Statement
Peter VanAvery, Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee
at
Board Meeting — Hudson River-Black River Regulating District
Johnstown, NY
October 12, 2004

This month marks the one-year anniversary of the public hearing at Northville Central School where 900 angry property owners showed up to protest the Regulating District's attempt to hike access permit fees by up to 1,000 percent.

What have we learned since then?

  • The protest worked. Access permit fees were frozen and, a year later, still have not been increased. The District's board, which 10 months ago announced that any fee hike would be based on the results of an independent performance audit of the access permit system, has only today selected an accounting firm to carry out that audit. One should note the lack of any sense of urgency, which tells us that there was no pressing need for that fee hike in the first place.

  • In December, we received a painful reminder that the new Federal license on the reservoir handcuffs the District's ability to release excess water during a wet year. For the first time ever, the lake was spilling over its banks at the time of freeze-over, entombing docks and other private beach assets in thick ice. The water level was supposed to be 16 feet lower, with private beach assets safe on dry lake bottom. To its shame, the District issued no alert to the public. Many access permit holders paid dearly for the District's indifference. The damage total amounted to at least $180,000, according to our recent survey. Worse, the District has refused to take any action to amend the license.

  • The high water also chewed away the shoreline, causing extensive erosion. This past summer, the District remediated fewer than 70 permit areas for a total of 4110 feet of shoreline. To put that in perspective, remember that the lake has 125 miles — or 660,000 feet -- of shoreline. At the current rate, it'll take 160 years to complete the job.

  • At the beginning of the year, the new executive director told us that communications would improve. But the District still has not warned access permit holders that the excessively high water levels we experienced in 2003 will reoccur. The question is not "if," but "when." It did not publish an issue of its newsletter for two years. If such a warning is in the issue of "Waterline" now in the mail, it'll be too late because most seasonal people already have closed up until next spring. Also, during the peak summer months, this board pulled a disappearing act -- meeting anywhere except Great Sacandaga. What does that say about its desire to communicate with the people it regulates?

  • By asking a question at last month's board meeting at Big Moose Lake, I learned that Niagara Mohawk and Reliant Energy are suing the District for a total of $10 million. They have paid most of the bill for operation and maintenance of the reservoir, and they claim that they have been overcharged. The facts are 1) they earned millions of dollars from the existence of the reservoir, which regulates the flow of water through their hydroelectric plants on the Upper Hudson, and 2) the District's own handbook has been assuring us for years that they are "obliged by law" to pay for running the reservoir. These two multibillion-dollar energy firms have scads of lawyers while the District, by contrast, has one staff attorney plus the assistance of an outside legal firm. Instead of drawing upon the state Attorney General or the Inspector General for backup, the District is looking to lighten the load on downstream energy firms by tapping other wallets, preferably those belonging to private citizens who can't defend themselves.

  • A Hudson River Reapportionment Study posted on the District's website identifies other "beneficiaries" of the reservoir that could be charged an annual assessment. Lakeshore property owners top the list. What recently came to light is that the engineering firm that conducted the study for the District also had served as facilitator during negotiations on the Offer of Settlement, where its fee was partly paid by Niagara Mohawk. I have asked the NYS Comptroller's Office to assure us that no conflict of interest is involved in the new reapportionment study.

    The District has not implemented this study yet and, considering its penchant for picking on the little guy, could cast a still broader net. Lake-area communities are dependent on tourists and on taxes and expenditures by seasonal property owners attracted to Great Sacandaga. Clearly, if camp owners are deemed "beneficiaries" of the lake, permanent residents of the region also could qualify for this dubious honor.

    These are some of the highlights of the past 12 months. The Executive Director likes to assure us that the District is turning around and setting a new and better course. He compares the District to a huge aircraft carrier turning in a circle. He says that if you stand at its bow, you think you're still traveling in a straight line. But if you stand at the stern, you can see the gradual curvature of the wake.

    But the Regulating District is no aircraft carrier, and Great Sacandaga Lake is no Pacific Ocean. Its annual budget is only $6 million, and its staff numbers only 30 or so employees. I strongly urge the executive director to sail his slow-moving aircraft carrier into drydock and switch to a watercraft that responds instantly to calls from the helm. My personal recommendation is that he hop aboard a jet ski.

    Thank you.