Council Does the Right Thing on Ethanol

Lots of men in suits aggressively tried to make the case that the possible environmental impacts of a proposed ethanol manufacturing plant ought to be of no concern to those who live within five miles of it, or within the Seneca Lake watershed. City Council, to its credit, asserted the community’s ‘right to know.’

In a 6-2 vote, with Councilors Cosentino and Greco dissenting and Councilor Alcock absent from the meeting, the Council passed a resolution requesting the Seneca County IDA to rescind its ‘negative declaration’ and work with neighboring communities to complete an Environmental Impact Statement for the plant. Councilors agreed that residents of Geneva needed more assurances about the nature of those impacts and deserved the opportunity to participate in developing strategies to mitigate them.

After all, Genevans draw their drinking water from the same lake that the plant would rely on (for intake and some discharge). Geneva’s downtown and residential neighborhoods lie along the railroad tracks that would carry hazardous materials. Residents’ air quality could be negatively effected by odor and other emissions from the two proposed 150-foot smokestacks. And, our roads and streets would see additional trucks hauling corn, water, feed, and perhaps the combustible fuel itself around the region.

The discussion on the non-binding resolution continued for at least two hours. Speaker upon speaker came to the podium to share a variety of perspectives on the issue. As one Geneva resident correctly noted, all those speaking in favor of the resolution were private citizens, all those who opposed Council’s action were either direct investors or would otherwise benefit financially or professionally as a result of the ethanol plant.

Seneca County IDA members wanted Council to ignore environmental issues and instead focus on job creation potential. But the City Councilors were able to point out that protecting residents’ safety and promoting economic development are not mutually exclusive. For instance, Guardian Industries was welcomed by Geneva with open arms, and an Environmental Impact Study, independently reviewed by Geneva and Ontario County was still completed. You can read all about the process the City underwent for Guardian here.

One of the biofuel company’s engineers was also present at the council meeting. He was able to clear up the confusion regarding the role of the DEC in this process. SCIDA members have repeatedly asserted that the DEC had “signed off” on the negative declaration. It was as if they were calling the DEC the “SEQR Police” who would have come in and overturned the decision if it was made in error. But as you can see for yourself on the DEC website, there is no such oversight. It is up to the lead agency to decide what should be required. And the engineer did not dispute a charge, made by Genevan Ken Camera, that the report submitted by the plant to the SCIDA listed regional benefits extending miles from the plant, but limited the discussion of possible negative impacts to a much smaller radius.

In this case, City Council stepped up to the plate and agreed that SCIDA should have required more, should have treated the project like other industrial facilities, instead of a like a residential construction project, should have required an Environmental Impact Statement (read what information an EIS provides here).

A new concern was raised at the council meeting that hadn’t been previously discussed. Genevan Dan Howard came to the podium to ask if council had a plan for dealing with a chemical spill or other accident at the plant that might effect the quality of drinking water. The question is twofold: 1. Who pays for cleanup; and 2. Where do we get clean water in the interim?

There was no answer to this question. As our previous post on this issue indicated, the discussions surrounding this resolution proved that many more answers were needed. In voting against the resolution, Councilors John Greco and Lou Cosentino seemed satisfied that Seneca County had done what was required. But they missed the point of the resolution. The vote was about the Geneva City Council doing what was required for its residents--and that’s to get those very important questions answered.