Dec 022016
 

Dear friends, neighbors and allies,

As the announced date of eviction at Standing Rock (December 5th) draws

near, events are being held around the country and the world to show

solidarity with the thousands of brave people seeking to protect a crucial

water source by blocking the continuance of the Dakota Access Pipe Line.

Tomorrow, Saturday December 3rd, our picket line at the CPV site in

Wawayanda NY will be devoted to STANDING IN SOLIDARITY WITH STANDING ROCK.

These fights are the same fight: it’s not ok to frack gas (in PA, for

example); it’s not ok to burn fracked gas (in Wawayanda, for example);

it’s not ok to run fracked gas through dangerous pipelines (from Westtown

to Wawayanda via the Valley Lateral, for example); and it’s not ok to run

oil (also often fracked) across many hundreds of miles and crossing one of

the major rivers of this continent.

IT’S NOT OKAY; NONE OF IT IS ANYWHERE NEAR OKAY. And whatever else is

going on in the world, saying NO to something that is wrong is, quite

simply, the right thing to do.

Please join us tomorrow to send a message of solidarity to the brave souls

facing violence daily at Standing Rock; they are on the front lines of the

battle that is our battle, too. Please bring signs if you can that say

“Standing With Standing Rock” or “No DAPL” or similar messages.

We meet from 11-noon at 3300 Route 6, Middletown, NY.

For more information on supporting Standing Rock, visit

https://nodaplsolidarity.org

On another note: The lawsuit seeking an injunction to halt building at the

CPV plant until a new Environmental Impact Study has been completed is

still awaiting hearing in the appellate court. Please see, below, attorney

Michael Sussman’s recently-filed motion to expedite hearing of the case.

This is the second such motion he has filed.

And join us tomorrow! Let’s halt construction before they fill the diesel

and ammonia tanks.

We are all firefighters now,

Naomi

TriStates Unite for Safe Energy

tristatesunite.org

AFFIRMATION OF MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN

     1.  I am lead counsel for plaintiffs/appellants.  I make this

Affirmation on information known to me to be true.

     2.  This matter has been fully submitted for eight months.

     3.  On one prior occasion, I moved unsuccessfully to expedite

consideration of this appeal.  Respondents opposed that application.

    4.  Work on constructing the CPV power plant has continued in

Wawayanda, New York.  In the meantime, earlier this week, the United

States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has indicted

respondent CPV’s Senior Vice President for External Affairs for

bribery and public corruption relating to this very project.  Exhibit

1 hereto is the Complaint filed with the Court and the accompanying

narrative which enumerates the bribery related to this very site

engaged in by the respondent in this case; Exhibit 2 is the Indictment

filed on November 22, 2016.

        5.  Respondent filed for site plan approval for a massive power

plant in Orange County in or about 2009.  It did not fully

complete SEQR review before the Town Planning Board approved it.

In early 2015, having not yet commenced construction, respondent

submitted a new application for site plan approval, making changes

to the approved site plan.  Petitioners and  hundreds of others

from the Town and region asked the Town Planning Board to require

the respondent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement [SEIS], arguing, inter alia, that in 2013, when the

Board approved the first site plan, Governor Cuomo had not

promulgated the current ban on fracking in New York, that this

plant depended on fracked natural gas, that production,

distribution and use of fracked natural gas caused dangerous

externalities which respondent had never assessed as part of its

FEIS and that inducing hydro-fracking in our neighboring state,

Pennsylvania, was contrary to our own state’s ban on this

process, announced in December 2014.

6.  Notwithstanding these and other arguments, the Town Planning Board

did not require an SEIS and Supreme Court dismissed the underlying

Article 78 proceeding which timely challenged this decision.  This Court

should halt construction of this project until an SEIS is completed by an

independent party, restoring some degree of public confidence in a

project which is plainly compromised by the corruption which lies at its

heart.  The public does not know what other corrupt practices the company

engaged in while gaining a myriad of approvals and there has bene no

publicly announced review of its permits to provide any degree of

assurance.

              WHEREFORE, this Court should expedite the appeal and, in

deciding the appeal, should enter an Order requiring the

DEIS to be completed before further work is done on this

project.