Petition — Schwarz v. Coastal Resources Management Council

fF Office-Supreme Court, U.S.

80-1 123 FILED

JAN & 1980:

ALEXANDER L. STEVAS,

CLERK

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE

UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

CATHERINE ELIZABETH SCHWARZ,

Petitioner,

VSe

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL,

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, & CITY OF WARWICK,

Respondents,

TOF C 10

to the

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

CATHERINE ELIZABETH SCHWARZ, PRO SE

PRESIDENT, CLEAN COVE COMMITTEE, INC,

374 SEA VIEW DRIVE, WARWICK,R.I. 02886

Tel. 401-738 7648

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

|

1. When the same Federal Judge enforces

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,

(1972) and the Clean Water Act,(1977) in

One case,and totally ignores his own opi-

nion and Judgment,herein; where is the

equal justice under the law?

2. When the State Court has made Dec-

isions and Judgments in conflict with

those given Petitioner,concerning pollut-

ion of our wetlands,salt marshes,and wat-

erways(some already polluted)and ignores

them where the highest grade of clean

water is concerned; what recourse have we,

the people,to protect our environment

from the onslaught of political greed

end collusion ?

5. When vast sums of Federal money have

gone to R.I. to protect Public cleen wat-

er and Federal laws have been violated to

divert this money to Private schemes,

which is now planning to bring 1,440,000

i.

millions of gallons of raw sewage daily

from polluted areas, to our Brush Neck and

Buttonwoods Cove and Public City Park and

Beach, where can we turn but to the Fede-

ral Supreme Court ?

4, Where is the Constitutional justice

and government of the people, when this

project was voted down at 2 general elec-

tions and 2 public hearings and when ap-

prox. 1,000 people signed the petition to

protect our cove from the ravages of sew-

age and diesel fuel from 2 sewer pumping

stations, and have been discounted and

miscounted ?

5. That the Constitutional Amendments,

One and Fourteen,"the right of the people

to petition the Government for a redress

of grievances", "nor deny to any within

it's jurisdiction the equal protection

under the laws", is,hopefully, true?

6. Why, with the cancer-rate Of deaths

highest in the nation and asbestos seccad

pa we

highest in carcinogenic effects, are the .

Defendants burying sewer and water pipe

made of asbestos into our ground water

where sand;abrasively, takes asbestos fib-

ers into our drinking water, in some

places, and our sea food chain and clam

beds, at this contested site?

7e What is democratic or humane about

this project that forces the poor and

middle-income people to pay, at several

thousand dollars each, for something they

don't want or need; because the Defendant

does need for planned condominiums in the

floodplein,in one instance, and in clay,

unfilterable soil, in the second, and

does not want to pay for the sewers for

their condos though they are wealthy en-

Ough to do so, would rather spread it ov-

er 20 years payments from the financially

disadvantaged ?

iii.

INDEX

BOARD OF PURIFICATION v. TOWN OF

BOERS is a cos eck ies Bees ne Shoes sc dt

BOARD OF PURIFICATION v. TOWN OF EAST

PROVIDENCE boc isi chceesdectedecevavece

CHARLES TREFES v. EDWARD HAYES,

DIRECTOR OF COASTAL RESOURCES........Al

CLEAN COVE COMMITTEE v. CRMC,

STATE OF R.I., & CITY OF WARWICK..19,A8

COLONIAL HILTON INNS v. REGO.....++2.A13

COSTLE v. PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION.....4

EAST GREENWICH YACHT CLUB v. CRMC....A12

EPA v. STATE WATER RESOURCES

CONTRA: BOARDS 06 ish aceccebed’a coed aagh

GREENE,ALICE,ET AL ve CRMC.....ceeeeeAl2

J.M. MILLS,INC. v. MURPHY.......A1,A1ZA18

MARSZULKOWSKI ve CRMC. .cccccccccccescAl?

SHAKMAN v. DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION

OF .COORSCOUNTT os 'cin cided ned c'cenbekddavdh

SIBSON v. NEW HAMPSHIRE. ...ccceccccecAll

ep

TATE Ve LOMBARD S ss cad Wicdbacne dndes eck

U.S. Ve CITY OF DermVslrestececteccestane

U.S. ve CITY OF PROVIDENCE. ..-cccccceeeAd

iv.

t

{

——

INDEX (continued)

CLEAN WATER ACT..5,6,19,24,A-6,75859511

CLEAN COVE COMMITTEES v. CRMC......19,A8

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

COUNCIL DECISION. .ccccccccccceceecly20

CRM PROGRAM, .ccccccccccccccccce cts Aly AQ

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT. cccccee D9 ch

CONFLICT=OF=INTEREST LAWS. cecccccccccAy

CONSTITUTION OF ReleccccccccccccceecsAl6

CONSTITUTION OF U.S.cccccccctecees 25926

COMMITTES® ON PUBLIC WORKS. ccccccccceeI&

DECISION, JUDGE NICHOLAS J.BUA.. cee eA

DECISION,JUDGE ANTHONY GIANNINI...A1,A2

DECLARATION OF RI. GENERAL

ASSEMBLY 4 eeccccecccesesecccceseseeeAls

EXPERT TESTIMONY

DR, RICHARD J.BENOIT. ...002...A18—==A23

DR.WILLIAM EB. KELLY. cccccccccccesecAl&

FEDERAL REGISTER, ccccccccccccccccce Dy cy

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.2,5

INTSRTIDAL SALT MARSH ACT. .cccsccccccdAl

Ve

INDEX( continued)

IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS IN INSTITUTIONAL

REFORM LITIGATION, .ccceccccscccccsecA3

LATEST NEWS ON SEWER PUMPING

STATIONS POLLUTION. .cccccccccccccesAZ6

MONE Wis 1 bhi ho 40 i dnc cleecdswAd

OPINION,JUDGE FRANCIS J.BOYLE. 2, 3,4, 5A3

OPINION TO GOVERNOR... cccccccceseeesAlG

PROVIDENCE JOURNAL &BULLETIN.........A6

WETLANDS ACT. ccccccccccccee! lye rgchy Al?

HHH KKEHHHEHREHKEHHHEEHRHKHHEERE

3 ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS HAVE OWN INDEX

CRMC stands for Coastal Resources Man-

agement Council.

DEM stands for Director of Environmental

Management.

CWA means Clean Water Act.

vie

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

CATHERINE E, SCHWARZ

VS. C.A.#

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL,

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

+t

mM

%

.3

COASTAL RESOURCES .

s

eo

*

AND CITY OF WARWICK, *

PETITION FOR CERTIORARL

To the Honorable Judges of the Supreme

Court of United States:

Your petitioner, Catherine E, Schwarz

respectfully shows unto Your Honor that

on the 6 day of October, 1980, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit,

denied the petition for a rehearing of

C.A.# 80-1479, Denial of Appeal was rece-

ived September 15,1980.

A plea for an Injunction to stop the

building of 2 sewer pumping stations on

the last clean water cove we have left in

the City of Warwick which has our Public

Park and bathing beach right in the mid-

dle, and is open to shellfishing year-

round, is the only class "SA" water we

have to enjoy the recreational activities

in and on the water, free of the septic

sewage run-offs of our other Warwick cov-

es, was,also,denied in U.S. District Ct.

by Judge Francis J. Poyle on June 25,1980

This order and judgment contradicts

Judge Boyle's Qpinion in C,A,# 77-0374

wherein it is stated; "It has long been

recognized in R,I, law that a municipal

corporation may not acquire a prescrip-

tive right to deposit sewage in the waten

of Narragansett Bay, and that the expensa

of avoiding the discharge of sewage is

no defense to an order to abate pollution

Board of Purification of Waters v. Tow

of Bristol, 51 RI. 243, 153 A. 879 (1931)

& es

of East Providence, 47 RI. 431, 133 A.

812 (1926). The policy and purpose of sal

Federal Water Pollution Control Act is

consistent with what has been the law of

this State for a considerable period of

time."" (Expert testimony by city engineer

ee

Fred Hoernle,head of C,E,Maguire Co, seid

"this pump is the cheapest pump, with the

cheapest system, in the cheapest place"

at Sewer Commission Meetingsand at Public

Hearing for Permit,'tall they could at tord

at this time" in answer to question,"What

happens when the pumps malfunction or the

power goes off, or site is flooded out?"

Because this site is in a base Floodplain

and in a V-Zone where high velocity winds

bring constant flooding to this site and

¢ streets surrounding that site were ev-

acuated the month previous to the notice

Of a Public Hearing and a sewer pumping

station damaged by a Blizzard on the very

day the notices were to be in the papers,

Petitioner has documents from Sewer Comm-

ission Meetings and transcripts of Public

Hearing to verify the above statements. )

"The initial effort at regulation had

established standards for the acceptable

levels of pollution in a state's navig-

able waters. This was an effort to regul-

36

eee ee eee Mae te as ee” ME, Mega payee

ate the effect of pollution upon the qu-

ality of water. In 1972, the focus was

shifted to preventable causes of pollu-

tion. EPA v. State Water Resources Con-

trol Bde, supra, at 202-203."

"The Federal Water Pollution Control

Act was adopted by the Congress of the U-

nited States 'to restore and maintain th

chemical,physical and biological integri-

ty of the Nation's waters,' 33 U.S.C.

1251(a) (1978); established as a 'nation-

al goal that the discharge of pollutants

into the navigable waters be eliminated

by 1985,' 33 U.S.C. 1251(a) (1) (1978);

and provides that 'an interim goal of

water quality which provides for the pro-~

tection and propagation of fish, shell-

fish, and wildlife and provides for re-

creation in and on the water be achieved

by July 1, 1983.' Costle v. Pacific Legal

Foundation, 48 U.S. L.W. 4243, 4244 (Mar.

18,1980)."

be

"The City has reaped a substantial

reward by virtue of the Decree. Now it

Gesires to change the bargain which it

made. It may not do so."

The above is a direct quote from

United States of America, et Al, ve The

City of Providence, Cas NOs 77-0374, with

Judge Francis J.Boyle for the District of

Rhode Island. Change the City to Warwick

and the bargain to the Agreement Governor

Garrahy made with the Federal Agencies,e4

EPA, and NOAA, to comply with the Federal

40 FEDERAL REGISTER 1683, Jan.9,1975 and

41 FEDERAL REGISTER 48112, Nov. 2,1976,

to get huge amounts of Federal dollars

under the Agreement that Clean Water was

to be protected,

To implement the above laws a survey

was tekxen by the R,I. Health Dept. Water

De ¥

-Yy

_- |

septic cesspool closed to shellfishing si-

Pollution Control to find where the cle

water was, and to classify and grade all

waterways, because to protect clean water

it first has to be found, tested and id-

entified. Problem areas were,also, id-

entified so something could be done about

them before they contaminated the remain-

ing clean water. In compliance with the

Clean Water Act Sec. 301 this was done in

1972 and 1974 with follow ups in later

years.

Warwick was found to have a very bad

problem in Warwick Neck because the soil

there is clay and does not absorb the

septic wastes from that area so it does

not get filtered, instead straight pipe

discharge into Old Warwick Cove (known

locally as Warwick Cove) was and is being

done and has turned Warwick Cove into a

nce 1974. The violations still go on and

Marinas with about 1,000 boat slips add

6.

to the problem, as does toilets at docks

with straight pipes into the water. The

problem cove with polluted water was

classified "SB" and is surrounded by War-

wick Neck on the east and Oakland Beach

on the west. Oakland Beach has sand fil-

tration so under normal conditions it can

filter out all nutrients, which feed the

soil, leaving clean water, That is why

Our cove, Brush Neck and Buttonwoods covd

was found to have the highest grade of

salt water and classified "SA" and ‘this

was the body of water to protect, This

was then ail changed around, plans were

made to put the sewer pumping stations onl

the only clean water and bring to it all

the sewage from Warwick Neck and the dock

side septic run-offs, and the planned con

dominiums in Warwick Neck and the Flood-

plains of Oakland Beach by underground

and underwater ASBESTOS sewer pipes cris

crossing the floodplain and nestling in

Our ground water to add ASBESTOS FIBERS

7e

to our clam beds here in Brush Neck and

Buttonwoods Cove, and to all our sea food

in Narragansett Bay, as they are burying

ASBESTOS sewer and water pipes all over

Rhode Island.

George Smith of Coastal Resources

Management Council said that burying ASB-

ESTOS is the worst ecological problem fac-

ing our State. In front of a full audit-

Orium at the Health Dept. Deputy Directon

Carlton Maine was asked why he allowed

this to happen and he said, "The water

pipes are made of asbestos and no one hag

been complaining about them." The Petiti-

oner replied,"Two wrongs never made a

right."" and has been working to publicize

this fact and get it rectified and have

made it a part of our Complaint in the |

lower courts. The Petitioner’ did get OSHA

to see that the workers,cutting the asb-

estos, wore masks; and buy only bottled

water from out of state springs, as our

water had gotten to the grit stage. Some

8.

heavy plastic water pipes are now being

put in,as of 5 months ago, when several

Members of the Clean Cove Committee found

the city bidding on more asbestos water

pipes, and set up a protest. So new water

pipes aren't carcinogenic,but for life-

long residents where is the equality and

human rights? Is it carcinogenic pipes

forever? Last year,

of the entire Nation, and John Mansville

Co. phoned to try and soft-soap Petition-

er and CLEAN COVE COMMITTEE into silence,

The last issue,on the Complaint to

the lower courts,is the corrosive effects

of political patronage.Lawyers that are

hired as Environmental Advocates by the

Governor, that don't know the CWA or Flood

plain laws and don't enforce them, Why??

"Section 8ers" before a Grand Jury and it

sounds like the reporters! trial, Why??

Rubber-stamping bad and destructive plans!

96

even if most of them are affable people,

it leaves an awful blank in positions of

power where knowledge and intelligent ac-

tion is needed, in some cases, desperate-

ly needed,

The Petitioner has come across one

political appointee after another and all

appointed by Philip Noel,ex-governor, now

condo-builder and lawyer for other condo-

builders, and his lawyer is Charles But-

terfield, and Butterfield's associate in

his law office is Francis Flaherty. Flah-

erty was put up as the councilman for our

Ward 6. Flaherty put an article in the

newspapers saying the pump was situated

in the wrong place, a week before the |

primary election, but his first move after

the election was to vote to put the sewer

pumping station on this same clean cove.

Barbara Colt was appointed by Phil Noel

to be Chairwoman of the Coastal Resources

Management Council, and 3 members told me

10.

they would ask her opinion about the sew-

er pump, because she was the only one fr-

om Warwick on the Council. After the mee-

ting was over a man called me and told mé¢

that Ms. Colt had talked to all of them

before the meeting and he was sorry he

had voted against us. What came of that

was they all signed a false document, or

rather 9 of the Council signed it. This

document is the Decision of the Coastal

Management Council and allowed the City

of Warwick and the State of R.I. to be

legally permitted to destroy and pollute.

The Defendants had been going along with-

out a permit for about a year already and

we had to hire a lawyer to try to get a

Public Hearing on this 7 months previous,

Nothing came of it until 3 other land-

Owners sued Noel and Company for not get-

ting a permit on a previous condo project

involving the Wetlands Act. Right then w

the CLEAN COVE COMMITTEE, was told there

was to be a Public Hearing on the Wetlan

11.

Permit because this pumping station was

planned within 55 feet of a salt marsh

and 70 fee® from the open water. This imp-

ortant item was not allowed to be discus-

bed, The lawyer we hired went on vacation

and a lady lawyer valiantly tried to keep

up with 4 lawyers on the floor at once

and yammering like barking dogs til she

could not think and just stood there.Thig

case needed a person well versed in what

was going On, and so when obvious lies we-

re entered into the record she could have

objected,or brought up the laws governing

this situation;and she did not call the

other witnesses,after the Defendants, all

put in their oars. Some did get up and

speak on their own and one member asked

for the important vote by a show of hands

on who wanted the sewer pump site moved.

When Barbara Colt saw all the hands go u

instead of recording the vote she gaveled

the meeting to an end. One member went up}

12.

the aisle holding up her hand as she went,

‘The Petitioner counted 73 people and was

up to 68 second time,when Pat Zesk,lawyey,

nudged her to turn around. We were going to

make a Closing statement,weren't we?" It

was too late. Everyone thought the lawyer

should have insisted that the vote be en-

tered in the record,because Defendants

‘had put great importance on a Mar.8,1978

meeting they had and a vote (alleged) of

58 of the political condo-sewer syndicate

land only 3 residents of area to be sewer-

‘ed. This is not a fair proportion of the

‘area residents; and the sewer pump was

ee eee

not discussed at Hearing,or before it.All

evasion of the Floodplain 1aws,1978, and |

|

,

— ee

complete violations of them,

The Defendants had already surveyed,

and had plans made for condos on polluted:

side;and now have a paved road and sewer

extension into it, This extension is not

On plan that the EPA okayed, because De-

| 13.

j

a

fendants continually say the sewer proje-

ct is for the poor and middle income fam-

ilies of Oakland Beach instead of the re-

ality that where ever they have put sewers

so far they have put condos in and used

more Federal money of the "section 8" HUD

This way they get the poor to pay for the

sewers they the Defendants have to have

for their very profitable building pro-

jects.

We the taxpayers and residents are

caught in the middle of this sneak attack

by these political profiteers who intend

to destroy our cove,and our Warwick City

Public Park,and our environment for some-

thing most of us do not want,or need, and

an_overwhelming majority voted this pro-

sect down at ¢ major elections.

To overcome the will of the people

the Defendants hold "sneak preview* ele-

ctions in the middle of summer with about

33% of the taxpayers participating they

The

(The Defendants) voted unto themselves

several million to continue infesting us

with ASBESTOS sewer pipes,tearing up

roads and putting ugly manholes in front

of porches that once only looked out on

beauty, before they (the Defendants)

showed up.Black tar,? ft. fence and barb

wire,exhaust fumes of sewage and diesel

fumes,and millions of gallons of filth

rolling into this floodplain to come into

Our cellars with the next flood,and into

this recreational area. To add insult to

injury the Defendants intend to force us

to pay veral thousand dollars for all

these "IMPROVEMENTS".The President doesn't

have to go to Russia to find Oppressed

people denied their human rights.

The Defendants say the Petitioner is

Suing because"the sewer pump is in her

back yard. This is not true. The man

whose backyard it was built in,is on the

original Complaint to Superior Court,

15.

ICLEAN COVE COMMIT?

wick, et al, CoA, #79-1781, Prov.R.I. as.

4 officials of the CLEAN COVE COMMITTEE |

signed it, Harry Walker,Paul Lachapelle,

Eugene Montecalvo, and Petitioner.

Eugene Montecalvo died 2 weeks ago of)

a massive heart attack. The Defendants |

have made the last 3 years of his life

a living Hell, of choking dust and sand,

He could not open a door or window.It has

been 3 years of going to meetings and He-

arings to be lied to,or ignored,and 3 yrs

of watching a monster grow in his back-

yard, with diesel fumes and sewage ex-

haust pipes and chain fence and barbed

wire,insteadof swans,beach and seascape.

Even the Sewer Commission letter states;

air-conditioning." It also states that

" b fe) d

16.

Vicinity" because of the prevailing west,

southwest winds, But Eugene Montecalvo,

and his family was already living there

and many other families, Fresh air, sea

breezes and beautiful view are all being

taken away from his family, and the same

fate for residents of nearby streets,

The Petitioner, in this same house 35

years, has witnessed only benign neglect

for this area,though on 2 occasions, large

sums were granted to improve the recreat-

ional area. It vunished in City Hall.

Sewage systems take sewage through ex-

pensive pipes to nearby water and dump it

in, with the added poisons of chlorine,etc

in one stage of filtration,or another, u-

ntil the sewer facility malfunctions, or

strike, flood,Hurricane or blizzard make

it useless,

The Federal Government has tried to

get States and Cities to stop this bad

practice and will fund 85% to 100% for

17.

ALTERNATIVES TO SEWERS because it is less

expensive and keeps rivers and other wat-

erways free to shellfish and swim in,

THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS findings

concludes that rivers,lakes and streams

are being used to dispose of man's wastes

than to support man's life and health and

the use of any river, lake,or stream as a

waste treatment system is unacceptable.

Making fuel and fertilizer out of sew-

age at an inland site and alternative on-

site systems have to be dealt with if we

are to ever have clean water everywhere,

The exorbitant profits made buying

cheap asbestos pipes at huge prices has

the Defendants keeping ALTERNATIVES TO

SEWERS on a back burner, Legal ads in the

news state they will be discussed. But al-

ternatives to sewers have never been dis-

cussed at any of our Public Hearings, an-

other evasion of the law. At the Nov.15,

1979,Public Hearing,6 groups of people

18.

snid they preferred alternates to sewers

and wanted information on them but was

Given none. The Clean Cove Committee had

met previously and looked over the plans,

ve hed Expert Testimony and voted down

the second pump,uncnimously. The Defend-

ants want to connect the second pump to

the first one,still being contested,

The Mayor said we needed uxpert Testi-

mony and to vote for,or against, the sewer

pumps at the Public Hearing. We did exac-

tly that and were ignored as the Defend=

ants arestill soing ahead with their pla-

ns,regardless, of the Public Protest, and

both pumps are planned for our last clean

Class "SA" water on Brush Neck and Button

woods Cove in violation of the CLEAN

HATER ACT 19772 and it's AMENDMENTS, which

states that clean water can not be defil-

ed by sewage facilities.

79-1781 Superior Court,Prov.R.I. Dec. 17,

19.

1979, went before Judge Wm. McKenzie and

Petitioner was shut out in the hal] until

Presiding Justice was notified, and then

resumed in open court. Judge McKenzie

said angrily 3 times, this case was an

imposition of his time as he had a heavy

criminal calendar and why had an environ-

mental case been heaped on him? After sa-

ying he had no time to study it, he did

not allow for someone else to study it, by

denying an appeal.

Petitioner was told to shut up, when

lawyer,Armando Monaco, hired to present

CLEAN COVE COMMITTEE's side,used lines

of Defendants, that clean water would only

be jeopardized in the building stage.

Petitioner was now being opposed by 4

lawyers instead of 3, as Armando Monaco

did not present our Complaint, not once

mentioning the laws of CLEAN WATER, FLOOD-

PLAIN,etc. governing this action.

The Court doubted credibility of CLEAN

20.4

COVE COMMITTED, though we organized March,

1978 and incorporated May16,1979 and 4&

officials signed originel Complaint to

Superior Court. As we left Court, Armando

Monaco was congratulated for his help by

Defendant's lawyer,

So in U.S, District Court, Petitioner

went Pro Se and was still stopped from

mentioning laws, by Mr. Foley,Esa. from

Governor's office, Foley stood uv and Pet+

itioner was interrupted. These interrupt-

ions are seen clearly on the Court trans-

cript. ‘vyhen Members of the CLEAN COVE

COMMITIE" tried to bring this to Petit-

ioner's attention, they were threatened

with expulsion end someone wes teken out.

This was all going on behind Petitioner's

back but she reslized that she was not

going to be allowed to cite the laws or

the falsification of the CRMC Decision

that cllowed the permit to duild,by 9

members of the Coastal Resources Manarse-

21.

ment Council. Petitioner realized if she

was thrown out of court, no one would

defend this case in a Higher Court.

Since Old Warwick Cove is polluted

from septic run-offs end over 1,000 boat

slips, and it is a commercial zone with

about 11 Marinas, the wrong has been com-

mitted, by the politicians who changed the

site to the clean water of Brush Neck and

Buttonwoods Cove.

The fact that the C.=.Maguire Co. ing.

had vick the Old Warwick Cove side end

gave no plausible reason for changing the

site, was brought out at Feb. 8,1979 Pub-

lic Hearing. This transcript and all

other documents mentioned in this Petit-

jon are in a separate Appendix and all

have been entered into the Courts in both

| Providence and Boston. Many pveonle, in

and out of City Hall heve help to get

these documents. ‘Je have not been able to

set the Mar. 8,1978 one to see who wes

P26

there, and "allegedly" voted for this sy-

stem (though admitting that the meeting

was cut short before sewer pump site was

discussed, because of bad weather).

Also, the zoning is for recreational

use only. This was enactec after 2 Hurri-

canes took away every structure built

there. This will save millions of tax-

dollars for Disaster Loans, if heeded.

Floodplain laws prohibit building in

the Floodplain, especially, the base

floodplain in a high-risk Hurricane "Vy"

zone.Designated "V"" for Velocity wind.

area, and constant, yearly, flooding,

This entire area is protected by the

Wetlands Act which states that salt mar-

shes, because they propagate our sea food

are to be protected. There is a set dis-

tance of 200 ft. from the perimeter of a

salt marsh, for any building, Under a

thin shelf of soil, this sewer pumping

station will sit in 17 ft. of water. This

C36

sewer pump site is only 55 ft. froma

salt marsh so is a violation of the Wetl-

ands Act, Coastal Resources Management

Council's Program and Coastal Zone Man-

agement Act, and Floodplain Management

Guidelines,1978, which is an_up-date of

the Clean j/ater Act_,1977 and its Amend-

mentse As it says in Sec, 304 of the

CLEAN WATER ACT,1977, Guidelines and In-

formation that all new material for im-

plementing the CLEAN WATER ACT will be pu

blished in the FEDERAL REGISTER one year

later,197&, and from time to time there-

after, for implementing by May 24,1978,

at the latest. This is an Executive

Order 11988 and stated on page 17, Sec.7.

of 43 FEDERAL REGISTER 6030, which is

appended to this Petition, along with

= E WATIs P

which pertain to laws governing this case

All the laws ere on the Petitioner's

side and Expert testimony from a renovm

Hcologist, Dr. Richard J. Benoit, Ph.D.

eh.

] tion of the laws,"

STIT ] 0

The Preamble of the United States

Constitution states, "establish justice,

insure domestic tranquility and promote

the general welfare and secure the

blessings of liberty to ourselves and

Our posterity."

Amendment 1. "The right to petition

the government for redress of grievance,!

Amendment 14. "nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protec-

All of the above is embodied in this

petition, the protection of equal justice

under the same laws that the Defendants

have been enforcing; to secure the bless-

ings we now have, clean water and clean

air, for ourselves and the next generati-.

Ons to enjoy. The Clean ‘Water Act has got

to be eoually enforced to the big pollu-

ters,the Cities and States,in this case,

the Defendants, es well as the lone home-

25.

owner, if we are to ever reach the attai-

nable goal of clean water by 1983. This

can not be accomplished by sliding under

the wire, more pollution sourcess We al-

ready have 86 from sewage facilities in

Rhode Island,

MEH HE TEE ET THE EEE

This deception started when the city

planner asked the Director of Environ-

mental Management to say Brush Neck and

Buttonwoods Cove was slightly polluted,

as there was a deadline of May, 24,1978

to get the money, and they would change

the plans afterwards. The Defendants got

the money but didn't change the plans.

After questioning, the D.E.M. James Spau-

lding left town. Gail Chmura“thought she

was in Warwick Cove” and left for 2 long

vacation and,"didn't have time to rectify

her mistake."' Nine Members of CRMC signed

the lies into their Decision for Permit.

John Lyons,Director of Coastal Resources

26.

Management Council, signed it,too. He is

in charge of the agency whose motto is,

"To Preserve and Protect the Coastline",

and he said he does not know that our

cove was open to shellfishing year-round

and since the world began. It was July

and about 500 people were clamming and

several hundred more boating and on the

beaches,or at City Park. All enjoying the

cove. But the Director of CRMC, he does

not know.

Barbara Colt, the only member from

Warwick, is a political appointee of ex-

gov. Phil Noel and he is part of the syn;

dicate needing sewers for condos, Ms. Cdt

Said several members asked her about the

project. None of the Council paid any

attention to the truth and signed a pap-

er that said we had "SB" waters, not na-

vigable, closed to shellfishing, project

which stores 750 gals.of diesel oil and

raw sewage won't rm water.ERRORSofFACT

ele

—

Wherefore, Petitioner prays for judg-

ment against the Defendants as follows;

1. That the Defendants, and all per-

sons acting by, through, or under the De-

fendants or by their appointments, in

their represented status as officials or

directors of said Council, State, and, or

City, be restrained and enjoined from bu-

ilding any sewer pumping stations on, at,

or near Brush Neck and Buttonwoods Cove,

specifically between light poles #5 and

#6 on the corner of Suburban Pkwy. and

Sea View Drive; and another one that was

voted down,unanimously,at a Public Hear=

ing on Nov.15,1979, planned for our cove

between Northup and John Streets, any

sewage facilities of any type, anywhere

near this clean "SA" highest classified

salt water, and if they have put anything

there while this Court Action is going on

the Defendants will remove it, as it is

an illegal action and ea crime,

28.

SR ee oe te ae ee eae

e. That the Defendants, and ell per-

sons acting by, through or under the De-

fendants or by their eppointments,in th-

eir represented status as officers or

directors of said Council, State,and,or,

City,be restreined and enjoined of int-

erfer:ng with the rights of the Petition

er in reference to her prerogative as a

resident and taxpayer, and one of a mej-

Ority of veople who will be the victims

when this cove is destroyed by overflows

Of diesel fuel and sewase when a hurri-

cone,flood,leck of power,or other break-

down cause this sewer pumping station,

end any other,to become inoperable and

1,440,000 gals. of sewage daily overflow

into this cove by gravity feed polluting

Our woeter and destroying our fishing and

clamming,our park and beach,and bringing

sewage into our homes end cellars,

3. That the Petitioner prays for a

halt to any, ond all, ections that

Po.

would endanger and degrade Brush Neck ang

Buttonwoods Cove, and a Judicial Review

of all inequities claimed, herein, and

all other relief which this Honorable

Court may deem fit to award,

4. That the Plaintiff be awarded

attorney's fees and costs for being for-

ced to bring said action.

This entire statement is a true

account of these events, so help me God.

- ss 4

CATHERINE E, SCHWARZ, =

CLEAN COVE COMMITTEE

As, and for herself, Pro Se

Subscribed and sworn to béfore me on

this day of econbn, 1980,

CERTIFICATION: Copies sent to Thomas

Mullaney, 75 Weybosset St., Dennis Espo-

sito, 72 S. Main St., and Daniel Schatz,

56 Pine St. all of Prov. R.I. 02903.

3,

a

Judge Giannini in a Superior Court

case Charles Trefes v. Idward Hayes, Dir-

ector of the Devt, of Natural Resources

CoAg#7°-1610, dealing directly with the

INTERTIDAL SALT MARSH ACT (11-46 .i=1 G,

L.R.I.) whichica direct predecessor to a

’ portion of the Coastal Resources Manage-

ment Act, the court specifically stated,

"The General Assembly has declared in

Title 11, Chapter 46.1-1 that salt marsh-

es are necessary to both finfish and

shellfish to flourish if the constituti-

onal right of fishery is to be enjoyed by

Our people. To give effect to this con-

stitutionel right, it is within the pol-

ice power of the state to regulate the

filling of such marshes and to prescribe

a penalty for the violation of such reg~

ulations. (Citing, J.M. Mills, Inc, vy,

Murphy ,352 A. 2a 661 (1976)... It is the

Opinion of the court that the legislature

notwithstonding the delegetion of any

A-1.

7,

°s

Other power or duty to the defendant, may

properly provide a penalty for an unper-

mitted filling of an intertidal selt

marsh,"

Judge Giannini originally stated that

he was inclined to give the CLEAN COVE

COMMITTEES a stay, when Petitioner first

appeared before him, But not having a

lawyer at that time, the court action had

to await the hiring of a lawyer, (Mr.

Monaco) who took our $500 dollars and

went on vacation and only resumed the

injunction action after nearly 6 months,

and only when we said we wanted our money

back, ‘Ye met in the court hallway once

where he told the Warwick City Solicitor

"Judge Giannini is on the bench, You do-

n't want to go before him do you? You

know he was inclined to give a stay, dort

you?" This was said right in front of me

end I said, "I want to go before Judge

Giennini and been waiting since May,"

A-2,

A Ee Ee eR nae ee ee ee ee

In Un ced States v. City of Provi-

Gence C.A.# 77-0374 before Judge Boyle,

"The Court would note that although no

City officers are specifically before th

Court, the Decree is specifically binding

on them, and that they might be brought

, before the Court and be required to ad-

here to the provisions... The City will

still face all other means to require co-

mpliance available to this Court, 7

> -T- 2 > -T- - > =

i & = i - : a bs SP AVA ES

Ss ~ - i = &

cessary to accomplish the task. They in-

clude authority to designate the City's

Chief Executive as receiver to be person-

ally answerable to the Court for the op-

eration of the plant, See United States

Ve City of Detroit, 476 F.Supp. 512, 520

(E.D. Mich., 1979). See generally Note,

tmplementation Problems in Institutional

Reform Litigation, 91 Harv.L.Rev. 428

(1977); Note, Monitors: A New Equitable

Remedy?, 70 Yale L.J. 103 (1960),

A-3,.

_- |

The verdict in the case of Shakman vy.

Democratic Orcenization of Cook County,

533F. 2d 344, 352 (7th Circuit Court, 1976):

wes that politicel patronage was uncon-

Stitutional, Decision of Judge Nicholes

ve Bua.

Page 147? of Coastal Resources Manere-

ment Council's Program, Sec. 420.0-1,0-2

ends with the statement of joint respons-

ibility of CRMC, and the Dept. of Snvir-

Onmental Management and local municipal

recreational authorities. (None of which

have done their job, or Warwick City Park

end Beachfront ond the shellfishing arec

of Brush Neck and Buttonwoods Cove would

‘not now be in jeovardy.)

: The conflict-of-interest laws are not

‘enforced.Rep.John Assolone' said, "Either

enforce the laws or close the dept. as a

wasteful, useless boondosle which does

‘not do its job.There'll be tens of thou-

‘sends (thet is taken from the residents

'*Representative Assolone,Heads Tex Groun,

A-4

in tax dollars saved by closing this ex-

pensive farce.

Nearly everyone the Petitioner has had

to deal with is involved in a conflict-

of-interest, Whether to do their job, or

hold their job.

This political syndicate has bought

power using Federal and local tax dollars

and to buy up every valuable tract of la-

nd from Quonset Point to Crescent Park,

and everything in between, for their own

gain. Political appointees fill key posts

in our environmental and attorney general

offices, so it has been a great waste of

time to find protection for the environ-

ment here. Though there is at least 25

citizen groups fighting for protection of

their environment through the State, at

present,and some have reach the Courts.

Guy St. Andre of Boston E.P.A. is one of

the worst stumbling blocks they will en-.

counter, "It's bound to get polluted some}

A=-5.

time", and "Raw sewage flooding the sur-

rounding houses isn't the worst thing ©

that can happen during a hurricane, After

all, you can get typhoid shots." Catch

| phrases and trick pictures is how he does

not protect the environment. Yet, he

rubber stamps these violations and gives

them added credence,

The Providence Journal and Evening

Bulletin has chronicled some of these

political shenanigans that touch on these

agencies including HUD's Section 8, in

Sept 242 °

and been entered into separate Appendix.

CLEAN WATER ACT, Sec, 309, (a) (1)

whenever, on the basis of any information

available to him, the Administrator finds

that any person is in violation of any

condition or limitation which implements

Sec. 301,302, 306,307, 308,318, or 405 of

this CWA of 1977 in a permit issued by

*Sec.502,(5) means State,City,etc.

A- 6.

a State under an approved permit program

under Sec, 402 or 4Ok of this Act, he

shall proceed under his authority in par-

agraph (3) of this subsection or he shall

notify the person in alleged violation

and such State of such finding. If beyond

the 30th day after the Administrator's

notification the State has not commenced

appropriate enforcement action, the Ad-

ministrator shall issue an order requir-

ing such person to comply with such cond-

ition or limitation or shall bring a civ-

il action in accordance with subsection

(b) through the U.S. District Courts.

(c) (2) Any person who knowingly mak-

es_any false statement, representation,

or certification in any application, re-

cord, report, plan, or other document fi-

ied or required to be maintained under

this Act or who falsifies, tampers with,

Or knowingly renders inaccurate any mon-

itoring device or method required to be

maintained under this Act, shal} upon

A-7,

7%

That this falsification of the Coast-

al Resources Management Council's Decis-

ion, which 9 members,knowingly,signed, to

allow this permit in the first place, was

brought up to Guy St.Andre at Boston EPA

and he ignored it.

Judge Boyle was told by the Defendant

lawyer, "That there was nothing he could

do about" when Judge Boyle inquired if

there was any way he could rectify this

situation. His reply in separate Appendix

Secs 509. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. The Petitioner and

the CLEAN COVE COMMITTEE, INC, has been

asking for a Judicial Review since May 2h,

1979 on this violation of clean water

when C,A, #79-1781 CLEAN COVE COMMITTEE

WICK, was timely entered in Superior

Court, Providence,R.I, There was only a

hearing on a Preliminary Injunction in

Dec. 17,1979.

V $ ST erhe

District Courts shall have jurisdiction,

without regard to the amount of controv-

ersy to enforce such an order,or to or-

der the Administrator to perform such a

duty or act, as the case may be, and to

apply any penalties under Section 309 (4)

of this Act, etc,

CRMC, PROGRAM PAGE 89, ANTIDEGRADATION

No new discharges permitted into Class

"SA" water, Prohibition will not apply

where it is demostrated that discharge

most adverse co ti

impair any usages specifically assigned

to the class and the water will not be

degraded below existing classification.

Into a base floodplain with yearly

A-9

o , Wet ees

oo )

flooding, and nearby homes at sea-level,

comes 1,440,000 gallons of raw sewage

daily to a location in a high-risk hurri-

cane velocity "V" zone, where nothing

ever built on that contested site has

ever withstood the destuct force of wind

and water so it is a vacant lot, and the

Defendants think nothing adversely will

happen to change the water classification

in this Class "SA" Cove?

The defendants picked the site with

the most adverse conditions to keep a

sewer pumping station operable. There are

safer sites and they are also city owmed

and even cheaper to construct and main-

tain as less piping needed. The Defend-

ents have made a bad mistake, that can

only get worst if they put sewage into it

where it could, at the slightest whim of

Nature, destroy our last clean shellfish

cove and our Public City Park Beachfront.

A-10

Sec 4Ol, Permits and Licenses, CERT-

LEICATION. If the imposition of conditio-

ns cannot issue such compliance the ag=

ency shall not issue such license or per-

mit.

Sec. 402, (1) (ii) obtaining a permit

by misrepresentation, or failure to dis-

close fully all relevant facts,

(3) To insure that the Public receiv-

es notice of each application for a per-

mit and to provide an Opportunity for

Public Hearing before a ruling on such

application.

Quoting the Defendant, "Where finding

that an activity that is subject to these

regulations could harm the Public and

need therefore exists to restrain the in-

jurious private action" Sibson vy, New

Hampshire (1975); 336 A. 2d 339 which

specifically states, "An owner of land

has no absolute and unlimited right to

change the essential, natural character

A-11

of his land so as to use it for a purpose

for which it was unsuited in its natural

stand and injures the rights of others."

The City of Warwick is, in this case,

the owner and should not be allowed to

injure the rights of the Public. With

86 pollution points from sewage facility

overflows making open cesspools out of

Rhode Island waterways that the State and

City can not clean up, why are they being

allowed to make another open cesspool

out of the last clean cove?

PREVENTION IS THE ANSWER and with

equal justice under the law, this Court

could enforce the CLEAN WATER ACT and the

Defendants would have to revoke their

permit,use a site out of the floodplain,

and off class "SA" water, Alice Greene,

et al. ve CRMC, CiA.#73-1113, #73-1103,

and East Greenwich Yacht Club v, CRMC,

25-190 MP; 75-280 MP.have both been rem-

A-le.

anded back to CRMC for a permit given for

inappropriate use of coastal areas,from

Providence Superior Court. In the Greene

case; Sec.46-23-6B.""In order to secure a-

pproval the applicant must demostrate

that the proposal will not (1) conflict

with any resources management plan or

program (2) make any area unsuitable for

any uses or activities or (3) significant

-ly damage the environment of the coastal

region."

"Tt is clear that the matter is a

"contested case" within the meaning of

the Administrative Procedures Act.

Colonial Hilton Inns v, Rego, 109 R.I.

259,284 A.2d 69 (1971). Therefore, Sec.

42-35-12 applies. In its written decision

the Council has attempted to make find-

ings of ultimate fact in statutory lang-

uage. Therefore, it was required to make

findings of underlying facts in order to

allow a reviewing Court to determine the

basis upon which it acted. The decision

A-13

must be reversed for the Council's fail-

ure to make these findings."

"Tn addition, the Council made no

finding as to whether the proposal in the

application was in conflict with any res-|

ources management plan or program as re-

quired by Sec, 46-23-6B (1). In fact,the

Council made no finding as to whether the

proposal in the application was compat-

ible with existing state and local man-

agement plans as is required by its own

Coastal Resources Management Plan."

"Under the circumstances the decision

of the CRMC. dated Mar. 23,1973 must be

and hereby is reversed, This matter is

remanded to the Council for further pro-

ceedings to be conducted in accordance

with this opinion,"

"Whereas, marshes and other wetlands

are among the most valuable of all wild-

life habits and are high value recreat-

ional areas as well, and wildlife and

A-14

rtm

recreation are widely recognized as esse=~

ntial to the health,welfare, and general

well being of the populace, and marshes

and wetlands are increasingly threatened

by undesirable projects, encroachment or

Other forms of destruction and are inad-

equately protected from such undesirable

projects, and

Whereas, the protection of marshes,

and other forms of wetlands from any form

of disturbance or destruction is recogni-

zed being in the best public interest

and essential to the health, welfare, and

general well being of the populace and

essential to the protection of property

and life during times of flood or other

disaster affecting water movers, therefore

the vrovisions of the Wetlands Act are

intended to preserve and regulate the

use Of such wetlands,."Declaration of RI.

General Assembly.

A=-15

A review of the cases suggests that

the R,I.Supreme Court has upheld rather

broad delegations of power. Standards not

unlike the standards found in Sec,2-]=2]

Wetlands Act for the guidance of the Dir-

ector of the Dept. of Natural Resources,

State v, Lombardi, supra;95 R.1I.48, 182

A.2d 435 (1962) Opinion to Governor, 91

RoI. 346, 162 A.2d 802 (1960). The Dir-

ector is to deny the application if it

would not be "in the best public interest

Rat. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 37

Sec. 1. Preservation of Natural Resourceg

" 17. The people shall continue to en-

joy and freely exercise all the rights of

fishery, and the privileges of the shore,

to which they have been heretofore enti-

tled under the charter and usages of enone

state; and they shall be secure in their

rights to the use and enjoyment of the

natural resources of the state with due

regard for their preservation; and it

A=16

Ae A as as) on

shall be the duty of the general assembly

to provide for the conservation of the

air,land,water,plant,animal,mineral and

Other natural resources of the state, and

to adopt all means necessary and proper

by law to protect the natural environment

of the people of the state by providing

adequate resources planning for the con-

trol and regulationof the use of the nat-

ural resources of the state and for the

preservation, regeneration and restoration

of the natural environment of the state,"

wThe Coastal Wetlands Act envisions

affirmative action on the part of the

Dept. of Natural Resources to the end of

establishing a state wide plan for prote-

ction of wetlands."Mills v. Murphy, e038

Joseph and Linda Maria Marszuikowski

Of JMMills, Inc. ve Director of CRMC,

Dennis Murphy, supra. Director determined

adverse effect on (1) wildlife (2) re-

creation (43) flood control. Most of land

A-17

7%

in floodplain. Inconsistent with Public

Interest. "Whereas, it is recognized that

marshes and other wetlands,herein define

act as a buffer zone and absorption area

for flood waters and whereas, all flood-

plains for all rivers,streams, and other

water courses are certain to be overflow-

ed with water periodically, in spite of

all reasonable efforts to protect such

occurrences." EXPERT TESTIMONY Dr. Wm. E,

Kelly, Civil and Environmental Engineer,

University of Rhode Island,Kingston,R.I,.

EcoScience Laboratory, 490 Main Street

Norwich,Connecticut 06360. Tel.(203) 889

8104, Impact of Proposed Oakland Reach

Pumping Station on Water Quality in Brush

Neck and Buttonwoods Cove.

Dr. Richard J. Benoit Ph. D.,Director

"My general.conclusion is that the

location of the pumping station in a

flood-prone area on the intertidal em-

A-18

bayment off Brush Neck Cove is a serious

error from the ecological standpoint.

1. Both BrushNeck and Buttonwoods Coves

are Class "SA" according to Rhode Island

Water Quality Standards 1975, a project

report mandated by Federal law, and based

on which the State has been made eligible

for Federal Funding of water pollution

abatement works, The Water Quality Plan

does not permit the degradation of water

quality levels prevailing in 1975, only

there improvement, The proposed pumping

station threatens to degrade water qual-

ity in the intertidal embayment and the

adjoining coves, Brush Neck and Button-

woods.

2. The west side of Oakland Beach is

designated as a "problem area" in a plan

available to the Public,1979. Source;

Original Data C.E,Maguire,Inc. That plan

is in error; In a 3 day study shoreline

A-19

survey of the coves by the Health Dept.

A concurrent bacteriological survey firn-

ly established the absence of major sew-

age input. On the basis of this survey it

was recommended that the coves (Brush-

Neck and Buttonwoods) remain open to the

taking of shellfish and they remain open

to the present time.

In contrast to those conditions, a 3

day survey of Old Warwick Cove found a-

bout half of 30 water samples to be high

in coliform bacterial counts and about

20 direct sewage discharges to Warwick

Cove was recorded. Within the cove com-

mercial Marinas with about 1,000 boat

slips suitable for cabin cruisers with

toilets, enormously aggravates the situ-

ation. Old Warwick Cove is polluted,"SB"

Class in the State Water Quality Stand-

ards and is closed to shellfishing.

A-20

Ls |

5. The intertidal embayment off Brush

Neck Cove is part of an extremely prod-

uctive complex of water, marshes and mud

flats that comprise Greenwich Bay. No

small part of that should be degraded or

threatened by public agencies in view of

the present encroachment and continuing

pressure by the private sector, The em-

bayment and the cove will be threatened

by the construction and damaged during

flooding when the sewer pumps are in op-«

eration. The greater the extent of sewer

system served by this station, the more

serious the threat,

Eleven years in a nuclear industry

has taught me two principles concerning

failure in engineering systems---

1. Failure rates are always higher

than predicted by standard reliability

engineering practices,

2. Failure modes will occur that are

A-21

not even anticipated by standard reliab-

ility engineering practices,

The mere fact that by-pass or over-

flow node is built into most pumping sta-

tions emphasizes that failture can not

be ruled out.A failure at this embayment

would be an ecological and public health

disaster. At the Warwick Cove location

it might even go unnoticed.

Tying the proposed northwest section

sewer system into this embayment location

magnifies the threat to the Class "SA"

Cove.

Administrative closures to waters sur-

rounding sewer facilities,to prohibit

shellfishing,is the future possibility.

Sewage facilities are prone to failures,

and Health officials, simply close water

adjacent to sewage facilities as a matter

of administrative policy.

The intertidal and cove belongs to the

A-22,

people, neither private interests nor the

state, should deprive the public of it's

right to enjoy shellfishing in those few

remaining waters that are still product-

ive and still safe," EXPERT TESTIMONY

Dr. Richard J. Benoit,Ph. D. later wrote

a letter to Petitioner stating; This pump

was forbidden to put a by-pass on it but

that does not stop the failure rate. The

sewage will just back up on the gravity

feed lines and come up into manholes and

overflow into the streets! (Since the

street is right beside the water it will

go into the water anyway, along with

flooding into the low-lying homes in the

immediate area,especially the ones conn«

ected up to sewer system will have back-

up problems, That will help their morale

and morals,according to Judge McKenzie)

Nothing about this project will benefit

any of the residents,as it will destroy

A-23

-

the best thing we have, Our clean cove.

Many residents earn their living by

shellfishing right out there, and do not

need a car, or gas, or a boat. Just walk

out and start clamming. Several residentg.

said that being able to get clams out

there, fed their families all through the

Depression from Brush Neck Cove.

This project is not for the Public

Health or Public Interest as the fumes in

the air, from 6 diesel and sewage ex-

hausts, and the certainty of flooding in-

to their homes and polluting their cove,

depriving them of a gafe place to swim

and fish, and earn a living. And the

best thing for the area residents morals

and welfare is not to destroy the clean

water cove and threaten City Park with

sewage. This is a beautiful, nearby, re-

creational area. A place to recreate in

body,mind and spirit, that is what they

A=2h

the residents want, and what they should

be allowed to keep, clean and free of the

sewage Of other areas,

The irreparable harm will come, when

and if, this violation of the law is al-

lowed, and our cove polluted with sewage,

Providence sewage run-offs have been go-

ing on for 30 years and has proved to be

arrkeperable, and harmful to all living

things. The Defendants have asked for

millions and millions of Federal and lo-

cal tax dollars to repair the Defendants

past mistakes, on one hand, while spend-

ing more for the same mistakes, with the

Other. The Public Health and Welfare is

better served by having clean water end

Clean air, The Federal government gave

the Defendants several million dollars

and the Defendants are using a large sum

of it to destroy our clean water and

clean air, How can the Courts allow this

inhumane and illegal act??

A=-25

-.

wo

.

2 “Swansea | loses -

Le suit to Keep

a scree out of

iM it t*Hope: Bay.

mi By: JOSEPH DRISCOLL BE CL

eam lournal-Dilietia'Sealt Writer 79), FO

ida TAUNTON,~ .Mass.:4— “A *. Superior “

Court judge ‘cleared the: sway yesterday .

“ay Fall Rivet. to

WHEN ARE WE, THE

PEOPLE, GOING TO

ENFORCE Tit

" r 2?

“ She- said viruses, including the type

esik Menge cause hepatitis, could sutvive as 2

EEE ‘long. as 170 days in the contaminated

“shellfish. And, she said, there is no way .

jac: :, to'measure the virus in shellfish.

"estimated at il a day. is j by

meet...

ec ana Ey ex moath.

:~ The Massachusetts ee of En- ii

; -- vironmental Quaiity. Engineering, which j

£ § deproved the discharge, said the Swan-

& beds would be closed during =;

ee the bell wee ng. for. an ©

additional 15 days, s0 the shellfish could ..

3, Cleanse themselves. fA Shee

“Judge Roger J. Donahue aya’ was ,

ri convinced that there was sufficient =

eprish of harm to the shellfish

cs “beds to justify: halting the discharge.:'“¢

# Swansea. officials have - not decided

a ginet to appeal the decision. an

dpe blis, a gradua' student’ in: a

ein? Bruce: Assad,-. Fall” River’s lawyer, - -

‘asked if she had an analysis of what was —

* contained in Fall ‘River's sewage. Miss

Giblin said that she did not. She said she

". generalized,. ‘based on substances found *

tin other municipal wastewaters.

‘Benjamin Haydock, 59, a shellfishe>-'

"gman who testified for Swansea, said that

January is an important month for shell-

"fishing. He said there were about 30 full-

‘time shellfishermen and 20 ates tk

;who work the. area. ee

THE ONLY EXCUSE

USED, AGAINST OUR

CASE, IS THAT THEY

NEVER DISCHARGE

RAW SEWAGE,

POLITICIANS ALIBI FOR PUTTING CONTESTED

SEWER PUMPING STATIONS ON CLEAN WATER,

IS THAT IT WILL NOT EVER BE DUMPING OUT.

A-26

“STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR-

COURT

CoA, No, 79-1781

CLEAN COVE COMMITTEZ, INC,

Ve

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

COUNCIL,STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

AND CITY OF WARWICK,

Preliminary Injunction denied on

Dec.17,1979. Judge Wm. MACKENZIR,

hhh hhh ELE LCL LE LLL CLL LTT Te

Petitioner did not sign the Brief sent

in by ARMANDO MONACO, lawyer that was to

send in our case, but instead complied

with Defendants case. Bar Association,

Disiplinary Court, and Judge Mackenzie

were all told on the day of entry of Mr,

Moneco's Brief, that this was a false and

frivolous Complaint he had sent in, Judge

Mackenzie saidj'he was a good lawyer", and

Frank Carter said,"he was just stupid",

‘But they threw the "good" lawyer's "stup=

id" case out; and blamed it on the CCC, INC,

A-27

> =

7%

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR R.I.

CATHERINE E. SCHWARZ .

Ve : C.A, NO.

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT , 80-0137_

COUNCIL,STATE OF RHODE ISLAND *

og

2

AND CITY OF WARWICK

QRDER

Petitioner's request for a Prelimin-

ary Injunction denied. Judge Francis Boyle.

on June 25,1980.

(Complete transcript in Separate Appendix)

KEKE HRHHHRRRHHHREHRKRHHHRHHHN SH

U.S, COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

CATHERINE E, SCHWARZ

Come NO.80-1479

Ve

CRMC,STATE OF R.I.

CITY OF WARWICK

QRDER OF COURT

Entered: October 6, 1980

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Rehearing denied. Before COFFIN,CHIEF

JUDGE, CAMBELL AND BOWNES,CIRCUIT JUDGES,

BY THE COURT: s/ DANA H, GALLUP, CLERK,

A-28