Published: August 16, 2007 09:37 pm      

GREAT LAKES BILL: CWM opponents, supporters react to Spitzer’s veto

Still unclear if Legislature will try for a veto override

Lewiston residents opposed to CWM Chemical Services licked their wounds and looked forward on Thursday, a day after Gov. Eliot Spitzer vetoed a bill which could have jeopardized the proposed expansion of the Porter-based hazardous waste landfill.

Meanwhile, CWM officials and those who support the facility rejoiced, calling the veto the right side of a tough decision.

“People here are very, very happy that the governor had the foresight to see this bill for what it was,” said Lori Caso, a CWM spokesperson. “It was an environmental negative.”

Those on both sides of the issue lapsed into familiar arguments on Thursday about the nature of the company: Including whether it helps or hurts the town where it’s placed and surrounding communities and how necessary the landfill really is.

“They’re not a very good corporate citizen at all,” said April Fideli, president of the non-profit group Residents for Responsible Government. “There’s been a lot of questions on how they spend their money and who they give it to.”

Fideli went on to document large community donations from the company to various public entities and expensive local advertising campaigns, suggesting that the only reason the bill was passed was because of CWM’s upstate lobbyists.

“It’s funny that Lori Caso’s line is that this isn’t an environmentally friendly bill,” she said. “That’s exactly what they said in the veto message.”

The message Fideli referred to was actually a memo from Spitzer’s office explaining the decision. Among other things, the memo called the bill overly broad and too expensive — since it might mean shipping the hazardous waste from New York’s brownfields and other sites to other states.

Caso said the company benefits the state and local community and has no adverse effects on Lake Ontario. Truck traffic near the Lewiston-Porter School District is heavily regulated, and the company complies with its extremely restrictive permit as to what they discharge into Lake Ontario, she said.

“We are all trained professionals here, and we understand the importance of what we do to preserve the environment,” Caso said, later adding, Spitzer “had a very difficult choice to make and chose to go with technology and facts and not politics or emotion.”

Caso also called residents such as Fideli, who are opposed to CWM, a “very vocal minority,” and added that RRG’s president had never been on the site for a tour.

“We are good neighbors,” Caso said. “We open our doors, and we’re not hiding anything.”

Lewiston resident, physics PhD Frank Collins agreed. Collins, who never worked for CWM, is a retired veteran of the chemical services industry and has been active recently writing letters supporting the company.

“I thought (the arguments in the veto memo) were good,” Collins said. “They do a good job and they generate lots of income and employment and they pay a lot of taxes. So it’s a good business.

“If they close them down we lose a lot of jobs and a lot of tax money.”

But Fideli isn’t alone in her opposition. Amy Witryol lashed out at Spitzer’s veto on Thursday, calling it unfounded and nonsensical.

Of particular issue is the hazardous waste siting plan, used by Spitzer in his veto as a means to both follow state law and study the state’s hazardous waste disposal needs, Witryol pointed out in a written message. She also criticized the governor for failing to protect the Great Lakes, and bemoaned the lack of funding Niagara County receives to defend itself in such processes.

“In considering cost as the issue, the governor ignored the negative health and environmental effects of hosting a national toxic waste landfill near Lake Ontario,” she wrote.

Local state legislators also supported the bill, including state Senator George Maziarz, R-Newfane, and Assemblywoman Francine DelMonte, D-Lewiston.

“Obviously I’m very disappointed he didn’t sign it,” DelMonte said. “I thought a good case had been made in support of the bill.”

A veto override — an action in which both the senate and assembly must approve by a two-thirds majority — has yet to be discussed, DelMonte said. A more likely course, she said, is to try and hammer out a new bill next session which addresses Spitzer’s grievances.

For Fideli, however, a veto is the most immediate option. RRG’s lawyer, former Love Canal attorney Richard Lippes, will address it soon.

“We will fight on and collect ourselves,” she said. “But obviously we’re all feeling a little defeated.”