and what appears to be inadequate oversight and control of licensed herbicide applicators are the issues on which I am requesting action.”

This was the beginning of the cover letter for evidence packets FedExed to the NYS Attorney General, the NYS Dept. of Health, a NYS Senator, a U.S. Senator, and the County Health Dept.

The evidence included: the NYSDEC’s incident report, a photo of the site where the incident occurred, NOAA’s local weather records for the afternoon of the incident, and comments on the quality of the NYSDEC report by an expert.

Both health departments and the U.S. senator declared they had “no jurisdiction.” The state senator and the Attorney General merely passed my complaint of the NYSDEC’s misconduct back to the NYSDEC for their review. The NYSDEC, in turn, dismissed my complaint without ever addressing the evidence. Their findings could be summarized in seven words: It was done right, and that’s that!

The following is from the same cover letter:

“I was finishing mowing my lawn on my rider mower when I noticed a self-propelled high-wheel boom sprayer moving rapidly in my direction from the north. It turned at a right angle to move quickly across the northern boundary of my lawn less than thirty feet away, and I was engulfed in a strong smelling cloud of what I later found out was Roundup. I was unable to escape because after sitting on the mower for an hour-and-a-half, at my age and condition, it takes five to ten seconds just to stand up straight.

It was a windy day. My weather station showed winds of 20 mph and the grass clippings were really flying.

I went inside and washed, but there was nothing I could do about the herbicide I had breathed in or gotten up my nose.

I was in bed for 24 hours, and it was many days before I seemingly recovered.

The NYSDEC did not follow even the basic guidelines for an investigation, and never explored the reasons for the event or tried to identify the immediate and underlying causes. Instead of collecting the facts they noted only that the driver/applicator “disputed the wind speed.” The local NOAA weather records show wind speeds of 13 – 16 mph that afternoon, with gusts up to 23 mph — confirming my statement.

It is impossible that anyone could spray under the conditions that existed that afternoon and be unaware of the wind. I also do not find it believable that Helena Chemical would not monitor wind and weather conditions and so be unaware of those conditions when they applied herbicides.

While I do not have any definitive documentation for my claims of the boom sprayer’s speed, the NYSDEC report’s evidence is indicative. “Overspray of herbicide was found on the south and east edge of the property” that was caused by herbicide applied against a NW wind. The distance that the boom must have been swung into my yard to cause that to happen is another indication of the lack of care and control with which the herbicide was applied.

The most glaring omission in the report is the absence of any investigation into how the driver/applicator could have missed seeing me on a rider mower while traveling toward me for over a hundred yards at “12 mph” and sitting in an elevated position with a completely unobstructed view — a distance that would take 18 seconds to cover at that speed.

I was unable to get permission to use a photo of one of these large boom sprayers; however these are typical specifications: height 12 feet, length 28 feet, width without boom 12 feet, and with boom extended 90-120 feet. Weight 35,000 lbs. Spray tank size 1000-1600 gallons. Road speed with boom folded 30-40 mph. Spray application speed with boom unfolded up to 25 mph. The NYSDEC report called this high-clearance boom sprayer a “tractor.” This is a term and a usage I have never seen listed for these machines in any manufacturer’s literature.

In addition, I also found that many of my statements in the report were twisted and misrepresented in a way that could be used to discredit my testimony.

The NYSDEC report was reviewed by Gary Van Houten, a laboratory and field scientist with twelve years of inspection experience with the NYS DOH and The Cortland County Health department, where he held the title of Environmental Laboratory Consultant and Sanitarian, respectively. He noted the following:

“The first being an investigative report should be FACTUAL, not INTERPETIVE, as in “Expressed views that was politically active against farming.” The second was the use of an exclamation point at the end of “case closed” which to me is highly unprofessional, and may be presenting a bias.”

“I also question (with ignorance on my part) if Jeffery K****** has the authority to close the case, and was it done with the approval of his supervisor?”

Large self-propelled sprayers can cover a 30 acre field in a matter of minutes, arriving unannounced and departing without the knowledge of those affected by the herbicide drift.

In recounting my poisoning incident to others, I found that incidents of herbicide drift and its effects were not uncommon in the community. While one resident mentioned seeing herbicide drifting onto clothes hung out to dry, another was unaware that herbicide had been sprayed and made no connection to the nausea and other symptoms he experienced until later. Some spoke of the high rate of cancer in their family.

Every new report about Roundup seems to reveal another health risk. This herbicide is routinely sprayed on many thousands of acres around and among the residences of our rural families and their children, and from my and other’s experiences, without regard for our safety.

NYSDEC is directly responsible for issuing herbicide application permits and for the oversight of their proper use. Their professional and ethical conduct is essential to the health and well-being of the rural community.

Any investigation should include a check of Helena Chemicals’ records of herbicide applications against the local weather records to establish how often Roundup and other herbicides have been sprayed in dangerously windy conditions.

In addition, were there any changes of policy or personnel made within Helena Chemical at the time of my herbicide poisoning and complaint that would indicate knowledge of wrongdoing and an attempt to cover up, and did the NYSDEC had any involvement in these changes?

The NYSDEC has sometimes been pejoratively referred to by rural residents as the “Department of Environmental Corruption” — isn’t it time we changed that?”

Deadly Drift – Part 2

In forwarding the review of the NYDEC’s investigation from their Regional Director; the state senator noted “the Department’s response was not what you hoped for”

This is what I wrote back:

“I was hoping for a more forthright response from the NYSDEC.

Mr. M**** must be so used to steamrollering over complainants that he has taken no pains to actually support his opinions. His letter does not properly address the facts of the complaint or reveal any convincing evidence for his conclusions — it merely seeks to discredit my claims and the credibility of the incident.

He is dismissive of the wind speed data I supplied, and contends without basis that I want “stronger laws.” I still believe that a proper oversight and enforcement of the current laws is all that is needed as both a remedy and a deterrent. He further states: “the complaint about the DEC’s investigation can only be answered from the perspective of the current laws and regulations. In this regard, Part 6 of the New York Code Rules and Regulations section 325 et seq. provides the requirements for the use and application of pesticides. These include the following:

Pesticides should only be used under such conditions that wind and other conditions prevent contamination to people, property, and wildlife, water, etc.
Pesticides are to be used in accordance with the manufacturer’s label.
The pesticide applicator must have received training, passed examination and be currently certified.”

While Mr. M**** uses the above rules and regulations as an argument that the decision “not to commence enforcement was proper,” the findings of every authoritative source I have researched corroborates the need for enforcement measures in this case on the basis of these same rules and regulations:

University of Minnesota Extension – When is it too Windy to Spray?

“Always measure wind speed and direction before, during, and after the application. Always follow label information, but in general, wind speeds of 3 to 7 mph are preferable. Spray at low wind velocities (less than 10 mph).”

Perdue University Extension – Reducing Spray Drift from Glyphosate and Growth Regulator

“Spray when the wind speeds are less than 10 MPH. Some labels, such as Banvel® provide a specific wind speed (15 MPH).”
“Spray when the wind direction is away from sensitive areas”

Montana State University Extension – Avoiding Pesticide Drift

“Spray when the wind speed is 10 mph wind or less.”

Michigan State University Extension

“Professional pesticide applicators carry windspeed gauges to determine if windspeed are within acceptable limits There is no magic number for windspeed though ten miles per hour is a common rule of thumb as a limit for spraying.”
“One the most important cautions on contact herbicide labels is avoid drift.”

University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Research & Extension – Mitigating Pesticide Spray Drift

“Most labels recommend not applying pesticides when wind is gusty or speed is greater than 10 mph. It is recommended for applicators to regularly and accurately measure wind speed to ensure proper spray deposition.”

Iowa State University Extension – Wind Speed and Herbicide Application

“The labels for Group 4 herbicides approved with the new herbicide-resistant crops specify not to apply when wind speeds exceed 15 MPH. Other labels (e.g. Laudis, Cobra, etc.) specify 10 MPH as the maximum wind speed for application. Spraying when winds exceed label restrictions is not only illegal, but can override steps taken to eliminate off-target movement (e.g. low-drift nozzles, low spray pressure, etc.).”

The National Weather Service recorded sustained wind speeds of 17 mph that afternoon, with gusts to 23 mph. This greatly exceeds the safety recommendations of every authoritative source I could find.

In addition, the repeated mention of professional pesticide applicators using wind speed gauges brings to light another aspect of this incident that needs investigation: If the applicator from Helena Chemical had a wind speed gauge, why was its presence never mentioned in the NYSDEC investigation or by the applicator himself?

Since Mr. M**** admits that the ‘requirements for use and application of pesticides’ also include the requirement that “Pesticides are to be used in accordance with the manufacturer’s label,” I submit the material below from the notice and enclosure of registration for Glyphosate 41%. [Italics and Bold format are added.]

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Pesticide Programs Registration Division (7505P)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460

EPA Reg. Number: 91543-1

Date of Issuance: 6/21/16

NOTICE OF PESTICIDE: X Registration

Glyphosate 41%

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.

“Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application. For any requirements specific to your State or Tribe, consult the agency responsible for pesticide regulations.”

“Wind – Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2-10 mph.”

“Sensitive Areas – The pesticide must only be applied when the potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g. residential areas, bodies of water, known habitat for threatened or endangered species, non-target crops) is minimal (e.g. when wind is blowing away from the sensitive areas).”

Along with dismissing most of my complaint through flat statements and unsubstantiated arguments, Mr. M**** ignores much of the supporting evidence:

He fails to mention that my first complaint was to Helena Chemical on the afternoon of the herbicide application, June 3, 2017. Immediately after being sprayed, I went inside the house, cleaned up, and called the renting farmer [Jeff C***], who gave me the number for the Helena Chemical manager. The manager expressed no apology, but merely told me I should get cleaned up. If Mr. M**** was unable to find a record of that complaint in his investigations of the incident, I’m sure that Jeff C*** [and the phone records] will corroborate it.
He never explains how the applicator, with an unobstructed view for the entire length of the field, missed seeing me on a rider mower in my own backyard.
Mr. M**** provided no response to the findings of a well-qualified inspector regarding the quality of the original investigation. This expert is willing to appear and defend his statements.
My becoming “violently ill” as a result of that application of herbicide is definitely a fact I won’t forget. [Mr. M****’s discounts my first-hand testimony, “Mr. Baird contends,” while he unquestioningly accepts the testimony of the investigator and the herbicide applicator.] Mine is not an isolated case of herbicide drift — the people mentioned in my letter have all agreed to testify, and may have called your office already.
The constant rains of 2017 greatly reduced the windows of opportunity for herbicide application that spring, and thereby delayed the planting of crops. Did the pressure of farmers and contractual obligations lead Helena Chemical to spray recklessly, and in an unlawful manner? Comparing Helena Chemical’s records of application against the local weather records would reveal the extent of the community’s exposure to these toxic and deadly chemicals. Mr. M**** never even mentions this important step in fulfilling the NYSDEC’s stewardship and their mandate to protect the health and well-being of the rural community.

Mr. M**** also states that the herbicide was “applied on the farm adjacent to his [my] residence,” and the Environmental Conservation Police visited “the farm where the pesticide was applied.” This is incorrect. The herbicide was applied on my land, land that I owned and [as I’ve come to regret] rented out for agricultural use.

What do I think of the results of Mr. M****’s investigation? Viewed as dismissive stonewalling, it makes me angry — but as an indictment of the NYSDEC’s self-investigation of misconduct, their do-nothing oversight of licensed pesticide applicators, and their lack of concern for rural residents, it’s a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence.”

I tried to explore all avenues of remediation, and follow all the proper protocols, so that nothing could “fall through the cracks.”

An email detailing this situation [including the evidence] that was sent to the Federal DEC did not even get an acknowledgement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The reality of Cornithaca’s “Ag Ghetto” make the satires of Part 1 seem like nothing more than an extrapolation; a projection of the future.

I tried to explore all avenues of remediation, and follow all the proper protocols, so that nothing could “fall through the cracks,” but it doesn’t matter.

The Law doesn’t matter.

The rural drug addiction doesn’t matter.

The poverty and lack of education doesn’t matter.

The health of the rural community doesn’t matter.

You have seen a lot of stories recently about injustice to Blacks; but none about the continuing injustice in our rural communities: We don’t matter.

The fight for rural social justice is like throwing a stone into the abyss — In rural New York; No one can hear you scream.