article:
Mistake or Mis-direction ?
Water, it’s quality and sufficiency of quantity remains a high priority to the residents of Atkinson. All Atkinson residents and homeowners have a keen interest in our water issues and our town officials should place all water issues high on their agenda. Loss of either quality or quantity of our water supply can place our health at hazard and seriously affect your property values.
That being said.
At Deliberative Session, a Planning Board member informed you, in reply to my comments, that the permit sought by the water company was only to increase the water withdrawal because the 57,600 gallons per day(GPD) would be exceeded as new customers in Atkinson were added. This statement clearly rings untrue to me so I rechecked the water companies application for large groundwater withdrawal, which is available for reading at town hall.
The following is what I learned from the application:
THE PERMIT SOUGHT by THE COMPANY IS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF AN ADDITIONAL 576,000 GPD (gallons per day)
The present yield from the company’s existing wells is ~ 419 Gal. Per Min. ( 603360 GPD) and the current PEAK pumping needs is between 400 and 450 Gal. Per Min. (576,000 – 648,000 GPD)
This means that the total available withdrawal of 1,179,360 GPD , is in fact more than 20 times the 57,600 GPD representation by the Planning Board member at Deliberative Session.
Now let’s take a look at the water requirements for Atkinsons residents. The average water usage per. person is ~80 Gal. Per Day with approximately (for simple math) 7000 residents in Atkinson. Therefore the residents use ~560,000 Gal per Day. That accounts for all the residents water usage. The “Water Company” serves ~ half the town. Therefore the unserviced half of the residents would use 280,000 gpd and the water company would need 280,000 gpd for residents use.
That raises additional questions? Why is 4 times the amount of water normally used by the company customers being permitted? If the customers don’t use that much water where is it going? How can a valid test be made today to prove such a withdrawal will not effect both the quality of our water supply and the viability of other private groundwater wells?
The majority of our Town Officers have shown a general disregard for Atkinson’s water protection concerns. Especially, by deed and example, outgoing Selectman Chairman Sapia who has been a prime mover against Atkinson’s water interests. All should be alert to these concerns and insist that our current officials address our water concerns and we elect and appoint only officials who will diligently address our water issues.
Ken Grant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ATKINSON's Vietnam HONOR ROLL as VOTED and PASSED by 2005 Town Meeting and re-approved at Special Town Meeting Sept. 12
EDITORIAL-
A voice of compassion, an example of fairness and reasonable government.
One who believes in the strength and comfort you, your children and your family can draw from good government leadership.
A person who knows Atkinson is our home -- our most important possession that must be preserved and protected through fair taxes and sound community planning and where our children must be safe to grow to become a new generation of leaders.
One who knows that the citizens of Atkinson are all neighbors with her leadership to be dedicated and responsive to all.
One who believes that when those from Atkinson have served our nation and honors are deserved, those honors must be given.
In Valerie Tobin, we now have a leader we know we can entrust with these responsibilities because they are part of her character.
It is our honor to endorse Valerie for election to Atkinson’s Board of Selectmen.
Just a note for those who wish to count the deer.
In January 08 this blog had 16,000 hits and 1,500 unique visitors (for the month).
In 2007 this blog had over 100,000 hits and 5,750 unique visitors (for the year).
In 2007 this blog had over 100,000 hits and 5,750 unique visitors (for the year).
EDITORIAL-
"I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense . . ." [TP, 1776]
We take no small measure of umbrage at such a hostile official act against this BLOG’s patron. Therefore, a timely Editorial comment is both appropriate and necessary.
Discussion of Atkinson’s financial direction, from any viewpoint, is fundamental and encouraged and we will always attempt to limit and correct errors.
However, Righteous indignation towards purported error of such inconsequential nature is not appropriate.
The ENTIRE car deal is problematic. If it was caused by poor judgement, improper exercise of authority, neglect or mistake or even specious reasoning, this will never trump the facts that the entire questionable transaction started and ended within a very small circle of confidants.
We find the entire circumstances surrounding the disposition of the police Cruiser highly irregular at the least and the "explanations" somewhat trifling and exhaustive of our intellect.
Mr. Consentino: It’s time to go. Being Chief of Atkinson’s Police Department is NOT a birthright. That is a fabled legend of yesteryear.
Historically in Atkinson, police chief appointments were made "under the hand of the selectmen" for terms of one year at a time, as was also the case in the beginning of Mr. Consentino’s assorted and discontinuous stream of appointments to this position.
Your only remaining credential established on a claim of indispensability has faded.
So time is neigh. Plan a graceful exit, Clean out your desk, Accept the gratitude and tearful sentiments from some. We plan no editorial recriminations. It is time. Thank you for your service, We wish you a long and happy retirement. Bon Voyage.
LETTER
"To All Atkinson Residents,
I am writing to ask for your help. A member of the Atkinson Police Department needs our help. I am here to ask for your help in Corporal John Lapham's fight for his life. As you are aware, John has been diagnosed with Leukemia. He has been once again hospitalized with an infection that is threatening his life. He is one of the bravest people that I have ever met. He has never asked of anything from the residents of the town. Now is our chance to step up and help both him and his family out. As everyone is aware John has been out of work for a few months. His family has been busy helping John to get better. He needs our help, and I am hoping that this town can step up to the plate and help. From the moment that I met John, I have admired him. He does alot, but never asks for anything in return. He has helped so many people in this town. I for one am one of those people. Please help him.
There is a fund set-up in his name at TDBanknorth in Plaistow. Any amount will help John, while he is out of work. It would be great if this town could help ease a burden off his wife.
Thank You
Also if anyone would like to send a card, please address it to:
John Lapham
c/o Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Ctr.
Inpatient mail
75 Francis Street
Boston, MA 02115
United States
Please show Corporal John Lapham, that this community can stand up and show our support to those in need. I for one, miss John and can not wait until he can get better and return to work. Please show him that we support him. "
41 comments:
I think that selling Atkinson water is not right, god forbid there is a drought in one given year, and alot of townspeople could be striken with a dry well. It wasn't that long ago when atkinson had a very dry summer, and alot of wells went dry. I know my well sufferd and water was very limited. Selling atkinson water for someones profit just does't seem right. Whats the big push to do it anyway? Is this going to be a subject to vote on in march?
Curious Atkinson Resident
Not any more it isn't. Because nobody showed up to deliberative session to make sure the citizen warrant article pushing further protections wouldn't get "watered down" (sorry). So the majority of the 50 people at deliberative session made the decision for the rest of us.
Is this the same warrant article that thousands of people signed?
I have heard that Hampstead Water Company has linked the water supply of Atkinson and Hampstead already.
Is this true? Does anyone know?
To Anonymous 1:35 PM and 1:50 PM
YES, it will DEFINITELY be an issue at March 11 Town Mtg because it is very important that the amended petitioned water articles be defeated. As amended, they are very harmful to Atkinson's groundwater protection, which is why they were amended as they were. I don't have time right now to go into detail why, but will explain in another post later today.
To Anonymous 2:06
There seems to be a mis-understanding so please allow me to attempt to clarify.
There were a total of 8 separate petitioned warrant articles submitted by Atkinson residents for their fellow citizens to vote on (including two articles to give further protection to Atkinson's already passed "Water Withdrawal Control Ordinance.")
None of any of the individual 8 citizens' petitions had 1000 signatures on a petition.
The number 1000 comes from: if you add up all of the signatures from all 8 citizen's petitions, there were over 1000 TOTAL signatures.
What I would like to know is why Sapia and his group have been so dead set against these warrant articles?
oF THE 1000 signatures how many were there total that were different. Was it the same 120 people that signed all 8 warrants?
Where were they that day?
lewis u should be ashamed of your self selling our water how much money do you need?
GREAT NEWS for you Atkinsonians who care about protecting our groundwater from massive withdrawals and being sold out of town for private profit.
All of you 2/3's who voted at Special Town Meeting to adopt the Water Withdrawal Control Ordinance just got a boost from state legislators who are standing up for the rights of towns to protect their ground water from N.H.'s "application rubber-stamping state agency, the DES."
Remember DES? (Dept. of Environmental Services) That in-effectual state agency that routinely approves any water company's water withdrawal applications as long as all the blanks on the application are filled?
Remember DES? Those state agency buracrats whose backwards priority is to serve the interests of water companies instead of the citizenry of NH who lose when their groundwater is pumped out from under them by profit-minded water companies.
The same DES to which Sapia, our board of selectmen and a certain outspoken planning board member relinquished their responsibility to protect Atkinson's groundwater.
State legislators (but not our two from Atkinson) are standing up for N.H. citizens, especially in towns like Barnstable and Atkinson who have taken the initiative in protecting their town's groundwater.
These caring legislators submitted HB 1353 which limits the thus-far mis-used power of DES. HB 1353 states that there can be NO approval for large groundwater withdrawals without "an affirmative vote of each municipal legislative body under whose land any part of the relevant aquifer lies."
It will be future Atkinson Town Meeting voters who will decide on whether to allow each and every future proposed large groundwater withdrawal from Atkinson. Our townspeople will have the final say on what happens to their own water, to be the masters of their own house.
Let's hope this bill passes.
It already passed its first hurdle: the House Commitee for Resources, Recreation and Development which held hearings on the bill and voted UNANIMOUSLY 14-0 to pass the bill and send it on to the full House with a RTP (Recommended To Pass).
If it passes the full House, it then goes to the N.H. Senate, hopefully to also pass. Fortunately, in the Senate, one of the co-sponsors of the bill is considered to be the most powerful and influential man in the Senate, Sen. D'allesandro.
So, you 2/3's of Atkinson who stood up and voted to protect our groundwater while our town officials did nothing, keep your fingers crossed.
One day last summer I saw a water tanker truck pull out of Lewis's building on Sawyer. This is where the water company offices are too. Obviously they weren't delivering water to the water company. Is he selling it by the tuck load?
In 1998, Atkinson passed an ordinance to prevent the dumping of human waste onto farm fields etc. This was to protect the citizens of the town from disease, pathogens and other nasty stuff. Till this day the same individual that owns Hampstead Water Co is still doing this dumping regardless of the health on other consequences there may be to those that have underground wells. Moreover, since this dumping occurs up channel geographically, it is easy for this wast to make its way into the aquifer and contaminate many wells.
Here is the town ordinance:
400:7 Land Application of Septage. The land application of septage containing disease-causing bacteria and infectious viruses and protozoa; the stockpiling in any form, and the land spreading of Class B sewage sludge containing heavy metals, pathogens, parasites and hazardous organic chemicals, is not allowed in the Town of Atkinson, New Hampshire. This ordinance shall not apply to any facility owned and/or operated by the Town of Atkinson for the disposal of sewage/septage/sludge generated within the Town of Atkinson, New Hampshire. (1998)
Back in the early 1800s this may have been common practice; scientist have determined that this posed health problems and is why we have treatment plants for this stuff. Some will argue that the state allows this sort of dumping. Here is what is written for NH.
Section 485-A:5-c Notice of Septage or Sludge Spreading.
I. No person shall spread septage or sludge as defined in RSA 485-A:2 before providing all property owners abutting the spreading site with written notice of the intended date and location of the spreading. Such notice shall be provided by publishing a notice at least 14 days before the intended date of the first spreading of septage or sludge each year in a newspaper of general circulation in the town or city.
II. The notice shall include the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the following:
(a) The applicant, if applicable.
(b) The generator of the sludge, if applicable.
(c) The person responsible for managing the activities on-site, if different from the applicant under subparagraph (a).
(d) The landowner, if not given under subparagraph (a) or (c).
III. A copy of such notice shall be posted continually on the entrances to the site beginning 3 days prior to the application and ending 3 days after the application.
Source. 1998, 60:1, eff. July 11, 1998.
Has anyone in this area ever receive or see a bulletin indicating this dumping is to take place? The folks in Concord would be shocked to know how this practice is being handled.
There is much research on this topic and here is one conclusion published by a reputable source.
"Open field storage of sludge and sludge spreading near wells and surface water, increase the risk that sewage sludge pathogens will be transported to workers, farmers and neighbours, and increases the environmental risks of this wastedisposal practice. It seems unreasonable to offer the farm community 'free fertilizer' and promote its use when the public health risks associated with the land application of sludge have not been addressed. The case against land application does not stop with the issues posed by pathogens; other heath risks are associated with the elevation of heavy metals in the soils and foods, the release of mercury into the atmosphere from sludge spreading and the presence of priority pollutants in the land-applied sludge.
We seem to have forgotten the public health lessons of the 1800s and the underlying reason for sewage treatment plants themselves. The pathogen levels in sewage sludge are high and can even increase over time once the sludge is stored or applied to land. Land application allows sludge pathogens to be transported by weather events, and facilitates the spread of diseases to animals and humans. It is unreasonable to expect rural residents to tolerate exposure to these diseases in land, air and water. The Canadian Infectious Disease Society should be applauded for its call for a moratorium on sludge spreading until the risks to public health and the integrity of food are thoroughly evaluated."
See: http://web.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ppmc/articlerender.cgi?artid=1159228
http://www.besafenet.com/Sludge.htm
Decide for yourself, do you really want to trust Hampstead Water Company knowing some of the evil practices that owners do that can and most likely will hurt families in Atkinson? How devistating it is to find out you got sick (e-coli, cancer, heavy metals etc) from just a glass of water.
No family needs this grief.
I heard that the owner of the water company has a serious cancer. All this talk of radon in that water supply and the septic waste dumped over there, you have to wonder if he is to blame for getting cancer.
If he does, my prayers go out to him and his family regardless how ruthless he maybe.
citizens of atkinson
this demand for water by the water company is probably tied to all the new development that the lewis family has planned for the country club
protect the town water!
I aggree. This is an incredible amount of water and certainly cannot be justified by the country club.
Once my well has been sucked dry, will Hampstead Water Co drill me a new one? Or if it is contaminated by heavy metals and other toxins that cause cancer, hepatitis and other health issues, will they pay to clean it up?
You watch though, regardless if an ordinance is mandated, the town officials will look the other way and allow Hampstead Water to get away with it. It has happened with the dumping of human sewage and sludge and it will happen here too.
The Grants and others seem to miss the obvious point that change in the water withdrawal situation is a matter of STATE LAW, not local ordinances. Unless and until the state law is changed, it doesn't matter what votes are taken at the local level.
Has anybody actually read the proposed warrant articles as they were on the warrant before being amended? It's all complete nonsense. Towns can't give legal rights to "ecosystems" and they can't impose liability on state employees imposing state laws.
Towns have the right to tighten the restrictions imposed by the state. They just can't loosen them and make them more restrictive.
Carols article tightens them and adds more protection for the residents. Why is the world would people be against something that protects them?
The previous poster said: "Towns have the right to tighten the restrictions imposed by the state. They just can't loosen them and make them more restrictive."
That is incorrect, in general. Towns may make tighter restrictions than a state statute only if the state statute specifically allows that. The CURRENT law on water withdrawals does not allow towns to impose their own standards or regulatory process. It does give towns a voice in a process entirely controlled by the state. The selectmen can intervene and state facts or opinions on behalf of the town, but the decision is made by the state. There is absolutely no way around that at the present time.
To Annon 9:20
Are you saying the state has this already restricted and any pumping beyond this limit is illegal?
Or can Hampstead Water pump as much as they want or as much as Atkinson will let them?
Can I ask who polices how much is pumped?
Please read RSA 485-C:21. It defines the regulatory process that is run by the state Dept of Environmental Services (DES).
You can not withdraw more than 57,600 gallons a day without getting approval through this process. My understanding is that Hampstead Water Co. started the process but did not complete it, their application was returned for more info, or something like that. So right now they can withdraw up to the threshold amount of 57,600 gallons a day.
First priority:
Protect the health and welfare of your family and yourself.
Second priotity:
Protect your property and property values.
Third Priority:
Elect and appoint only those who will support YOUR necessary piority, First and Second above.
The ordinance ONLY restricts sale of water OUTSIDE of Atkinson.
We have rights, Constitutional and Statory beyond the State statute on withdrawal.
The statute has severability, therefore each and every part stands on its own.
The elected officials and their appointees better look to continued water viability . This is an IMPERATIVE.
For all of you legal beagles on the withdraw whatever you want side of the issue...
The Town passed an ordinance. The selectmen are bound to enforce, and vigorously defend that ordinance, against any challenge. If the water company challenges it in court, the town is compelled to defend it. And a court can decide the issue.
To respond to anonymous@February 28, 2008 9:50 AM:
You say:
"We have rights, Constitutional and Statory beyond the State statute on withdrawal."
If "We" means the voters of a town, you are wrong. Collective rights are vested by the federal constitution in the Congress, and by the state constitution in the General Court (state legislature). Towns in NH have no authority beyond that which is granted by the state. "We", the people of NH, have the right to regulate water withdrawals, but our representatives and senators in the legislature have determined thus far that decisions are to be made by the state government, not by individual towns.
You say:
"The statute has severability, therefore each and every part stands on its own."
I agree. The concept of severability is that if an ordinance has several provisions, and one or more are found to be invalid, the rest still stand.
The problem in this instance is that the ENTIRE water withdrawal ordinance is invalid. The town has no authority to regulate water withdrawals. The town has no authority to determine the rights and responsibilities of corporations within its borders. The town has no authority to say who can or can't go to court. If the ordinance is challenged in court, nothing will be left standing.
To respond to anonymous@February 28, 2008 12:33 PM:
You say:
"The Town passed an ordinance. The selectmen are bound to enforce, and vigorously defend that ordinance, against any challenge."
This is incorrect. It is a well-known principle of law in NH that selectmen have discretion in enforcing local ordinances. The reason is that a town has limited budgets and staff, and the selectmen have the right to decide which problems are important enough to spend time and money on, and which are not.
A citizen can take action against the selectmen if they do something improper, but not if they do nothing. If the selectmen issue a permit to somebody to do something in violation of zoning, you can challenge their decision. But if the person goes ahead and does something without permits, and the selectmen ignore it, you can not compel them to take action against the person.
Spoken like jack or Frank, but WRONG!
The selectmen do not have the legal right to ignore the expressed will of the voters when the voters pass a warrant article that directs the selectmen to do something.
If that were the case, there would be no point in ever placing a warrant article on the ballot.
Believe it or not, sometimes Jack and Frank are right.
Selectmen are not town employees. They are elected officials with independent powers based on state laws.
Ordinances and other warrant articles authorize the selectmen to act on behalf of the town. But it is difficult to force them to do something they really don't want to do. You have a better shot at matters involving town property, such as the Vietnam Veterans memorial, than you do with making them take enforcement actions against third parties, was with the water withdrawal ordinance or zoning amendments.
In order to have effective town government, you need to have town legislation that is authorized by state law, sufficient funding, and elected officials of good will and competence to carry it out. You really can't manage the selectmen or other officials by passing a whole bunch of detailed warrant articles.
Selectmen are not CEO's
they are operations managers who report to the people, who are the CEO's.
They merely perform the day to day functions of managing the town. There are many actions that they can not take without approval form the people, such as buying or disposing of town property or equipment, creating ordinances, creating new positions.
I agree, the selectmen are not CEOs. But neither are the people of the town.
You can't have more than one CEO in a given organization. Otherwise nobody would be "Chief".
If you want to follow a business model, I think that the voters are like stockholders and the selectmen are like a board of directors. The town is in fact a corporation chartered under NH law. But the analogy only goes so far.
The voters have more powers than shareholders, who are mostly rubber stamps of corporate governance. And the selectmen have less power than the board of directors of a corporation. Not only because of the power of voters, but because there is not a single chain of command in town government as there is in a corporation, reporting up to the board through a CEO.
Nobody in town government is the equivalent of a CEO IMHO. Power is dispersed among all of the elected and appointed officials and committees. Few people or committees report to other people or committees in the sense of a corporate hierarchy. Each official or committee has some powers that they can exercise independently, and others that are subject to some sort of approval from other officials or committees. It is a system of checks and balances. Everybody is subject to checks and balances, including the voters at town meeting.
For example, a town doesn't have to have a budget committee. But if a town voted to create a budget committee, then it can not vote to expend more than 10% in excess of the figure recommended by the budget committee.
The selectmen are not just 3 flunkies who do what town meeting tells them to do. They have what are called "substantive powers", independent of the town meeting, including regulation of town highways, layout of highways, hazardous and dilapidated buildings, junkyard licensing, health regulations, setting fees, local welfare guidelines, management and regulation of most town property, financial accounting. They also appoint people to various boards and have a say in the hiring of positions like deputy town clerk and deputy treasurer.
Even where they interact with the town meeting they have power. They only have to manage the budget to the bottom line. They can move money from one item to another as they see fit, as long as they don't overspend the budget. They can create new positions if they can find money in the budget to cover them.
HB 1353, which was mentioned earlier in this discussion and which proposed to give municipalities a veto over large water withdrawals, was amended in the committee to remove the requirement for a local vote and to extend an existing study commission for two more years to explore what role municipalities should have in the regulation of large water withdrawals. Pending final action by the house and senate, the status quo will hold for at least 2 more years.
Excerpts from the committee minutes:
RESOURCES, RECREATION AND DEVELOPMENT
HB 1353, relative to local control of water resources. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Marcia G Moody for Resources, Recreation and Development: This bill originally allowed municipalities to veto large groundwater permits issued by the state. The committee and sponsor worked hard with the department of environmental services (DES) and the attorney general’s office to explore ways to provide for more local control of a municipality’s water resources. No workable solution was found. The groundwater commission formed by Chapter 305 (2005) has been working for 3 ½ years on the full panoply of groundwater policy issues, and are willing to undertake this task as well, if extended for two more years. The amendment will also call for the commission to study public benefit criteria for permitting withdrawals, the design of a statewide monitoring plan to ensure long-term sustainability of water resources, and implementation of an educational effort to inform municipalities of the tools they already have for influencing the granting of large groundwater withdrawal permits. Vote 14-0.
Amendment to HB 1353
Proposed by the Committee on Resources, Recreation and Development - C
Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:
AN ACT extending the commission to study issues relative to groundwater withdrawal.
Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:
¬1 Commission to Study Issues Relative to Groundwater Withdrawals; Duties Expanded. Amend 2003, 305.3 to read as follows:
305:3 Duties. The commission shall study ways to bring a balanced approach to water use among residential, public water supply, industrial, commercial, agricultural, energy, recreational, and other water users, and to improve the current process by which new water users may reasonably and efficiently use state water resources, including consideration of potential regional impacts and local water management issues, in order to best protect and preserve an adequate supply of water for the state with particular attention to groundwater. This study shall include consideration of issues such as potential impacts on New Hampshire’s environment, property rights as they relate to groundwater, possible fees on water withdrawals, and the protection of New Hampshire’s aquifers. The commission shall also study criteria, including public benefit, for the granting of large water withdrawals other than those of RSA 485-C and RSA 485-A. Consideration of this issue shall include appropriate roles for municipalities in the permitting and regulation of large groundwater withdrawals and include input from municipalities and other appropriate entities. The committee shall design an appropriate statewide monitoring plan to ensure long term sustainability of groundwater resources and participation in the development and distribution of public educational materials on the municipal role in large groundwater permitting, including local and state regulations. The commission may address other issues related to water.
¬2 Commission to Study Issues Relative to Groundwater Withdrawals; Reporting Date Extended. Amend 2003, 305:5 as amended by 2005, 287:1 to read as follows:
305:5 Report. The commission shall make an interim report of its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the senate president, the speaker of the house of representatives, the senate clerk, the house clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 1, 2003. The commission shall make additional interim reports of its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the senate president, the speaker of the house of representatives, the senate clerk, the house clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 30 of each year, with the final report on the role of municipalities and on the criteria for large withdrawals due on or before November 30, 2009 and the balance of the final report due on or before November 30, [2008] 2010. The senate energy, environment and [wildlife] economic development committee and the house resources, recreation and development committee shall have oversight responsibility for the progress of the commission and shall receive copies of all interim reports.
¬3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
AMENDED ANALYSIS
This bill:
I. Expands the duties of the commission to study issues relative to groundwater withdrawals.
II. Extends the commission until 2010.
"Knowing the Territory - A survey of municipal law for New Hampshire local officials" is a publication put out by the staff lawyers of the NH Local Government Center. Here is what it says about the power of towns to pass legislation:
-----------------------------
Chapter Two
The State-Municipal Relationship
I. The Authority of Towns and Cities
A. Local Government Gets Its Authority from the State
Towns and cities get all of their authority from the state legislature. Whenever the town meeting or the town or city council, or an individual official, does anything in an official capacity, they are acting under color of state law. This means that they are acting with the authority of the state legislature. The legislature is granted its authority by the people - through the New Hampshire Constitution.
B. No Home Rule Authority in New Hampshire
Contrary to popular belief, New Hampshire is not a home rule state. It has a political tradition of local control, but unlike many state constitutions, New Hampshire's doe not grant any power directly to municipalities. In New Hampshire, municipalities are political subdivisions of the state. So are village districts, school districts, counties and other similar governmental entities. They only have authority if the legislature gives it to them, and the legislature is free to retract it at any time. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has said:
"[T]owns only have such powers as are expressly granted to them by the legislature and such as are necessarily implied or incidental thereto." Girard v. Allenstown, 121 N.H. 268 (1981)
The expression "home rule" is also used in New Hampshire to refer to the ability of towns and cities to change their form of government via the charter adoption procedure (RSA Chapter 49-B). But this is only form, not substance. Towns and cities cannot, by charter, add to their authority. Only the legislature can do that. In other words, a charter can't change what a town or city can do, only how it does what it does.
C. Seek Authority in State Law
When a question comes up about whether the town or city, or a local official, has authority, the municipality and the official must look to a law that grants authority to act. It is not enough to conclude that there is no law prohibiting the action. The proper investigation requires finding a law that permits the action. Usually, that authority will be found in a state statute, referred to as the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSAs).
---------------------
In the case of the water ordinance, RSA 485-C:21 provides a state-run process to regulate water withdrawals, and RSA 485-C:20 makes it clear that a town can not cite any other statute, such as one authorizing health ordinanaces, as a pretext for allowing a local water withdrawal ordinance.
Has anyone realized yet that the ordinance passed at town meeting last year does NOT prohibit large groundwater withdrawals, it merely prevents said water, once withdrawn to be sold outside of town.
It is really more of a commerce restriction than an environmental restriction.
And can anyone say that any of our elected or appointed officials have been looking out for the towns best interest in this issue?
Our state reps could care less how much water is withdrawn from Atkinson
Our selectmen refused to hold public hearings on the original application, nor did they intervene to protect the interests of the town.
They fought this ordinance every step of the way, and after it passed the first thing they did was ask the DES if they really had to obey it.
So tell me again how the State, or God forbid our selectmen look after our best interests
No matter the purpose, environmental or commercial, towns can not regulate water withdrawals. The ordinance is null and void, and will continue to be whichever way the voting goes on March 11. For better or worse, we are in the hands of the state. The state seeks balanced use of a resource that is defined to be a "public trust". RSA 485-C:21 does seem to set reasonable safeguards for the preservation of flowage to existing users. We have no way of knowing how the Hampstead Water Co. application would have fared at the DES, as it was sent back for more information. Perhaps that is a good sign, that DES at least reads the applications that come in.
I assume that those who are concerned about this have either stopped buying products that consist mostly of bottled water, or that they have done some due diligence and have assured themselves that the source communities are OK with having the water withdrawn from their local systems and trucked to Shaw's or DeMoulas in Plaistow. This includes tonic (soda), seltzer, spring water, OJ from concentrate, beer, etc.
Since there is no "sight glass" on how much water is in the aquifer and where the water table is, lets say my 'well' of producing water for over 10 years is all of a sudden is dead! Who is responsible? Is it Hampstead Water who decided they wanted to pump umpteen million gallons of water from underground and it killed my well? Who protects me and my family as well as my property?
I am willing to bet NO ONE will help the homeowner and I as well as others will have to fork over $7k-$10k to have a new well drilled.
I am certainly glad that someone is looking out for the citizens of Atkinson..... NOT!
As one concerned citizen pointed out, the owners of Hampstead Water have NO concern for the citizens of Atkinson. This was easily demonstrated in the 10+ years of dumping of untreated septage and sludge onto outlying fields. Based upon the location and the water runoff pathogens, heavy metals and bacteria can easily make its way into the aquifer. There is no care to the surrounding citizens on health risks in this practice which is based upon greed and nothing else. Do you think the owners of Hampstead water would foot the bill for cancer treatment or a liver replacement based upon a drink of contaminated water? Does this mean I should have my water tested everyday just to be safe?
Why is it that every time the citizens of Atkinson petition a warrant to protect themselves some elected official finds a way to circumvent it?
I and others find that our rights of a tax paying citizen in this town are next to nothing.
To March 3, 2008 6:03 AM
-----------------------------
You write "Who is responsible? Is it Hampstead Water who decided they wanted to pump umpteen million gallons of water from underground and it killed my well? Who protects me and my family as well as my property?"
The answer is the State of New Hampshire, which enacted RSA 485-C:21 to regulate water withdrawals. Have you read it?
You write "Why is it that every time the citizens of Atkinson petition a warrant to protect themselves some elected official finds a way to circumvent it?"
We can argue endlessly about the intentions and motivations of our town officials. But the fact of the matter is that there is little or nothing they could do to help in the area of water withdrawal, whether they want to or not. The fact that HB1353 was put forth is evidence that some people went the correct route of working with the state government. Others, including prominent people in Atkinson, fell hook line and sinker for a Pennsylvania outfit called the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF.org), which is pushing a radical anti-corporate agenda. Pennsylvania has home rule in its state constitution. CELDF's stuff might be viable in Pennsylvania, but it is a non-starter in NH. Prominent Atkinsonians tell us that this stuff has been reviewed by lawyers, but they don't say which state they are from. I am confident that no NH lawyer has signed off on this stuff. CELDF is happy to have Atkinson, Barnstead, and other NH towns pass their ordinances and then spend tax dollars on quixotic court battles. It makes it appear that CELDF has broad support and they can post stuff on their web site. It's not clear to me what NH taxpayers and residents get out of it.
Water withdrawal really can't be regulated according to municipal boundaries. There is economic value to the use of groundwater, and the value does not always take place where the water comes from. For example, Portsmouth gets most of its water from Madbury. Perhaps Madbury would shut off the water if it could, just on the idea that they should be able to control the resource within their town boundaries, but there would be a net economic loss to the state if the Portsmouth economy were trimmed back because of water shortages.
If we left water withdrawal to the regulation of the towns, they would all be risk adverse, and the supply of water for the economic benefit of all would dry up in no time.
I'm not saying that Atkinson has adequate supplies of water to support shipping any particular amount to other places. But I think that requests to withdraw water from Atkinson should be based on some sort of objective statewide evaluation based on scientific standards, not just this "we're special" approach that the Atkinson water ordinance embodies.
Yes I have read it but it does not give any indication of who polices the water withdrawl. It does indicate the limit but how is it enforced?
And again once my 'well' is dead it does not say the state will drill me a new one.
My understanding is that water companies have to do a lot of reporting to the state on a regular basis. There must be something to the enforcement, as Hampstead Water Co. doesn't have to do any construction, they could just start pumping more water through existing pipes, at least that is what I think I read in the paper.
Plus, I have to think that the state would be better equipped to supervise this as part of their overall supervision of water companies than the town would be. Who you gonna call? Phil?
Hydrology is a well-developed science. The state should be able to figure out what withdrawal rate (if any) could be set in a particular area without endangering existing users.
There are too many "wash your back and I will wash yours" going on. Phil and others are the ones sporting this puppet parade. I suspect O'Leary is part of this parade as he is supported by the owners of Hampstead Water Co.
My problem with policing the water withdraw is that if there is NOT a meter or some other mechanical tell-tale indicator on what is going on, how would anyone really know?
The folks running the place are not that honest as we can see by the way of septic dumping; there has got to be some factual indicators on what is really being pumped other than a mans word. What also is worrisome is that water trucks have been seen leaving Hampstead Water Co so who knows what is really going on.
That mechanical tell tale device is in face a meter.
I'm told that Thursday's Union Leader had an article about the water ordinance, quoting local officials saying that it is contrary to state law (which it is).
It was only in the print edtion.
The author of main article was polite.
The thrust is that our officials are either LIERS or STUPID.
The article has been hijacked to a discussion of the law when the article was writen to demonstrate the lacking in candor of our officials.
Consider this when you vote Tuesday
It was necessary to "hijack" this discussion because the author of the main post and other prominent Atkinsonians have misled the citizenry, albeit with good intentions.
He wrote "The majority of our Town Officers have shown a general disregard for Atkinson’s water protection concerns.".
This implies that the town of Atkinson can actually do something about water withdrawals. It can't.
To anon 12:58 AM
To be blunt. The author said the planning board LIED at DS, and, BOTH the PB and BoS have statutory responsibilities Re. water withdrawal and the people of Atkinson have seen both lack of due process and slothful performance by Town Officers.
Post a Comment