From the Eagle Tribune;
Atkinson Special Town Meeting is tomorrow
By Meghan Carey
mcarey@eagletribune.com
ATKINSON, N.H. — At the polls tomorrow, voters will face three town warrant articles regarding groundwater as well as their options in the state primary.
The first article asks voters to make the town's water withdrawal control ordinance — which was enacted at a Special Town Meeting a year ago — a health ordinance to ensure the quality of drinking water. If approved, the ordinance would remain a town ordinance, as well.
The second is a lengthy amendment to that same ordinance, aimed at protecting the water supply by beefing up local laws and enforcement.
Selectmen and many Planning Board members have spoken out against the articles, saying their approval could bring the town into costly litigation.
But Carol Grant and John Wolters say the articles will strengthen the town's ability to prevent the Hampstead Area Water Co. from withdrawing large amounts of groundwater. The company has a petition to do so before the state Department of Environmental Services.
The final warrant article asks residents to classify seven wetlands as "prime wetlands," which would increase the buffer zone around them by 50 to 150 feet.
The Special Town Meeting is being held in conjunction with the primary to save money. The polls will be open at the Atkinson Community Center from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"saying their approval could bring the town into costly litigation."
The operative word here is "could". We heard a lot of this at the special meeting, but I never heard one mention of WHO would be bringing the litigation.
So, who is the "could" that is going to bring this costly litigation????
HAWC? Boy, for a company that is well experienced in public relations disasters, this would be a doozy.
Come on Mr. DiMaggio and Mr. Sapia. Call us idiots again.
It doesn't matter what Jack says. He and the truth have only a passing familiarity.
It is an interesting question. It would depend on who makes the first move, and if there actually is a first move.
HAWC presumably would just ignore the ordinances and act as if they didn't exist. After all, they will have a state approval per RSA 485-C:21 (assuming it goes that way).
Your selectmen took this oath:
I, A.B. do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.
I, A.B. do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as ................................................., according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution and laws of the state of New Hampshire. So help me God.
Your selectmen could take the position that enforcement of the ordinances would not be be "agreeably" to the "laws of the state of NH". That would give them the basis to refuse to attempt to enforce the ordinances, and that would result in no cost to the town.
Or they might decide that they are bound by the town meeting vote to enforce the ordinance. They would start by issuing "cease and desist" letters, which HAWC would simply ignore. At some point it would escalate to court action, but it is hard to predict who would sue whom. Perhaps HAWC would sue the town for interfering with its lawful business operations. Perhaps the selectmen would seek an injunction to enjoin the HAWC to comply with the ordinances. Both sides would be paying lawyers up to the inevitable point that the court would side with HAWC on the basis that the ordinances are not auhorized by state law.
I believe that the ordinances attempt to give private citizens standing to go to court to enforce the ordinances. In that case the costs would accrue to those private citizens, not to the town.
"Atkinson voters overwhelmingly supported new water withdrawal ordinances." -Eagle Tribune
Thanks for voting.
Sorry, I posted this in the subsequent article. It belongs here.
The people have spoken. At the special town meeting and at the polls yesterday the citizens of Atkinson declared they want their water protected, and they want the BOS and Planning Board to take a more active roll in doing so. The current attitude of "It's the State's Responsibility," is a cop out. Newton's BOS intervened with the state on behalf of its citizens and got results. Yesterday, the citizens of Atkinson said we expect the same. It is not acceptable that HAWC dry up our wells, and then sell the water back to us, at a profit, to remedy the problem.
Post a Comment