TO: Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee Members
FROM: Peter VanAvery
DATE: November 4, 2004
After a lapse of two years, the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District's management finally produced an issue of the authority's "Waterline" newsletter. I wonder what target audience they had in mind. It clearly wasn't Great Sacandaga Lake's 4,650 access permit holders.
The District does not have a professional communicator on its payroll, so (with a couple of exceptions) it would be mean-spirited of me to complain about the newsletter's appearance. It's the content -- not the look -- that's the basic problem.
Over its 74-year history, the District has treated access permit holders as if we were second-class citizens. That tradition continues in this newsletter. The front page of the publication should feature the news that's most important to us. But that news is either buried inside or is not covered at all.
Instead, the front page is devoted to a rambling "letter" from the Executive Director, covering his travels around the District, introductions to new employees, etc. All that is fine, but it does not belong on page 1. And it should have been printed in smaller type, providing extra space for the water-level graphs, which now require a magnifying glass to read.
What should the District have run on page 1? In order of importance to access permit holders, it should have spotlighted:
- The following warning (which the District buried on page 4): "As the summer recreation season ends and lake levels fall, we recommend that you secure your dock in a safe location, if possible above a minimum elevation of 773' in order to avoid damage." In other words, the excessively high water levels we experienced last year, which caused at least $180,000 worth of damage to floating docks and other private beach assets, were not an anomaly.
- An explanation of why those high water levels will one day return. During negotiations on the FERC license, the District consistently lied to us about the impact of the new water storage/release rules embodied in that document. The District never told us that the key goal of the license is the "aggressive use of storage." Indeed, it has never used that phrase in any communication to access permit holders. What the phrase means is that in a wet year, when the natural flow of the Upper Hudson is sufficient to spin electricity-producing hydro turbines at maximum velocity, the valves at the dam must be shut so that water won't be "wasted."
- A description of the Hudson River Flow Regulation Benefit Study. This study, sponsored by the District in 2003, seeks to lighten the financial load on downstream hydro plant operators, who pay most of the bill for operating and maintaining the reservoir. It was designed to identify additional "beneficiaries" of the reservoir, who could be charged an annual assessment. As I have noted before, the study places lakeshore property owners at the top of the potential hit list. The Offer of Settlement states that the District "agrees to publish a public notice of this reassessment procedure." Yet the District has never said a word about it to access permit holders. It has posted the study on its web site, where it asks for public comment, but it has never told the public that it is there.
- The announcement (again buried on page 4) that work permits on "ALL ground, beach, and shoreline disturbance activities" will not be issued "until the State Historic Preservation Office finalizes its Historic Properties Management Plan." What's this all about? The District does not explain. With the help of the Freedom of Information Law, I am working on obtaining that information. I expect to include details in the next issue of the BBAC Newsletter.
- A reminder (also buried on page 4) that a work permit is required for cutting all trees and brush on access permit areas.
Now, let me comment very quickly on the general appearance of the "Waterline" newsletter. In a departure from past practice, it is printed in four colors, which means the District spent big bucks on it. But the printing job is wretched. The pictures look like they were printed with colored mud instead of colored ink. The District would have produced a better looking, and less expensive, publication if the photos had been run in black and white, with a single color used to highlight headlines and the curves in the water-level graphs.
Finally, note that the Executive Director's "letter" on page 1 of the newsletter is titled: "From Where the Buck Stops." This provoked a certain amount of hilarity over in Sacandaga Park, where some residents are trying to find out if a local pub requires a permit to hold professional fireworks displays on its access permit area. The Park folks were bounced from the Town of Northampton to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation to the Regulating District, all of which gave them the "How can we NOT help you?" treatment. Finally, after they hammered on the District for two months, it caved in and passed the buck to the NYS Attorney General's Office for an opinion, which has not been rendered yet.
At the October 12 board meeting in Johnstown, the major news was that the board -- after ten months of deliberation -- has finally selected an outside firm to conduct an audit of the actual costs of the access permit system. This gang would lose a foot race to a glacier.
As I write, the lake's level is at 758.07 feet above sea level, putting it just about on target. Last year on this date, the level was more than seven feet higher!