rural representation – Page 2 – Rural Tompkins County

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “Rise of the Evil Ones” – “Local Government Communications”

It happened again. Mr. “Hope-a-dope.” We were told; “You already have my support there” by our County representative; and “You’ll need the signatures of people on the road” – which we did – but when we finished our part: he refused to acknowledge or respond to any of our communications.

We were fools to believe. The only question is whether we were just tricked into wasting time and energy to weaken our resolve — or whether they needed the time to put something over behind the scenes.

Asking for the government’s help in Tompkins County; merely gives advance warning of a problem that needs to be covered up, or a public action that needs to be quashed.

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “Rise of the Evil Ones” – Sanitizing Urban Colonialism

Urban Colonialism is the tentacle of our City-centric government: rural America is the patsy of urban policy making, and the cesspit of urban waste. Our country’s rural “Ag Ghettos” are decaying communities; lorded over by corporate agribusinesses wielding an absolute political power and entitlement. Communities that stood for centuries; through drought, depression and war – are being crushed by corrupt regulations and Agricultural Law: forced on them by a New Urbanism that sees rural America solely as a source of their food, and their recreation.

Urban Colonialism is the same authoritarian and arrogant model as every other colonialist paradigm: a policy of oppression, marginalization, and use – under the umbrella of “bringing civilization to the natives.”

If you want to see everything that’s wrong with our country; don’t look to the cities – look to the poverty, drug, crime, and ignorance that has eaten up rural America – the destruction of a people that are so unimportant — they’re not even worth thinking about.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Town of Lansing Comp Plan – Introduction: “From First to Last”

The Town of Lansing is proposing a new Local Law – one that only applies to the “Rural/Agricultural Zone”; and further restricts the lives and activities of the town’s rural residents.

In today’s world of unabashed self-promotion; where the most repressive and discriminatory policies are marketed as the “Greater Good” — a dictatorship has crawled through the crumbling remains of our once representative government. How can you survive on the path to world-wide dissolution? Conforming won’t help you get a place in the lifeboat: you’re just clawing up the backs of those who are already drowning.

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

TOWN OF LANSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Introduction

From First to Last

Buried towards the end of Chapter 4 in the Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan; is a paragraph that should have come at the plan’s beginning – a statement that reveals the true authorship and intent of the town’s future policy making:

“The best way to plan for the long-term future of the Town of Lansing is to decide regionally where the major commercial, educational, shopping, recreational, health care, agricultural, manufacturing and residential sectors will be located. The reality is that our municipalities are not in competition with each other; rather they survive in symbiotic relationships. We should build upon these cooperative relationships in land-use decisions as well, while respecting a town’s right to home rule. New York State Law delegates planning decisions to the town and city levels but does not forbid a more coordinated process.”

This statement unilaterally rewrites the whole structure of responsibility and obligation of town government; and directly contradicts New York State Town Law § 272-a:

“The development and enactment by the town government of a town comprehensive plan which can be readily identified, and is available for use by the public, is in the best interest of the people of each town.”

The Law clearly shows the intent of the law is NOT to make the Town’s comprehensive plan a “regional” decision.

“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”

The comprehensive plan is an important “duty” and “responsibility” of the town government – and as such cannot be delegated or subordinated to other agencies or interests.

“The participation of citizens in an open, responsible and flexible planning process is essential to the designing of the optimum town comprehensive plan.”

The Town of Lansing planning process was anything but “open”; with citizen participation relegated to a scattering of meaningless pre-planning activities – and offering NO participation for residents throughout the entire decision-making and policy approval process.

Lansing Town Government’s claims of public representation rests on a single telephone survey, prepared and administered by Cornell University’s Survey Research Institute (SRI) [See Ruler of All you Survey for a more detailed examination.] – A survey that was widely attacked by Lansing residents in a Town Meeting. The advocates of the survey retreated – and ended up by claiming that it was only meant to give an indication, and was not to be considered an important policy document. This same survey was later cited and used throughout the final Comprehensive Plan as both a definitive source and as a mandate from the town’s residents.

In this “Community Survey” – 365 town residents were cold-called on issues that had never been brought up for discussion or debate, to reply to a series questions that showed a definite bias in their preparation.

The Survey’s method of formulation and its inclusion as the Town’s only source of policy-defining public participation – shows the ongoing misrepresentation of policy goals and lack of ethical underpinning that pervades policy-making in Tompkins County.

New York State Town Law § 272-a:

“In the event the town board prepares a proposed town comprehensive plan or amendment thereto, the town board shall hold one or more public hearings and such other meetings as it deems necessary to assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed plan or amendment”

Everybody I talk to; everybody; believes that there is no meaningful participation by the people in either Town or County government — and the actions of government policy-makers to stubbornly continue insisting that there is meaningful public participation; while refusing to allow public participation and oversight; gives legitimacy to that belief.

The lead writer of the Town of Lansing Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan [from Cornell Cooperative Extension] publicly expressed the opinion that nobody but farmers “deserved to live in north Lansing” [an opinion that no Town official would rebut] – And the entire Plan was prepared while excluding 95% of the rural residents from any participation at all. This “Protection Plan” [including its policy of rural citizen exclusion] was then approved by both the Town of Lansing, and Tompkins County governments – and became an important part of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan’s “vision.”

It’s should be interesting for students of Tompkins County government to note how perfectly both the Ag Protection Plan and the Lansing Comp Plan dovetail together — with both supporting each other and claiming that the other Plan is essential to the success of their own.

Unsurprisingly; the 2018 Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan echoes the exact same policies and concerns as the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan of three years earlier: Lansing Town Government has abjured their duty to the people of the town — and meekly acquiesced to the County’s primacy by accepting “planning at the county level”.

The Town of Lansing should post a disclaimer on all their documents stating: “No meaningful public participation was used in the formulation of these policies and regulations.”

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Town of Lansing Comp Plan – Part 1: “Home Invasion”

It’s an age where people don’t need to know what they’re talking about – only that it needs to conform to what they are supposed to say. When this book is finished and available; even with all the documentation – many people will see it as an attack on their beliefs – without reading it – and without thinking. It’s “fake” news, “fake” facts, “fake” something.

This unthinking mob of adolescent adults may be useful for politicians and corporations – but it’s a one-trick-pony where survival is concerned. They need to see a disaster movie screenplay where they are not selected as the designated survivors; because no one survives.

Today’s government policies read like a man who jumped off the roof of a hundred-story building and as he passed the 79^th floor was heard to say: “All right, so far!” We’re falling to place most people can’t imagine; and are not being told about. Parachutes made from recycled plastic bottles will only give you a soft landing into a toxic sea, breathing unsupportable air.

I won’t live that long — but here’s a thought: maybe the building is only 50 floors . . . or twenty five. Think “fake” extinction.

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

TOWN OF LANSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Part 1

Home Invasion

The rural Town of Lansing is racing ahead to be the “the growth part of the Tompkins County area,” but when you look around; there’s no competition in sight — so why are they doing this?

Nothing shows the duplicitous agenda of Tompkins County government as clearly as their treatment of housing. This essay will examine housing policy statements in both the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, and the Cornell-written Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan.

Ithaca has been simultaneously listed as both “the best destination for students” in the American Institute of Economic Research’s list of the best college towns in the country, and as #11 in the Top 20 cities with the “least affordable rents” by the New York Times.

With its high rents, high taxes, and lack of housing already forcing 80% of their workers to live outside the City, how can Ithaca attract new businesses and provide affordable housing while keeping College revenues up and protecting those low-density, high rent urban neighborhoods with that “small town feeling” students and professors love?

Answer: Force another municipality to build the affordable housing that your workers need, and let them shoulder the cost of the schools and services; while you keep the businesses and spending in your upscale, “small town” Ithaca.

Create a “vision,” for Tompkins County and use all of your credentials and influence to sell it directly to another town government – and by the time the town’s residents wake up to what’s happening; it’s too late.

The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan’s backers heavily and aggressively promote the creation of an “Urban Center” and “Development Focus Areas”:

“The Urban Center includes portions of the City of Ithaca, the Towns of Ithaca and Lansing, and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing and is the largest of the Development Focus Areas.”

“It is envisioned in the future at least two-thirds of all new residential development would occur in the Development Focus Areas.”

The following excerpts from the comprehensive plans of the “Urban Center” municipalities gives a clearer picture of how this residential development will actually be shared:

Village of Lansing Comp Plan: “All HDR [High Density Residential/Multi-Family] parcels in the Village have been developed.”

Village of Cayuga Heights Comp Plan: “For the purpose of land use analysis, the County plan . . . anticipates no major changes for the Village in the coming decades.”

City of Ithaca Comp Plan: “No significant changes to the character of low-density residential areas are proposed.” “No significant changes to the character of medium-density residential areas are proposed”

Town of Ithaca Comp Plan: “The HDR–High Density Residential zone accommodates detached and semi-detached (duplex) residences in a medium density setting. . . Only 136 acres, or 0.7% of the Town, is zoned HDR.”

Town of Lansing Comp Plan:

“From these residential housing maps, we can see that the area of South Lansing, which runs along Triphammer and Warren Roads, is currently unaffordable for the majority of people within the region. However, due to close proximity to jobs, shopping and the university it would make for an ideal location for housing, which would provide the opportunity for people to earn a living and spend less than the 30% threshold for affordability.”

Since the rural Town of Lansing is the farthest municipality in the County’s new “urban center” – 8 miles – from Cornell and Ithaca’s business and shopping: arguing this development on the basis of its “close proximity” and “ideal location” is more than a misrepresentation.

“By creating compact neighborhoods of high population density, TCAT would be more likely to expand into this area and thereby making housing more affordable by eliminating the costs of additional vehicles and associated transportation.”

How can you argue to expand mass transit into a new area; when you already have an existing transit system and great walkability in an urban area with endless housing redevelopment potential? An area that has the jobs and businesses that these relocated workers would need to be bused many extra miles to get to.

“Housing expansion in the form of new developments and PUD’s will result in increased traffic and the need to expand roads and/or mass transit to accommodate the resulting increase in population. As with municipal water and sewer, the logical choice would be to gradually expand out from the village into the area of South Lansing and eventually further north.”

[PUDs are “Planned Unit Developments” – a term used to describe a housing development that is not subject to standard zoning requirements for the area – a further erosion of any community control.]

Since the Town of Lansing will need to “create neighborhoods,” “expand roads,” and add “municipal water and sewer” to their infrastructure, as well as being miles further away from Ithaca’s job and business center than any other municipality in the County’s “Urban Center” plan — how could this ever be considered the best planning solution for Tompkins County?

Town of Lansing 2018 Comprehensive Plan’s “Proposed Future Land Uses”: depicts thousands of acres that will be zoned for apartments and condominiums. Tompkins County and “Lansing’s” government plan to turn a once rural town into the largest and most concentrated collection of housing developments in the region.

“The construction of a new four-lane highway on the outskirts of Ithaca, NY created a rapidly growing commercial center in the previously rural Town of Lansing. The clash between the newcomers and the old-timers over the direction and pace of this change led to the formation of a new local government and the incorporation of the Village of Lansing.” – Lansing at the Crossroads: A Partisan History of the Village of Lansing, New York, Rita Smidt

Incomers from Ithaca and Cornell continued to move into what was left of rural Lansing; creating a large urban sprawl bedroom community and gradually taking over the town’s government and planning. Finding a loophole from an old agreement to share municipal Highway Dept. services: that allowed residents of the Village of Lansing to vote in the Town of Lansing’s elections without any reciprocity – they blanketed the Village’s streets with election signs calling themselves the candidates “For All of Lansing” — there were no ethical qualms about having residents from a different municipality, with a very different viewpoint, voting into office a Town Board that would radically change the community they had historically “clashed” with. The plan worked.

It’s the Fall of 2021; and upcoming elections for Lansing’s Town Board – a sign in the Village of Lansing:

PLEASE VOTE!

Village of Lansing

residents

vote in

Lansing Town Elections

First Tuesday in November

After all; isn’t this in line with the ethics and actions already demonstrated by Tompkins County government itself?

The “Urban Center/Development Focus Area/Rural Sprawl” housing agenda that County Planners concocted for the Town of Lansing is an example of everything that’s wrong with the “City-centric” planning of Tompkins County today:

• Academic credentials at the service of vested interests.

• Adopting a lesser plan to appease a greater master.

And maybe what’s even worse; in a college “destination” with such smug pretensions of being a seat of learning and illumination — it’s intellectually dishonest.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – The Map is not the Territory: The mapmakers are

Tompkins County policy making is a puzzle with thousands of pieces; all the same size, the same shape, and imprinted with the same design. No matter how many pieces you put together; the picture never changes — it just gets bigger.

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

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY

The mapmakers are

Sometimes it can be little things that point the most clearly to misconduct and undue influence in government policy making.

Removed from the shadows of bureaucratic justification: each piece tells a story of the ethics and intent behind these public policies — who receives the benefits — and how that affects the life of the community.

In this chapter; I will use the legal definition of fraud to examine a map that was used to support far-reaching policy decisions, summarize the results of that examination and its disclosure

The map is the “Town of Lansing, N.Y. Agricultural Property” map displaying the legend: “Agricultural Exemptions 2016”. The source is “Tompkins County Assessment Dept, 2016” and it contains the seal and imprint of the “Tompkins County Planning Dept”.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. It can be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements:

(1) A false statement of a material fact

Nearly half of the land marked as “agricultural property” in this map is not owned by agricultural entities; and is only rented for agricultural use. Much of this property is residential or commercially owned and rented for a little tax relief – in a county that has one of the highest median property taxes in the United States.

Although the map purports to show “Agricultural Exemptions” – much of the land marked does not receive any agricultural exemption. For example: only 40% of my neighbor’s land received an agricultural exemption; but 100% was marked as receiving it in this map.

(2) Knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue

In a “clarification” email; the County’s Assessment Department admitted that they knowingly helped create 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.” Although this is clearly not the representation of this map; the Assessment Dept. still insisted: “The map is in fact correct.”

(3) Intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim

This map was used to support preferential agricultural policies for a handful of influential farmers, including the unilateral creation of an Agricultural Zone, to the exclusion and detriment of 95% of the existing rural community — an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact. This is an “afterthought” piece of supporting evidence; created and added after the town’s Agriculture Protection Plan was already approved – what it claims to be is clearly, knowingly, and admittedly, not a true representation.

(4) Justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement

This map is “signed off” on by both the County Assessment Dept. and the County Planning Dept.; it was included in the Town’s comprehensive plan, and was presented with those credentials as a factual representation. Residents were invited to place reliance on this map and approve the rezoning of half of the town from Rural/Agricultural to Agricultural only.

(5) Injury to the alleged victim as a result

This map was used by authorities to justify the enactment of restrictive policies against “non-farming” residents; further marginalizing the county’s rural poor — to promote Agriculture as the only preferred use of rural land, and to designate farmers as the sole and exclusive “stakeholders” in the rural community.

This map is included in the arguments of Town and County “representatives” who fostered citizen petitions to prevent the sale or rental of rural land for solar farms or for housing, and force highly-taxed rural landowners to sell cheaply to farmers; already the richest and most influential people in the community. The “consolidation” of rural land into the hands of ever-larger farming corporations; further enables the spread of “modern farming methods” that have been proven to cause “significant harm” to neighboring families.

A knowingly inaccurate map should neither have been created nor have been offered for inclusion in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan – a legal document that is described in NY Town Law as: “Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a town government.”

Additionally, whereas this map is offered as a proof of intent by the Town to protect land for continued agricultural use; the Town has sold the land that it rented for agriculture use to a housing developer — and a different Comprehensive Plan map shows that the Town plans to zone most of the agricultural land in the southern half of town for future 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 from any of the county’s 14 Legislators.

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.

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – Cornithaca Road Signs – “Ag, Gov. and Media – More Than In Bed”

Like “Rural Social Justice” – What? – the plight of rural communities across the county, and their victimization by “City-centric” corporate and government policies, is unreported and unremarked. This is not by accident.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – Doctrine Flowchart Poster

Make your own Doctrine Flowcharts of community policies. While the actual government policies are predetermined, and the approval process ticks along unchecked; many meaningless branches are extended into the public arena: the questionnaires, the media enabled promotional articles, and of course, those public hearings where policy-maker-supplied “experts” reinforce the need for these changes and “a vision for the future” that’s as likely to happen as winning the Lottery.

Cornell-supplied experts and County bureaucrats placed a “Berlin Wall” across the rural Town of Lansing: producing a document that claimed the Agricultural Sector would keep taxes low by preventing the “high cost of services” of residential development — and that the development of a “bedroom community” Residential Sector in the south would also lower taxes. The existing 200-year old rural community; had no place in this document. The plan was immediately approved without public oversight or participation.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Sewers of the Land”

SEWERS OF THE LAND

Every Silence Tells a Story

Like a relative that no one wants to talk about; the County’s Plan tiptoes around the effects of agricultural pollution in a blatant example of skewed environmental reporting.

The presentation of some of the arguments is a bit technical; the facts are unequivocal.

The County Plan: “Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet, and Sixmile Creek play a significant role in determining the quality of water in the southern basin of Cayuga Lake as they contribute approximately 40 percent of all the surface water entering the southern end of the lake.”

• Salmon Creek is located in Tompkins County and is one of “the three largest watersheds in the Cayuga basin as a whole.”

“The watershed land uses range from the highly urban and forested Cayuga Inlet to the mostly agricultural Salmon Creek.”

Nutrient pollution from runoff and groundwater discharge “are relatively minor in the urbanized watershed but are much more significant in the two more agricultural watersheds, Fall Creek and Salmon Creek. The high contributions from groundwater in those watersheds, 55% and 72%, respectively, pose difficult challenges for management because only long-term changes in land use can reduce these loads.” — Quoted from Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012

Why was Salmon Creek or agricultural pollution never mentioned in the County’s Plan?

The County Plan: “Most of the phosphorus that enters the southern end of Cayuga Lake is bound up with the sediment carried by Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet, and Sixmile Creek. This sediment is largely the result of stormwater runoff and erosion of stream banks.”

• Actually, the percentage of bioavailable particulate phosphorus [available nutrient for algae growth] measured in Salmon Creek was more than twice that of Fall Creek, and more than three times that of both Cayuga Inlet, and Six Mile Creek. [Phosphorus Bioavailabiltiy and Loads, Upstate Freshwater Institute, 10/22/2015]

The County Plan: “Impaired water bodies and their related pollutants, are published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The most recent list published in 2012 identified the southern end of Cayuga Lake as impaired by three pollutants: phosphorus, silt/sediment, and pathogens.”

Phosphorus

• “Mean annual TP [Total Phosphorus] load to Cayuga Lake is just under 100 Mg∕year, of which 60 Mg∕year is DP [Dissolved Phosphorus.] The largest source of both DP and TP is agricultural runoff, providing 45% of the DP and 47% of the TP. Urban runoff provides 13% of the TP but negligible DP. The largest urban TP source, at 8%, is high-density impervious residential land.” — Quoted from Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012

Silt/sediment

• The County’s Plan makes no mention is made of the wide-spread agricultural practice of “tiling” fields [installing subsurface drainage on the entire field]. Tiling will drain a field in minutes, rather than hours; not only causing water to flow into streams more quickly and allowing less water to replenish the groundwater, but increasing the flow of sediment and manure into Cayuga Lake tributaries.

Pathogens

• The County’s Plan makes no mention of pathogens.

• From “The Effects that Liquid and Solid Cattle Manure have on the Water Quality of Drainage Ditches in Putnam County, Ohio”, Bowling Green State University, Janelle Horstman, 2014: “Conclusion” – “My results allow me to conclude that the most nutrient and pathogen pollution occurs after large rainstorm events, especially after manure has been applied to land for months with no precipitation events, and after manure application on frozen ground. These results support the findings from similar studies. I can also generalize that many of the soils from the field sites that I collected from had buildups of phosphorus, which likely contributed to the high concentrations of phosphorus in the runoff samples that I collected. I can also conclude that the manure pathogens that I examined for antibiotic resistance were resistant to high levels of ampicillin. This result further supports the severity of antibiotic resistance and the negative health effects and environmental effects that they can cause.”

• From “Antibiotic Resistance, Gene Transfer, and Water Quality Patterns Observed in Waterways near CAFO Farms and Wastewater Treatment Facilities” West; Liggit; Clemans & Francoeur, 2009: “Increased phosphorus levels were also detected after precipitation in the agriculturally impacted areas, and fecal coliform densities were much higher after precipitation. The strong correlation of turbidity, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform densities suggests a common source for these parameters. Elevated total phosphorus, turbidity, and fecal coliform densities are presumed to be the direct result of runoff from nearby tiled fields sprayed with liquid manure as reported by MDNRE in numerous previous waste discharge infractions by the CAFO farms in close proximity to our AI sites (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2003a, 2004b).”

The “Point Source” Runaround

The County’s Plan claims:

“New York State regulates pollution discharge into waters through its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit program, including the control of all point source discharges to surface waters. The program is designed to maintain water quality consistent with public health, public enjoyment of water bodies, protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, and industrial development in the state.”

But fails to mention that this program does not adequately regulate pollution from agricultural sources:

• From “Maintaining a Healthy Water Supply While Growing a Healthy Food Supply: Legal Tools for Cleaning Up Agricultural Water Pollution” Mary Jane Angelo, Professor of Law & Director, Environmental and Land Use Law Program University of Florida Levin College of Law: “The Clean Water Act provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for many discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. Through the primarily regulatory NPDES permitting program, significant improvements have been made to the quality of the country’s water bodies. However, the NPDES permitting program only applies to point sources discharges, thus most agricultural discharges are not subject to permitting or other federal regulatory control. Nonpoint sources, including those from agriculture, remain the most significant water quality challenge facing the nation. Moreover, the CWA’s exemption from section 404 permitting for normal farming practices continues to allow many wetlands to be degraded by agricultural activities. Because the CWA does not provide direct federal authority for regulating many agricultural sources of water pollution and wetlands degradation, the responsibility for addressing water quality degradation from agricultural activities has fallen largely to the states. To date, most programs designed to address agricultural water pollution have been voluntary or incentive-based programs designed to encourage farmers to implement best management practices. These programs have been only minimally successful, and agricultural pollution continues to be one of the most significant sources of water quality degradation in the United States, meaning that there is a need for a more comprehensive regulatory system to address the water impacts of farming.”

Stormwater Runoff and Flooding

The County Plan: “Increased stormwater runoff has a significant impact on floodplain management. As land area is converted to more urbanized uses, the amount of impervious surface associated with that land use generally increases, causing water to flow into streams more quickly and allowing less water to replenish the groundwater.”

• Once again, the County refuses to acknowledge agricultural sources as a problem. When the increased runoff from “tiled” farm fields: an opaque, strong smelling liquid blend of water, sediment and agricultural contaminants; began to overflow the ditch in front of my house and spread across my lawn — the County merely dug a deeper ditch and put in a larger culvert.

Wetland Protection

The County Plan: “At the state level, NYSDEC regulates wetlands of at least 12.4 acres in size and smaller wetlands of unusual local importance. Taken together, these regulations have the effect of leaving responsibility for regulation of isolated wetlands of less than 12.4 acres to local governments. Identification and protection of these otherwise newly unregulated wetlands is a priority.”

• However New York State Agricultural Law has a different priority for land use that allows “grazing and watering livestock, making reasonable use of water resources, harvesting natural products of the wetlands, selectively cutting timber, draining land or wetlands for growing agricultural products and otherwise engaging in the use of wetlands or other land for growing agricultural products,” thereby completely undercutting the authority of local government to protect these valuable wetlands.

Riparian Corridors

The County Plan: “Riparian corridors are the lands bordering streams and represent a transition zone from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. Maintaining lands adjacent to streams in their undeveloped state helps to support the natural functions associated with stream buffers, including protecting water quality, stabilizing stream banks and preventing erosion, trapping sediment and nutrients, improving floodwater retention and groundwater recharge, and shading stream channels in summer.

Riparian stream buffers in headwaters have proportionally greater impact on watershed health than buffers in downstream waters. Clean and healthy headwater streams are critical for protecting the water quality, stream stability, and wildlife habitat of an entire watershed. The downstream effects of even minimal disturbances in small upstream creeks may be compounded as waters join to feed into larger and larger streams.

Providing vegetated buffers of at least 100 feet either side of stream banks, or 50 feet from intermittent streams, is critical in achieving water quality benefits”

• Unfortunately, New York State NRCS agricultural manure spreading standards for CAFOs requires only 35-foot setback, where the entire setback width is a vegetated buffer; and just a 15-foot setback with incorporation within 24 hours of application to be maintained between manure applications and surface waters and surface inlets.

Well Water

The County Plan: “The amount of available drinking water is primarily an issue in rural areas that obtain drinking water from groundwater. As more homes and businesses are built in these areas, they are supported by new wells withdrawing more water from groundwater supplies. In some parts of the county it has been observed that new wells noticeably decrease the supply of water in nearby wells.”

• While slamming rural families; the County’s Plan deliberately ignores the massive negative impact that current “farming practices,” especially that of CAFOs, are having on the county’s groundwater supply. One CAFO owner in Minnesota reported a well water use of 570,200,000 gallons in 2017. [The average unrestricted water use for a family of four is 320 to 400 gallons a day.]

When the County’s Plan recommends that “Land uses and facilities that pose the greatest threats to groundwater should be located away from areas that contribute to drinking water supplies” — they are clearly excluding agriculture.

Climate Change – Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The County Plan: “While global energy and climate problems cannot be solved exclusively at the local level, and leadership is needed from global, federal, and state organizations, locally we can identify, plan for, and take steps to address these issues.”

“PRINCIPLE Tompkins County should be a place where the energy system meets community needs without contributing additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”

The Plan goes on to state:

“Emissions from residential, commercial, and industrial buildings together accounted for the largest proportion of community emissions and transportation accounted for more than a third of all community emissions.”

But finally admits:

“. . . it appears that it would be more accurate to use a much greater GWP for methane to reflect its extreme potency in the shorter duration when reductions will most help in limiting warming that may result in a cascade of uncontrollable negative impacts. Such an analysis of methane will likely be incorporated into future energy plans, and would primarily affect the waste and agriculture sectors, as they are currently the highest emitters of methane.”

This admission that the “agricultural sector” is one of the “highest emitters of methane” is the one and only time that the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the negative impact of any agricultural practice on either the residents or the environment; and even then only states that it “will likely be incorporated into future energy plans.“

• Farm use of distillate fuels increased by nearly 11% between 2010 and 2015, more than 8 times the residential sector increase, while both the commercial and industrial use declined according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Open Burning

• While New York State prohibits the burning of garbage or leaves year round: Agricultural exemptions for open burning allow farmers to burn as much “agricultural waste” as they want, whenever they want. This includes but is not limited to: “Agricultural wastes generated on site, Naturally grown products, Fully organic waste generated on premise, Paper feed bags, wood shavings, baling twine, and other non-plastic materials.” This exemption also extends to “liquid petroleum fueled smudge pots.” This last is a further example of New York State’s ecological foot-dragging, since other states have already implemented incentive programs to move farmers to the much cleaner burning propane.

Conclusion

The City and Town of Ithaca sit like a spider in the center of the county; with redistricting placing 8 of the 14 Legislative Districts at least partly within their borders. The large student population living there [30% of the county’s total population] gives those County legislators a great deal of power; but little accountability, from a constantly shifting youthful population with no history or permanent ties to the area, and no association with the county’s rural communities. This leaves county and local government vulnerable to the influence of corporate and corporately-controlled entities like Cornell, and Cornell Cooperative Extension; who are only too ready to guide the future of the county and to serve their own interests. Tompkins County’s repeated refusal to acknowledge the amount or extent of agricultural pollution in any of their planning and reporting is clear evidence of this influence.

“Tompkins County” is in the process of yet another redistricting: in a program of ridding themselves of the rural population whose traditions and ethnicity they deride — and whose lands they covet.