A proposed hydroelectric power storage project eyed for near the Ashokan Reservoir has the potential to displace nearly 100 homes in the Shandaken hamlet of Woodland Valley, said Ginger Strand of the Woodland Community Association. She, along with a handful of regional leaders and environmental advocates, voiced their opposition to the proposed project at a press conference at the Ashokan Center, hosted by state Sen. Michelle Hinchey.

“This proposal threatens irreparable damage to the region,” Hinchey (D-Saugerties) said. “While we are dedicated to moving New York to 100 percent renewable energy sources, we cannot do so at the detriment of our natural resources or at the expense of our drinking water and watershed communities.”

Premium Energy Holdings, a California-based power company, is seeking a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to conduct a feasibility study into crucial aspects of the proposal. Should it ever be approved, the project would require excavation of valleys in Olive or Shandaken to carve out a large water storage reservoir, plus underground turbines and tunnels.

Hinchey and the other speakers criticized Premium Energy for not reaching out to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection or local communities who would have been impacted. They contended that regional support for the project is slim.

“It is very clear that Premium Energy developed this proposal without any input from or knowledge of our region,” Hinchey said. “The Catskill park is one of New York’s two constitutionally protected parks.”

Along with Woodland Valley, two other areas have been identified: Stone Clove in Hunter and Moonhaw Road in Olive. However, Hinchey claimed that the president of Premium Energy, Victor M. Rojas, said he would remove these locations from his proposal this week if there was significant public opposition.

In fact, that amendment was supposed to be made this week, but as of Thursday there was still no word, despite hundreds of negative comments sent to the FERC.

The deadline to submit comments to FERC is April 12. Letters of up to 6,000 characters can be submitted online here or mailed to Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submitted comments should include the commenter’s name, contact information, and docket number P-15056-000 on the first page.

Project details

Hydroelectric pumped storage involves two water reservoirs at different elevations. In this case, water would be pumped from the lower Ashokan Reservoir through underground pipes to a reservoir above it. This process requires energy, meaning electrical transmission lines will need to be installed as well.

When electricity rates rise, usually due to increased demand, the water in the upper reservoir is allowed to flow through turbines below to generate energy, which would be sold to Central Hudson. However, the energy needed to pump water to the upper reservoir may exceed the energy the turbines can produce from it.

Strand said FERC could force the state to condemn via eminent domain the land needed for the project. As a result, any structures in its path would be demolished and a swath of trees would be cut to make room for the new reservoir. Landowners would be “fairly” compensated, though what seems fair to one side may seem like larceny to the other.

The opposition

One of the biggest criticisms of the proposal is the impact the project would have on the Catskill region’s natural resources. Project opponents worry that the pumping and releasing of the water would churn up mud and degrade the quality of drinking water. The Ashokan Reservoir provides drinking water for nearly 9 million New York City residents and 70 communities north of the City, according to a comment filed by the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which also urged FERC to reject the permit proposal.

Kathy Nolan, a former county legislator and current senior research director of Catskill Mountainkeeper, said the project would surely disrupt trout-spawning streams, which play a major role in the environment and tourist economy. She also lamented over the series of public hiking trails that would be wiped out if the land was acquired.

“These proposals are really ignoring an irreplaceable feature of this world,” Nolan said. “I'm skeptical that the next iteration of [the proposal] will be of any higher quality if it involves digging into the lands right around the Ashokan Reservoir and tapping into the Ashokan Reservoir. So I reject an unthinking exploitation of our area.”

When Olive Town Supervisor Jim Sofranko took the stage, he reminded attendees of the dark history behind the creation of the Ashokan Reservoir. He recalled how, in 1905, thousands of families were displaced for a water project meant to benefit folks living 100 miles away.

“Hundreds of families were financially and emotionally devastated, losing their land, their homes and their livelihoods. This has left deep, deep scars in this community,” Sofranko said. “Animosity toward the city continues to this day due to the ongoing land acquisitions of land use restrictions placed upon landowners for water protection, threatening our commercial development and economic sustainability.”

Daniel Morgan of the Coalition to Save Catskills Preserve, echoed Soranko’s sentiments. The coalition gathered 200 members to fight against the project within weeks of learning of it. He noted that 2,000 residents were displaced during the Ashokan Reservoir construction and claimed that 75 percent of them never received compensation from it.

“Now, just a few generations later, Premium Energy’s proposal forces us to relive the trauma all over again, and flood even more valleys,” Morgan said. “How much devastation and loss is enough for one area to endure?”

According to the supervisor, the application exhibited an utter lack of empathy towards the region's sensitive past and even misspelled the Town of Olive.

Upstate opposition to large-scale sustainable energy projects is often written off as short-sighted views from folks who don’t want any development in their backyards. Strand acknowledged that but argued that this was not the case in this instance. She admitted that stored hydroelectricity is currently the most reliable source of renewable energy since wind won’t always push windmills and the sun won’t always shine on solar panels.

However, she argued that this project was not appropriate for highly preserved areas that are in the top 1 percent of state forest habitats — habitats that are becoming increasingly fragmented. Strand added that it is not the public’s responsibility to find a suitable area for a private utility project.

“We must acknowledge that renewables have a price … [generation projects] take up land, dams, transform streams and rivers,” Strand said. “And if we don't look at the price, we won't know if it's too high.”