Tompkins County and Tammany Hall – Page 3

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “Top of the heap – Bottom of the barrel” Bumper sticker

Abraham Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Tompkins County government is overwhelmingly liberal and Progressive: so it is the ideal place to study the character of its adherents — While the universal opinion of area residents is that County government is corrupt and there is no meaningful public participation; authorities continue to do as they please. There are no rules – only tools. The character: Self-serving, Authoritarian and Corrupt. Tompkins County is leading the way to our “Lies and Lubyankas” future.

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “There’s more to policy than meets the law” Bumper sticker

“Al“There’s more to policy than meets the law” Bumper sticker

Tompkins County’s policies are legal: sort of — the sort of legality that lets people get away with things – the “fine print,” the meeting the “minimum” requirements, the deceptive phraseology, the shameless assertion, the credentialed cronyism, the “in-house” decision making, the agenda-filled survey, the “loophole,” the gerrymander — it’s actions without ethics; it’s law without legitimacy – but it’s all swept under the rug.

In a college county with a four-year memory: a couple of graduations and a friendly newspaper is all it takes.

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “Tompkins County Legislators” Bumper sticker

Government guidelines are simple in Tompkins County: “Shut up, pay your taxes, and do what you’re told.” — and there’s nothing you can do to change any of it. Even if you talk; they never listen – they know that you have no power; no one can “upset their applecart.” The tax breaks all go the big corporations that run the county. And new laws and regulations are constantly being passed to repress the rural community and drive out the ones who haven’t already been forced out by high taxes. You can still hunt deer to help feed you family: but you can’t hunt up the cash they demand to support their luxury school system. Tax assessors are the only County outreach most rural people ever see.

“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.”

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “Integration in Tompkins County” Bumper sticker

“Put the poor urban blacks and the poor rural whites together – somewhere else.” The County Comp Plan calls it “balance the burdens” – but it’s another name for the County’s policy to move everything and everyone they don’t want in Ithaca – somewhere else.

When a drug rehab center marred their vibrant downtown – they found a better home for it in another municipality. Necessary public works in Ithaca’s “jungle” displaced the homeless; but they were found new housing – elsewhere. The County’s urban housing authority merged with rural providers and absentee landlords turned rural homes into subsidized housing apartments for the urban unwanted — and since agriculture is the only rural activity and land use that the County considers of any importance – those people [and their problems] effectively disappeared. Clever. And there are other words for it . . .

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “What’s changed?” Bumper sticker

1521: “He was fated to die” – 2021: “He was in the wrong place; at the wrong time.” What’s changed? In one way; nothing. But in another way; everything: in 1521 “fate” was a way of coping with something that couldn’t be changed – in 2021 the “wrong place/wrong time” is an excuse for writing off human lives as bureaucratic overhead. In 2021 being murdered in a “robbery gone wrong” is almost considered dying of “natural causes.” In 2021’s society: everyone has a place; and they’re kept in it — even victims.

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “Form Based Codes are like Dictators” Bumper sticker

“Only a fool would assume they won’t abuse their power.” Don’t we know it. It seems like wisdom has become old fashioned – with so many cautionary tales about people who expect to retain power while renouncing their authority; and those who give over their authority for the promise of thoughtless ease – it’s surprising that today’s uber-naive demand that their government act responsively; when they’ve already given up the power to demand anything.

“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” – Chipping Away at Bureaucracy

In Tompkins County; it’s not just government above the people – it’s government against the people. Public participation is a smokescreen of meaningless ceremonies; and anyone who tries to pierce its obfuscations runs into a bulwark of bureaucratic defense. Bringing about change from the public sector is more than difficult; it’s practically impossible. If you don’t bring big money or power to the table – you can’t sit in on the game.

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

CHIPPING AWAY AT BUREAUCRACY

(Condensed from the series in Cornithaca County)

Most people would probably agree that government help would be better with more of the “help” and less of the “government.” Our government is quick to proclaim the good of everything it does; and just as quick to find fault with anything that threatens its power.

Wouldn’t it be great to have a job that only requires you to work on problems, not to solve them? This the job description our government has written for itself.

Lines of Defense

If you have ever tried to question policy decisions, stop legislation, or just find out what’s going on in your local government; you’ve probably come up against a formidable array of bureaucratic barriers.

The following is a list of the most common defenses, and the order in which they are usually applied:

1. Discredit the Person

2. Discredit the Facts

3. Discredit the Situation

4. It’s Legal Anyway

“Lines of Defense” will discuss these techniques and give examples of how they are used to sap the energy of any opposition.

The essay will also cover four authoritarian attitudes you will encounter: “The Silence,” “The Refusal,” “The Referral,” and “The Questioning.”

It’s a battle where every time you type in a letter, they can hit the “backspace” button.

In our government’s protective reflex to swat away any annoyance, its first response is to “Discredit the Person” who is causing the trouble.

This is an action that I’m quite familiar with. [See Deadly Drift] After being sprayed with Roundup by an agricultural boom sprayer while mowing my lawn on a windy day [and vomiting up my stomach all over the bathroom floor that night]; I made a compliant to the NYSDEC with the following result:

Their report, that required a FOIL request to access, claimed I was “politically active against farming” even though I had rented the field being sprayed to a farmer for more than 25 years, and found my actions suspicious – leaving it open that I was lying or somehow at fault myself. None of the factual data, such as the wind speed on the day of a herbicide drift complaint, was ever addressed. The report ended with “case closed!”

When it comes to discrediting the facts that conflict with and undermine government policy making decisions; authorities can choose from a number of passive and proactive methods. A bureaucratic favorite is to present the public with background information that deliberately misrepresents, and even omits key facts; in order to validate their chosen course of action.

In their Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs): Preventing HABs public document; the NYSDEC never once mentions agriculture as a source of nutrient pollution, although it contributes more than four times the nutrient pollution of every other source combined to the waters of the Finger Lakes – employing terms like “exactly predict” and “fully understand” to justify this deliberate omission.

They do mention that “the amount of nutrients can be decreased by: Limiting lawn fertilization” and “Maintaining septic tanks” – that contribute less than 1% to the nutrient pollution total.

If getting government authorities to admit the facts is difficult; getting them to accurately report a situation and make appropriate policy decisions is almost impossible. Not only do they occupy a “high ground” that allows them to cite everything from jobs to jurisprudence as an excuse; they can change the ground rules to suit their objectives.

A good example can be found in New York’s Finger Lakes, where the region’s most powerful interests are allowed to do almost all of the polluting. Since cleaning up the lakes would restrict the operations and profits of these interests; authorities have decided on a policy that merely maintains the pollution at a profitable level – a level that retains just some of the uses of these lakes. A Total Daily Maximum Load [TMDL] of pollution will be decided, and then divided among these interests, who will “try” to meet the target goals. [Cornell: one of the larger polluters, and heavily tied to agricultural interests, will establish the TDML – so all the “pollution-reduction” planning can be kept comfortably “in-house.”]

This policy will cause many rural people to lose the lakes as a source of drinking water, but all the important residents [and decision makers] are on municipal water anyway; and taxes will be levied to make sure they get the proper treatment.

An important part of today’s regulatory process is how well it works to protect the interests of those who are regulated. Our government continually legislates ineffectual environmental regulations; that effectively protect the polluters.

The media never questions or exposes the laws that have been created to allow polluters to knowingly and repeatedly cause harm to people and the environment. The following court decision concerns an incident took place only a few miles from my house:

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 required surgical removal of eyelids in an adult commented that the laws “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.”

Willet Dairy was shielded by its “permit shield” from any citizen suits – the rural victims were shielded by nothing.

The Questioning: This is the point in the denial process where the experienced bureaucrat launches a barrage of questions; trying to find fault with anything in your argument, while looking for a handle they can use. If you find yourself the focus of authoritarian questions, ask some yourself: like “If this is an accurate description of the situation and these facts are confirmed; what can you do to help us correct it?” This may give you a little breathing room. [Be sure to have your own questions ready.]

The Refusal: When power is concentrated like it is in Tompkins County, it stands untouchable. No matter how much evidence is gathered, no matter how much misconduct is involved, the County’s elite can slam the door shut on any activist: They refuse to investigate, they refuse to enforce the law, they refuse acknowledge, they refuse to start, they refuse to stop; they just refuse — and what can you do about that?

“The Silence” and “The Referral” are classic bureaucratic tools for frustrating any troublemaker who upsets the smooth flow of government routine. You may be taking time out of your life, but this is their life, and they’re being paid for every minute they delay, equivocate, or redirect. It’s not surprising that you may keep leaving unanswered voicemails, texts, and emails and they are “out of the office until. . .” or “in a meeting” so regularly when you show up in person or try to work your way up the departmental ladder — a bureaucrat who does nothing is doing nothing wrong. And when you have finally caught up with the fugitive functionary; all the sweat of your effort may be turned to ice by “The Referral.”

It takes only a few seconds and a few words to send you off to fill out additional forms, lobby higher-ups for their approval, or to track down someone in some other department who is even more inaccessible and difficult to get in touch with. I have had the experience of being passed around in an inescapable circle of referrals; back to the same office and the same person I started with weeks before.

“The Referral” can be the most difficult of all obstacles to overcome.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Whose Plan is this Anyway? Part 5

Environmental ethics used to mean making the right choices – today it’s just another sales mark. Picking up beer bottles on the beach. It’s too late for that.

If you voted to ban all fossil fuels, and made the next space station out of recycled plastic bottles – it would make no difference.

Environmental ethics is a choice — and when you let others make that choice for you; it’s their choice. In the future; if we’re forced to live in sealed cities: The elite will have the best of everything that’s left; and the poor will have . . . an answer to why we’re developing artificial intelligence?

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

WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?

Part 5

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

It’s ethics that gives a government legitimacy

There’s a big piece missing from the planning agenda in Tompkins County: What needs to be done about the environmental destruction caused by modern farming methods? — and in a not-so-surprising coincidence: this same issue is missing from the County’s Comp Plan as well.

The “Environment” section of the Comprehensive Plan holds up Agriculture as a model of stewardship and conservation; while suppressing any mention of the agricultural methods and regulatory exemptions that have made them the biggest polluters in Tompkins County — tiptoeing around their role in the impairment of our water resources and depletion of the ecosystem in a blatant example of cronyism and skewed environmental reporting.

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

The County Comp 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.”

Comments:

Salmon Creek also enters the southern part of Cayuga Lake in Tompkins County and drains one of the three largest watersheds in the Cayuga basin.

“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.” — Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012

Salmon Creek is never mentioned in any of the Comprehensive Plan’s water quality discussions; and agricultural nutrient pollution is never mentioned at all.

The County Comp 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.”

Comments:

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 Comp 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.”

Comments:

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.” — Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012

Silt/sediment

The County’s Plan makes no mention 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’s tributaries.

Pathogens

The County’s Comp Plan makes no mention of agriculture as a source of pathogens.

“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.” — “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

“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).” — “Antibiotic Resistance, Gene Transfer, and Water Quality Patterns Observed in Waterways near CAFO Farms and Wastewater Treatment Facilities” West; Liggit; Clemans & Francoeur, 2009

The “Point Source” Smokescreen

The County Comp Plan:

“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.”

Comments:

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

“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.” — “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

Stormwater Runoff and Flooding

The County Comp 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.”

Comments:

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 bigger, deeper ditch and put in a larger culvert for my driveway. Tompkins County makes no effort to reduce the runoff from agricultural fields; they just continue digging bigger ditches.

Wetland Protection

The County Comp 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.”

Comments:

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 resources.

Riparian Corridors

The County Comp 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.”

“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”

Comments:

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 Comp 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.”

Comments:

While slamming rural families; the County’s Comp Plan deliberately ignores the massive negative impact that high water-use “farming practices,” especially those 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.]

While the County’s Comp 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” — the Plan’s suppression of agricultural pollution as an environmental threat reveals an unannounced policy to exclude agriculture from any County restriction or regulation.

Climate Change – Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The County Comp 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.”

Comments:

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 then only that this “will likely be incorporated into future energy plans.”

The Town and City of Ithaca sit like spiders in the center of a web; with recent redistricting placing 8 of the 14 Legislative Districts at least partly within their borders.

The large student population [30% of the county’s total population] gives those 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 policy making vulnerable to the influence of corporate and corporately-controlled entities like Cornell University, and the Cornell Cooperative Extension.

The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan’s glaring refusal to acknowledge the reality of agricultural pollution in their reporting is clear evidence of this influence.

“Tompkins County” government is in the process of yet another legislative redistricting . . . and the Tompkins County Legislature will appoint the committee on reapportionment.