[Prepared by Jon Bosak, with input and discussion from TCLocal.]

To: Mayor and Common Council, City of Ithaca; Board of Public Works, City of Ithaca

CC: Superintendent of Public Works, City of Ithaca

From: TCLocal (Jon Bosak, Chair)

Date: 5 August 2007

Revised TCLocal Statement on the City of Ithaca Water Plant Decision

Background

The members of TCLocal believe that in the future, energy will become increasingly expensive. At some point in the next 20 years, geological limits on the rate at which fossil fuels can be extracted will combine with global population growth and development to create an ever-widening gap between global supply and demand, causing the price of energy to rise continuously until some completely new source of energy is discovered. We also believe that climate change caused by the emission of greenhouse gases such as CO2 is a real threat, to which we must respond by using less energy or by getting our energy from a clean source. We conclude that policy decisions should prefer choices that would preserve current function while using as little dirty energy as possible.

In March 2007, TCLocal submitted an opinion to the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works on the City Water Treatment Plant decision. That opinion favored the option of rebuilding the existing water treatment plant over the option of becoming a customer of an expanded Bolton Point plant. We recommended the Rebuild option because of the savings in electrical use, greater self-sufficiency, and greater system redundancy (three local water source and treatment plants rather than two). The fact that two-thirds of the City’s water “never sees a pump” but rather flows out to users by gravity made this an easy call; at Bolton Point, all the water has to be pumped, and adding the City’s demand would roughly double the amount of electricity consumed and CO2 produced there.

After submitting TCLocal’s recommendation, we were asked to reconsider our position based on data regarding chemical use. Treating the relatively turbid water of Six Mile Creek requires a substantially greater chemical input (chiefly to precipitate suspended matter) than is required to treat the much clearer water of Lake Cayuga, raising questions about the future economics and energy use of chemicals.

Hydropower aspects of the Rebuild option

In the process of reconsidering our previous recommendation, TCLocal became aware of a hydropower plan studied in the 1980s that would use the water now flowing through Six Mile Creek to generate electricity — enough to easily provide for the electrical needs of the rebuilt water treatment plant with some left over for other City uses. Substituting this clean, renewable energy for some of what the City now buys from NYSEG would simultaneously make the City’s water supply independent of fluctuations in the price of electricity while reducing the total CO2 emissions due to City of Ithaca Operations. We calculate that this reduction would be equal to 60 percent of the CO2 reduction the City has committed to achieving by 2020 under the Local Action Plan.

The 1989 Van Natta’s Dam proposal accompanying this statement provides further detail on the power plant option. (Note that the attachment, vannatta.pdf, contains just a small portion of the many documents related to this plan that are still on file with the City.)

Based on careful study at the time, and with due regard to environmental concerns (which were found to be almost nonexistent, the dam being located at the lowest part of the watershed that is considered environmentally sensitive), it was determined in 1989 that rehabilitation of the old turbine facilities at Van Natta’s Dam would enable the flow of water past the existing dam to generate a calculated 1.42 million kWh per year. If we generously allow for 5 percent downtime, this nets out to 1.35 million kWh per year.

In 2006, the last year for which figures are available, the City water treatment plant used 634,500 kWh of electricity, or about 47 percent of the total annual output of the proposed power plant. Thus, rehabilitation of the Van Natta’s Dam powerhouse as described in the 1989 proposal would not only make the City’s existing water treatment system (aside from chemical inputs) completely energy-independent, but it would also make over 700,000 kWh of virtually free, zero-emission energy available every year for other purposes. A rebuilt water treatment plant might or might not use more electricity than the existing one; there still seems to be some uncertainty about this. But even under the most pessimistic estimate, which projects an additional 45 kW average continuous demand, the electrical needs of the rebuilt water treatment plant (about 1.03 million kWh per year) would still be comfortably accommodated by the projected output of the power plant.

At a current rate of 10 cents per kWh, a power plant at Van Natta’s Dam would yield a savings to the City of about $135,000 annually, which is certain to increase substantially as electricity becomes more expensive. Equally important, the CO2 contribution due to use of electricity in City Operations (which would otherwise be supplied almost entirely by burning coal at the Milliken plant) would be reduced by about 1,300 metric tons a year, or 60 percent of the target reduction of 2,180 tons of CO2 specified in the Local Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for City of Ithaca Government Operations adopted by the City in 2006.

While there is little doubt that the cost of chemicals will rise in the future, there is no reason to assume that their price will, over the long run, rise any faster than the price of electricity, so the anticipated run-up in savings on electricity can be considered a hedge against increases in the cost of chemicals. And if we are considering a doomsday scenario where the national infrastructure fails entirely, we think it better to have a guaranteed supply of gravity-fed water that may need to be boiled for some relatively small percentage of uses rather than to have cleaner water sitting in the lake with no way to distribute it.

Rehabilitating Van Natta’s Dam will obviously cost much more now than the projected one million dollars it would have cost in 1989; a safe guess in advance of an expert reappraisal might be in the neighborhood of three million dollars. If electricity prices were to remain what they are now for the next 25 years, that’s about how long it would take for the project to pay for itself. With proper care, the plant would then continue to pay off for centuries by producing electrical power of increasing value, so 25 years is not a bad payoff for this essential piece of civic infrastructure; but actually, it’s exceedingly unlikely that the cost of electricity will remain flat over that length of time. The likelihood is exactly the opposite, and the odds are that the project would pay for itself more quickly.

It seems to us that the hydropower possibilities put the Rebuild option for the water treatment plant in a new light. The need to develop as many local sources of renewable energy as possible and the imperative to reduce our production of greenhouse gases are excellent reasons — reasons we understand much better now than we did back in 1989 — to seriously consider the Van Natta’s Dam rehabilitation plan on its own merits, independent of the water treatment plant. But if the Van Natta’s Dam plan were to be implemented, the Creek maintenance needed to support a rebuilt water treatment plant would come for free, because the expensive part — the system of dams — would be the same for both the drinking water supply and the power supply. So it’s our conclusion that the Rebuild option should not be considered in isolation but rather as a way to enable the construction of a new hydropower plant using the same basic infrastructure as the water treatment plant.

Environmental concerns: the big picture

Such a plan would, of course, be subject to the same aesthetic concerns that have been expressed regarding the Rebuild option as currently proposed. As people who are convinced that we and our descendants will have to make do with what we can find just a short distance from where we live, the members of TCLocal are as anxious as any City residents to preserve the beauty of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. But it seems clear from the description of impacts in the current Draft Scoping Document (attached as draft-scope.pdf) that these aesthetic concerns have been overstated. Most if not all of the maintenance needed to keep the dams operational will be required for safety reasons anyway, even if the City abandons its water plant and does nothing with its hydropower potential; compare the “Impact on Aesthetic Resources” of rebuilding the water plant (page 12 of the Scoping Document) with the virtually identical “Impact on Aesthetic Resources” of not rebuilding the water plant (page 13 of the Scoping Document).

It’s also clear from the Scoping Document that the environmental impact of the construction needed for the Bolton Point option would be at least as great as the impact of the construction needed to rebuild the existing water treatment plant. In fact, given that maintenance of the Six Mile Creek system will need to be carried out in any case, the net environmental impact of the Bolton Point option appears to be considerably greater than the net environmental impact of the Rebuild option.

We believe that the minimal impact of maintaining Six Mile Creek as a critical part of our civic infrastructure poses no meaningful threat to enjoyment of this resource and is a small price to pay given the urgent need for energy independence and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The integrity of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area is threatened much more by climate change caused by GHG emissions than by any carefully executed maintenance of the City water system that has shaped the beauty of the watershed for the last century.

Conclusion

It is our considered opinion, based on the information currently available and attached to this statement, that the hydropower potential of a rebuilt City water treatment plant makes the Rebuild option a clear long-term winner in terms of finances, environmental impact, GHG reduction, and energy independence. We urge the City to carefully consider the combined benefits of a rebuilt water treatment plant and a rehabilitated power plant before it throws away a valuable piece of our local infrastructure and a once-in-a-century chance to do the right thing for our community and the larger world.

Attachments

Van Natta Dam Water Power Rehabilitation Project

http://ibiblio.org/tcrp/policy/wtp/vannatta.pdf

Draft Scope Document

http://ibiblio.org/tcrp/policy/wtp/draft-scope.pdf

(Please note that this discussion focuses on the physical road and bridge infrastructure. Transit options could certainly accelerate and improve on some of these possibilities.)

A Possible Scenario

After increasing energy costs led to reduced traffic and higher costs for road maintenance, municipalities changed their handling of roads, highways, and bridges. While the county's road network remains largely in place, following the same general pattern it has kept since the early 1800's, road maintenance adjusted to reflect less use and fewer people living in isolated areas.

Lower speed limits allow the use of simpler roads in the countryside, with only a few main arteries preserved as expensive but important transportation corridors. Rural residents expect disruptions from weather, and prepare for it rather than expecting clean roads within a few hours of a snowfall. Many roads are managed as a single paved lane, often with gravel rather than asphalt, though a wider path is drained so that vehicles can pass each when they meet.

In the cities, villages, and hamlets, reduced traffic and greater emphasis on pedestrians and bicycles led to a shift in street design. Again, some key streets are kept wide for use as arteries (largely by restricting parking along them), but all streets have widened sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and a narrower area for cars, parked or driving. Winter maintenance focuses on keeping the city a pleasant place for pedestrians to walk.

Making the Adjustment

Municipalities won't reach that final scenario easily. The transition from today's broad asphalt roads oriented strongly toward cars will be slow, responding to changing costs and priorities.

Short term: Respond to increasing costs

• Reduced plowing, salting
• Triage for road repair
• Shifting to rural single-lane paved, dirt roads
• Reduced speed limits, load limits

Long term: Adjust infrastructure for different usage

• Reduced road and bridge systems
• Plowing only on key road systems
• Shifting to different (less energy-intensive) materials for paved roads, like brick and crushed gravel. Focus on drainage and managed plantings to reduce mud
• Greater emphasis on lighter-weight pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
• Reorganization of state/county/municipal responsibility
• Consider property taxes on cars to cover road costs

Increased oil prices will have two major impacts on Tompkins County roads and bridges. First, increased gasoline prices will likely reduce the amount of traffic, even allowing for innovations like electric vehicles powered by renewable sources. Second, the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure will rise substantially. Asphalt, tar, and oil are all petroleum-based, and construction and repair of roadways is extremely energy-intensive. Machinery costs are also tied in large part to energy costs.

Much of the current road network reflects patterns that were laid down in the early 1800s, and only paved slowly. A few roads, notably Route 13 between Lansing and downtown Ithaca, are complete innovations, blasted into the landscape. (Even old 13 from Ithaca to Cortland wasn't paved until 1910.)

Specific options for change

City streets

Restructure with pedestrian and bicycle emphasis along European urban models, as shown in Figure 1. Consider approaches which minimize parking space, possibly areas where cars only enter by special permit. Creative use necessary for parking lots - redevelopment, or markets? Plow sidewalks, not roads, except possibly main roads, probably based on current state highways.

Figure 1 - From left, guardrail, pedestrian sidewalk, bicycle sidewalk, parking, street.

Rural roads

Reduce the paved road network, as paving and plowing hundreds of miles of roads for a few users (who simultaneously have to pay a lot for fuel!) is an expensive luxury. Reduce the form factor of roads that remain, as shown in Figure 2. (Some wider paved areas to ease cars passing each other might be necessary, especially in areas with poor drainage.) State highways might make sense as branches in a light rail network. Consider possible interurban opportunities with surrounding cities. Plant fruit trees and bushes along rights of way to provide source of food, reduce snowdrifts. Add trail networks. Acknowledge Cortland, Elmira, Binghamton, and Auburn as important centers to connect with roads.

Figure 2 - A rural road in Northern Germany, one lane wide but drained for two.

Shared vehicles

Car sharing is already under consideration in the City of Ithaca, and the Village of Dryden has long allowed residents to use its DPW truck for their own work during off-hours and weekends. In general, shift resources from strictly private vehicles to shared ones.

Alternative vehicles

Motorcycles, horses, carts, snowmobiles, scooters, sleighs, and multi-purpose vehicles will likely find more common usage.

Snow removal

Snow removal uses tremendous amounts of fuel and materials, and actually makes some modes of transportation (sleighs, skis, and snowmobiles) more difficult to use. It also damages roads over time. Plowing priorities should shift to reflect changing usage, with emphasis on the most heavily-traveled roads and on busy sidewalks. (The Village of Dryden already plows sidewalks to some extent, for example.)

Nodal development complementing roads

Return to 19th century model of central city, countryside with villages, hamlets, farmhouses. Where possible, use existing developments outside of that pattern as possible bases for intensive agriculture, using existing road system. (Because Route 13 moved, there are likely at least three new nodes to add to earlier patterns: at Route 13 and Triphammer Road, Route 13 and Warren Road, and the overlap between Routes 13 and 366.)

There are several successfully operating fruit-growing businesses in Tompkins County and the neighboring Counties. However, the present harvest volume is not sufficient to supply the local population year round. Most commonly grown fruits are harvested from shrubs and trees. Thus, new orchards take a while to establish: Strawberries bear fruit a year after planting, currants and raspberries usually take about two years to come into full production, the onset of productivity in many modern fruit trees ranges from three to five years, with comparatively lower yields during the first years of production. The sooner an increased local fruit production can be encouraged, the less severe will be the shortage, when imports become exceedingly expensive.

Fruit trees and shrubs lend themselves to a variety of growing systems. High-density orchards are among the most productive agricultural systems. However, they require considerable up-front investments and have to rely on seasonal labor. Providing cheap loans for beginning farmers and help with hiring seasonal workers might ease the establishment of high-density orchards. Improved public transportation access to the orchard-site might make it more attractive to turn an orchard into a U-pick operation, which reduces the need for seasonal workers and improves the access to fresh fruit for residents with low incomes.

However, fruit can also be very successfully produced in small scale settings and gardens. Berry bushes, vines, and small, dwarfing fruit trees require little growing space and can fit in even small urban gardens. Owners of larger, suburban properties might be able to grow all fruit needed for their own consumption. Home fruit processing, such as drying, freezing, and canning can preserve the bounty of harvest time well into winter and spring.

Private gardeners might be encouraged to grow additional fruit for the public, if they are provided with a flexible option to sell their product during harvest time. Suburban land-owners might be convinced to lease part of their land to beginning small-scale farmers, if the land-owners could receive tax-breaks for agricultural land for small acreages. Access to rental cold storage places and rental certified kitchens (like in the Varna Community Center) also could be substantial help for starting small businesses.

Many fruit trees are a very pleasant sight, especially when spring flowers blossom. Using trees and shrubs bearing edible fruit for landscaping in parks, and eventually even as shade trees on sidewalks or along county roads could help to reduce acute shortages. Harvesting fruits on public land harvested on first come first served basis has been successful with fruit-bearing alley trees in Brandenburg, Eastern Germany. A sign at the entrance of a park might be enough to encourage residents in need to harvest.

Local fruit production is seasonal (see table). July to October is the time of most abundant fruit supply. Some fruit, especially apples, can be stored for several months. The supply of fresh fruit is lowest in spring. Novel ways of production, such as greenhouse production of raspberries, can provide fresh fruit in the off-season and should be encouraged. Currants and gooseberries are even more cold-and-shade tolerant than raspberries, and might also lend themselves to early spring greenhouse production; however, more research is needed to establish good growing procedures.

Table: Harvest and storage times for some fruits suitable for growth in Tompkins County:

Action items for local residents to increase local fruit production:

- Buy locally grown fruit in support of your local fruit growers.

- If you have a garden, plant trees and shrubs of your favorite fruit varieties.

- If you have a garden but no time to plant it, consider renting out some space.

- Learn how to preserve fruit.

- Start now! Fruit trees take time to grow!

Action items for local legislators to encourage increased local fruit production:

- Enable small growers and home gardeners to sell their products to the public, providing them with flexible market options during harvest season and help with access to rental storage and kitchens.

- Encourage local fruit processing.

- Strengthen the already existing 'Pride of New York' label as a marketing help for local farmers and fruit processors.

- Work for easier tax-assessment of small acreages as agricultural land to ease the use of suburban properties.

- Sponsor gardening and canning classes.

- Encourage use of edible plants for landscaping in public parks.

- Encourage research on off-season fruit production.

- Help to establish public transportation access to U-pick operations.

- Help starting farmers with cheap loans.

- Start now! Fruit trees take time to grow!