As Opposition Grows, Legislation Looks to Stop Anchorage Sites on Hudson
The pressure to convince the United States Coast Guard to reverse its plan to construct ten new anchorage sites along the Hudson River, which has drawn fire from both political parties and at every level of government, continued yesterday.
On Monday, US Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney introduced new legislation that would halt the plan to place ten barges for large commercial ships traveling from up-river to the port of New York. The possible anchorage sites would provide the ships a location to drop anchors before continuing to the port. The barges would be spread out from Yonkers up to Kingston.
Maloney’s federal legislation would outlaw current and future Coast Guard sites from being built on the Hudson River. The Hudson River Protection Act would prohibit the Coast Guard from putting new anchorage sites for vessels carrying hazardous or flammable material within five miles of an existing superfund site, a nuclear power plant, a site on the national register of historic places, or a critical habitat of an endangered species, according to a press release.
“The Coast Guard’s proposal to install new anchorage sites is a bad idea and I will do whatever I can to stop it, including passing legislation on this issue,” Maloney, a Democrat, said in a statement. “We don’t need more anchorage sites, we don’t want them – it is too dangerous and too harmful to our Hudson River, which is still recovering from PCB contamination – the last thing we need are dangerous oil tankers parking on our shores.”
Efforts in Putnam County have also been ratcheted up, with Legislator Barbara Scuccimarra holding a press conference last week about the proposal.
Scuccimarra said the proposal by the Coast Guard could bring multiple problems into the area. She noted the Hudson River is a designated heritage river–one of seven in the country–and a tourism attraction.
The possible harmful effects on the environment and tourism are not worth the plan the Coast Guard wants to implement, she said.
While there have been several calls to stop the barges from settling on the river, it hasn’t come as forcefully from county lawmakers before last week. State Senators Terrence Murphy and Sue Serino, who represent parts of Putnam, have spoken out against it as has other Hudson Valley lawmakers. At the press conference last week, County Executive MaryEllen Odell and Legislators Bill Gouldman joined Scuccimarra.
At a county legislative Health Committee meeting last month, the county Legislature moved forward with a resolution voicing its opposition to the anchorage sites. It’s expected to be passed by the full legislature today (Tuesday). Odell, in a memo to Coast Guard officials, wrote the proposal poses many risks to the ecology of the river and have detrimental affects to the communities near the Hudson and their vision for it.
“We highly value the aesthetic beauty and commercial importance of the Hudson River,” Odell wrote.
Scuccimarra said while the barges would not be parked on the Cold Spring waterfront, she said many boaters use the village docks to sail along the river and could have to navigate around the structures. She also said commercial fishermen already struggle enough and the barges would only hurt their business.
“And God forbid there’s a spill in one of these barges, it’s going to effect Cold Spring, it totally will,” she said. “I can’t imagine the impact it would have, not just a spill, but a fire, environmentally.”
Scuccimarra recalls back in 1963, there was a plan to put a hydroelectric plant on Storm King Mountain and public outcry from environmental groups and elected officials stopped that plan. She said she hopes the public outrage over this proposal also stymies its fruition.
Scuccimarra said, “We just can’t let this happen.”
