State Of New York v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al
Filing
1
COMPLAINT against Peter A. DeLuca, Rowan W. Gould, Lisa Jackson, Jonathan B. Jarvis, Kenneth Salazar, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Department of the Interior, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States National Park Service Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -yes,, filed by State Of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Siegfried, Evan)
FILED
INCL~i;PK'"'O
US . • . \)lj; r r'·f1j·i-;1··.
01"'''.·~.,.}....? · FFICE ..
1
* MAY 3 12011
....,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
\ """'·)1\
I
,r, N. 'f
.-
------------------------------------------------------------~~-----------------X
STATE OF NEW YORK,
"-J• OOKLYN OFFICE
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS;
BRIGADIER GENERAL PETER A. DELUCA, in his official
capacity as Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division of the
United States Army Corps of Engineers;
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE;
ROWAN W. GOULD, in his official capacity as Acting Director
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; UNITED STATES
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; JONATHAN B. JARVIS,
in his official capacity as Director of.the United States National Park
Service; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
KENNETH SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
United States Department of the Interior; UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; and
LISA JACKSON, in her official capacity as Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
·
COMPLAINT
ROSS, J•
, ~4
Defendants,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff State of New York ("New York"), by Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
of the State of New :York, as and for its complaint, alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
New York brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, in its proprietary
capacity and as parens patriae on behalf of its citizens, against defendant federal agencies United
States Army Corps of Engineers ("ACE"), United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"),
United States Natio,nal Park Service ("NPS"), United States Department of the Interior ("DOl"),
and United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), and chief executives of these
agencies (collectively, "Defendants" or "Federal Agencies"). New York seeks to compel these
Federal Agencies to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,42 U.S.C. §
4321 et seg. ("NEPA"), by preparing and making available for public comment a draft
environmental impact statement ("EIS") before proceeding to adopt proposed Delaware River
Basin Commission ("DRBC") regulations that would authorize natural gas development
("DRBC Regulations") within the Delaware River Basin (the "Basin").
2.
The Basin is an area of 13,539 square miles, draining parts of Pennsylvania, New
.Jersey, New York, and Delaware. The Upper Delaware River within the Basin is renowned for
its pristine waters that serve as the primary source of clean unfiltered drinking water for 9 million
New Yorkers each day, and is a federally designated "Scenic and Recreational River''
administered by the NPS. The Basin provides an important source of public water supply
beyond New York, and serves as home to endangered species and migratory birds under FWS
jurisdiction. Below the Upper Delaware, the Delaware Water Gap and a reach of the lower
Delaware also are included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, combining to cover
three-quarters of the non-tidal segment of the Delaware River. The Delaware River Port
Complex (including docking facilities in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware) is the largest
freshwater port in the world.
3.
The national importance of the Basin is
reflect~d
in the Delaware River Basin
Compact (the "Compact"), a fifty-year old agreement among the federal government and the
State~
ofNew York, New Jersey and Delaware, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to
manage and protect water resources within the Basin. The federal statute approving and
effectuating the Compact establishes that the DRBC is a federal agency, and provides that the
functions and jurisdiction of the United States under future legislation such as NEP A shall not be
impaired or affected by the Compact. Pursuant to federal law, the federal member of the DRBC
is an Army officer within the ACE who functions as the representative of the Federal Agencies
2
with respect to the actions and policies of the DRBC. Following the subsequent enactment of
NEP A, the DRBC and the federal Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ"), the federal
agency charged with oversight of the federal government's implementation ofNEPA,
determined that the DRBC is subject to NEPA. Thereafter, for financial reasons, the DRBC
suspended its NEPA implementation, stating that it would rely instead on NEPA compliance by
the Federal Agencies participating in the Commission through the federal member. The DRBC
is not named as a defendant in this action because the federal approval statute exempts the
Commission from the Administrative Procedure Act.
4.
Promulgation of the DRBC Regulations is expected to result in the development
of between 15,000 and 18,000 natural gas wells within the ~asin in Pennsylvania and New York,
which includes a large portion of the New York City Watershed. EPA has expressed "serious
reservations about whether gas drilling in the New York City watershed is consistent with the
1
vision of long-term maintenance of a high quality unfiltered water supply." The New York City
Department of Environmental Protection ("NYCDEP"), which supplies drinking water from that
watershed, has concluded based on third-party scientific studies that natural gas development
would "pose an unacceptable threat to the unfiltered, fresh water supply of nine million New
Yorkers, and cannot safely be permitted within the New York City watershed."2
5.
In areas of Pennsylvania outside of the Basin, natural gas well development has
been authorized, and is proceeding. Over 2,000 natural gas wells have been drilled, resulting in
hundreds of violations of water pollution laws and the pollution of drinking water supplies relied
1
Letter from John FiJippeiJi, Chief of EPA's Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch, to New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated December 30, 2009.
Letter from Steven W. La witts to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated December
22,2009, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/natura1_gas_drilling/12_22_2009_impact_statement_letter.pdf
3
on by hundreds of thousands of people. In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection ("PADEP") has found that the cumulative effects of air pollution
emissions from development of these wells may contribute to violations of fedeial air pol~ uti on
standards developed to protect public health. 3
6.
NEPA is a procedural statute regulating the decision making process of federal
agencies without mandating any particular substantive result. Its purpose is to ensure that federal
agencies act transparently -- with full public participation -- in considering the potential
significant environmental impacts of proposed actions before making final decisions. NEP A's
''core requirement" is that all federal agencies with decision making authority over an action
prepare an EIS, subject to public review and comment, if the action could potentially cause such
environmental impacts. "Federal" actions subject to NEPA include pr.ojects and programs
entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies, and
new or revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies and procedures.
7.
The Federal Agencies have determined that authorization of natural gas well
development in the Basin would potentially result in significant cumulative adverse
environmental impacts and that a study of those impacts should be performed. But Defendants
refuse to comply with NEPA and refuse to prepare an EIS assessing the cumulative
environmental impacts. Under NEP A, an EIS must include analysis of the environmental
impacts of a proposed action, and consideration of alternatives to the action and measures to
mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
3
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Northeastern PA Marcellus ShaJe Short-T.enn Ambient Air
Sampling Report, at p. 21 (Jan. 12, 2011).
4
8.
Ne'Y York brings this action to protect its waters, air quality, climate, public
health, and landholdings within the Basin which have been placed at risk by Defendants' NEPA
violations and to vindicate the State's procedural rights under that statute.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.
This action arises under NEPA, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§
551-706 ("APA"), and the Compact. PlaintiffNew York alleges that Defendant Federal
Agencies' refusal to comply with NEPA concerning the authorization of natural gas development
in the Basin pursuant to the DRBC Regulations is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion
and otherwise not in accordance with law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
10.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because it raises a federal question, and under the statute effectuating the Compact, Pub. L; 87328, 75 Stat. 688, § 15.1 (p) (1961 ), because this action arises under the Compact. New York
seeks declaratory and injunctive reliefunder 28 U.S;C. §§ 2201, and 2202; and 5 U.S.C. § 701 et
seg., which provides for judicial review under the APA.
11.
This action is br?ught against federal agencies and employees acting in their
official capacities. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e)(l)
because defendants General DeLuca and the ACE reside within the district, with their offices
located at Building 302, General Lee Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11252. Venue is also proper
within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(eX2). A substantial part of~e events or
omissions giving rise to plaintiffs claim occurred in this district because these defendants'
decision not to prepare an EIS as required by NEPA likely occurred within their offices in
Brooklyn, and because much of the work in preparing that EIS would have occurred in those
offices. Venue is also proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e){3), which
5
establishes venue in an any judicial district in which a plaintiff resides, if no real property is
involved in the action.
THE PARTIES
12.
PlaintiffNew York is a sovereign state of the United States of America and brings
this action in its proprietary capacity and as parens patriae on behalf of its citizens and residents
to protect public health, safety, welfare, and the environment.
13.
Defendant ACE is a federal agency involved in water resource management
within the Basin. The ACE employs the Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division.ofthe ACE,
as the ex officio federal member ofDRBC pursuant to Section 5019(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007, Public Law 110-114 ("WRDA"). Under WRDA, the Secretary of
ACE "shall allocate funds to the Delaware River Basin Commission ... to fulfill the equitable
funding requirements" for the federal government under the Compact. WRDA, § SO 19(b). The
ACE exercises authority over navigable waters within the Basin under the federal Rivers and
Harbors Act, .33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., and the filling and dredging of navigable waters within the
Basin under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C .. § 1344. The ACE is a federal
agency with decision-making authority under the Compact to which General DeLuca reports on
DRBC matters.
14.
Defendant Brigadier General Peter A. DeLuca ("General DeLuca") is the
Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division of the ACE, who serves as the federal member of the
DRBC. Genera DeLuca is employed by the ACE, and is sued in his official capacity. He
participates in, and exercises decision making authority over, actions proposed to be taken by
DRBC. In this capacity, General DeLuca reports to, and represents, federal agencies, including
the ACE, on DRBC matters.
6
15.
Defendant United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") is a federal agency
and bureau within the Department of the Interior ("DOl") involved in water resource
management within the Basin. FWS and DOl have trust: authority over endangered terrestrial
fish and wildlife species within the Basin under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16
U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., and birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.,
and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d. Federally listed endangered
species within the Basin protected by DOl and FWS include the d~arf wedge mussel, Indiana
bat, bog turtle, and Northeastern bulrush. These agencies have responsibility for over 200
species· of migratory birds identified within the drainage area of the Upper Delaware River
within the Basin, including the largest wintering population of bald eagles within the
Northeastern United States. Many species of migratory birds for which DOl and FWS have'
responsibility breed in or migrate through the high quality riparian corrid9rs of the ·Basin. FWS
has also recently approved creation of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge,
encompassing over 20,000 acres in an area in eastern Pennsylvania which drains into the
Delaware River. DOl and FWS are federal agencies with decision-making authority under the
Compact according to General DeLuca, who states that he reports to them and represents them
on DRBC matters.
16.
Defendant Rowan W. Gould is Acting Director ofFWS, and is sued in his official
capacity.
17.
Defendant United States National Park Service (''NPS") is a federal agency and
bureau within Defendant DOl involved in water resource management within the Basin. NPS
and DOl exercise authority over, and manage, the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational
River, the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area along the Middle Delaware National
7
..
Scenic River, and the Lower Delaware Wild & Scenic River. The Upper Delaware River within
the Basin is a federally designated "Scenic and Recreational River" under the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. § 1271 et seq. The Upper·Delaware is approximately 73 miles
long, flowing from Hancock, New York, to Sparrowbush, New York. The river and its
tributaries offer some of the finest recreational opportunities in the northeastern United States,
including sightseeing, boating, camping, hunting, fishing-- including world-class cold water
trout streams, hiking, and bird watching. The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is
over 69,000 acres in size, located along 40 miles of the Middle Delaware National Scenic River
portion of the Delaware River. The Recreation Area, which receives over 5 million visitors each
year, boasts spectacular waterfalls, hiking trails, campgrounds, swimming beaches, and picnic
sites. The Lower Delaware Wild & Scenic River is noted for its natural beauty and historic
riverside towns and mills. NPS and FWS are federal agencies with decision-making authority
under the Compact according to General DeLuca, who states that he reports to them and
represents them on DRBC matters.
18.
Defendant Jonathan B. Jarvis is Director of the NPS, and is sued in his official
capacity.
19.
Defendant Kenneth Salazar is Secretary of the DOl, and is.sued in his official
capacity.
20.
Defendant EPA is a federal agency involved in water resource management
within the Basin. EPA exercises authority within the Basin pursuant to various federal
environmental statutes, including the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300f et ~'
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seg., Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seg., and as a party to the 1997
8
New York City Watershed Memorandum ofAgreement ("MOA"). The MOA is an agreement
among EPA, New York agencies, New York City, New York City Watershed municipalities, and
environmental groups to protect the City's watershed through a complex cooperative effort to
prevent water pollution. Under the MOA, EPA expressed its intention "to assure the continued
adequate supply of exceptional quality drinking water for the eight million residents of the City
of New York and the one million New York State residents outside the City who depend upon
the.New York City drinking water supply system." MOA, paragraph 2. Upon information and
belief, EPA is a federal agency to which General DeLuca reports and represents on DRBC
matters.
21.
Defendant Lisa Jackson is Administrator of the EPA, and is sued in her official
capacity.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY· FRAMEWORK
A.
The Delaware River Basin Compact and the DRBC
22.
The Compact is an agreement among the federal government, the
state~
of
Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to manage and
regulate water resources within the Basin. In forming the Compact, the parties agreed that "the
conservation, utilization, development, management, and control of the water and related
resources of the Delaware River Basin under a comprehensive multipurpose plan will bring the
greatest benefits and produce the most efficient service .in the public welfare." Compact,
Whereas Clause.
23.
Congress and the respective state legislatures voted to approve the Compact, and
President Kennedy signed the Compact in 1961. See 75 Stat. 688 (September 27, 1961 ).
9
24.
The Compact created the DRBC to manage and regulate water resources within
the Basin. Each party to the Compact appoints one DRBC Commissioner having one vote on the
Commission. Compact,§§ 2.2, 2.5.
25.
The current federal Commissioner, General DeLuca, reports to and represents
FWS, NPS, and EPA, on matters concerning the Basin and the DRBC.
26.
The congressional statute approving and effectuating the Compact on behalf of
the federal government designates the DRBC as a "federal agency." Pub. L. 87-328, 75 Stat.
688, § 15(o) (1961). The Commission's regulations are published in the Code of Federal
Regulations. See 18 C.F.R. Parts 400,401,410,420,430. USA.gov, the United States
Government's official web portal, lists the DRBC in its "Index of U.S~ Government Departments
and Agencies." While the federal effectuation statute provides that the DRBC is a federal
agency, it also
s~ates
that the Commission is not a federal agency for certain specified purposes,
for example, for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Tucker Acts. Pub. L. 87328, 75 Stat. 688, §lS(o) (1961).
27.
CEQ has long held that DRBC is subject to NEPA because it is a federal agency
with "jurisdiction by law" over water resource projects within the Basin. 49 Fed. Reg·. 49750,
4977 4 (Dec. 21, 1984 ). CEQ continues to express that view on its website where it lists DRBC
as a NEPA federal agency having suchjurisdiction. 4 Following enactment ofNEPA, DRBC
acknowledged that it was subject to that statute, amending its Rules of Practice and Procedure in
1970 to "require environmental assessments and the preparation of environmental impact
statements." DRBC Resolution 70-23.
4
See http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/contocts.cfm; http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/agency/agencies.cfm;
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/iii-7app2.pdf.
10
28.
In 1980, DRBC suspended its environmental review regulations because it lacked
sufficient funds to prepare EISs and stated that "an appropriate agency of the executive branch of
the federal government can assume the 'lead agency' ·and.· other environmental assessment
functions for significant projects within the basin" under NEPA. DRBC Resolution No. 80-11
(July 23, 1980). Recently, DRBC stated that it is not subject to NEPA, noting that four of the
five DRBC commissioners are appointed by states. 5 In accordance with that statement, DRBC
refuses to comply with NEPA.
29.
Section 3.8 of the Compact gives the Commission broad approval authority over
projects within the Basin. It states: "No project having a substantial effect on the water
resources of the basin shall hereafter be undertaken by any person, corporation or governmental
authority unless it shall have been first submitted to and approved by the commission...."
·.Compact,§ 3.8.
B.
NEPA
30.
NEPA was enacted in 1970, effecting a "dramatic change in the federal agencies'
decision-making procedures [reflecting] Congress' determination that the federal government
should lead the nation in preventing the continued environmental degradation caused by
technological advances." M. Gerrard, 1 Environmental Law Practice Guide § 1.01 at 1-6
(Matthew Bender 2003 ).
31.
NEP A imposes on federal agencies an obligation to consider every significant
aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action, and to inform the public that it has
indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process. Under NEPA, every
federal agency is required to prepare an EIS for any major federal action
5
'~significantly
affecting"
DRBC Rulemaking to Implement a Flexible Flow Management Progi'am for the New York City Delaware Basin
Reservoirs: Response to General Comment Subjects, January 2 J, 2009.
11
the quality of the human environment. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Preparation of an EIS is
NEPA's "core requirement" for all actions which could cause such impacts, providing a
springboard for public comment.
32.
NEPA created the federal CEQ to, among other things, implement policies to
further the statute's purpose of incorporating environmental considerations within the decisionmaking process of federal agencies. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4342-4344. CEQ has issued regulations for
carrying out NEPA's requirements which are binding on all·federal agencies. 40 C.F.R. §§
1500.3, 1507.1.
33.
Under NEPA regulations, when multiple federal agencies have "jurisdiction by
law" over a major federal action significantly affecting the human environment, each federal
agency is obligated to prepare an EIS, or reasonably rely on an EIS prepared by another federal
agency, before it approves the action. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.5(a), 1501.6. An agency has
jurisdiction by law over an action if it has "authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of the
proposal." Id., § 1508.15.
34.
A "federal action" includes "projects and programs entirely or partly financed,
assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies; new or revised agency rules,
regulations, plans, policies, or procedures." Id., § 1508.18. A federal action is deemed "major"
if it is "significantly affecting" the quality of the human.environment. Id., § 1508.18 ("Major
reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of significantly."). Under NEPA caselaw, if
any 'significant' environmental impacts might result from the proposed agency action, then an
EIS must be prepared before the action is taken.
35.
An ElS must include a detailed statement of the environmental impacts of a
proposed action, adverse environmental effects·that cannot be avoided, and alternatives to the
12
proposed action. 42 U .S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Environmental impacts include direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the action (which include related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
future actions). 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.7, 1508.8.
36.
Consideration of alternatives "is the heart of the EIS [and] should present the
environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form,
thu~
sharply
· defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker
and the public." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The EIS must also include appropriate measures to
mitigate environmental impacts. ld., §§ 1502.14(t), 1502.16(h).
37.
To reduce delay and inefficiency, federal agencies must perform environmental
review at the "earliest possible time" in the decision-making process. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.2; see
§ 1500.5 ("Agencies shall reduce delay by integrating the NEPA process into early planning.")
Federal agencies "shall commence preparation of an environmental impact statement as close as
possible to the time the agency is developing or is presented with a proposal." Id., §1502.5.
They must "integrate the requirements ofNEPA with other planning and. environmental review
procedures required by law or by agency practice so that all such procedures run concurrently
rather than consecutively." Id., § 1500.2(c). In the context of a proposed rule, such as the
DRBC Regulations, "the draft EIS should normally accompany the proposed rule." ld., §
1502.5(d). Conducting environmental review early in the agency's decision-making process is
necessary so that such review "will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made."
I d., § 1502.5.
38.
The "lead" federal agency preparing the draft EIS must provide notice to, and
make that document available for comment by, other involved federal agencies, state and local
agencies, and the public. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1503.1, 1506.6. The lead federal agency must assess and
13
consider such comments and respond to them in a final EIS. Id., § 1503.4. The lead agency's
response to comments can include modifying the proposed action or developing and evaluating
alternatives to the proposed action not previously considered. Id. The agency's final decision on
the proposed action must be set forth in a public record of decision that summarizes the decision
and states "whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the
alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were not." ld., § 1505.2(c):
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
Failure of Defendant Federal Agencies and the DRBC to Prepare an EIS
39.
On May 19, 2009, the Executive Director of the DRBC issued a determination
under Section 3.8 of the Compact (the "Determination") prohibiting natural gas extraction
projects (unless authorized by the Commission) within the Basin's "Special Protection Waters,"
a large portion of the Basin which includes, among other areas, the full extent of the Basin in
New York and nearby areas in Pennsylvania which lie within the natural gas bearing formation,
called the "Marcellus Shale."
40.
The fyiCJrcellus Shale is a geologic formation containing substantial amounts of
natural gas that are being extracted in Pennsylvania and other states using a technique consisting
of first drilling vertically dawn, then angling toward the shale formation, then drilling
horizontally hundreds of feet within the formation, and then hydraulically fracturing the shale
(collectively referred to here as "hydrofracking"). Hydrofracking entails pumping millions
gallons of water, sand, and chemicals (some of which are hazardous) deep underground to cause
fractures along a horizontal well bore within the shale to release the natural gas trapped within.
41.
Hydrofracking allows the extraction of natural gas from "low permeability"
geologic formations, such as the Marcellus Shale, from which natural gas could not be
14
economically extracted using conventional technologies. While horizontal drilling and hydraulic
fracturing are not new technologies when conducted separately, only recently have they been
implemented together o.n a large scale to extract natural gas from low permeability formations.
42.
Hydrofracking in the Basin will-involve pumping millions of gallons of water
containing "fracking" additives into the ground under high pressure, at each well. The fracking
additives include many chemicals which may pose risks to health and the environment, including
the aromatic hydrocarbons benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (often referred to as
BTEX); microbiocides; glycols; glycol ethers; and petroleum products. 6 Flowback water,
brought to the surface in the hydrofracking process, and some production water transported to
the surface during the production phase, will contain these fracking additives and other potential
contaminants, and thus must be properly handled. The potential risk that these additives pose to
the Delaware Basin must be thoroughly evaluated before natural gas development is authorized.
43.
In issuing the Determination, the DRBC Executive Director found that "as a result
of water withdrawals, wastewater disposal and other activities, natural gas extraction projects in
these [gas· bearing] formations may individually or cumulatively affect the water quality of ·
Special Protection Waters by altering their physical, biological, chemical or hydrological
characteristics." 7 Pending finalization of these regulations, the DRBC has not issued drilling
permits for production of natural gas within the Special Protection Areas and, on June 14, 20 I 0,
it extended that prohibition to wells intended solely for exploratory purposes with the exception
of certain exploratory wells which it has "grandfathered." The DRBC estimates that between
15,000 and 18,000 natural gas wells would be developed within the Basin.
6
DSGEIS, pp. 5-46 through 5-66.
Determination of the Executive Di~ector Concerning Natural Gas Extraction Activities in Shale Formations
Within the Drainage Area of Special Protection Waters, DRBC, dated May.19, 2009.
7
15
44.
In 2010, the national environmental group American Rivers designated the Upper
Delaware River as the nation's most endangered river because "this clean water source is
threatened by natural gas
45.
activitie~ in the Mar'Cellus Shale."8
In response to that designation, the DRBC issued a statement elaborating on its
view that natural gas development could pose significant adverse cumulative environmental
impacts within the Basin:
The collective effects of the thousands of wells and supporting
facilities that are projected in the basin pose potentially significant
adverse effects on the surface water and groundwater of the basin
... There are also impacts to the land which can affect water
resources. The headwaters region where gas drilling activities
would be located is the most sensitive and vulnerable area of any
watershed. Over 80 percent of the DRB headwaters area is
covered with forests that are critical to the protection and
maintenance of water resources. One big concern is the effect of
forest fragmentation on our waters. 9
46.
Although the DRBC found that natural gas development in the Basin poses
potentially significant adverse.environmental impacts, it has refused to comply with NEPA and
refused to prepare a draft EIS for the DRBC Regulations which would authorize that
development.
47.
The Federal Agencies have also determined that natural gas development in the
Basin poses potentially significant adverse environmental impacts while also refusing to p~epare
a draft EIS. FWS and NPS have stated that "[l]arge-scale changes in land use and increased
water withdrawals, like those associated with natural gas development (including the
construction of exploratory, wells) will likely affect the Services' trust resources and should be
8
9
http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pqfs/mer-20 10/americas-most-endangered-rivers-20 1O.pdf.
http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/DRBCstatement_EndangeredRivers_6-2-201 O.pdf
16
reviewed for both individual and cumulative environmental effects."
10
.
As alleged in paragraph
4, above, EPA has determined that natural gas development within the New York City
Watershed (which includes a portion of the Basin) threat~ns the City 1 s "'high quality unfiltered
water supply." General DeLuca has stated that the federal government's "position is to continue
fully supporting the need for a cumulative impact study."
48.
11
Nevertheless, the Federal Agencies have refused to perform that study. Instead,
they have approved moving forward with the rulemaking by "agree[ing] to vote [within the
DRBC] against a moratorium on regulation development pending completion of an impact
study." 12 On May 5, 2010, Lt. Colonel Thomas J. Tickner of the ACE, predecessorto General
DeLuca as the federal member of the. DRBC, approved commencement of the rulemaking for the
DRBC Regulations on behalf of the other Defendants by voting to have the DRBC develop those
regulations in draft form and make them available for public comment.
49.
On May J2, 2010, XTO Energy, Inc. ("XTO Energy") applied to the DRBC for
approval of a project to withdraw water for its natural gas exploration and production activities
in Broome and Delaware counties in New York from a site on Oquaga Creek, a stream known
for its excellent trout fishing, within Broome County, New York, within the drainage area of the
Upper Delaware River. The DRBC has solicited public comments and scheduled hearings
concerning the application for June 2011. In the event that the-DRBC approves the application,
XTO Energy will have the right to develop the withdrawal site, potentially risking harm to the
Oquaga Creek.
10
Letter from Marvin E. Moriarty and Dennis Reidenbach to Carol Collier, dated June 25, 2010.
11
Letter from Duke DeLuca to Congressman Maurice Hinchey, dated September 14, 2010.
12
Letter from Peter A. DeLuca to Congressman Maurice Hindley, dated November 24, 2010.
17
50.
On December 9, 2010, over the objection ofNew York's Governor David
Paterson, the DRBC published the regulations in draft form on the website of Defendant NPS
without preparing a draft EIS as required by NEP A. Priot to publication of the regulations, New
York's Governor Paterson wrote to the DRBC Executive Director criticizing the Commission's
decision to move forward with regulations without ''the advantage of the full investigations and
public deliberations taking place in New York." 13 Governor Paterson was referring to the
environmental review process in New York concerning its proposed new permit conditions for
natural gas development, involving the preparation and revision of a supplemental EIS under
New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act, the State's analogue to NEPA.
51.
NYCDEP provides water to 9 million New Yorkers each day, most of which is
drawn from the Delaware sub-basin of the New York City Watershed which is located within the
Basin. On April 7, 2011, NYCDEP submitted comments concerning the DRBC Regulations to
the DRBC, echoing Governor Paterson's objection. NYCDEP stated that the DRBC's
regulations are premature because the agency "should conduct a rigorous analysis of the
potential cumulative impacts natural gas de.velopment could have on water quantity and ~ater
quality in the Delaware River Basin." 14 NYCDEP also n~ted that ''its own study determined
. that, based on the best available science and the current state of technology, hydrofracking
cannot safely be conducted in the New York City Watershed." 15
52.
On Aprill5, 2011, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman filed
comments with the DRBC requesting that it comply with NEP A by preparing a draft EIS for the
13
Letter from David A. Paterson to Carol CoJiier, dated December 6, 20 I 0.
14
Letter from Paul V. Rush to Paul Schmitt, dated Apri1 7, 201 1.
15
ld.
1~
DRBC Regulations. The comments requested that the EIS consider as an alternative to the
DRBC Regulations a prohibition of natural gas development within the New York City
Watershed in the Basin. The comments also discussed the risk of environmental harm posed by
natural gas development in the Basin, including the potential for water and air pollution.
53.
On April18, 2011, Attorney General Schneiderman wrote to General DeLuca of
the ACE, with copies to other Defendant Federal Agencies and the DRBC, to request that the
federal agencies agree within 30 days t.o comply with NEP A and prepare a draft EIS. In the
letter, the Attorney General stated that, in the absence of such agreement, his office intended to
sue the appropriate federal agencies to compel preparation of that study. A copy of the Attorney
General's letter is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.
54.
The next day, on April 19, 2011, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, a national
leader in natural gas development, experienced a blowout of a natural gas well in Bradford
County, Pennsylvania, located outside of the Basin, during the hydraulic fracturing process. As a
result of the blowout, thousands of gallons of water containing fracking chemicals were
discharged into a nearby creek, and seven families were evacuated from the area.
55.
On May 24, 2011, General DeLuca responded to Attorney General
Schneiderman's letter, stating that involved federal agencies would not undertake environmental
review of the proposed the DRBC Regulations under NEPA because "the DRBC itself is not a
federal agency subject to NEP A, and the mere participation of a federal officer in the DRBC
regulatory process does not constitute a ·federal action." A copy of General DeLuca's letter is
attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.
19
B.
New York Resources Placed at Risk by the DRBC Regulations
~atershed
I.
The New York City
and Other Water Resources
56.
The Basin in New York consists of areas with underlying Marcellus Sha1e .i:fl
Broome, Delaware, Greene, Sullivan, Ulster and Orange Counties. Approximately 40 percent of
the Basin in New York is comprised of the Delaware sub-watershed of the New York City
Watershed. That sub-watershed is a critical water resource for New York because it provides
most of the clean unfiltered drinking water consumed by 9 million people in New York City, its
suburbs, and upstate communities each day.
57.
When drinking water is obtained from surface waters (such as reservoirs and
rivers), it is generally "filtered" to remove contaminants prior to distribution to consumers.
However, water obtained from the Delaware sub-watershed and other areas in the New York
City Watershed (collectively referred to as the "West of Hudson Watershed") is not filtered.
Indt:ed, West of Hudson water is the largest unfiltered surface drinking water supply in the
nation.
58.
West ofHu~son water, including the Delaware sub-watershed within the Basin, is
collected by streams and reservoirs from pre
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?