Decision Time on Cement
BECAUSE THE MILLS of bureaucratic procedure grind exceedingly slow and fine, the bitter struggle over a proposed cement plant on the east bank of the Hudson River just south of Hudson, N.Y., is now well into its sixth year without a resolution. On one side is St. Lawrence Cement, a Canadian-based company with majority Swiss ownership that wants to close an old cement plant west of the river and build a giant new plant that would announce itself with a 40-story smokestack and dominate an 1,800-acre tract (including a 1,200-acre limestone quarry) running to the town's waterfront.
On the other side is a growing cohort of determined citizens organized by three advocacy groups - Scenic Hudson, Friends of Hudson and the Olana Partnership - who argue that the plant would unleash a plume of pollutants, damage the region's considerable scenic and cultural resources and discourage the small businesses, tourists and second-home residents the local economy has increasingly come to depend on. These critics also regard as inflated the company's claim that the plant will create many new jobs - especially if St. Lawrence closes the old plant once the new one is built.
And in the middle, as is always the case when a big new plant seeks permission to build, is New York, in particular Gov. George E. Pataki, whose government must approve the necessary permits.
Until now, the opponents have focused most of their pressure on the State Department of Environmental Conservation, which last fall ordered a series of judicial hearings on various critical issues surrounding the plant, as mandated by environmental law. This process could go on for some time.
Last month, however, Scenic Hudson and its confederates opened a second line of attack, filing a detailed brief with New York's secretary of state. The brief asserts that the plant would violate at least a half-dozen protections for scenic resources, as well as air and water quality, provided by the state's coastal management plan. The company had claimed in an earlier application that the project was fully consistent with that plan.
A ruling from the secretary, Randy Daniels, is expected soon. A negative decision would deal the project a heavy blow because the Army Corps of Engineers could not then issue important permits without which the company cannot proceed, whatever the outcome of the other reviews. St Lawrence could appeal the ruling to the United States Department of Commerce, which oversees state plans for managing coastlines, but reversals are rare.
Whatever he does, Mr. Daniels will not be acting entirely on his own. The real decision here lies with Mr. Pataki. This page has urged Mr. Pataki on several occasions dating back to 2003 to block the project, not least because it is so obviously inconsistent with his vision for the Hudson River and, more broadly, his sound record of environmental stewardship. Here is another chance for him to do so.
FRIENDS OF HUDSON LINKS: DONATE | HOME