Blogs > Boat Blog > Proposed new Hudson River anchorage grounds: Critical issues and what you can do

Proposed new Hudson River anchorage grounds: Critical issues and what you can do

View more images on our Flickr site

Hudson River anchorages mapIn June, the U.S. Coast Guard announced that it was soliciting comments and concerns from the public on a proposal to establish a large number of anchorage grounds for commercial vessels in the Hudson River – 43 berths in 10 locations from Yonkers to Kingston – at the request of industry.

This action, which caught many communities off guard, was taken at the behest of several commercial organizations: the Maritime Association of the Port of NY/NJ Tug and Barge Committee, the Hudson River Port Pilot’s Association, and the American Waterways Operators.

When the Coast Guard receives such requests, they’re required to respond, substantively.

In order to more fully inform its internal review, the Coast Guard is accepting comments from the public through December 6, 2016. Essentially, the Coast Guard is taking the temperature of the communities along the Hudson while also asking the barge and boat industries for clarifications to their initial proposal, which would open up over 2,400 acres to new anchorages.

There are currently just two official anchorage grounds, at Yonkers and Hyde Park.
Additional anchorages are proposed for: Kingston Flats South, Port Ewen, Big Rock Point, Milton, Roseton, Marlboro, Newburgh, Tompkins Cove, Montrose Point, and Yonkers.

Last month, Riverkeeper, in partnership with the Pace Law School Environmental Clinic, and alongside communities, advocacy groups, and citizens, called for public hearings on these plans. Until the Coast Guard decides whether to propose these new anchorage grounds, we won’t know whether our call for public hearings will be accepted or rejected.

Sign up for Riverkeeper’s action alerts to stay informed.

The open comment period is the Coast Guard’s attempt to determine what, if anything, it should consider if it decides to ultimately propose these anchorage grounds. Your voice is needed to protect the river.

Potential Impacts
These anchorages could permanently affect the Hudson as we know it. Leaders from cities, towns, counties, and statewide offices are voicing a wide range of concerns; that barges will affect waterfront tourism, present hazards to public safety and boating, and pose new and unmitigated oil spill risks. Many localities along the Hudson have long-term waterfront goals, coastal revitalization policies, or park and historic preservation plans that would be negatively affected if these anchorages are made official.

All these concerns are valid, but Riverkeeper’s environmental concerns so far generally fall into three categories.

1. Re-industrialization of the Hudson Valley – and specifically, the threat presented by crude oil to the river and our communities.

Oil barge at Kinston

Oil barge at Kingston, Carolyn Marks Blackwood

This request by industry is only part of an emerging trend which threatens to dramatically increase industrial activity in the Hudson Valley.

Several projects are in the works to expand the Port of Albany and the Port of Coeymans, for example, and increase the carrying capacity of the crude oil rail line from Buffalo down the Mohawk and Hudson valleys. And the Global oil terminal in Albany is fighting to gain permission to heat Alberta tar sands crude for transport down the Hudson.

If we look at just this anchorage proposal, we’re only looking at part of the story. If we look at just the proposed expansion of the Port of Albany, we’re only looking at part of the story. To protect the Hudson and ourselves, we need to know the whole story – and how the various pieces of it may leverage others.

Not all commercial cargoes are equally dangerous to the Hudson. If we were only talking about the movement of crushed stone, for example, there would be much less urgency. The cargo of greatest risk to the Hudson is petroleum. For decades and decades, refined petroleum products like gasoline, heating oil and diesel have traveled north to the Port of Albany. But starting in 2012, crude oil produced in North Dakota began arriving by train down the Champlain and Mohawk valleys. And the oil that does not continue south by rail is being loaded onto barges and ships and carried south along the Hudson to refineries on the coast.

In its January 21, 2016, letter (click for PDF) asking the Coast Guard to authorize additional anchorages, the Maritime Association of the Port of NY/NJ Tug and Barge Committee noted Albany’s role as an “export port … of Bakken Crude Oil and Ethanol.”

The industry emphasizes one commercial incentive in particular in its request: “Trade will increase on the Hudson River significantly over the next few years with the lifting of the ban on American Crude exports for foreign trade and federally designated anchorages are key to supporting trade.”
The risk of a crude oil spill to the Hudson – already a serious threat due to the surge in barge and train shipments of Bakken crude oil since 2012 – will rise even further if new anchorages are granted to facilitate the movement of more oil.

And is the transport of more crude all we face if these anchorages are authorized?

In other parts of the country, crude oil is being stored in vessels until prices rebound. Is that what we face here? Is that why so many anchorage locations are being requested? Or will the next request be a proportional increase in oil handling facilities in the Port of Albany to eliminate the current gridlock in the port and facilitate the movement of additional vessels?

MississippiSpillStatMore oil on the Hudson equals more risk of spills.

Despite good-faith efforts by the Coast Guard and the state Department of Environmental Conservation to better prepare for oil spill response, one thing is clear and undisputed: In the event of an oil spill, only a tiny fraction of oil is ever recovered from the river. The photo at right shows how little oil was recovered after a Mississippi River oil spill.

Riverkeeper is working to reduce the ever-expanding threat of a crude oil spill. A release of toxic Bakken oil could cause drastic, long-lasting damage to the Hudson. If industry succeeds in shipping heavy “tar sands” oil along the Hudson, the stakes are even higher. That oil sinks if spilled, and is essentially unrecoverable.

“We appreciate that the Coast Guard has brought this request by industry to the public for comment. In my patrols, spanning over 15 years, we very rarely see even a half-dozen commercial vessels anchored between the George Washington Bridge and Albany. Now industry is asking for 43 berths in ten different areas of the Hudson River Estuary. What is driving this? If it could “support,” as industry has stated, an anticipated, enormous increase in crude oil transport south from Albany, we must oppose this anchorage request. We will oppose any effort to increase the volume of crude oil moving on the Hudson. It has been demonstrated in numerous accidents already that crude oil, if spilled, cannot be recovered from a moving river. The Hudson River will not become Galveston.

“The Hudson has given enough to industry: Rail lines run along both shorelines, cutting off marshes. Tributaries were dammed to power mills. Dredge and fill projects in the upper Hudson, to make the Port of Albany deeper, caused the loss of 60 percent of upriver shallow water habitat. Both the upper Hudson and the Mohawk River were dammed and re-engineered into canals for commerce. There are power cables, pipelines and power plants that use river water for cooling, killing countless billions of fish. Coal tar contamination persists at the manufactured gas terminals in many communities. And pollution persists from a long list of businesses, like Anaconda in Hastings, GM in Tarrytown, GE and its PCB poison, which made the Hudson the largest Superfund site in the nation. And countless, heavily contaminated shoreline areas remain in New York Harbor, dating back to the start the industrial revolution. The New York State Department of Health’s “advice about eating Hudson River fish” recommends that women under 50 and children under 15 should not eat any fish from the Hudson River. This is a terrible indictment of the historical impacts of industry on the Hudson River.

“We will not repeat the past. The appreciation of the Hudson as a living body, and as vital to the quality of life in all our communities is much, much stronger today than ever before – and rising.”

– John Lipscomb, Riverkeeper patrol boat captain

2. “Scarring” of the river bottom by anchors and anchor chains.

anchorage off Hyde Park

Anchorage off Hyde Park, John Lipscomb / Riverkeeper

The river bottom is disturbed by the anchor and chain that barges use. Scientists using side-scan sonar have documented anchor “scarring” of benthic (bottom) habitat used by federally endangered sturgeon at the existing Hyde Park anchorage and at the unauthorized Port Ewen anchorage that was used until the fall of 2015. Here is one such image. (Credit: Dewayne Fox / Delaware State University)


Two endangered species, shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, live in the Hudson. The river off Hyde Park, for example, may have the highest concentration of Atlantic sturgeon on the entire Eastern seaboard at spawning time in early summer. The area off Kingston, and “Sturgeon Point” across the way in Rhinecliff – is an important area for shortnose sturgeon. And both species of sturgeon overwinter near the proposed anchorages at Tompkins Cove and Montrose. As with the issue of light and noise pollution, which could vary from one area to another, the negative impacts to sturgeon may not be the same for all anchorage grounds. So it is clear that before ANY additional anchorage grounds are approved, research must determine to what degree anchor scarring damages sturgeon habitat.

Click here to download a PDF of the letter from researchers Dewayne Fox, PhD, and John Madsen, PhD, to the Coast Guard, commenting on the potential impact that anchorages could have on Atlantic sturgeon riverine habitats.

Here is an image using side-scan sonar of Atlantic sturgeon congregating near the existing, authorized anchorage at Hyde Park. (Credit: John A. Madsen / University of Delaware Department of Geological Sciences)

Microsoft Word - sturgeon_example_5

3. Noise and light pollution.

Anchorage at night at Kingston-Rhinecliff

Anchorage at night at Kingston-Rhinecliff, Carolyn Marks Blackwood

Members of some river communities have already spoken out against the bright lighting and engine noise that certain barges generate around the clock.

At the Kingston hub, between Port Ewen and Rhinecliff, for example, the shorelines are sparsely developed, nighttimes are dark, peaceful and quiet. Crude oil barges began anchoring there around late 2012 using bright deck lighting, through the night, and the sound of their generators could be heard in homes near the shores. The three proposed anchorage grounds in the Kingston Hub (see map) will certainly meet with strong opposition over light and noise pollution. It remains to be seen whether other communities, near the other proposed anchorage grounds, will object to potential noise and light pollution. What is clear is that it will be up to public in communities near other anchorage grounds to make their feelings known to the Coast Guard. The only way the Coast Guard will factor the impact of light and noise pollution is if the public makes its opinion known during the comment period.

Opportunity to Get Involved

We urge all local officials and concerned citizens to send their thoughts and concerns to the Coast Guard, so that the agency’s internal review leaves no risk unaddressed.

This stage of the process is vital. The Coast Guard is taking a hard first look at the industry’s proposal – and your comments and concerns. After that, the Coast Guard has the power to either:

  • reject the industry’s proposal outright,
  • modify it to address environmental or community concerns, or
  • consider the industry’s proposal in full.

Submit Your Comments by December 6, 2016.

You can also:

Read the Coast Guard’s Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

See supporting documents including detailed maps of all ten proposed anchorages

Read Riverkeeper’s comments requesting extensive public meetings as represented by the Pace Environmental Law Clinic.

Read and share:


42 responses to “Proposed new Hudson River anchorage grounds: Critical issues and what you can do”

  1. SchemmerP says:

    The light pollution in itself would interrupt the circadian rhythms of the marine life, and possibly those of animals and humans onshore. The long-term health effects can be devastating. Light pollution is not an issue to take lightly.

  2. nobody_nosim says:

    Oh yeah, let’s industrialize another scenic treasure. What could go wrong? It’s worked so well for the tar sands, aquifers affected by injections of fracking waste, streams, air and soil impacted by the bomb trains, well venting, leaks along pipelines, etc.

    I’m sure wildlife won’t mind a brightly lit barge along the river every few miles. And we can’t even see the river bottom so who cares about anchors and chains digging up the sediment? (Are those PCB’s still in the sediment or were they “cleaned up” like all the oil spills?)

  3. Carrie O'Hara Martin says:

    No, please, no. To allow this would be harmful, destructive, and irresponsible.

  4. Sal Paradise . says:

    I would add – hazardous to recreational sailing. When they were using the Kingston and Port Ewen achorages last year we had to dodge between these monsters while trying to stay out of the way of passing thru commercial ships and many large and fast powerboats. Usually we stay out of the way of passing ships by tacking to the side – much harder and scarier to do that with a barge and tug there! All this in a vehicle that can barely go 5 mph – if the winds hold up!!This will be the end of Kingston sailing if it happens.

  5. Susan Williams says:

    I’m a member of Riverkeeper living in Maine
    and I care about the Hudson. This is Backwards. Try going forward>>>>
    You can’t keep destroying Nature. Not here.
    We are Organized. Move along….

  6. nobody_nosim says:

    Yeah let’s industrialize a natural area again. It’s worked so well for the area around the tar sands, the aquifers from injecting fracking waste, and our air, soil and water from the bomb trains, venting at gas wells and spills from pipelines, tankers, etc.

    And we can’t see the river bottom so who cares about anchors and chains dragging through the sediment? Are those PCB’s still in the sediment or were they “cleaned up” like all the oil spills?

  7. Susan Williams says:

    Yes, request extensive public meetings as represented
    by the Pace Environmental Law Clinic, and Block this asininity!
    I have a lot of faith in you, Riverkeeper ( w/ RFK Jr. ).
    Keep the pressure on. Thnx, as always ~ S. B. Williams

  8. Lee Rubenstein says:

    Why not put all that investment in renewable energy to reduce the need for continued reliance on fossil fuels.

  9. Judi Noto says:

    I oppose any new anchorages on the Hudson River. I also oppose the transport of crude oil on the river. We can not jeopardize our precious River.

  10. davey jones says:

    The reason for the request for officially designated anchorages is because of a MSIB released by the USCG in 2015 cautioning and reminding vessel operators to only use designated federal anchorages on the Hudson. This MSIB was released due to the USCG receiving “reports” of vessels anchoring outside of designated anchorages.
    The proposed anchorages are areas where vessels have traditionally anchored for decades for navigational safety while proceeding to Albany. Often carry the very fuel and home heating oil that keeps the lights on and the furnaces burning in homes up and down the Hudson river valley and in upstate new york.
    During inclement weather, periods of darkness, low tides, and with certain down bound traffic it isn’t safe to proceed northbound above the Kingston Round Out. That is why vessels have been using these anchorages, non designated as they are, for years.
    If you don’t want crude oil moved on the river, thats fine, fight that fight. However by fighting these anchorages you are doing far more to shoot yourselves in the foot during the next winter season.

  11. SchemmerP says:

    I have been near anchored barges before. At night, the generators roar and the sound carries well over the water and echoes in the valley. It’s sounds like someone mowing their lawn at night. And then there’s the light; invest in a thick pair of shades if you want to keep the light out.

  12. Sailboat Scotty says:

    I hear you. But if there is temporary safety need as you point out, why are 9 of the 10 anchorages proposed as “long term”? (only 1 “short term”). Yes we need energy, but isn’t this another way to store oil on the river until speculators can maximize their profit? (buy low, store oil, sell high). Also why is the Roseton anchorage right next to recreational boat mooring field (Chelsea Yacht Club) presenting significant access and safety issues for those boaters? If safety is a concern, why are some of these anchorages blocking the main channel? (ex. Newburgh).

  13. Jan van Peek says:

    I think Davey Jones is hitting an important element of this issue: The traffic is going down the river anyway, what the anchorages do is create safe parking spots so they can legally pause before continuing through tight spots. Arguing against them is like arguing against truck run-off ramps in the mountains–it doesn’t make for fewer trucks, just more dangerous traffic. It sounds to me like industry is asking for a ridiculously large area, and I think the fear of boats being anchored there long term is real, and something we should address. But unless we’re offering up some viable alternative to how they get this oil from Albany to Newark, we might achieve more to instead work towards a sane and mutually tolerable arrangement instead of putting our heads in the sand.

  14. New Paltz Climate Action Coali says:

    If you’re in the ‘hood – pls check out the New Paltz Climate Action Coalition. Thanks, Miriam Strouse, co-chair

  15. Thomas S says:

    You do realize that many of these have been historic and traditional anchorages for decades, while not official anchorages. And the reason industry requested that they be made official was because of complaints of some wealthy homeowners in the Kingston area that would have made them off limits. Without permission to Anchor where the captain feels it is safe there is much more risk of oil pollution , collision and grounding.
    The reason for anchoring is primarily safety. Once the regular aids to navigation are removed and ice buoys are in in the winter, a prudent Mariner does not want to travel the North End of the Hudson in the dark. They wait till morning to leave in daylight when it is safer. If fog sets in, they need a safe place to Anchor. When due to unexpected delays the berth is not available in Albany, they need a safe place to anchor.
    Do you really think that drifting around under those conditions will be better for the river? If you want oil to heat your homes and gas for your cars, the oil will transit the river. Preventing vessels from anchoring when necessary will just make it less safe.

  16. Thomas S says:

    The oil is going to move whether you like it or not. The question is is it safer coming down the river and double hulled barges, or in hundreds of rail cars on the river’s Shoreline.
    And the AnchorageSupreme are for vessels going up the river, the crude oil barges come down and do not anchor typically. The only loaded barges that head up the river are carrying gasoline and heating oil for consumers. And that’s been going on for my whole life time.

  17. Thomas S says:

    Renewable energy produces electricity. Less than 1% of the electricity in the United States comes from oil.

  18. Thomas S says:

    You have to be kidding right? You’re being facetious? Do you really think that your recreational sailing is more important than bringing gasoline and oil to heat your home?

  19. Thomas S says:

    I just want to clarify one thing. The anchorages are not to store oil! They have been utilized and will continue to be utilized, either by empty crude oil barges waiting for daylight, better visibility, or a berth in Albany, or for loaded barges carrying refined products, as they have for many decades, to Albany for the same reasons. It is just to formalize practices that have been going on for generations. There are no new oil terminals in Albany, there are actually fewer, and that is part of the problem causing more delays.

  20. Bob Dahringer says:

    Lol, why confuse these NIMBYS with facts when they can motor along on their own misinformation?
    I wish folks would understand that these requested anchorages are to enhance the safe navigation upon the river, there’s no grand scheme afoot to use these anchorages as storage areas……and where did that idea come from?

  21. Peace Arnold says:

    The Fossil Fuel Industry is pushing for export facilities for LNG. If these anchorage sites are developed it is the perfect set up for an export facility on the Hudson and all the infrastructure, compressor stations,etc that go along with it.. the north american continent is being set up as a gas platform for the global fossil fuel industry.

  22. russnelson says:

    Wait a second, Davey. It sounds like you are saying that the oil is already traversing the Hudson between Albany and the sea. Is that true?

  23. Hudson River lover. says:

    This is not about home heating oil traveling on the river- yes- that has been happening on the river for years and years- and only an occasional barge would moor, over night-in an emergency- and it was very infrequent. But in 2012 the traffic increased enormously, because of Bakken Crude being picked up in the Port of Albany, and the bosses wanting it to be a 24-7 port. All of a sudden there would be two-three-four barges moored for days and weeks at a time, staged so that they would pick up and discharge Crude. A group who contacted the USCG found out that the companies were using these anchorages illegally..Bakken Crude is a relatively new development- it is a volitile mixture ignites at 74 degrees and has not been refined yet- The Hudson is being used as a conduit for this dangerous stuff to be transported.. Now with the ban on export lifted, there are huge profits to be made by the oil companies and the transport of Bakken- but at great expense to the people and wildlife on the River. So don’t misrepresent what is happening. This is not about regional home heating oil- this is about huge profit and putting our beautiful river at risk. As someone who has lived on the River for many years- I know the difference between before and after and so does anyone else who knows this river well.

  24. Joanne Leffeld says:

    We can’t allow this to happen. We must preserve the Hudson River for our children and our children’s children. Please stop this at all costs!

  25. Rachel Sun says:

    “Don’t you call My River Lazy, as she runs to catch up with you…” —Ben Sebastian.
    After all of the work we have done as a movement, to clean up the Hudson, this is not acceptable.

  26. Ben Swan says:

    The reason the NY metro area exists is due to the commerce of waterborne transportation. The tug and barges follow the same route as the ships, keep to the side and you’ll be fine.

  27. Ben Swan says:

    There is no investment required. They are not “building” anchorages. They are simply designating certain that have already been used for years as anchorages. Literally the only thing that changes is lines denoting anchorages on a chart.

  28. Rick Schoenlank says:

    Voice of reason…thanks, Thomas.

  29. Bob Dahringer says:

    Sal, I would be more concerned with the idiots racing around in their speedboats. While they do swing in a radius on their anchor chains, a tug/barge unit isn’t going to suddenly shoot out in front of you. If you can read a simple nautical chart, you know exactly where the anchorages are, plan accordingly to steer clear of these areas and you will be fine. Theres also available apps that can be put on your smart-phone, like, which can show you the location of any AIS equipped vessel in the world. You can monitor the river traffic even before you leave the dock. And please! Monitor your radio! Although I myself don’t steer a tug, Ive been up in the wheelhouse enough times when Ive witnessed the guy on watch desperately trying to contact a rec boat getting ready to get run over. Were just like a train or a truck, we cant stop on a dime.

  30. Bob Dahringer says:

    Jan, thank you being a voice of reason on this topic. Yes the industry is asking for a lot in its proposal for new anchorages, but it is my understanding that the industry is wanting anchorages that have been used for decades to be recognized as federal anchorages, so for the most part these areas are not “new.”. As far as these anchorages becoming parking lots, the Coast Guard can most certainly apply restrictions and regulations to any of the proposed anchorages. An example of this is the general anchorages in NY harbor. The anchorage is tightly controlled by the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Any commercial vessel wishing to anchor in the harbor must first request permission from VTS, so its just not willy-nilly anchoring wherever one pleases. Its not uncommon for the anchorage to run out of available spots, this is why vessels end up anchoring in the federal anchorage in Yonkers. In times of extreme weather, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port can order all vessels to depart the harbor and seek safe haven upriver. There is also no reason why the Coast Guard couldn’t put time restrictions on these proposed anchorages. (NY harbor has a 96 hour time-at-anchor restriction.) As you have correctly pointed out, commerce will continue to ply the river, so a well thought out compromise that is suitable to ALL parties should be pursued.

  31. Bob Dahringer says:

    Scotty, see my reply above to Jan. The Coast Guard can certainly regulate what goes on with these proposed anchorages. Im not sure where everybody is getting the impression that there is going to be a string of loaded oil barges up and down the river, but I can tell you that a loaded oil barge cannot be left unattended (without a tugboat) ANYWHERE on the river. I can tell you from first hand experience that its possible that loaded barges will anchor at Yonkers if they have to wait for a spot in the harbor or a berth to open up, but they will always have their assigned tugboat with them. Conversely, empty barges aren’t left unattended unless the tug is very close by, so the idea of barges being stored enmasse isn’t going to happen. Hope this is helpful.

  32. Bob Dahringer says:

    Arnold, can you quote a source for this claim? This is the first Im hearing of this, sounds highly suspect at best.

  33. Ray Lunati says:

    Thanks Bob. Your not alone. Don’t forget when the River freezes nobody is anchoring anyway.

  34. CMB says:

    Arguing against them is like arguing against a moving company from parking their huge moving trucks in front of your home and up and down your block. As someone who lives on the river I can tell you- before Bakken crude came into Albany and it really was about home heating oil, no one anchored in front of Kingston. Then in 2012 when Bakken crude started coming through, boats would sit for up to 10 days at a time- with generators and lights going 24/7- in one place. I was told by a crew member they were being staged to pick up crude because the boss was angry if they were 10 minutes late. This isn’t about regional home heating oil- this is about the lifting of the rules which forbade the export of our oil to foreign countries. This is about oil and money and two companies that want to use the Hudson for their own purposes screwing the Habitat and wildlife- , the millions who live, work, and play on the river- the local economies- the municipalities who get drinking water from the hudson- and the beauty, which is finally being appreciated. The Hudson and its people, fish and animals, vs two corporations that want to make lots of money. People are sick of being screwed by the value system that values money over all else…. And we will stand up together and fight.

  35. davey jones says:

    If the export ban being lifted is an opening of the gates, why has the down bound traffic of crude dropped off to nearly nothing? In fact two of the units formerly involved in that trade are now cold stacked, have you seen the Aphrodite lately? If you want to fight the transport of crude on the river, by all means have at. I personally don’t have any objections to it. However by applying the same standard to all of the commercial vessels plying the river you are throwing the bathwater out with the baby and contributing to a decline in navigational safety.

  36. davey jones says:

    Yes, it has been for DECADES!

  37. davey jones says:

    I’m sorry but the argument by recreational boaters that the anchorages present access or safety issues to them is more about the general american attitude of recreation with out care for their environment than the presence of these vessels. The crews on these vessels stand a proper look out, they monitor several radio channels and make security calls, they are properly lit in accordance with the rules that APPLY TO EVERYONE ON THE WATER. You don’t see someone steering a tug with the stereo blaring and a beer in hand.
    As for storing oil on vessels to buy low and sell hi, the vessels involved in this trade aren’t large enough to make meaningful profits after the vessel charter rates.

  38. davey jones says:

    yes, it has for DECADES. In more recent years a small minority of units, which as far as I know has been reduced to one, have transited down river from albany with crude oil.

  39. davey jones says:

    Recreational boaters lack of knowledge of the COLREGS, failure to keep a proper look out, inability to handle their vessels, and often inability to put down their dark and stormy is the real hazard here.

  40. davey jones says:

    yes, as it has been for years

  41. davey jones says:

    The units that transit the river are fall too small, and at too high of a day rate to make any kind of long term storage for speculation feasible.

  42. R Stengel says:

    There has been a actual law in NY specifically written to NOT allow the “scenic” Hudson River to have its beauty defiled!

Search News
Keep the Hudson River flowing!
Become a Member