Mr. Wood - I didn't live here during the time of this fight, however, I don't think the "snail darter" was the reason for the demise of this project. Wasn't that the cause of the stoppage of some Tennessee Valley Authority project? (The Snail Darter is native to Tennessee) According to Wikipedia the ConEd project was shut down due to asthetic concerns. "a lawsuit brought by the coalition, a judge ruled for the first time that aesthetic impacts could be considered in such projects."

I could be incorrect, so maybe if there is someone out there who knows that facts could clarify.

Anyway - this doesn't really negate your primary point. However, just because a project will bring hundreds of jobs to a local economy doesn't necessarily justify approving the project does it? I mean - what if someone were to propose quarrying Storm King Mountain for gravel - and it would bring hundreds of jobs to the area. Would that justify tearing down the mountain? Can you not conceed that tearing away the face of the mountain to build this power plant, and the subsequent building of high power transmission lines would have completely defaced and ruined the one of Cornwall's most precious assets - the mountain and our environment?

Although I can certainly understand your bitterness and frustration at the defeat of a project from which you would have benefitted from badly needed employment - I for one am glad the eyesore was never completed because in hindsight I don't the touted benefits would have added up to outweigh the aesthetic impact on our community.

Respectfully,
Chuck Trella

Wow. I now feel I'm reliving the sixties. The Con Ed Proposed project (google it for complete info) fight had nothing to do with the snail darter. Besides the flooding of a large amount of Black Rock forest, the project was to build a very large concrete hydroelectric plant next to 218 as you go around Storm King mountain to pump water up at night and let it flow back down during the day to cover daytime excessive use. Large (read huge) power lines would go across the Hudson to the base of Breakneck Mountain (Anthony's nose) and down to New York city. Scenic Hudson opposed the plant not only for the plant but for the disgorging of warm water which would have screwed up the Hudson and the wildlife - fish and all who are in that food chain.

Back in the 1900's (around 1912 I believe) my grandmother fought, with many others, to shut down the quarry on Breakneck which is still visible behind the Chateau on the Hudson and is only now starting to be somewhat reclaimed by nature. The location of the proposed plant would have seriously marred the Hudson at the point which it is known as the gateway. Incidently, the New York Aqueduct flows under the Hudson at this point and there was concerns that the plant would have had serious ramifications on the aqueduct. Cornwall-on-Hudson was assured that we would be able to tap the aqueduct if necessary since our reservoirs in Black Rock would have been no more but, as we have seen, that would not have been viable due to water needs for New York city.

All of this info is available through Google. The fight against Con Ed was well worthwhile and the temporary economic advantages of construction are far outweighed by the beautiful Cornwall-on-Hudson enjoyed today and for the future.

Thanks James for your succinct summary of the history and the potential impacts. One of the real problems in our world is striking a reasonable balance between preserving our environment, and allowing well thought out and planned development projects to continue in order to meet the population's needs for employment, housing, businesses, industry, etc. Unfortunately - with some of these massive projects (like power plants, heavy industry, etc.) although we need the employment and their products, they create massive, sustained, and often permanent impacts on their surrounding landscapes and environment. These costs too often were not factored in to the decisions to support these projects and it was the residents years later who were left holding the bag of the destruction or waste involved. Thankfully - these environmental costs are now taken into consideration - in large part because of the hard work, and money from folks who care about having a safe, clean, beautful place to live. Not only the wealthy care about such things.

I am pro-business, pro-tax revenue, AND pro-environment. In this case I think the right side won out. I know and understand that everyone will have a different take on this - and that's ok. That's what democracy and the rule of law is all about. Even though there are still strong feelings and anger over this event in the towns history - I don't think it unreasonable to want to memorialize it. The only issue to me was the way it came about (without much time for public input), and possibly the location (being a "slap in the face" to the Donahues).

Chuck

Chuck - you are way too rational - the mood was very ugly back in the 60's. I was unaware of the impact that the environmentalist movement received from the win against Con Ed until much later and bore much grief from people in the village while in middle school - 1963-1965. I ended up going away to boarding school as a partial result. I can now take care of myself.

I remember one Fourth of july at the Donahue Farm where my dad was dressed up as Uncle Sam (I was an indian fighting with the British against the Colonists at the simulated battle - I can't remember which one it was supposed to be - the British and Indians lost - and Dad was confronted by an angry man (Dad was in his 60's) and was prepared to attack until my brother-in-law, an Army Ranger, stepped in. I knew Mayor Donohue and worked with his daughter Mary in the Palisades Park system. She was a very nice person - probably still is!! I have trouble believing that memorializing the actions would be a 'slap in the face' to anyone. Cornwall's popularity as a village is a direct result of people wanting to be careful with the incredible beauty and resources that are uniquely Cornwall-on-Hudson ... home to Minnesota Fats.

Jim Bell

Thanks Jim - very interesting background. The reality is that emotions will run high - especially if they see their $, their property, their "view", their health, and their environemnt on the line. That's why we have a court system and laws - to hopefully let cooler heads prevail and reach reasonble conclusions and avoid physical confrontations, fisticuffs and worse. Sadly - people will still try to intimidate their way out of situations - including using the law to that effect. I guess some things only come about via hard fought battles.

<sigh>
Chuck

I'm sure many readers would love to see this dialogue expand to more than two people. I can say it's informing my opinion. Thanks.

Rick Gioia

Good idea, Rick!

With a bit of googling, I've found that the Nat'l Resources Defense Council considers the "Battleground at Storm King Mountain" to have been the procedural Gettysburg of the environmental movement.

http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/helaw.asp

And there's a collection on the subject at Marist from one of Scenic Hudson's executive committee members, Alexander Saunders.

http://library.marist.edu/archives/saunders_Aid.html

So I'm not at all surprised to read of the controversy here at the time. But I must say that it does seem odd that the apparent credit for the present tranquility at our riverfront seems to be going to the side which would have agreed to spoil that setting with the Con Ed powerplant.

"Focus on the unseen. For the seen is temporary, the unseen, eternal" It is certainly a quirk of the universe that the very faction which would have gouged a huge gaping maw in the face of the Storm King is now commemorated with the bucolic riverfront park. Ahh the dichotomy, the yin-yang, the contra-puntal rythm of it all.
I so appreciate the history and background presented here. It has been wonderful. It is too bad that the local history is not taught in our schools. There are many useful lessons here. And Chuck, your calm and erudite expression is a welcome addition to the 'blarg'. Big, ol' attaboy on you there.

"Groundbreaking" might not be the right word, but the epic struggle here had not only national, but appears to have had international implications.

Here's a link to a short powerpoint presentation given in China 3 1/2 years ago on "Storm King and the Beginnings of U.S. Environmental Law."

http://www.ifce.org/ifcecn/2005xm/4thefinal/Storm.ppt

For me, the moral of the story is that we should enjoy and manage the priceless natural resources surrounding us in ways for which our children and grandchildren will thank us. That doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't allow use of the waterfront or mountain; that's why people came here in the first place.

But it does mean that we shouldn't think we have the right to sell off the future for a quick buck.

Our duty is to be good stewards.