Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Selectmen ask if they really have to enforce Voter passed Ordinance!

Yes, m fellow Atkinsonians, this is the road oft traveled in Atkinson. In March, the voters overwhelmingly passed an ordinance requiring water utilities drawing groundwater within Atkinson, to place flow meters on all mains connecting to neighboring towns, at the Town borders. Simple enough, right?

Not in Atkinson!

It appears that our erstwhile board of selectmen has directed the town administrator to write to the PUC of all people, to ask if they really have to enforce this! You've got to be kidding me! This is the Vietnam Honor Roll panels all over again, and we know how that turned out.

Why is it our selectmen can not simply do what the people direct them to do? This was a simple ordinance intended to verify HAWC's claims that their connection with Hampstead does not facilitate the pumping of Atkinson groundwater to Hampstead.

This is for the good of the town, we have no water sources here in town, all we have is our groundwater, and that is at the mercy of one company.

It infuriates the people of Atkinson when our elected officials feel that they have to ask the State if they really have to follow our wishes. And of all agencies to ask, the PUC??? This agency not only could care less about Atkinson's best interests, they have a dog in this fight, as they have some control of water management in the state. The selectmen are, in effect, asking them to rule against their own bureaucratic interests. What is the likelihood of THAT happening?

Selectmen all you have to do is your jobs. If the people tell you to do something you do it, end of discussion.

115 comments:

Anonymous said...

Where is Bennett now? He was a strong force behind fighting for the water rights and that helped him get elected. I do not understand this.

Anonymous said...

Public water supplies are regulated by the state, period. It is all well and good that we pass ordinances to protect our water, but unless the state agrees, the town is helpless.

Don't go blaming Bennett or any other BOS member. Blame your state representatives and the agency's they are supposed to regulate.

I'm sorry. This is not what you want to hear. You'd rather we grouse at our local official. But remember, nothing the town did had any effect on the water withdrawal requests and the pipeline. Why, the state supersedes local authority regarding this matter.

MAcciard said...

First of all this ordinance did not regulate the withdrawal of groundwater, which is within the State's purview. It simply required a flow meter, which the state has no say about. If you believe I am wrong, please show me the statute, placing flow meters under the State's jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

Well I do blame them for asking if they "really" have to enforce the town ordinance. The question itself is insulting to those who voted and if they had an issue with this, why didn't they raise it when the ordinance was being debated? What is the basis for their hesitation?

Anonymous said...

Article Submission

Frank Polito Named Atkinson Lions Club Citizen of the Year

Former Town Moderator and ZBA Chairman, Frank Polito, was recognized as the Lions Club Citizen of the Year. There's little doubt Mr. Polito donated a lot of his time over the many years he was public official in town. In recent years, the controversy and distractions he generated were less helpful and sometimes made no sense, walking a fine line between legal and illegal. He sued the town over an access road and his case was thrown out of court due to a lack of standing. He admitted in court documents he misunderstood RSA 91-A when as Moderator he tried to prevent his picture from legally being taken at town meeting and it was the final straw that led to ultimately led to his resignation after his insurance carrier dropped him.

What inquiring minds would like to know is what contributions justified his selection over hundreds of other residents who volunteered countless productive and valuable hours and manage to AVOID generating lawsuits. I can think of many people deserving such recognition. But must admit Mr. Polito wasn't the first name popping into my mind. Did he deserve the annual award which I presume is reflective of a person's contributions in the past year, since its an annual award? Or is it now a lifetime achievement award that was way past due? What do Lion's club members think? Do they all agree with chairman of the selection committee Phil Consentino's notion Frank deserved it? Or was it a political play by Phil to help his buddy Frank politically and a blatant misuse of Lion's Club good name? You make the call. Is he Citizen of the year or Jerk of the Year and why?

Anonymous said...

The award has no credibility, IMO. They're friends, it's a conflict of interest. Another conflict of interest that is, throw it on the heap.

Anonymous said...

Why can't the selectmen enforce the town vote and let the water company fight it in court if they so desire? Why try and help them out? The selectman obviously could care less about law suits so wtf?

Anonymous said...

Mark,

The DES has wide latitude in these situations. There does not necessarily need to be a law on the books for them to say no. They can make up a reason based on current regulations and precedent.

To save the town from yet another lawsuit I believe it was proper for the BOS to consult with the DES first. If the DES says no, I think the town will have a very hard time convincing, let alone forcing, Harold to cooperate. So far he's thumbed his nose at every attempt to regulate his business.

I applaud Carol's efforts and support them fully. However, in this case, without the DES's cooperation I don't think the town can make Harold do anything. I wish this weren't true, but it has not worked to date.

Anonymous said...

May 13, 2010 8:12 PM

HAWC is considered a public utility, even though it is privately owned. It is no different that Verizon or Unitil.

Say the town votes to have the utilities put all their wires underground and it passes. Now, do you think the utilities would just go ahead and do it?

Same with HAWC. They are regulated by the DES and the PUC. The sad truth is, the town cannot make HAWC do a thing.

HAWC fought against metering during the pipeline hearings. You think they are just going to roll over now and do it? The BOS is not the ones you should be complaining to. It's the DES and PUC.

Curt Springer said...

Mark,
NH is not a home rule state. That means that everything is under state jurisdiction.

It's not a matter of finding a statute that says that the town can't do something. You have to find a statute that says the town can do something. Otherwise it can't.

Anonymous said...

That a good reason to get HOME RULE back onto the books, so the polititions can't continue to steal our water and rights.

Anonymous said...

Well Mr. Springer. Now how do you get around the 28a isues raised by total state control/responsibility?
Thank you for acceptance of the associated costs. If you do not see this issue you have not looked at it from/with enough background.

Curt Springer said...

For those who don't know what "28a issues" means, here is Article 28-a of the NH state constitution:

[Art.] 28-a. [Mandated Programs.] The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.

November 28, 1984


This has nothing to do with the current discussion, which is about the town voluntarily trying to take on more responsibilities than are required or even allowed by state law.

Anonymous said...

Well again Mr. Springer. Read what is contained in SB 411 as ammended by the house and you will see that the bill now does not reserve for the towns but further removes the town. Like education was found as a state obligation so now is groundwater. And as passed obligates the state. If you still object you do not want to know or you ar just a contrarian. You arn't in touch with this issue are you? Maybe U just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?

Curt Springer said...

You are grasping at straws.

This discussion is not about pending state legislation. I have not had time to follow up on the other discussion thread about that.

This discussion is about the town's attempt to require metering on the HAWC pipelines at the town borders.

28-a does not come into play in cases where the town is voluntarily trying to do stuff. Just from what I recall reading in the other discussion thread, the current legislation is not mandating that the town take any action, so 28-a would not apply.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Springer
I again suggest you read before you shoot of your uninformed mouth. The question is one of inspection. The town has the authority to require inspection and conditions on cnnstructed facilities.

Curt Springer said...

Do you know for a fact that HAWC actually submitted to any sort of town inspection for its pipeline connecting to Hampstead?

And, if it did, it would have happened before your town meeting vote on 3/9/10.

Do you truly believe you could force HAWC to dig up an already installed pipeline to install a meter?

I don't, I think this is nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Mr. springer

Your rhetorical questions are nonsense. I agree with U. A lot of what U post is nonsense. Who do you try and persuade? Yourself??

CAROL GRANT said...

This is a copy of the first of two letters I sent to the PUC concerning the letter from the Atkinson BOS who were looking for an out -- an excuse to not have to enforce a legally passed and submitted 2010 town meeting warrant article.

Below is the FAX cover letter. The actually letter appears on the posting following this post.

Space formatting from Microsoft Word to fit a posting on Atkinson Reporter II gives the letter a squeezed together look.

10 May 2010

N. H. Public Utilities Commission
21 Fruit Street, Suite 10
Concord, New Hampshire, 03301

Attention: Commissioner Thomas Getz, Commissioner Amy Ignatius, Commissioner Clifton Below

Dear PUC Members,
With regard to the attached letter of May 7, please be advised that the intent of the recently passed Atkinson warrant article DOES NOT, in any way, challenge the legal authority of any state agency.
Additionally, Atkinson’s ordinance DOES NOT involve a challenge to any state regulatory or permitting system.

It is a stand-alone information-gathering ordinance. It is simply about a town’s right to pass an ordinance to meet the town people’s need to have necessary information about its most important resource, its water.

Certainly, there is no state pre-emption to a town simply gathering facts and relevant information concerning a most important natural resource, its groundwater. There certainly would be no state pre-emption issue against there being an informed citizenry in Atkinson -- or any N.H. town or municipality.

This FAX will be followed up by a hard-copy of this whole packet, minus this page which, unfortunately, was not included in the hard copy.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Carol A. GRANT (Mrs.)
19 Crown HILL
Atkinson, N.H. 03811

Mrs. Carol Grant said...

Below is the letter which my previous posting was a FAX cover letter to.

Because of space limitations for postings, the letter to PUC is being put on the Reporter in two parts.

May 7, 2010

Chairman Getz
Public Utility Commission
21 Fruit Street, Suite 10
Concord, N.. 03301-2429

RE: Enforcement of Atkinson’s Passed 2010 Water Metering Article

Dear Chairman Getz:

The Atkinson Selectmen’s Office just provided me with a copy of their April 29, 2010 letter to you inquiring as to whether the Town has the authority to enforce this passed Town Meeting article.

As a former Atkinson selectwoman, I was long ago advised by our Town Counsel that all ordinances passed by Town Meeting are the law and in effect until, and unless, a court rules otherwise. I assume that it is still not permitted for any state agency. including the PUC. to arbitrarily attempt to speak for the Court.

I was very disbelieving, but not surprised, when the Selectmen’s office provided me with a copy of their April 29 letter to you. It has become a problem in town that whenever our selectmen don’t want to enforce a law or passed ordinance that they just ignore the law or else seek to have some state agency validate their failure to enforce said ordinance, the voters be dammed. They are very close to having a Writ of Mandemas filed against them.

After a Sept. 2007 Special Town Meeting landslide passage of a warrant article concerning Atkinson‘s ground water, the Board of Selectmen again previously tried to thwart the will of the people and not enforce the article. They sent a letter to DES hoping DES would tell them that they didn’t have to enforce the law—as if a DES opinion had the force of law over a ruling of the Court -- which NO state agency has.

DES sent the Selectmen’s letter to the N.H. Attorney General’s office asking them to issue an opinion with regard to the passed ordinance. The AG’S office correctly responded to DES on Oct. 17, 2007, (copy enclosed) that

‘’ A legal determination of the constitutionally and legality of the ordinance is best resolved in private litigation between a party directly affected and the Town. Unlike a court decision, an opinion from this office will not act as binding legal authority.

Furthermore, the Office of the Attorney General generally does not provide legal opinions to municipalities or private citizens who are likely to become involved in litigation.’’

‘’…Your request…is for a general opinion on the validity of the Town of Atkinson’s water withdrawal ordinance. Given that the request for legal assistance appears to be prompted by the Town of Atkinson‘s letter seeking a legal opinion…..we respectfully decline to provide such an opinion at this time.''
------------------
Continued next comment

Mrs. Carol Grant said...

Part 2 --or previous posting:

The purpose of the warrant article copied to you by the Selectmen’s Office is to simply provide information to the town’s people concerning our groundwater resources.

As it clearly states in the Preamble to the warrant article,
‘’Atkinson has no internal reservoirs, lakes or rivers to provide a water supply for its residents, and therefore, must rely solely on our groundwater resources. ‘’

As a result, Atkinson residents are extremely concerned about our groundwater and want any and all available information concerning utilizations of our water resources.

We already have information about the number of gallons drawn out of water company wells, and the world didn’t come to an end because the townspeople know the information, which is their right to know.

They also logically want to know how much water is flowing out of town wells across our town borders, which is also their right to know. Hence, the warrant article.

Furthermore, as the Preamble to the warrant article also states and directly quotes from a 2007 DES Environmental Fact Sheet:
‘’In 1983, the NH legislature declared that surface water and groundwater are an integrated public resource to be conserved, protected and managed for the public good, and fundamental to sound management is knowledge of the utilization of our water resources.''

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Carol Grant (Mrs.)
19 Crown Hill
Atkinson, N.H. 03811

Curt Springer said...

Carol Grant wrote:

It is a stand-alone information-gathering ordinance. It is simply about a town’s right to pass an ordinance to meet the town people’s need to have necessary information about its most important resource, its water.

The town had no right to pass such an ordinance. There is no authorization in state law.

To put it more finely, the town has no right to enforce such an ordinance. Obviously, since there is no prior judicial review of proposed town ordinances, you can pass anything that pleases you, such as ordaining that the sun rise in the west.

And I was told by somebody in your town that it was not a "stand-alone" ordinance, that it was passed as an amendment to your zoning ordinance.

Anonymous said...

I believe that this is information that MUST be conveyed in all realestate transactions. It is a general concern and within the public view. Failure to have the complete information is like a stock sale without a public perspectus

Anonymous said...

Interesting, but not surprising that out-of-town Springer is once again imposing his ignorance and arrogance bu telling Atkinson voters what they can or can not do -- as if we care what he thinks.

If the pompus know-it-all had fully read Mrs. Grant's three posting, the Attorney General's office had clearly stated that only the court could make a ruling on the validity of any law or ordinance. Springer's well-known ego is now so out of control that he now considers his opinions the equal of court rulings.

What ever will Springer do if a judge should dare to have the nerve to make a ruling without first consulting with the Danvill know-it-all.

Instead of butting his unwanted nose into Atkinson affairs, perhaps he should try harassing judges to make rulings as he thinks they should be made.

Curt Springer said...

Carol Grant wrote:

As a former Atkinson selectwoman, I was long ago advised by our Town Counsel that all ordinances passed by Town Meeting are the law and in effect until, and unless, a court rules otherwise.

Either you got bad advice or you misunderstood it.

Curt Springer said...

Carol Grant wrote:

We already have information about the number of gallons drawn out of water company wells, and the world didn’t come to an end because the townspeople know the information, which is their right to know.

They also logically want to know how much water is flowing out of town wells across our town borders, which is also their right to know. Hence, the warrant article.


The people do not have a "right to know" whatever comes into their heads as being important. You have only the right to know information furnished to the state under state authority. You have the right to know the well information because the state required that information as part of its regulatory process. Evidently the state did not think it important to meter the flow between Hampstead and Atkinson and therefore did not require this information. The town of Atkinson has no independent right to require that information.

Anonymous said...

Someone who does not know that a Legeslative body IS correct until CONSTITUTIONaly invalidated is either a communist, idiot or A**H*LE.

Curt Springer said...

Your fallacy is to use the word "constitutional" with respect to a town government. Excepting 28-a and the other constitutional provision to allow a town to select its form of government, a town and its bodies (town meeting, selectmen) have no "constitutional" existence. There is no broad grant of authority to towns, only specific powers as detailed by the legislature.

In particular, I would call your attention to the fact that town officials swear an oath only to uphold state law. Town law (ordinances) is included by implication only to the extent that it is supported by state law.

While a town meeting can vote whatever it pleases, its actions are not effective unless carried out by town officials. A town meeting can not compel a local official to violate his oath to uphold state law. Nor can a town meeting give an official authority not supported by statute.

Curt Springer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Curt Springer said...

Mr. / Ms. Moderator,

The posting with my name, dated May 19, 2010 11:04 AM, was not created by me.

My understanding (we've been through this before) is that is a violation of the Google/blogger.com terms of service.

Goofy said...

Watch out for the hacker!

Cute Springed said...

How many more? How many more?
I am the real Cute Springed

_ said...

? what is going on here? There are so many -"characters" Owo is to be believed?

#^*@ @&%$ said...

So, your problem is that you have a common "display" name with others? Well isn't that a little whiney? After all it is just a display name not private information. In fact you asked that it be public didn't you. And you are attempting to use it to create some authority which does not exist. Get off the wagon if you don't like the horse.

Curt Springer said...

It's a blogger.com policy that is incorporated by reference into their terms of service:

Impersonating others: Please don't mislead or confuse readers by pretending to be someone else or pretending to represent an organization when you don't. We're not saying you can't publish parody or satire - just avoid content that is likely to mislead readers about your true identity.

I could file a complaint with blogger.com but I will trust the blog owner to take care of it as s/he has done in the past.

Anonymous said...

Why don't U start your own BLOG?
: You did but you don't let anyone that you don't agree with participate U say?

You say U would destroy this BLOG if the moderator doesn't comply with your wishes?
: Kind of spiteful arn't U?

Why are U here when you have nothing at risk and U arr both misinformed or wrong much of the time?
: Like the student who always sat in the front row, always asking questions or giving opinions that made the class eyes roll back. Yes that is U!

Anonymous said...

It is discoverable that YOU have a propensity for disparaging the people of other communities and in particular Atkinson on YOUR own blog. I would be careful of what I wished for.

Anonymous said...

MR/MRS Moderator

Mr Springer has published comments that are disparaging to the people of Atkinson. Both by name and as a community. He has no stake other than to offend this community. Pleas remove his offensive posts or I will complain to Google.
Thank You
An offended Blogger.

Curt Springer said...

I don't disparage the people of Atkinson. I just disagree with some people in Atkinson.

Curt Springer said...

Here is a recent article on Home Rule in NH that you might find helpful.

Curt Springer said...

Dillon's Rule determines the scope of powers of municipalities in NH

Quoting from a Wikipedia article (scroll down):

Dillon's Rule

The theory of state preeminence over local governments was expressed as Dillon’s Rule in an 1868 case: "Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Clinton v Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad,(24 Iowa 455; 1868). As opposed to Dillon's Rule, the Cooley Doctrine expressed the theory of an inherent right to local self determination. In a concurring opinion, Michigan Supreme Court Judge Thomas M. Cooley in 1871 stated: “[L]ocal government is a matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away.” People v. Hurlbut, (24 Mich 44, 95; 1871).

In Municipal Corporations (1872), Dillon explained that in contrast to the powers of states, which are unlimited but for express restrictions under the state or federal constitution, municipalities only have the powers that are expressly granted to them.[2] This formulation of the scope of municipal power came to be known as the "Dillon Rule," which states that municipal governments only have the powers that are expressly granted to them by the state legislature, those that are necessarily implied from that grant of power, and those that are essential and indispensable to the municipality's existence and functioning. Any ambiguities in the legislative grant of power should be resolved against the municipality so that its powers are narrowly construed. However, when the state has not specifically directed the method by which the municipality may implement its granted power, the municipality has the discretion to choose the method so long as its choice is reasonable.

Hundreds of U.S. court decisions to the present day have employed the Dillon Rule to determine the scope of municipal powers and rights. Critics of the Rule have argued that it imposes unreasonable constraints on the ability of communities to govern themselves and so undermines democracy, and even that local self-government is a matter of natural right that does not need to be conferred by higher political structures. It has also been suggested that Dillon's approach derived from the contemporary view that cities were inherently corrupt political organs. This was perhaps an often well-deserved judgment during his time, especially considering the extensive business ties and even investments of numerous cities and their leaders in the late 19th century. Deviations from the Dillon Rule remain in the minority, however, despite the significant decrease in the public perception of municipal corruption.

The Supreme Court of the United States cited Municipal Corporations and fully adopted Dillon's emphasis on state power over municipalities in Merrill v. Monticello, 138 U.S. 673 (1891), reaff'd. Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907), which upheld the power of Pennsylvania to consolidate two cities against the wishes of the majority of the residents in one. The Court's ruling that states could alter or abolish at will the charters of municipal corporations without infringing upon contract rights heavily relied upon Dillon's separation of public, municipal corporations from private ones.

Pittsburgh Regionalist David Y. Miller argues that Dillon hit upon a central paradox defining American cities: having great political authority while having little legal legitimacy. He quotes Dillon as calling municipalities "mere tenants at will of their respective state legislatures" which could be "eliminated by the legislature with a stroke of the pen." And yet, Dillon also said that eliminating local government would be "so great a folly, and so great a wrong."

Anonymous said...

You call it disagreement when it is disparagement coming from you but you have ZERO tolerance for any satire directed at your comments and you are too stuffy to see. So, If this moderator doesn't take corrective action I WILL COMPLAIN TO BOTH GOOGLE and include your webmaster address. Your name was NOT used in violation of GOOGLE rules but your defamation is.
Have A good day

Curt Springer said...

This is strange, postings show up then disappear.

Anon@May 19, 2010 7:42 PM, I did not object to any of the posts where people slightly altered my name, obviously these were not from me.

I only objected to the posting that used my name in such a way that at first glance it looked as though the post was authored by me.

Anonymous said...

You think you can "weasel" out of it but you use a "handle” That does not accurately represent your legal name and what you use is linked back to your web pages which contain uncorrected lies about Atkinson and the corrections are again repeated in this articles comments and you skirt around them and print things like Wikipedia articles which are about as reliable as chicken little because they are free thoughts and unverified. But truth may be a stranger to you but your fiction is not going to set well in Atkinson. Now we get the " oh my gosh what has the blog done to freedom" when YOU were the crybaby and, shall we say, less than candid (look that up in your Wikipedia) presentation.
The complaint status remains

Anonymous said...

You think you can "weasel" out of it but you use a "handle” That does not accurately represent your legal name and what you use is linked back to your web pages which contain uncorrected lies about Atkinson and the corrections are again repeated in this articles comments and you skirt around them and print things like Wikipedia articles which are about as reliable as chicken little because they are free thoughts and unverified. But truth may be a stranger to you but your fiction is not going to set well in Atkinson. Now we get the " oh my gosh what has the blog done to freedom" when YOU were the crybaby and, shall we say, less than candid (look that up in your Wikipedia) presentation.
The complaint status remains

Anonymous said...

You think you can "weasel" out of it but you use a "handle” That does not accurately represent your legal name and what you use is linked back to your web pages which contain uncorrected lies about Atkinson and the corrections are again repeated in this articles comments and you skirt around them and print things like Wikipedia articles which are about as reliable as chicken little because they are free thoughts and unverified. But truth may be a stranger to you but your fiction is not going to set well in Atkinson. Now we get the " oh my gosh what has the blog done to freedom" when YOU were the crybaby and, shall we say, less than candid (look that up in your Wikipedia) presentation.
The complaint status remains

Anonymous said...

You think you can "weasel" out of it but you use a "handle” That does not accurately represent your legal name and what you use is linked back to your web pages which contain uncorrected lies about Atkinson and the corrections are again repeated in this articles comments and you skirt around them and print things like Wikipedia articles which are about as reliable as chicken little because they are free thoughts and unverified. But truth may be a stranger to you but your fiction is not going to set well in Atkinson. Now we get the " oh my gosh what has the blog done to freedom" when YOU were the crybaby and, shall we say, less than candid (look that up in your Wikipedia) presentation.
The complaint status remains

Curt Springer said...

Oh this is rich, somebody posts **anonymously** to criticize me about how I use my name on public web sites.

99.99% of people know me as "Curt Springer", and that is the name I use on all email accounts that I have and all web site accounts.

My formal first name is Curtis and my middle name begins with "H". I sign all legal documents as "Curtis H. Springer." My full legal name including first name, middle name, and last name appears on my birth certificate, on my passport, and on church registries. Having googled it and having come up with no hits, I see no compelling reason to reveal it here.

Regarding the use of Wikipedia as a source, your position is simply a cop-out and refusal to face facts. Yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for controversial topics such as "Barack Obama." But it is reliable for noncontroversial topics.

And you are not bound to rely on Wikipedia, just because I cited it. Google "Dillon's Rule" or "Dillon Rule" and you will find many other web sites that corroborate what I quoted from Wikipedia. You won't find any site that differs from what I quoted.

I have never lied about Atkinson in anything I have written. I say that with confidence because in order to lie one must not only state something that is untrue, one must also state it knowing that it is untrue and with the intent to deceive the target of one's statements or writings.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never stated anything about Atkinson that is untrue. But if you disagree, please cite what I said or wrote and why you believe it was untrue.

Anonymous said...

Well Mr. CS feel free to step forward into the public light and receive your due share of parody and satire. You have presented nothing that provides a basis for complaint.

Anonymous said...

Curtis Howe Springer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Curtis Howe Springer (December 2, 1896 – August 19, 1985)[1] was an American radio evangelist, self-proclaimed medical doctor and Methodist minister best known for founding the Zzyzx Mineral Springs resort in the California desert. In actuality, Springer was neither a doctor nor a minister.[2]Springer was a private in the United States Army.[1]Springer was a radio evangelist in the 1930s, starring at KDKA in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He had already founded or managed six other resorts by the time he founded Zzyzx, California, in 1944.[3]In 1944, Springer and his fiancĂ© filed a mining claim on federal land to 12,800 acres (51.8 km²) of desert, claiming a tract about 8 miles (13 km) long and 3 miles (4.8 km) wide.[2] The land contained the remains of an 1860 Army post and a railroad station on the defunct Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad. On this land, which he called "a mosquito swamp"[3] but named Zzyzx, Springer erected a sixty-room hotel, a church, a cross-shaped health spa with mineral baths, a radio broadcast studio, a private airstrip dubbed "Zyport" and several other buildings which included a castle. The "Boulevard of Dreams" was a divided parkway leading to an oasis on Lake Tuendae, later identified as the habitat of the endangered Mohave chub.[2] While building his retreat, he spent half the week in Los Angeles, still recording his radio program, and rounding up workers to build his new resort by offering room and board at Zzyzx in exchange for labor.[3]
From Zzyzx, Springer continued his syndicated radio program, at one point carried by 221 stations in the United States and 102 more abroad, mixing religious music and his own radio evangelism. Along with this came his requests that listeners send him "donations" to get his special cures for everything from hair loss to cancer. The potions were actually little more than a blend of celery, carrot and parsley juices.[2] The Zzyzx Springs experience itself included goat milk; allegedly life-prolonging "Antedeluvian Tea"; a $25, self-administered hemorrhoid cure; more solicitations for "donations"; and a twice-daily sermon over the loudspeakers.[3]
By the late 1960s, Springer had begun marking off lots on the land and allowing "donors" of large sums of money to his ministry to build homes on the lots. This caught the attention of federal officials.[3] While Springer had posted mining claims in the area, under the General Mining Law of 1872, it was still public land until such time that he validated the claims for patent by proving to federal government geologists that the claim contained minerals that could be extracted at a profit.
The federal government took Springer to court claiming he was squatting on federal land.[2] In 1974, he was found guilty of the charge. He offered to pay $34,187 in back rent on the land to the Bureau of Land Management, but the government refused the payment and evicted him and his few hundred local followers.[3] Springer was also arrested for making false claims about his products.[2] He was represented in court by criminal attorney Gladys Towles Root. In the trial, Springer was convicted of false advertising. He filed several appeals on this conviction, and two years later ended up serving 49 days of a 60-day sentence.
Following the eviction, in 1976, the Bureau of Land Management allowed the California State University to manage the facilities and land in and around Zzyzx. A consortium of CSU campuses now use Springer's former resort as their Desert Studies Center.[2]
According to the journal Word Ways and the book Weird California, Springer died in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 1986 at the age of 90;[2][3] cemetery records show his death date as August 19, 1985, and a birthdate that would have made him 89.[1] He was buried in the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, California, on April 26, 1991.[1]

Curt Springer said...

LOL, I should have known that somebody would find the more famous Curtis H. Springer.

You can also google zzyzx, his desert resort on stolen land.

Today it is the Desert Studies Center. Looks like an interesting place to visit.

I don't know of any family relationship with Curtis Howe Springer.

If, like me, he was descended from Charles (Carl) Springer (1658-1738), then he would have been a distant cousin.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Curt Springer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Once again, Springer is attacking Atkinson residents -- Carol Grant - who he disagrees with -- and very cowardly taking advantage of the fact that she continues to ingore him and won't respond to him. Any way he can get attention for himself, he does, including attacking a woman who refuses to respond to his attacks or to his desperate need for attention attack.

Springer attacked Mrs. Grant's intelligence by saying that she has been 'thoroughly duped by CELDF,'(whoever they are). Did you ever even ask her for her opinion about CELDF? Or did you just very irresponsibly make your own assumptions to justify your own position. That's why the word 'ass' is part of 'assume' and 'assumption.'

If you had the intelligence to have used due diligence instead of spouting off because you're in love with the sound of your own voice, you would have known that Mrs. Grant has never cited CELDF, praised them, or ever even mentioned them in any way. She has never marched to someone else's drum.

I am one of the many who signed the petition for the water metering warrant article. We talked about it and at that time, Mrs. Grant mentioned that she
had run the article by a lawyer, who satisfied with its legality, then ALSO signed the petition.
So, once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Springer, you keep stating your own unwarranted opinions about whether Atkinson's various ordinances are enforceable by law. The truth is that it's none of your business and you have absolutely no credentials to speak on any legal matter.

You are just not intelligent enouth to understand and grasp the fact that legality and enforcement of any town's ordinances are strictly only up to the courts to determine. Furthermore, the courts have NEVER made any announcement turning their authority over to an egomaniac like yourself who thinks he knows everything.

Finally, Atkinson has one of the toughest wetlands ordinances in the state -- thanks to Mrs. Grant's efforts. (I also signed that petition of hers many years ago.) At the time, there were some Springer-types (weak-kneed whiners and nay-sayers) who are only capable of using the words 'can't' or else 'unenforceable by law.'

Lewis Builders took the town to court to challenge Atkinson's ordinances, especially its tough wetlands ordinance. The selectmen then didn't take a weak 'Springer-type' position of 'can't. Instead they
stood up for the wishes of the townspeople and backed them in court. Atkinson easily won in court, with the NH Supreme Court declining to hear the case on appeal. I have no doubt if the blog had existed then, you would
have been mouthing off with your usual weak-kneed position of 'can't.'

Also, for your information (which you're not interested in), none of Atkinson's wetlands ordinances have ever been thrown out by any court. That must be very disappointing to you -- chops your legs right out from under you.

Curt Springer said...

Hey I'm not against towns creating local ordinances to protect the environment -- as long as they are enforceable under state law. I was the chairman of the Danville Conservation Commission in 1986. We worked with the planning board and selectmen to create a wetland protection overlay district, requiring setbacks from wetlands. We worked with **NH** experts and made every effort to ensure that we were asking our townspeople to vote on something that was practical, effective, and enforceable.

CELDF is the organization that wrote the Atkinson ordinance. Or at least they wrote the bulk of it, and then Mrs. Grant and/or others tweaked it somewhat. When you asked her about legal advice, she didn't tell you that it was the CELDF lawyer(s), not any NH municipal lawyer, that had signed off on it.

The CELDF doesn't care whether these ordinances are found to be legal or not. They actually want them to be shot down in court so that they can bring a case to the US Supreme Court on their "rights-based" ideology.

As for the continued assertion that these ordinances are enforceable unless and until a court declares that they are not, how do you explain the fact that the Atkinson groundwater withdrawal ordinance is acknowledged by all to be a dead letter. No court has issued a ruling, to my knowledge.

The answer is that ordinances are not effective unless carried out by local or state officials, and you cannot force officials to violate their oaths to uphold state law by passing local ordinances that lack any authority that anybody can find in the state statutes.

Mr. K Grant said...

Springer,
In Atkinson it is unacceptable to cyber-harass or cyber- stalk women to try to get them to dialogue with you.
Maybe in Danville it is acceptable to disrespect women, but Atkinson has higher standards.

My wife has never posted on the blog to you or about you. Yet, you have shown yourself incapable of the same concerning her. You cite her name repeatedly, usually in a disrespectful manner. Perhaps you think that by continually disrespecting her, you can get her
to personally react to you and post a response to you.

It ain’t going to happen. In spite of the many people phoning her and telling her not to take your garbage, she still declines to deal with someone for whom she
has no respect. Her opinion of you is too low.

Arrogance in others,like yours, has always been a turn-off for her, as is discourtesy. In all of the years that we have lived in Atkinson, my wife has never been
discourteous or rude to anyone. She is too much of a lady. So being subjected to it by you is offensive to her.

On any manner, my wife will and does dialogue with Atkinson residents about Atkinson business. What happens here is the business of Atkinsonians, and not some out-of-towner trying to get attention. You have your own blog. Why don’t you use it?

You can’t seem to do a posting without mentioning her name or going after her. You seem to think
that someone with no credibility like yourself, can somehow get credibility by engaging in personal attacks on someone with credibility.

I think that you ‘re just plain out jealous of her credibility because you have none.

In any case, as her husband, cease and desist both your false statements and your tactics to try to get my wife to respond to you or recognize your existence.


BLOG Mgr. please take note.

Anonymous said...

Imagine what it must be like living with him. My heart goes out to Mrs. Springer and the kids.

Anonymous said...

TWELVE TIMELY AND PERTINENT QUESTIONS.

1. Has Springer ever taken the NH Bar Exam?-------------------NO
2. Is Springer a lawyer?-------NO
3. Does Springer have a law degree? -------NO
4. Did Springer ever attend law school? ------NO
5. Did Springer go to law school as a part-time student? -----NO
6. Has Springer ever clerked for any judge or lawyer?----------NO
7. Has Springer ever had any formal training in the law?----NO
9. Have the Danville Selectmen ever engaged Springer's services as their legal adviser or consultant?-------------------NO
10. Has Danville Town Counsel ever consulted with Springer on legal matters?----NO
11. Have the Atkinson selectmen ever hired or engaged Springer's services(?) as a legal adviser/consultant?-----------NO
12. Has any court or judge consulted with Springer on what is or isn't legally enforceable --NO

12. In summary, does Springer have ANY legal qualifications at all to tell Atkinson voters anything at all?-----------------------NO

If you check the time of all of Springer's postings, it would appear that the first thing he does on waking, through out his mornings, at lunchtime, during the afternoons, and every evening, is
to go to the Atkinson blog to post his un-credentialed and un-qualified legal pronouncements.

This guy needs a life!!

Curt Springer said...

Mr. Grant,
You seem to want to portray yourself as the erstwhile defender of women on this blog.

Yet several women have been trashed on this blog, women who have not even posted (AFAIK), and there hasn't been a peep from you:
-- Dale Childs
-- Sue Killam
-- Barbara Snicer

Your wife came into this discussion of her own volition and posted opinions that were patent nonsense. My criticism has been rather mild by the standards of this blog. Basically I think that she has wasted peoples' time and some of their tax dollars in quixotic missions to assert local control of groundwater contrary to state law.

I reject your attempt to paint me as some sort of sexist or misogynist. I said nothing about your wife or her positions that I would not have said if she were a man. I deal successfully and joyfully with many women in positions of authority in various areas of my life, including the pastor of my church. My best friend in Danville is Betsy Sanders, town treasurer and state representative.

It is not "harassment" or "stalking" simply to express disagreement with another person's statements or opinions, as I have done.

I have never once said or implied that your wife owes me any response. Frankly, I don't think she has any response, and that is why there is all this personal invective from you and others.

To anon@May 23, 2010 5:59 PM, you are correct, I have no professional qualifications. As one of my friends said, "The most annoying thing about Curt is that he ia always right."

The proof is in the pudding. I told you all before your first vote that the groundwater withdrawal ordinance would be unenforceable. I will tell you now that you will never force HAWC to dig up their pipe at the town line and install a flow meter.

And I agree, it's your town and your decisions, not mine. If you want to take Carol Grant's word and pass some ordinance next year, feel free.

Anonymous said...

Springer, get a life and not here in our town.

Anonymous said...

Curt Springer reminds me of that know-it-all on Cheers, Cliff Clavin. At least Cliff was funny!

Anonymous said...

"I will tell you now that you will never force HAWC to dig up their pipe at the town line and install a flow meter."

Equipment and it's installation is a recoverable expense and becomes part of the capital value of HWAC. The PUC allows the rate structure to reflect costs and reasonable ROI. Therefore, there is no reasonable objection too be made against a flow meter, UNLESS, there are "other" motivations.

The same questions should be asked of both the Atkinson BOS and posters on this BLOG. Why are YOU in the "tank" for HWAC? What are the true motivatioins?

MAcciard said...

Mr. Springer,

With all due respect, I usually find your comments insightful, well-researched, and at least worthy of debate.

However there is one facet of this new meter ordinance recently passed at town meeting that you may have overlooked;

It is not affecting or regulating the extraction, withdrawal, or transportation of ground water, merely requiring a flow meeter to be put in the main as it crosses the town line, to record the flow of our water, being a precious resource to the town.

I can find no law enabling the PUC or the DEs to have jurisdiction over this ordinance.

And as another matter, any ordinance may be passed by town meeting. The selectmen are bound to enforce it until such time as it is challenged, and overturned in Court. Only the Judiciary has the authority to undo an act of the Legislative body, as far as I can tell.

Curt Springer said...

Mark,
Thanks for your comment.

I will reply tomorrow.

-- Curt

Anonymous said...

Mr. Springer: I appreciate all opinions and comments. Please feel free to post here whenever you like. Nobody owns this space or free speech. I'm inclined to believe the blog haters don't appreciat your opinions because you might educate us about something, whether we like it or not. Post away and ignore those who try to control the dialogue.

I appreciate your insight and opinions. Whether I choose to believe or trust them are my responsibility and up to my research to prove one way or the other.

Curt Springer said...

Mark (let's be on first name terms, OK?),
Here is my reply:

You wrote:

It is not affecting or regulating the extraction, withdrawal, or transportation of ground water, merely requiring a flow meeter to be put in the main as it crosses the town line, to record the flow of our water, being a precious resource to the town.

I can find no law enabling the PUC or the DEs to have jurisdiction over this ordinance.


Please read what I posted earlier in this discussion about "Dillon's Rule," which applies in NH and makes it clear that the town has no authority that is not specifically granted by the legislature. It is not enough to find that there is no law barring a local action. You have to find a law that specifically allows a local action, otherwise it is invalid.

From the 2009 edition of "Knowing The Territory," a handbook published by the NH Local Government Center (LGC) for local government officials:

Usually, the legislature provides authority to municipalities in the language of a state statute. The statutes are published as the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSAs). In general, when a question comes up about whether a municipality or a particular local board or official has authority to take a certain action, the municipality, board and/or official must find a law that grants them that authority to act. It is not enough to conclude that there is no law prohibiting the action. Silence in the law should generally be interpreted as a prohibition against that particular municipal action.

You wrote:

And as another matter, any ordinance may be passed by town meeting. The selectmen are bound to enforce it until such time as it is challenged, and overturned in Court. Only the Judiciary has the authority to undo an act of the Legislative body, as far as I can tell.

Imagine the injustice that could result from this approach.

I know from what you have posted that you operate a home cleaning business.

Suppose you accept what I have written about a town needing statutory authority to act.

And suppose that some citizens think that the town needs to know if home cleaning businesses are polluting the groundwater with the cleaning chemicals that are used. So they petition a warrant article that requires a test well at each customer site. Town officials start harassing you and your customers about this. They tell you that they have to harass you about this because the town passed this warrant article, even though they admit that the town lacks statutory authority. So you go to court, at some expense, and the court rules against the town.

Then the petitioners petition a special town meeting, which does not need court approval because there are no budgetary issues. They pass a slightly different version of the warrant article that was rejected by the court. The local officials start to harass you again, acknowledging that the new ordinance is essentially the same as the old ordinance, and just as invalid, but different enough that they won't stop enforcement actions against you unless and until you go to court again.

This could go on for years.

What should happen is that local officials should review local ordinances in light of state law. If they can't find statutory authority, they shouldn't try to enforce them. If one of the petitioners is unhappy with this, they are free to go to court to try to compel the official to enforce the law. But in order to do this, they will need to cite specific statutory authority for the ordinance. If they cite no specific authority, or if the court does not agree, they will not get the relief that they seek.

To Anonymous@May 25, 2010 3:48 PM:

Thank you for your kind comments. I know there are people who are receptive to my remarks, but it is nice to get confirmation every so often. I'm happy to engage with anybody on facts and issues.

MAcciard said...

Curt, (I accept your invitation) Please do not give our town officials any new ideas! Something similar, though less involved, DID take place, 4 years ago, at the hands of then selectman Jack Sapia, who, on his own authority, tried to order the health officer to take core samples of a catch basin behind the fire station because he insisted that I had dumped waste water there when I hadn't. He knew that, but tried to use the town authority to pursue me anyway, much as the chief did to the Grants.

Anonymous said...

The debate of Atkinson water metering law has gone well beyond cavil.

Let us first address Atkinson: Upon examination of statutory authority related to:
Planning, zoning, master plan development, conservation, data collection and mapping, health, safety and general welfare of the community any reasonable examiner may find more than sufficient authority.

Next, let us look at the Legislative intent and directive relative to the precise data seeks to capture. RSA Chapter 488 contains this statute. (Reprinted in the following articles for your review). In general, stating that the data Atkinson seeks, is available and obtainable by 91-A . But it is not and the agency responsible will likely Quibble away the responsibility for compliance. Note that the statute, the multiple watersheds (5-6) composing Atkinson geographically will require a much broader application of metering as Atkinson’s immediate requirements are but a sub-set of a sub-set of this statute.

I reprint RSA 488 in the below comments.

Anonymous said...

Section 488:5
488:5 Application for Registration. – Registration shall be in a form prescribed by the commissioner.
Source. 2005, 240:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Section 488:6
488:6 Recordkeeping. – The registrant shall keep records that include the amount of water being withdrawn, discharged, or transferred, the location, the frequency, date, time, and the rate of withdrawal, discharge, or transfer and other information the commissioner may require to fulfill the purpose of this chapter. The registrant shall submit records to the department in a form and at a frequency prescribed by the commissioner.
Source. 2005, 240:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Section 488:7
488:7 Compliance. –
I. Registration and withdrawal of water under RSA 488:3 shall be deemed to grant permission to the department to enter onto the registered property to review compliance with the provisions of the registration.
II. Upon obtaining credible information that any person is not registered in accordance with RSA 488:3, I and is withdrawing, discharging, or transferring a cumulative amount of more than 20,000 gallons of water per day, averaged over any 7-day period, or more than 600,000 gallons of water over any 30-day period, at a single real property or place of business, the department may obtain an administrative inspection warrant in accordance with RSA 595-B to determine compliance with the registration requirements.
Source. 2005, 240:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Section 488:8
488:8 Administrative Fines. –
I. The commissioner, after notice and hearing pursuant to RSA 541-A, may impose an administrative fine not to exceed $2,000 for each offense upon any person who knowingly:
(a) Violates any provision of this chapter or any rule or order adopted or issued under it.
(b) Makes any material false statement in any document required to be filed or maintained.
(c) Renders inaccurate, falsifies, or tampers with any monitoring device or method.
II. Rehearings and appeals from a decision of the commissioner under this section shall be in accordance with RSA 541.
III. Any administrative fine imposed under this section shall not preclude the imposition of further penalties under this chapter. The commissioner may assess additional fines upon any person who has received written notification from the department regarding violations of the provisions of this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter, if the violations have not been mitigated within 30 days of receipt of notification.
Source. 2005, 240:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2007.

Section 488:9
488:9 Rulemaking. – The commissioner shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to:
I. The content and structure of all forms pertaining to registrations to be received or issued by the department, including information and other materials to be submitted with the registration.
II. The form, content, structure, and frequency of filing of the records required under this chapter. The commissioner shall balance resource management objectives with the economic impact of filings when determining the substance of this rule and shall also give consideration to proprietary and confidentiality concerns.
III. Criteria and methodology for water withdrawal, transfer, and discharge measurement.
IV. Criteria to identify actions that constitute withdrawals, transfers, or discharges required to be registered pursuant to this chapter.
V. A schedule of administrative fines which may be imposed under this chapter for violation of this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter.
VI. Procedures for notice and hearing prior to the imposition of an administrative fine.
Source. 2005, 240:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Anonymous said...

TITLE L
WATER MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
CHAPTER 488
WATER MANAGEMENT
Section 488:1
488:1 Statement of Purpose. – This chapter provides for uniform statewide collection of water use data to understand how water resources are utilized in the state by establishing procedures and standards for the registration, measurement, and reporting of water use. The legislature recognizes the fundamental importance of water resources and intends to provide a framework to obtain and maintain basic water use data for the state. The legislature recognizes that information describing the major water uses of the state along with assessing the amount of water in a given watershed or aquifer are integral to all water resource quantity assessments and management decisions. Water use data is necessary to understand the effects of cumulative uses, transfers, discharges, and consumptive water losses in aquifers and watersheds in the state. Water use data also identifies the quantity and timing of existing water uses, and this information can be used to estimate future water needs of the state. Water use data is also necessary for verifying compliance with and equitable enforcement of state laws pertaining to groundwater and surface water.
Source. 2005, 240:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Section 488:2
488:2 Definitions. – In this chapter:
I. ""Commissioner'' means the commissioner of the department of environmental services.
II. ""Department'' means the department of environmental services.
III. ""Discharge'' means the return of water to the environment.
IV. ""Groundwater'' means subsurface water that occurs beneath the water table in soils and geologic formations.
V. ""Person'' means any individual, partnership, company, public or private corporation, political subdivision or agency of the state, department, agency or instrumentality of the United States, or any other legal entity.
VI. ""Surface waters'' means any lake, pond, river, stream, wetland, or tidal waters.
VII. ""Transfer'' means any conveyance of water from one real property or place of business to another or incorporation into a product for subsequent distribution.
VIII. ""Withdrawal'' means the removal or collection of water by pumping or gravity from surface water or groundwater.
Source. 2005, 240:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Section 488:3
488:3 Registration Required. –
I. No person shall withdraw or discharge a cumulative amount of more than 20,000 gallons of water per day, averaged over any 7-day period, or more than 600,000 gallons of water over any 30-day period, at a single real property or place of business without registering the withdrawal or discharge with the department. Transfers of such volume of water shall also be registered. Registration shall be in addition to any required permits.
II. No registration shall be transferred to another person without written notification to the commissioner.
Source. 2005, 240:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Section 488:4
488:4 Measurement Required. – Each withdrawal, discharge, or transfer required to be registered under this chapter shall be metered or measured by a technically appropriate and verifiable method approved by the commissioner. Withdrawals and discharges shall be measured at the point of withdrawal or discharge, respectively. Transfers shall be measured at a technically appropriate point approved by the commissioner.
Source. 2005, 240:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.

Anonymous said...

That is ridiculous! He wanted to hold you responsible for anything that was found in a catch basin, in public, on town property, as if you would be solely to blame if something was found? Give me a break! How totally insane.

Anonymous said...

Does the Town have the authority to give away federal grant equipment to the school?

Does the Town have the authority to refuse to give RTK information to residents?

Does the Town have the right to allow taxpayer funds be used for private corporations?

No, but they do it anyway.

Curt Springer said...

Thanks for finding Chapter 488.

Now it is clear that the collection of water data is directed entirely by the state.

Everyone (be it the town government or an individual) has the right to obtain the information that the state has ordered HAWC to supply.

But clearly there is no basis for the town to direct HAWC to supply any particular information.

Quoting from the law:
488:4 Measurement Required. – Each withdrawal, discharge, or transfer required to be registered under this chapter shall be metered or measured by a technically appropriate and verifiable method approved by the commissioner. Withdrawals and discharges shall be measured at the point of withdrawal or discharge, respectively. Transfers shall be measured at a technically appropriate point approved by the commissioner.

488:2 Definitions. – In this chapter:
- - -
VII. ""Transfer'' means any conveyance of water from one real property or place of business to another or incorporation into a product for subsequent distribution.


Note that there is no mention of municipal boundaries. Based on the definition of "transfer" I don't see that even the DES has authority to order metering at the town line.

Anonymous said...

WARNING!!
DO NOT "CHERRY PICK" THE STATUTE.
Anyone who does this is deceiving you.
It says what it says- in plain English.
The statute expresses the legislative intent and purpous.
The DATA as prescribed is either there or there is a lacking in compliance.
Re: Atkinson statute is not this legislation nor does it require anything more than the multitude of authorizations provided by the legislature. With the value of the stated purpous provided thereby excluding any arguement that the town is legislating in either an arbitrary or caprecious manner.

Big point- debate concludes in favor of town. As stated- further arguement beyond cavil.

Curt Springer said...

Some background that you might find interesting:

Atkinson Planning Board Minutes of 1/5/10

Curt Springer said...

To anon@May 26, 2010 4:45 PM:

I am not cherry picking. Chapter 488 gives no authority whatsoever to a town. If you think it does, please quote the relative phrase(s).

Anonymous said...

9:10 PM said
“Some background that you might find interesting:”

Only as an exemplar of ineptitude and lousy government.

PB members voting on questions the individually have prior stated positions. The most common cause for overturning PB decisions.

“Musical chairs” with H. Morse “jumping” in and out of votes and discussions he has a clear interest/conflict in as president of HAWC and as member and former chairman of the PB.

Clear misdirection and misinformation by PB members on monitoring conditions, authority and amount and application of fines. Likely meant to misdirect and mislead.

And omissions, in the minutes, of Clear “fibs” by Bennet after prompting RE; Advice and NONEXISTANCE of opinion as to the legal status and authority from the NH AG. (NOTE- Bennet”s comments were reprinted in 9:10’s Personal BLOG and has never been corrected after their falsehood was demonstrated.)

Anonymous said...

4:45

Yes you are "cherry picking" 488 and to state otherwise is a lie.

For those among us who can read- It is clearly stated that The Atkinson ordinance does NOT rely on 488 for authority. As stated Atkinson has more than adequate authority in OTHER statutes. I leave further discovery to the interested. Do not say no unless you disqualify each statute individually and by itself or it will be concluded that you are obfuscating again.

Curt Springer said...

You are writing in a sort of cryptic shorthand and it has been difficult for me to understand exactly what your thinking is.

Here's what I **think** you are thinking and why I think you are wrong.

You wrote:

The debate of Atkinson water metering law has gone well beyond cavil.

Let us first address Atkinson: Upon examination of statutory authority related to:
Planning, zoning, master plan development, conservation, data collection and mapping, health, safety and general welfare of the community any reasonable examiner may find more than sufficient authority.


You are wrong. You will not find any statute that gives the town of Atkinson authority to compel the HAWC to install a flow meter at the town line.

In particular, I think you might be inferring too much from one or more statutes that mention "data collection." These might give authority to the town to collect and assemble existing data, including information furnished to the state as part of state regulatory processes. But they do not give the town authority to compel private companies to create data that they don't have, e.g. by installing a meter, or even to furnish information that they have but were not already required to furnish by some state or local regulatory process. The statutes would give the town authority to request information, but the private party would not be obligated to produce it.

Anonymous said...

1:13

police powers

Anonymous said...

Forget "the statutes", forget "the authority". Send HAWC a stern message. Until you meter your water line at the Atkinson Hampstead border it'll be WATERLESS WEDNESDAYS in Atkinson.
Don't flush those toilets, water those lawns, wash those cars, run those dishwashers or washing machines. Don't use a drop of water on Wednesday. And if you feel the need for a shower go visit Curt Springer in Danville. He's full of it. Spread the word!

Curt Springer said...

Wikipedia article on the police power

The police power is a power of the state. As I have already stated, you need to find a statute that delegates authority to the town. You won't find one.

Anonymous said...

8:08
You truly have the mind of a 2 year old. When you reach the age of reason stop back. Until then, the answer to circular questions is NO! Even a two year old quickly adapts to NO!
The questions you ask have been repeatedly answered. Around 5 "you"- others of reasonable intellect- learn to read.

Anonymous said...

Curt,
Thanks for trying to get people to see the legal aspects, I for one appreciate it.

Some people have an overly entitled attitude thinking that they are above the law, and law only applies if it is in their favor.

As with Anonymous May 28 8:08am, try as you might, you can lead a thirsty horse (here a jack as.) to water but you can't make them drink (here on Wednesdays).

Anonymous said...

yup, Curt S is to be commended for trying to get this handful to understand State Law. They can bash him all they want, it isn't going to have any impact on State Law. It's fun watching this game, of the Do-ers vs. the Do-nots, (aka whiners + complainers.) Where are those White Hats on White Horses who think they can fix everything in Atkinson? Time to come riding in and be the leaders who solve all these conflicts. lol.

Anonymous said...

Planning Board member Tim,

1. When Springer on May 18, 7:51 stated 'I was told by someone in your town....' who do you think is his source, his 'boy,' his 'patsy' in town? Who do you suppose is feeding him items to go after your town?

2. When Springer on May 26, 9:10 referenced the Atkinson Planning Board minutes of 1/5, who do you think was the planning board member who provided him with dates of what was covered at specific meetings?

3. Which planning board member regularly consults with Springer?

3. Which planning board member has several times in the past, on the blog, fawned over Springer?
Do you lick his boots, too?

If you're going to attack the voting results of Atkinson town meeting which passed something you opposed, at least have the guts to stop cowardly signing your postings as Anonymous.

Curt Springer said...

To anon@May 29, 2010 8:15 PM

Not that it's any of your business, but I did not say it was a planning board member. The person told me that they have never posted here.

As for the date of the minutes, it just happened to be the most recent minutes that were on the town web site when I went looking a few days ago. I thought it might be worth looking at those minutes because Danville and Atkinson are on the same time schedule for SB2 warrant articles and zoning questions, and that is the time when petitioned zoning questions are discussed by the Danville planning board.

I have never been Tim D's or anybody else's mouthpiece when posting here.

Curt Springer said...

Boston Globe Article:

Should nature be able to take you to court?

tim dziechowski said...

To anon@May 29, 2010 8:15 PM

I have never posted here as anonymous. Unlike you I don't feel the need to hide.

How on earth would you know what I do and do not oppose? I may vote against some proposals on the PB because of legal issues, and then vote for the same proposals at the ballot because of personal belief.

I voted against the water metering proposal on the planning board because it was proposed as zoning, and as written I don't think it would survive a court challenge.

However I disagree with Curt that towns do not have any powers under state law to regulate water utilities. Our powers derive from
RSA 485-C:20.

Senate bill 411 was modified in the house to restrict local control. However that was challenged by the senate and the conference committee status as of 5/25 is in House Record Vol 32 #43:

SB 411, relative to permitting of large groundwater withdrawals.
The House and Senate conferees agreed to eliminate unnecessary controversial provisions in the House bill and return to the basic purpose of the bill – to reinforce that the issuance of a state large groundwater permit does not relieve applicants of the need to comply with local regulations.

MAcciard said...

And I would like to point out to both Tim and Curt, that this ordinance has nothing to do with regulating the withdrawal of groundwater. merely reporting the volume of water moving across town lines.

Curt Springer said...

Tim D wrote:

However I disagree with Curt that towns do not have any powers under state law to regulate water utilities. Our powers derive from
RSA 485-C:20.


RSA 485-C:20 reads:

485-C:20 Effect on Local Ordinances. – Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to preempt the authority of municipalities, under other statutes, to enact local ordinances or regulations affecting groundwater, other than groundwater withdrawals; provided, however, that requirements imposed under this chapter shall be considered as minimum.

RSA 485-C:20 provides no authority whatsoever to towns beyond what they already have under other statutes.

It does explicitly forbid towns from citing a grant of authority from another statute in order to regulate withdrawal of groundwater.

Mark Acciard wrote:

And I would like to point out to both Tim and Curt, that this ordinance has nothing to do with regulating the withdrawal of groundwater. merely reporting the volume of water moving across town lines.

Mark, I agree, but you need to find statutory authority to require this regulation, and it appears that this is entirely pre-empted by the state requirements of reporting contained in Chapter 488 Water Management.

tim dziechowski said...

"merely reporting the volume of water moving across town lines."

Which has nothing to do with zoning.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to report the lack of water pressure at my house over the past week. HAWC cannot even supply enough to fill my toilet in a reasonable time. Where is my water? When I have it, it stinks. When I don't have it, it stinks.

Anonymous said...

I'm having the same problem with low pressure in Hampstead. Had to take an abreviated shower this morning. Has HAWC overextended itself or is everyone in Atkinson watering their lawns today, while us Hampsteadites get short shrift? No matter. Time for a few rounds of golf on those lush greens at the Atkinson Resort & Country Club. There's nothing like a few rounds of golf to get your mind off your troubles.

Curt Springer said...

Maybe your Atkinson selectmen should talk to the Nottingham selectmen about whether or not to enforce these water ordinances.

Mary Bonser is a Nottingham selectman. While she is against the USA Springs project, she has taken the position, based on legal advice, that the Nottingham water ordinances are invalid and should not be enforced by the selectmen.

The Nottingham ordinance, written by CELDF, is virtually identical to the Atkinson ordinance.

She posted a couple of pages on her web site. I don't know why she took them down. It might be something to do with being part of an election campaign this spring when one of the local water zealots ran against her. I found them cached in Google, and captured them.

Mary Bonser's comments on the validity of the water ordinance

Note in particular the legal advice not to enforce the ordinance.

Mary Bonser's comments on the radical nature of CELDF

Anonymous said...

Mary Bonsor should stick to running her nudist colony and leave water politics to the residents of Nottin'ham.

Curt Springer said...

To anon@June 4, 2010 9:12 AM

Your mention of the nudist colony is ad hominem, however mild.

As for leaving "water politics" to the "residents" of Nottingham, in order to be a selectman, Mary Bonser has to be a resident of Nottingham.

Anonymous said...

Listen closely folks.
This Springer person has NO CLUE.
He just makes things up. He has NO KNOWLEDGE of where any Atkinson ordinance came from. The political climate under which it/they were developed. The state of the law at any particular historical moment in re. water ordinances. And he would fall off his high horse if he had the truth printed on the inside of his eyelids. So, don't believe what he says because he knows nothing. I think he makes this stuff up to try and generate conflict by misinfrorming readers.

Curt Springer said...

To anon@June 4, 2010 9:31 PM:

Hey bub, I've posted corroboration of everything I've stated.

You must think people are really stupid.

For example, you say I don't know where the Atkinson ordinance comes from. Compare the Atkinson ordinance (scroll down to bottom<) to the Nottingham ordinance on the town web site. then look at the Nottingham ordinance on the CELDF web site. Do you seriously believe that the Atkinson ordinance came from anywhere but CELDF? Well maybe you do but I doubt that anybody else does.

Anonymous said...

There Springer goes again. All discombobulated by process and no knowledge of facts. Lets look back in history. Can anyone believe that Timberlane was a very good school system? Why did it become great? Because of the people of Atkinson and Plaistrow. What took it so long? Danville and Sandown said no to EVERYTHING. Why has the district gone down hill? It's "under the wing" of the NO's. How did they do it? Subterfuge, not dedication. What is Springer trying to do? Subterfuge. Thats what Danville has always produced. Don't pay attention to anyone with NO Clue. Atkinson has done well with its eye on the ball and not the wiz behind the curtain.

Anonymous said...

Springer's fatal flaw and why most people find him to be a bad joke is his arrogance -- his attitude that only he knows how to interpret the law. That the only interpretation that matters is his, despite the fact that he has no legal training or credentials to interpret any law.

In his arrogance, he is totally incapable of recognizing the fact that everything has two sides -- often equally valid sides.

When there is a disagreement with regard to the interpretation of the law, learned qualified lawyers go before the local, state or national courts to argue opposing sides. You have two qualified learned lawyers arguing equally valid points on both sides and then the judge decides the ruling.
The judge-- not some hack lawyer want-to-be like Curt Springer. And the judge does not check with Springer on how to interpret the law even though Springer has an unqualifed opinion about everything.

When there is a tort case or damages case, BOTH SIDES bring in their own expert witnesses with very competent lawyers for both sides each arguing for a different interpretation of the law. And they do it without Springer telling them that only his interpretation should matter.

Springer just doesn't get it. Any law can be argued either way, depending on different interpretations of that law. Springer should stop plague-ing the people of Atkinson with how Atkinson should be run according to what he thinks.

No one consults Springer except Springer in the mirror. That's what eating at him and why he inflicts his arrogance on everyone.

The Atkinson selectmen have chosen to listen to town counsel rather than to know-nothing Springer. They are enforcing the law and have already formally notified both water companies that deal in Atkinson. Uh oh! Watch out selectmen and town counsel, springer is about to now engage in a series of attacks on you for not listening to him and for not accepting only his unqualified opinion of Atkinson's ordinances.

Curt Springer said...

Anon@June 5, 2010 6:07 AM

All ad hominem

Anon@June 5, 2010 8:26 AM

95% ad hominem

Discerning readers understand that you are spewing all this stuff because you can't counter what I have written here based on facts or logic.

I never once said that anybody has to agree with my opinions, even though I have cited sources to back them up. If people in Atkinson want to sign petitions put out by town leaders who haven't taken the trouble to assure that the proposals are valid and enforceable, if people want to vote for this stuff, if you approve of your selectmen spending your tax dollars on fruitless enforcement actions, go for it!!!

Anonymous said...

Wanting to have the last word all the time is one thing, Curt. You, however, seem to NEED it. You've got more important issues in Danville right now. It's becoming the murder capital of NH. Must be something in the water up there?

Curt Springer said...

Anon@June 5, 2010 10:56 AM

Another 100% ad hominem.

Obviously you have nothing worthwhile to say on the topic at hand.

tim dziechowski said...

"Mary Bonsor should stick to running her nudist colony and leave water politics to the residents of Nottin'ham."

http://www.nhnude.com/

Well, it's good to know that there's at least one selectman in NH who is prepared to handle the naked truth...

Anonymous said...

Article for submission:

Springer need to comment last. Please post this so Springer has a place to go when he has nothing inteligent to say or opinions anybody cares to hear.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous, June 5, 10:56 a.m..

You're absolutely 100% correct. You hit the nail right squarely on the head.

The posting evidence backs you up and indisputably shows that Springer DOES have some needy, psychological emotional need to always have the last word.

Every 'last word' of his, is only until someone else posts and he then has this psychological need to again re-post another last word --even though it's always just another re-hash of all of his previous intrusions on Atkinson's blog about how only his opinion counts or matters and how anyone in Atkinson who disagrees with him is somehow stupid or un-informed.

If someone criticizes him, Springer whines about it being an ad hominem personal attack on him.

What is the emotional short-fall in his character that makes him try to force his opinions on others? What is the break-down in his psyche that makes him, this Danville resident, feel that he must constantly butt himself into the internal affairs in Atkinson?

Everyone in Atkinson knows that he has no legal qualifications or training or experience to pontificate on any legal matters.

Possibly speaking about his problem to a professional would help. And honestly, that is in no way meant as an ad hominem comment. It's just a reasonable comment that any intelligent person would logically think, wonder about and ask.

The educational level in Atkinson is very high. So many have advanced degrees in various fields. A survey years ago showed that most Atkinsonians have a significantly higher educational level than that found in most other N.H. towns. The number of professional people is really impressive.

My point is that we are smart enough to think and decide things for ourselves without being constantly, constantly, constantly, subjected to Springer's know-it-all and condescending and patronizing behavior towards us and our goals for our own town.

Curt Springer said...

Regarding my alleged need to have the last word, doesn't it apply to those of you who feel the need to post an insult with no other content each time I post something of substance.

Anonymous said...

This message has been intentionally left blank to provide space for Curt Springer's final comment. Now watch!

Curt Springer said...

OK, for those of you who will not accept what I have said about how town officials should not enforce invalid ordinances, because I am not a lawyer, will you accept the word of Bud Fitch, deputy attorney general of the state of NH?

Check out what he said to the Nottingham selectmen on 1/4/10:

Acknowledged by Chair Bonser, Ms. Mills took the mic and introduced herself. Mr. Terninko and Ms. Winona joined her. Ms. Mills inquired about Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution and read a portion regarding government officials being responsible to the people they represent, for the record. She informed Deputy Attorney General Fitch that the Selectmen had been asked to enforce the ordinance under this Article on several occasions. Deputy Attorney General Fitch interjected that he thought any good attorney would advise the Selectmen against that course of action to the extent that the provisions they want enforced are clearly pre-empted by State law and unenforceable. Deputy Attorney General Fitch went on to explain that part of government’s duty is to not do something just because someone wants it done. There are standards set for when it is proper to investigate. It is the government’s duty, equally, to investigate when there is cause as it is to not interfere with the freedom of the accused when there is no evidence. He further noted that the Selectmen took an oath of office to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions and it is reasonably understood that if someone wants them to take action that they have been advised they have no legal right to take and by taking action they interfere with another, it would not be proper for them to carry out the action. Ms. Mills asked Deputy Attorney General Fitch if he was saying the ordinance is illegal. Deputy Attorney General Fitch noted that several attorneys were consulted or provided some opinion on the ordinance, and all generally agreed on its status. He, himself, is not here to provide a legal opinion but it does not surprise him the all others have advised them not to enforce the ordinance. There was discussion around those that provided opinions including Attorney Teague, Attorney Loughlin, and several attorneys from LGC. Chair Bonser noted that the Selectmen have not received one opinion in support of enforcing the ordinance. Ms. Mills reminded all that the Selectmen had been invited to have a conversation with the constitutional lawyer who has supported the Tea Party through this process and questioned what good Article 8 is. Deputy Attorney General Fitch explained that Article 8 is the very thing that requires public officials to use the course of authority given to them only when there is just cause to do so.

Article 8 of the NH state constitution:

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.

June 2, 1784
Amended 1976 by providing right of access to governmental proceedings and records.

Anonymous said...

I would never take Bud Fitch's word on anything.

He thinks it's ok for people to use taxpayer funds for private use.

Curt Springer said...

Anon@June 8, 2010 9:12 AM

Once again somebody has nothing to add to the discussion, no valid basis to refute what has been written. But they have to have the last word, so they pop in an ad hominem argument.

Most likely your reference is something to do with the fact that Fitch headed the state's distribution of the stimulus money. Am I correct? In any case it has no bearing on the arguments.

The central point of the original article was

If the people tell you (selectmen) to do something you do it, end of discussion.

That point has been refuted by the top career attorney in the attorney general's office (Fitch), and all other attorneys who reviewed the Nottingham ordinance.

Anonymous said...

The central theme of the Atkinson ordinance has NO resemblance to the Notingham ordinance which you are trying to assocoaate. That is a fraud and you know it. You are a faker. Doe not lie to people.

Curt Springer said...

Anon@June 8, 2010 8:17 PM

The Atkinson and Nottingham water withdrawal ordinances are virtually identical. Anyone can read for him/herself.

The 2010 town line metering ordinance is unique to Atkinson. But both ordinances are not authorized and actually preempted by state law.

The main point is that officials are not obligated to enforce such laws because it would be a violation of their oaths to uphold state law. They don't have to wait for a court decision.