A post on the STCC Facebook page.

Elizabeth R. Agte
December 16 at 3:18 PM  ·
Our meeting with NYPA representatives at Senator Brouk’s office yesterday was a rehashing of greatest hits, but I think it was very important to have this debate in front of her staff. Our points are valid and reasonable. NYPA holds firmly to their position that they are required to treat this exactly as if it was the Mount Morris dam.
Although their PR people would like us to believe they have listened to us, the fact remains they still are going to do whatever it takes to remove as many trees from the embankments as they can get away with. They have alluded to it over and over in the SEQRA and the guidebook.
They intend to mitigate any possibility of a breach in order to prevent blow back on them. Their interest in is making sure that they cannot be held responsible.
They fail to look at the Erie Canal as a complex system of values and uses. A glaring example is that their primary interest is that they don’t want to get sued if a breach occurs and someone dies.

So there you have it folks! Senator Brouk is listening to, and apparently agreeing with, the STCC.

This is the senator who hasn't even had the courtesy to visit the site where the worst examples of downed trees, gulleys, and poor construction are evident. She sends two office employees (staff), who obviously had no understanding or knowledge of dam construction and maintenance.

Brouk is trying to align herself with the few folks who have signed onto the STCC Facebook page, probably hoping they'll vote for her.

The NYPA are treating this like any embankment DAM should be treated -

Remove ALL obstacles from the outboard slopes to allow for inspection, and access in the event of a repair being necessary.

Agte says "Their interest in is making sure that they cannot be held responsible."

Indeed! If they didn't do this, it follows that they would be 'irresponsible' wouldn't it?


Yes, the NYPA has listened to the email 'bombing' by this group.  The trouble is those emails were mostly identical, spouting the same rhetoric, like 'Shade is Cool' and 'It's not a dam, it's a levee'. etc. etc

Agte says, "Their primary interest is that they don’t want to get sued if a breach occurs and someone dies"

Perhaps she should have said "They don't want someone to die!" That would make more sense, without the Agte spin on the problem.
So, we're back to SAFETY - thats a word you'll seldom see coming from Ms Agte, because to be completely safe, one has to bring these old and dangerous dams up to code. That means regrading the slopes and making them accessible for any repairs.

They can't do any of that without removing the vegetation.