Saturday, June 21
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. "
67 comments:
In addition to the two already-submitted "protect Atkinson's groundwater" petitions to be acted on at the up-coming September Special Town Meeting, there is a third petition in the groundwater protection effort. Water Petition #3 wasn't yet completed at the time the first two petitions were ready to be submitted. It's only now completed and just needs 50 signatures to go on the ballot.
If you're willing to join in the effort to protect Atkinson's groundwater by being one of the 50 signers to help to get the petition on the ballot, please phone me at 362-4848, and the petition will be bought to you for your signature. Your help is needed and very important.
Atkinson has 42 Wetlands areas greater than 2 acres in size. Of these, certain ones are of extremely high value to the town and worthy of extra protection because of their IMPORTANT FUNCTIONAL VALUE AS A GROUNDWATER RECHARGING AREA FOR OUR WELLS IN TOWN, and also for their ecological significance, uniquesness, fragility and un-spoiled character.
Recognizing the critical importance of protecting these ecologically significant wetlands for Atkinson's future water needs, the Atkinson Conservation Commission initiated a process to identify and officially designate these very special wetlands as "PRIME WETLANDS" to get them the needed extra protection from the Town and the State.
"PRIME WETLANDS" is a designation authorized by State law and by the NH Wetlands Bureau. The designation authorizes extra protections to these specially designated "Prime Wetlands" beyond those protections given regular wetlands. It also gets them special protection and consideration from NH DES when they review well applications like those submitted by the Hampstead Area Water Company.
Our Conservation Commission engaged the services of the Natural Resources Consulting Services (NRCS) to analyze Atkinson's wetlands and do extensive field studies to determine which, if any, of Atkinson's 42 wetlands should be designated as "Prime Wetlands."
After a year of screening, field studies, evaluation and analysis (using DES's guidelines), NCRS listed 7 very ecologically significant wetlands in Atkinson that should be designated as "Prime Wetlands" and in need of extra special protection.
As it turns out, one of those special wetlands found to be needing "Prime Wetlands" designation protection is the large marsh and groundwater recharging area directly west of Wright Farm and Bittersweet Lane, where the Lewis Water Company application calls for a major well on an island in the marsh for the pumping out of our water. That marsh has had many names over the years, with NCRS calling it the Wright Farm Pond. That Pond is also bounded by homes on Sawmill Road, Summit Drive, Walker Road, Eldon Way, Merrill Drive, Meeting Rock Drive and Centerview Hollow.
The 7 ecologically significant wetlands which NCRS found needing protective "Prime Wetlands" designation status are listed in Special Town Meeting Water Petition # 3. Check the list. You may learn that your home is in the vincinity of one of these special wetlands.
You can view Petition #3 by logging onto the new Atkinson website "Atkinson Water Forum"
mentioned in the lead blog article.
Zoning regulations can only be acted on at regular town meetings so this petition can not seek to implement the recommended increasing of the buffer zones around "Prime Wetlands" from 100 to 150 feet. That will have to be left up to the Conservation Commission to move on for March 09 Town Meeting.
The purpose of Petition # 3 is two-fold:
1) for the townspeople to formally vote to accept the findings of the NCRS that THE 7 SPECIFIED CRITICALLY IMPORTANT WETLANDS BE DESIGNATED AS PRIME WETLANDS AND GIVEN THE EXTRA PROTECTION WHICH THAT STATUS ENTITLES THEM TO.
2) To serve to educate the townspeople about the value and importance of Prime Wetlands designations to protect critically important groundwater recharging areas -- to stimulate discussion and understanding towards informed voting for when the implementing increased protective buffer zone regulation for Prime Wetlands is put forward at next regular town meeing.
Maybe Carol Grant could take a small portion of her $30K award from the town and hire an **actual NH lawyer** to review the groundwater ordinance and the latest petitions to tell us if any of this stuff is enforceable under NH law.
She and others keep talking about "environmental lawyers" that have reviewed this stuff and suggested changes. I believe that these lawyers are from a Pennsylvania organization. They have "home rule" in Pennsylvania. We don't have "home rule" in NH. I don't think any competent NH lawyer would sign off on these ordinances, as originally passed last summer, as amended this winter, or as proposed for September.
For all its verbiage, the new 3rd petitioned warrant article doesn't do what needs to be done, which is to accept the "local option" provision of RSA 482-A:15
RSA 482-A:15 states:
482-A:15 Local Option; Prime Wetlands. –
I. Any municipality, by its conservation commission, or, in the absence of a conservation commission, the planning board, or, in the absence of a planning board, the local governing body, may undertake to designate, map and document prime wetlands lying within its boundaries, or if such areas lie only partly within its boundaries, then that portion lying within its boundaries. For the purposes of this chapter, "prime wetlands'' shall mean any areas falling within the jurisdictional definitions of RSA 482-A:3 and RSA 482-A:4 that possess one or more of the values set forth in RSA 482-A:1 and that, because of their size, unspoiled character, fragile condition or other relevant factors, make them of substantial significance. Such maps or designations, or both, shall be in such form and to such scale, and shall be based upon such criteria, as are established by the commissioner through rules adopted pursuant to RSA 541-A.
II. Any municipal conservation commission or that local body which has mapped and designated prime wetlands in accordance with paragraph I may, after approval by any town or city council meeting, file such maps and designations with the department, which shall accept and maintain them and provide public access to such maps during regular business hours. The procedure for acceptance by the local legislative body of any prime wetland designations as provided in paragraph I shall be the same as set forth in RSA 675:2 or RSA 675:3, as applicable.
The proposed warrant article ends as follows:
We, the undersigned registered voters of Atkinson petition that 2008
Special Town Meeting vote to see if the Town will accept the findings
and recommendation of the NRCS that the below-listed 7 ecologically
significant wetlands be designated as Prime Wetlands (with protective
regulations concerning them to be adopted at a future annual Town Meeting).
Based on RSA 482-A:15 II, here's how it ought to end (followed by the listing of the wetlands):
We, the undersigned registered voters of Atkinson petition that 2008
Special Town Meeting vote to see if the Town will accept the findings
and recommendation of the NRCS that the below-listed 7 ecologically
significant wetlands be designated as Prime Wetlands, and to authorize the Conservation Commission to file the associated maps and designations with the state Department of Environmental Services, as provided by RSA 482-A:15.
With respect to the statement about regulations to be passed at a future town meeting, this is improper. Voters should only be asked to vote on what can actually be done at present, not on a future proposition.
Poster 8:41 P.M.'s sour grapes and petty reference to Mrs. Grant's having prevailed in her lawsuit (which has absolutely nothing to do with the water issue) shows the poster has a political agenda more than any interest in protecting Atkinson's water.
To Anonymous May 24, 2005, 12:18 a.m.,
THANK YOU. I want to thank you for your very helpful and knowledgeable posting. It was positively valuable and constructive.
You're absolutely right in your recommended word change of Petition #3's final paragraph to reflect the local option provision of RSA 482-A:15. The final paragraph will be changed before any petition signatures are secured so as to reflect your suggested wording.
You're also right that "voters should only be asked to vote on what can actually be done at present, not on a future proposition." That improper part of the final paragraph will be deleted.
This morning I will be phoning Conservation Commission Chairman Tim Dziechowski about your posting.
I have already spoken to him about my attending the next Conservation Commission meeting.
Thank you again for your help. Who are you? Why did you post such helpful information anonymously? May I ask if you would phone me at 362-4848? If it is your choice to remain anonymous, be assured that I will respect your wishes and tell no one your name. I hope to hear from you.
To Carol Grant:
I'm happy to help with the wording of your warrant article. I just realized that RSA 482-A:15 II requires that the procedure for the adoption of prime wetlands is to be the one specified in RSA 675:2 or 675:3 for zoning amendments and building code revisions. Actually I believe it would be RSA 675:4 for petitioned changes.
The key thing is that the Planning Board is required to hold a public hearing, and vote to approve or disapprove the proposal. The question will go on the ballot regardless of the Planning Board vote, but the Planning Board's vote will appear on the ballot after the text of the question.
Here is RSA 675:4 for your convenience:
675:4 Method of Enactment by Petition. –
I. Twenty-five or more voters may petition for an amendment to a zoning ordinance, historic district ordinance, or a building code. Petitioned amendments shall be voted only at the annual town or village district meeting. A petition to amend a zoning ordinance, historic district ordinance, or a building code shall be submitted to the board of selectmen or the village district commissioners during the period between 120 and 90 days prior to the annual town or village district meeting. The petition shall be in correct warrant article form, as determined by the selectmen or village district commissioners, to amend the zoning ordinance, historic district ordinance, or building code. The selectmen or the village district commissioners shall submit the petitions to the planning board in a timely manner.
II. The planning board at its first regular meeting following the petition period shall set the date of the public hearing for each petitioned amendment which is received and shall hold a public hearing on each petitioned amendment. Notice for the time and place of the public hearing shall be the same as that provided in RSA 675:7.
III. Each petitioned amendment shall be placed on a ballot which may be separate from the ballot used to elect town or village district officers. A notation on the ballot stating the planning board's approval or disapproval shall immediately follow the question's description. Any petitioned question receiving an affirmative vote of a majority of the legal voters present and voting shall be adopted, except as provided in RSA 675:5. The planning board shall forward to the town or village district clerk all proposed amendments to a zoning ordinance, historic district ordinance, or building code under this section not later than the fifth Tuesday prior to the date for electing town or village district officers.
IV. The town or village district clerk shall include each question on a petitioned amendment on the appropriate official or special ballot, or separate official ballot, in the same manner as provided in paragraph III and in RSA 675:3, VII.
V. The method for amending a zoning ordinance, historic district ordinance or building code, as set forth in this section, may also be utilized to repeal such ordinance or code. The ballot question shall use the word "repeal'' in place of the word "amendment.''
I have to point out a couple of legal issues. Carol said that zoning amendments can not be on the ballot at a special town meeting. Actually petition zoning amendments can not be on the special meeting ballot. The planning board could bring this forward if they wanted to.
Please note that RSA 482-A:15 states that prime wetlands shall be brought to the ballot under 675:2 or 675:3. I have confirmed with Sandy Crystall, prime wetlands contact at NH DES, that a petition zoning article is not an option. Prime wetlands can only be enacted through and with the cooperation of the planning board.
I have talked with several legal people at the state level who think that this is a legislative oversight. How could a town with a conservation commission but no planning board enact prime wetlands? This is being looked into at the state level and the law may be amended.
I spoke with Sue Killam about prime wetlands and she does not want to rush this to ballot. The planning board will be taking up this issue at the end of summer for a potential warrant article in 2009.
So Carol's petition article can only be advisory. I would still recommend voting for it en masse to indicate the town's pleasure to the planning board. The other wetlands ordinances might get shot down in court, but prime wetlands cannot be and would provide additional protection to the watershed around the 7 wetlands we are recommending.
Publius, please post this as its own topic, "The driest year on record"
As conservation chair, I am preparing our response to DES on the HAWC water withdrawel proposal.
I am concerned about the watershed recharge rate. At the 2nd public hearing HAWC's consultants stated that 12" per year was enough to recharge the aquifers. The average annual precipitation in Atkinson is around 48".
I have been trying to find historical data for minimum annual precipitation, and have only found data for Concord, NH. There, the driest year in the last 50 years was 25" of precip.
I recall that recently (within the last decade?) we had a summer when it did not rain. I remember not mowing my lawn from June to September that year because it was brown and I didn't need to. Wells were going dry all over the place. What year was that and if you had problems with your well, what were your issues? And if you are and old-timer who remembers another dry year, when was it?
PS:
I'm sorry, I was posting in a rush to get out the door this morning and didn't look at things closely enough. RSA 675:4 allowing petitioned zoning etc changes specifically only applies to annual town meetings.
But RSA 675:3, which is actually cited by RSA 482-A:15 II as the means for enacting town approval of the primary wetlands designations, does not seem to be tied only to the annual meeting. The hitch here is that it perhaps has to be initiated by the Planning Board. There might be some conflicts (?) there, but it appears to me that they could hold a hearing and then put it on the ballot for the upcoming special meeting.
I understand municipal law fairly well, but I'm not a lawyer and I know my limits. It's at least possible that the intent of RSA 482-A:15 II is that the Conservation Commission could originate the question to the voters, subject to a Planning Board hearing.
My best advice to you at this time is to talk to a real lawyer, town counsel, the NHLGC legal staff (who will give opinions to board members at no cost), or an independent attorney, about how RSA 482-A:15 II flows into RSA 675:3 and most importantly which board(s) can initiate the ballot question regarding prime wetlands designation.
I am 99.9% sure that a petitioned article can be no more than "sense of the town", and have no legal standing if passed, at least outside an annual town meetng vote.
Sorry for the detours, I hope you will find this to be helpful.
I had further consultations with a knowledgeable town official about the wording of the final paragraph of Water Petition # 3.
It was recommended that the final paragraph in Petition # 3, besides incorporating the changes recommended by Anonymous May 24, 12:18 a.m., also include an advisory/referendum directive to the Atkinson Planning Board.
So, as it stands right now, the final paragraph of Petition # 3 (above the listing of the NRCS's 7 designated Prime Wetlands) will read as follows:
" We, the undersigned registered voters of Atkinson, petition that 2008 Special Town Meeting vote to see if the Town will
1) accept the findings and recommendation of the NRCS that the below-listed 7 ecologically significant wetlands be designated as Prime Wetlands;
2) authorize the Conservation Commission to file the associated maps and designations with the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, as provided by RSA 482-A:15; and
3) direct the Planning board to modify the Master Plan to include implementing Prime Wetlands as a goal of the Master Plan, to include increasing the buffer zone around Prime Wetlands from 100 to 150' while not lessening or weakening any of the 100' buffer zones around Atkinson's other wetlands."
As I stated in my original posting on May 23: "Zoning regulations can only be acted on at regular town meetings so this petition can not implement the recommended designations or increasing of the buffer zones around "Prime Wetlands" from 100 to 150 feet."
In effect, Petition #3 is an ADVISORY REFERENDUM from the townspeople to the Planning Board -- to act with regard to implementing Prime Wetlands and the expanded protective buffer zones around them.
If the Planning Board ignores the voted Master Plan wishes of the townspeople, the people can legally, at a regular annual town meeting, submit Prime Wetlands zoning and regulations by a petition signed by 25 voters, as per RSA 675:4. But that shouldn't be necessary since I'm sure that the Planning Board will be responsive to the wishes of the townspeople.
I've been holding off on actively getting the signatures for Petition # 3 until the wording of the important final paragraph is as perfect as it can be. If anyone has any further suggestions, please feel free to speak up.
So whether this comes up to a vote is up to the PLANNING BOARD?
You mean the PLANNING BOARD with a land owner/developer with current projects being built in-town as the chairperson? With the son-in-law of the owner of the water company and construction company that's trying to pump millions of gallons of water out of Atkinson's aquifiers? With the road agent (that owns their own company) and town engineer that are both dependent on local construction companies and developers for their incomes?
So this PLANNING BOARD, that is incestuously connected to THE SAME water, construction and development companies that want to steal our water, is the one that has to PROTECT OUR WATER SUPPLY?
You're kidding, right?
People, get involved before it's too late...
"People, get involved before it's too late..."
Well, you've nailed the problem. People, as a whole, don't get involved until 1) It puts a serious dent in their bank account, 2) It's about to put a serious dent in their bank account, 3) It affects their quality of life (no, you're not putting a toxic waste dump in my backyard), and 4) Something else goes wrong, like a well going dry.
It's called apathy and is afflicts the majority. The blog, the water forum, the tax payers association do what they can but there is a tremendous amount of inertia to overcome the "It's not my problem; Someone else will take care of it; I've got other things to worry about" attitudes. It boggles the mind when the town clerk says, "We had a very large turnout for the election, 30% of the registered voters".
For the most part we don't have communities anymore. People come home from work, stick a dinner in the microwave, and plop down in front of the TV. There is even a term for it, Cocooning.
Its because of this that town offices and board get filled up with less than impartial members. Harold Morse on the Planning Board? Can you spell "Conflict of Interest"? But, what can you do?
People do need to get involved before it's too late. Question is, how to we get them to?
You know what we need? Our own little version of Pearl Harbor. Now that got people involved.
Your absolutly right. People do need to get involved to make sure the water withdraw does not take place. Harold Morse on the Zoning com is a Joke, If there isn't a conflict on this one, than what isn't? To answer the anon about the dry year, it was 5-6 years ago. And my well was affected and did stop giving my family water. I had to spend 4 thousand dollars back then to "Fracture" my well. And that was not a guarntee that that would be enough to fix my dry well. But it did work and i was able to have water (limited) for the rest of the dry summmer. Don't let any of those people fool you at that last meeting, Your well will be affected, and in a dry year with massive water withdrawl, alot of residents will suffer with dry wells. Click on my name to go to my blog to see the effects of a town with no water.
Well, you're right about everything you said.
There is cause for hope though; this blog is causing other blogs to pop up (check out the guerrilla theatre of Atkinson Factor) who is using humor to show the ridiculous nature of this town's dysfunctional government.
Those that read these blogs and post are, of course, a minority. What's interesting is how blatantly the forces in town are in attempting to stop people from being informed.
The Atkinson blog signs? Taken away by town officials that were shown to be hacks; the same that allowed commercial signs to be placed on private land the town doesn't own (irony anyone?), against many citizen's wishes. Flyers for the water amendment? The person placing them was harassed by the "Chief", the same hypocrite that has allowed other flyers to be placed on mailboxes for decades without any intervention. How does he explain this? He doesn't, only recently has someone had the guts to try to make him explain ANYTHING. (BTW, kudos to Paul Sullivan for at least beginning to stand up to Consentino, and please support him for doing it so he will continue to demand some accountability. Fred and the Jack Sapia clone have already been well trained by "The Chief" and they show their training and their fear everytime they sit quietly on their conscience and independence and allow "The Chief" to run amuck.
The little slice of facism and corruption that so many support and allow in town is a shame on us all, but those that do NOTHING will have to bear the largest portion of shame for their inaction, in full sight of the town, their families, and their conscience. "All we have to fear..."
Well, you're right about everything you said.
There is cause for hope though; this blog is causing other blogs to pop up (check out the guerrilla theatre of Atkinson Factor) who is using humor to show the ridiculous nature of this town's dysfunctional government.
Those that read these blogs and post are, of course, a minority. What's interesting is how blatantly the forces in town are in attempting to stop people from being informed.
The Atkinson blog signs? Taken away by town officials that were shown to be hacks; the same that allowed commercial signs to be placed on private land the town doesn't own (irony anyone?), against many citizen's wishes. Flyers for the water amendment? The person placing them was harassed by the "Chief", the same hypocrite that has allowed other flyers to be placed on mailboxes for decades without any intervention. How does he explain this? He doesn't, only recently has someone had the guts to try to make him explain ANYTHING. (BTW, kudos to Paul Sullivan for at least beginning to stand up to Consentino, and please support him for doing it so he will continue to demand some accountability. Fred and the Jack Sapia clone have already been well trained by "The Chief" and they show their training and their fear everytime they sit quietly on their conscience and independence and allow "The Chief" to run amuck.
The little slice of facism and corruption that so many support and allow in town is a shame on us all, but those that do NOTHING will have to bear the largest portion of shame for their inaction, in full sight of the town, their families, and their conscience. "All we have to fear..."
Carol wrote:
"If the Planning Board ignores the voted Master Plan wishes of the townspeople, the people can legally, at a regular annual town meeting, submit Prime Wetlands zoning and regulations by a petition signed by 25 voters, as per RSA 675:4..."
No, Carol, the town can't.
675:4 isn't a legal option for Prime Wetlands.
Anon at 2:20 PM wrote:
"People, get involved before it's too late..."
The conservation commission tried to get Prime Wetlands on the ballot for 2005. When we held the public hearings, developers and landowners who would be affected by the state oversight showed up. They pushed back, and this is why the ballot article was changed from "Prime Wetlands" (state oversight) to "significant wetlands" (local zoning but no state oversight). And also why the wetlands setbacks were reduced for the warrant article.
If you care about the wetlands and watershed, come to the public hearings and speak your mind. And volunteer for appointments to the town boards that decide this stuff. This year the planning board had two reappointment slots open.
If I could get appointed to the planning board, maybe you could too. The town gets run by the people who show up, and there are always appointments that the selectmen have a hard time filling because of lack of interest.
I think more people would show up if they knew about such appointments. It is this blog that has kept myself and others on what is going on around town. Yet when the public is informed of how to access this blog via the posting of signs and such, the bureaucrats try to shut things down by removing the signs. Its a catch 22 situation.
I’ve debated whether to respond to Anonymous, May 23, 8:41 p.m.
The posting is so obviously ridiculous that it shouldn’t need a response.
But this isn’t the first time this person has made such biased, prejudiced, and ill-informed statements attacking the lawyers who drew up the already-passed Atkinson Water Withdrawal Ordinance. She’s posted similar comments once before and has
also made similar comments to various town residents—that the only lawyers qualified to imput on the ordinance are, as she says, “competent NH lawyers.”
Her implication is that only NH people (or NH lawyers) have the intelligence or capability to read, understand and draw from the US and NH Constitutions and the NH RSA'S so as to imput on the ordinance. WRONG !!
As a retired Social Studies and Civics teacher, let me point out some very pertinent facts:
1. Only 1 of the 9 Justices on the US Supreme Court is a former NH lawyer. Does that mean that the other 8 Justices are therefore incompetent to rule on any cases out of, or which affect NH.? OF COURSE NOT!!!
2. There are 12 US Federal Appeals Courts with the First Circuit US Court of Appeals having jurisdiction on all cases appealed from Maine, NH, Mass., Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico. There are NO N.H. JUDGES on First Circuit. Does that mean that its 12 judges are incompetent to rule on appeals, including from NH, just because none of them were former NH lawyers. REDICULOUS !!
3. The same principle applies to US Claims Court which hears lawsuits against our federal govt. Are all 16 of its judges incompetent to rule if a NH resident files suit against the US
government just because none of them were once “competent NH lawyers”? OF COURSE NOT!
4. Hundreds of attorneys currently serve in the US Justice Dept come from states all across the country. They’re hired for their abilities and NOT disqualified as “incompetent” because they are not “competent NH lawyers” or disqualified because they are not natives of the Washington, D.C.
5. Statistics say 75% of the members of Congress are former lawyers. Does that mean that 98 of the 100 US Senators and 433 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives WHO AREN'T FROM NH are incompetent to pass laws which also affect NH? OF COURSE NOT!!!
6. A large percent of Timberlane District teachers are NOT NH natives or received their teaching degrees from NH colleges. Does
that mean that these teachers are all incompetent to teach in NH?
HOW INSULTING !!!
7. The Mass. doctors that Atkinson and NH residents go to at Merrimack Valley Hospital, Holy Family, Lawrence General, Anna Jacques, etc, --- are these Mass. Doctors incompetent to treat NH residents just because the doctors are not residents of, or with their offices in NH? OF COURSE NOT !!!
7. All of the Atkinson and NH residents who work in Mass. – are they incompetent to work there just because they’re not Mass. residents?
8. The ZBA is considered by law to be a quasi-judicial body that deal with variances from local ordinances. Yet NONE of our current ZBA members are “competent NH lawyers.” So are all of our current ZBA members incompetent to make decisions?
IN CONCLUSION, please, no more ill-informed, un-informed, biased, prejudiced, provincial, small—minded, ridiculous, and potentially slanderous attacks on the competence of non-NH lawyers, just because they aren’t based in NH. You have no qualifications to judge the legal abilities or competence of any lawyer, whether he/she be a NH or out-of-state lawyer.
I would ask that all residents think of the 8 above points in case that biased poster continues to make un-informed statements questioning the competence of out-of-state professionals or implies that only NH attorneys have competence.
The third and final "Groundwater Protection" petitioned warrant article (PRIME WETLANDS) for Sept. Special Town Meeting was submitted to Bill Friel Tuesday a.m. at Town Hall.
The 61 signatories included the members of the Atkinson Conservation Commission.
The final section of the petitioned warrant article reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned registered voters of Atkinson petition that 2008 Special Town Meeting vote
1) to see if the Town will accept the findings and recommendation of the NRCS that the below-listed 7 ecologically significant wetlands be designated as Prime Wetlands, and
2) to authorize the Conservation Commission to file the associated maps and designations with the state Department of Environmental Services, as provided by RSA 482-A:15, and
3) to direct the Planning Board to modify the Master Plan to include implementing Prime Wetlands as a goal of the Master Plan, to include increasing the buffer zone around Prime Wetlands from 100' to 150' while not lessening or weakening any of the 100'buffer zones around Atkinson's other wetlands, and to make no deletions or changes to the remaining parts of the Wetlands Ordinance."
To Carol Grant,
I think it is a fair inference from your lengthy rebuttal that these warrant articles have not been reviewed by lawyers that know something about NH law.
Your analogies are invalid. The US Supreme Court reviews issues of federal law, not NH law, even when NH is affected.
It's obvious that your lawyers have read the NH constitution and various RSA's, but they completely lack any context about how town powers relate to state powers. They have given you bad advice. Sooner or later, whether it is Atkinson's version of the ordinances, or some other town's version, they will be dismissed summarily by the NH Superior Court.
So, what are you suggesting? That she give up? Are you sure that NH lawyers would give her different advice? What advice would you have to give the petitions more teeth? Are you even in favor of the petitions intent, technically flawed that they might be?
I hear a lot of criticism, but not much constructive, other than get a new lawyer.
The problem at hand is that one of the richest families in NH wants to pump significants amounts of new water for 1) to satisfy their customers current needs, maybe, and 2) for future expansion.
A very lengthy and very technical presentation was given to the potentially affected parties. I believe the intent was to assure those parties that there was little risk. My opinion, it was a public relations disaster. Very few people in the audience had a clue what was being presented. During Q/A Mr. Morse, president of HAWC, was less than forthcoming in his answers. You want to sell a product to a group like this, you at least try to make it understandable to most, and you give complete and honest answers. Unless, maybe, the intent was not to assure but to bamboozle.
That leaves me with questions regarding the Lewis family intentions. If it weren't for DES and PUC intervention I have no doubt water would be flowing out of those wells now. I believe they want to service their customers but this future expansion greatly troubles me. I believe at the bottom of all this is money, and making more of it.
I do not know what the Lewis family is worth, but it is widely believed to be considerable. With all due respect to the late Peter Lewis, I suspect they all live in very nice homes, drive very nice cars, kids in private schools, vacations that most of us can only dream of, and so on. So, when is enough enough?
So, how do we resolve this. Hey, I've got an idea. The Lewis family makes HAWC a public utility responsible to all the people of Atkinson and the other towns they serve. They recuse themselves from the new utility and it becomes the public agency's responsibility to see that all of the publics interest are considered and served, not just HAWC customers. I'm sure a big tax write off would soften the pain and might make the Lewis's hero's again. Oh well, I can dream while the fight continues.
To Publius - Where appropriate, and if so inclined could you move this topic near the top so we can keep the spotlight on it at least to the July vote. Thank you.
This is the person who drafted the water ordinance. Sounds pretty suspet to me!
Thomas Alan Linzey, Esq., Executive Director Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund"
From an article in Mother Jones Magazine (Nov/Dec 2006) by Barry Yeoman
“Linzey has his revolution all mapped out. First, local governments will keep passing anti-personhood measures until one of them triggers a lawsuit in the federal courts. This, in turn, will force the judiciary to reconsider the constitutional principles involved. Linzey doesn't expect to win such a case: "People are colonized to think we can turn to the courts for remedy," he says, "and that the judge will hit himself on the forehead and say, 'Oh my God, 200 years of corporate rights are wrong.'“ Rather, Linzey expects a ruling in favor of corporations to "rip away the veil of disbelief," prompting even more grassroots organizing and local lawmaking. "You treat the courts as a means to building an army," he says—one that will eventually lead to overhauls of state constitutions, and finally the federal one. The U.S. Constitution, he says, simply focuses too much on "property and commerce," and eventually pressure will build on Congress to call a convention and start from scratch.
For now, though, the campaign remains stuck at Step One. "I'm not ready to say we have a movement," confesses Milchen. "We're not quite there yet.” Notes Richard Grossman, who together with Linzey has taught a series of activist seminars around the country dubbed Democracy Schools: "The Populists had 40,000 lecturers organizing people across the U.S. We have five.” Both Grossman and Linzey refuse to speak to journalists who haven't undergone their three-day training session; I was the first, to their knowledge, to abide by that rule and attend the seminar, at which a dozen earnest activists underwent a combination of people's history lessons and political shock therapy.
Last year, Linzey lost his biggest battle thus far: In a case involving a Pennsylvania developer, a federal judge called his personhood arguments "tortured" and "illogical" and said she had come "very close" to disciplining him for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
I don't know if the above is true or not, or what it has to do with my water. But again, criticism , with no alternatives suggested.
Just so we're clear, are you interested in protecting Atkinson's watershed or is there another agenda being worked here?
I'm not getting answers, so I guess that IS my answer.
This is anon@June 8, 2008 3:22 PM
To anon@June 12, 2008 7:20 AM:
Wow, if that article is correct, it is a real smoking gun. I thought this Pennsylvania outfit was deluded into thinking they could actually pass and enforce these ordinances in NH, but now it is clear that they have "another agenda" to have Atkinsonians and other NH townspeople spend time and money only to lose in court and prove the case that we need to rewrite the US Constitution.
To anon@June 12, 2008 10:39 AM
Sorry not to respond earlier but the circumstances of my life are such that I can only post every so often.
This has got nothing to do with my personal attitude. It is strictly a legal question. If, when you write "protecting Atkinson's watershed", you really mean "regulating groundwater withdrawals in Atkinson by town vote", I have you to tell you, you just can't do it. It's a complete waste of time and money.
With a small number of signatures you can put absolutely anything on a town warrant in NH, with no prior restraint. You could have an ordinance to provide the death penalty for littering. It has to go on the warrant, and people have to be given the opportunity to discuss/amend it at the deliberative session and then vote on it (as amended if applicable).
The rub is that while you can put anything you like on the ballot and persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to vote in favor, it is null and void unless it is specifically authorized by a state statute.
It has been said incorrectly on this blog that a town can pass an ordinance in any area that is stricter than the relevant state statute. That is only true if the specific state statute allows it. Some do, some don't.
In this case, RSA 485-C:21 prescribes the process to be followed for the approval of large groundwater withdrawals. That is the process we are going through now with the state DES. It is a process run by the state DES with limited options for participation by the town government and the town citizens. There is no option for towns to add to the procedures prescribed in RSA 485-C:21, or to set stricter standards than that statute.
Also, RSA 485-C:20 makes it clear that a town can cite no other statute as a basis for regulating groundwater withdrawals. That's why it is ridiculous to try to disguise a groundwater withdrawal ordinance as a health ordinance, as is proposed at the present time.
The bottom line is that your only option for having a say in the proposed groundwater withdrawal is to participate fully in the current state process. The proposed water ordinance revisions are simply a diversion of energy and money that could be better used for other purposes.
It has to be an agenda of a certain group of people. Like someone mentioned earlier there is many other things that could warrant spending money on. NOT trying to stop a WATER company providing WATER to its customers. I can't even believe the amount of work being put forth to stop the water company. Atkinson residents should be appreciative of the water company. How many hydrants do they keep operating and maintained throughout town? My reccolection is something like 54. That is an enormous benefit.
People need to smarten up and get involved in the STATE's process and stop trying to create their own which is more than likely not legal.
Great Idea, we should build a jail also. The damn crooked people running this town would save fuel also when they are released.
"People need to smarten up and get involved in the STATE's process"
Many people have. However, until I'm convinced the state has as much concern for my well as it does for HAWC's, and base on their behavior at the informative session, it would also be wise for people to "Smarten Up", and pursue other avenues. "Trust us" is not alway the wisest choice when listening to the government.
'and stop trying to create their own which is more than likely not legal."
You keep saying this. Maybe it's true, I don't know. Do you have any examples where the types of zoning laws to be presented at the deliberative session have been ruled illegal?
"How many hydrants do they keep operating and maintained throughout town? My reccolection is something like 54. That is an enormous benefit.
Yes, to HAWC's customers. Anybody outside HAWC's service area do not have the same access to these hydrants and pay higher insurance premiums because of that. You'll excuse me if I worry more about my well going dry while HAWC resells that same water and provides a public service that is of no benefit to me.
It's sad that a couple of zealots are so determined to root against the town's success in protecting its ground water. What kind of people are they that they're so eager for their own town to fail in protecting its most valuable resource???
I've read some of their comments and am not surprised that they hide behind "Anonymous." If they had the town's best interests at heart, they wouldn't be so afraid of their identities being known.
By their hiding behind "Anonymous", we can't tell if it is the same or just two or three people doing the anti-water protection postings.
The posting knocking Atty. Linzey, (one of the environmental lawyer team members who took part in drafting the water withdrawal control ordinance) was very obviously written by someone with a very strong anti-water protection bias and an obvious agenda in favor of water companies draining towns' water resources. Yet Anonymous 6/12, 7:20 posts it like it is the voice of God speaking. That same posting was also done several months ago when the original ordinance went before the voters. Obviously, the poster treasures the article and will certainly trot it out again and again as part of the "if you don't like the message, attack and disparage the messenger."
It's just too bad that the poster doesn't have the backbone to post under his/her own name. If you're going to slander or disparage someone, have the guts to stand behind your words. I'm almost sure who it is since this person has a consistent record of standing with the water company against the townspeople and of always knocking efforts to protect Atkinson's groundwater while doing nothing herself about protecting it.
It's so easy to attack those who are trying to do something while not doing anything yourself, except hiding behind "Anonymous" postings.
My respect goes to those who try (whether with success or not) to accomplish something for the benefit of the town now and its future generations.
On the one hand are those many Atkinsonians who tried to do something, who over the past 9 months signed those total of 5 water protection petitions, and the many Atkinson residents who voted for the articles and passed the Water Withdrawal Control Ordinance.
On the other hand are the few Anonymous posters who knock the efforts of others while not doing anything themselves except to root against the town's success. Shame on them.
What kind of people root for a profit-motivated company and against the best interests of their own townspeople? No wonder they hide behind "Anonymous."
"NOT trying to stop a WATER company providing WATER to its customers. I can't even believe the amount of work being put forth to stop the water company."
Thank you for the input Mr. Morse.
No one has suggested that HAWC should not provide water to their customers. But, they have been less than forthcoming regarding information on their intent to assure capacity for "Future Expansion", nor have they suggested a recourse for those whose wells could dry up as a result of the proposed new pumping.
What the public has gotten so far is a dog and pony show worthy of a Hydro Dynamics class in graduate school and a lot of basically "No Comment" when detailed questions were asked.
So, you will excuse those us who will not take it on blind faith that the NHPUC, NHDES and HAWC have of ALL Atkinson's citizens best interests at heart.
The Discussion Forum at the Atkinson Water Web Site http://www.just-goaway.com/ has been opened to all. Just follow the instructions on the home page for details.
You do not need to register with the forum to view entries but you do need to register in order to comment or add new entries. All that is required for registration is a valid EMAIL address which is not viewable by anyone.
To atkinson water webmaster:
I just went to your site and clicked the residents area and was prompted for a password.
What exactly is now open that wasn't before?
Previously the discussion forum was in the Residents Area, which requires a username and password. The change is that the discussion forum has been moved to the public area and open to all. The announcement is just above the picture and the button is the top one on the left side.
If you don't see that try refreshing your browser. What you may be seeing is an older, cached version on your computer. For Firefox it is the blue, clockwise, arrow at the top. For IE, press F5.
HAWC wants more.
http://www.just-goaway.com/Articles/et_-_06-16-08.htm
Does anybody wonder what the larger towns (city) of Salem, Plaistow and Haverhill are doing to Atkinson's aguifer?
Is anything being done to force them to reduce their consumption and withdrawals from the aquifer?
Or is it just an agenda against the Lewis family and HWAC, because if you think about it HWAC could buy land in Haverhill, Plaistow and Salem and withdraw the same amount of water and it would have the same effect on Atkinson's aquifer, according to Ms. Grant, and Atkinson wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
"HWAC could buy land in Haverhill, Plaistow and Salem"
ahhh, but the point is, HAWC is not doing this. 3 of the proposed wells are smack dab in the middle of Atkinson, potentially affecting 100's of homes.
I don't believe this is, at least not in it entirety, anti-Lewis/HAWC. However, there is a right way and wrong way to win a public's confidence and from I seen transpire so far, HAWC has done it all wrong.
Questions that have been submitted the NHDES regarding HAWC's application can be viewed at
http://www.just-goaway.com/ - See third new item at top.
It is not to late to add yours to the list.
I think there would be an awful lot of cows in Atkinson today if back in the late '50s & early '60s the Ed Radulski's, Earl Pratt's, Edna Wilson's, Walter Week's, Wilbur Moody's, Mary Feuer's, Frank Churchill's, King Hamilton's,
George White's, and Dave Rockwell's
got together and said if we let all these new houses into Atkinson with their new wells, its going to cause a problem with the aquifer, so let's not build any new houses.
Of course they would have been proven wrong, since all the new wells that went with those new homes didn't cause a problem with the aquifer, just like there is no proof that HAWC's withdrawals are going to cause a problem.
Even the supporters of the water petitions only speak of "potential" problems.
I guess there's always the "potential" that the state could make Rte. 121 a 4-lane hwy, too.
June 17, 9:55 a.m., in the last paragraph said, "according to Mrs. Grant." ?????
I never said anything of the sort, so I'm very surprised to see me being quoted. Possibly, you have me mixed up with someone else.
"Even the supporters of the water petitions only speak of "potential" problems."
What HAWC is proposing are not just little wells meant to service a few homes. We're talking about a massive amount of water from wells over 400' deep. So yes, we see potential problems. Just the same if a toxic waste dump were placed in our backyards. Maybe no immediate effect, but the potential for problems would be there.
So, you will excuse us for being a little pro-active in protecting our water supply.
"just like there is no proof that HAWC's withdrawals are going to cause a problem."
I live uncomfortably close to one of those wells and HAWC does not have piping anywhere near my home to provide a backup. So, what do you suggest if my well goes dry after HAWC starts pumping? I can't prove there won't be problems, but neither can HAWC. Sorry, I'm not going to just "Trust Them"
Until we get some answers I will consider this issue as having Serious Potential
I not sure if everyone is aware that Atkinson is sitting on top of a major earthquake fault. In 2008 alone there have been 3 earthquakes in the area:
1/25/08 4:21 AM
1.7 Mag
7 miles NW of Brunswick, ME
3/9/08 7:11 AM
2.8 Mag
23 miles E of Pease AFB, NH
5/6/08 3:04 PM
2.2 Mag
8 miles SW of Laconia, NH
These earthquakes have the "potential" to re-route or close off water veins that feed wells for homes in Atkinson, in an instant.
As any informed person knows, one house could drill a well and hit a vein at 200 feet while the house next door could dig a well and not hit water for 400 feet. One vein can tap out before the other one does also. It's a natural happening that occurs quite often. Ask any well driller.
In Florida, people are trying to shut down a Natural Spring Water company that has been in business for over 100 years because they, too, say it is removing too much water from the aquifer. How absurd!
"hit a vein at 200 feet while the house next door could dig a well and not hit water for 400 feet. One vein can tap out before the other one does also. It's a natural happening that occurs quite often."
Is the approach HAWC plans to take if any wells surrounding theirs goes dry? "Hey, why blame me, I didn't do nutin"
"In Florida, people are trying to shut down a Natural Spring Water company that has been in business for over 100 years because they, too, say it is removing too much water from the aquifer. How absurd!"
Apple and Oranges example meant to confuse the issue. If you believe those of us who worry about what HAWC proposes are be "absurd" then can we assume you have some interest in seeing HAWC's plans going through?
Sorry, it's oranges to oranges in Floria. The Natural Spring Water Company is an business entity that is withdrawing water from the aquifer for commercial purposes, as they have done for many years, and people are trying to shut it down.
The only apple is the Natural Spring Water Company isn't regulated by the Public Utility Commission.
BTW, I don't have any "interests" in seeing HAWC's plans go through. I just don't support the water petitions or "the sky is falling" message they send.
But you still seem to be suggesting the homeowners "potentially" affected by HAWC's not do what they can to protect their interests.
I saw a suggestion before that we basically let the state process proceed and do nothing else. Sorry. with the preponderance of special interests in all levels of government I'm not going to sit back and hope they do the right thing. The officials at DES are appointed so they are not directly accountable to the public. Our local officials have basically taken a hands off approach. So it is up to the homeowners to protect their own interests.
The petitions may not be the cure all, but at least some people are trying to do something to protect their water. And to compare what HAWC plans to do with a situation in Florida is not relavent.
HAWC's plans are viewed as a threat because of the number of wells, depth of the wells, and the quanity of water they want to withdrawl, 24/7. So, in place of the petitions what do suggest homeowners with wells do to make sure they continue to have water?
RE: June 21, 2008 12:52 AM
So, let's see, you can play cute with words, cite a case that has nothing to do with Atkinson, don't care about HAWC's interests, and don't believe the sky is falling.
Do you get your water from a private well?
What I've been trying to tell you is that your water is more likely to be re-routed or run dry by natural causes than by what HAWC is now or planning to do in the future. You obviously have no faith in any level of government. A person that wants to be a government unto themselves is called an Anarchist. Are you an Anarchist? Maybe a member of the John Birch Society? The Government is not out to screw you.
RE: June 21, 2008 5:51 PM
You are indeed very clever with words. A homeowner who sees a treat to their water and wants to do something about it, and suddenly they are an anarchist?????
Mark got it right.
No, I said someone who wants to be a government unto themselves is an Anarchist. You obviously have no faith or need for government at the local level, the State level or the Federal level. I get the impression you would prefer to tear the current structures of Government, because you don't trust them, you don't like how they run things, and you don't like their tax policies and start from scratch. That is the definition of Anarchy. So you tell me. Do you fit those definitions or not? Put your cards on the table. Don't hide behind issues like Water Levels.
5:51 PM
Wow, you really know how to make a point. Reminds me of the old joke, "Doctor, I'd like a second opinion." "You're ugly too."
I think we all now beginning to know the point you're trying to make.
Since you ask, the homes I speak of are all on wells. One is a Lewis home (near a HAWC system), built in the '60s, one is a non-Lewis home, built in the '80s, the last is a non-Lewis home (on the edge of a large Lewis development with a HAWC system), built in the '70s. And none of them have had well problems.
I dont know if you are addressing me, since I replied, I will answer.
I believe that if you are in a position of public trust, you must go above and beyond to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
I believe that government exists to SERVE those who pay for it, and to do for us that which we can not possibly do for ourselves (ie: negotiate with foreign powers, maintain defense, make and enforce just laws)
I believe that government should NEVER serve itself, nor should its members serve themselves at the public expense.
I believe that when a government agency has a duty, they should perform it. Not merely make sure the T's are crossed, and the I's dotted.
RE: June 22, 2008 9:37 AM
You've made a very strong set of assumptions and accusations, all wrong by the way, based on only a handful of statements and opinions.
If you're happy with the way things are and have no worries concerning HAWC's plans, town government and our other public agencies, fine. One could reasonably assume you're affiliated with one of them. In not, Good luck to ya.
"And none of them have had well problems." And, you know this how? And, you're absolutely positive everything will be just fine when the pumping starts? Again, good luck to ya.
Now, Mark, you know I wasn't addressing you.
But I think I'll drop out of this engrossing conversation with the hope, no, knowledge, that the townspeople of Atkinson are aware, that their wells are replenished 24/7/365 by rain, snow, lakes, streams, springs and underground veins that might be coming from 50-100 miles away. This town doesn't need anymore protracted problems about an over-reaction to a "potential" problem that really has very little chance, if any, of arising.
Only if those wells can replenish faster than HAWC can pull it out. If you read the available reports, HAWC, even at their extreme depths, had sluggish replenishment. If HAWC has problems, what kind of assurance does that give a homeowner near one of their wells will not have a problem?
To anonymous June 22, 2008 11:37 PM,
How can you make your statements with such certainty? While what you say regarding recharging the aquifer may be true in the literal sense, the groundwater withdrawal is for a proposed 648,000 gallons per day! As HAWC is proposing five new wells, you must look carefully at the "physical characteristics of soil, plant cover, slope, water content of surface materials, rainfall intensity, and the presence and depth of confining layers around the aquifer.*" This should be examined carefully around all the sites and, in a perfect world, at various time points throughout the year. How can you be so sure the aquifer will replenish quickly enough?
For you to sit there and call concerned citizens anarchists using your own narrow, twisted leap of logic is juvenile and, quite frankly, silly.
"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"?
*http://www.purdue.edu/envirosoft/groundwater/src/geo6.htm
I hope nobody wonders why I'm trying to drop from this conversation.
If anyone wants to look back in the posts you'll see that this fool is totally misquoting me as I never did "call concerned citizens anarchists" or even close to it.
These are called tactics my friends, and they suck.
Amen Brother John!!!
RE: June 24, 2008 4:42 PM
You're right, you did not use those exact words. However, you meaning and intent was quite clear, and quite reprehensible.
Anonymous June 24, 2008 4:42 PM said:
If anyone wants to look back in the posts you'll see that this fool is totally misquoting me as I never did "call concerned citizens anarchists" or even close to it.
Yet, in an earlier post you write:
You obviously have no faith in any level of government. A person that wants to be a government unto themselves is called an Anarchist. Are you an Anarchist?
So where were you going with that line of questioing? At the risk of repeating myself:
"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
With all due respect, your posts implying that we are over reacting to this issue are oversimplified, arrogant and condescending. And then to whine that my tactics "suck" and state you never called us anarchists makes you as transparent at the tactics YOU have attempted to employ. Now go to work tomorrow at HAWC and leave us alone.
I want to point out that Florida sits on limestone and has a large underground water supply. Limestone is very soft so when they withdraw too much water, sink holes develop. This is a concern and no wonder people are trying to stop that water company.
I applaud Newton and Plaistow for stopping HAWC. Too bad our town doesn't work for us.
To expand on what June 23, 2008 6:40 PM said. HAWC's own report on the Midpoint well tests, available on the water web site, state sluggish recovery. Page 25 of the report states, "Regardless, the relatively slow water level recovery characteristics after the 48-hour test suggests that the recharge to the fracture system will limit the sustainable perious that can actually be produced by the well during short term pumping periods.
It later states on Page 26, " In order for the proposed wells to obtain recharge under pumping conditions,the deep bedrock fractures will need to be transmissive enough to obtain leakage from overlying fractures and the unconsolidated overburden over a wide areas. The only available source of recharge to the wells is direct recharge from precipitation and perhaps some component of induced recharge from the nearby surface water and wetlands."
So, in summary, recharge is a problem and the source of some of that recharge is from local water sources, not from some source 100's of miles away.
Let's presume we have a dry winter and summer, something not unheard of in this area. HAWC is pumping away drawing from local sources. They have the deepest wells around. It doesn't take a genius or an anarchist to figure out that HAWC would be drawing water away from the many surrounding private wells sitting at a lesser depth. It is a reasonable assumption, based on HAWC's own report, that some of those wells could be at risk.
What can we do. Well, 1) Get HAWC and the DES to answer some very specific questions about what they are going to do BEFORE a problem occurs, or 2) Wait and see what happens, and if a well goes dry, see if HAWC will fix it, assuming they take responsibility.
Some previous statements here have suggested the people of Atkinson have nothing to worry about, everything will be just fine, and should be directing their attention elsewhere. You can make up your own mine who would benefit if all of Atkinson felt that way.
Smith & Wesson makes firearms that shoot bullets that have the "potential" of killing a person that owns a well in Atkinson. I think we should shut down the Smith & Wesson Company. Who's with me?
The Diamond Match Company makes matches, which have the "potential" of burning down houses of people who have wells in Atkinson. I think we should shut down the Diamond Match Company.
Who's with me?
All we'd have to do it start some petitions and get 50 signatures...
Well, he opened his mouth again, and with his latest examples there is absolutely no doubt. Unbelievable.
Anonymous June 25, 2008 1:39 PM asks:
Who's with me?
Answer: No one.
The bottom line is that large water withdrawals will deplete the resources and no one can predict who will be affected because we cannot know enough about the paths this water takes underground. It's a crap shoot, they can only guess, predict, and assume what may happen. But they can't know.
Post a Comment