Appendix — Schwarz v. Coastal Resources Management Council

Office-Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

JAN 5 1988

No. 8 Q ss ] ] 23 ALEXANDER L. STEVAS,

CLERK

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,

sia APPENDIX. “s

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

7%

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. .ccccccccccccceed

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, 33...++eii

OPINION OF JUDGE BOYLE. .cccccccccccce!

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. coccccccscveees lO

QUOTATIONS FROM LAWYER'S LETTER.....12

NEWS CLIPPINGS CONCERNED WITH CASE..14

TRE SRSSLLELALLAS EEL ELA LRA SAS SD

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CLEAN WATER ACT, 1977ecccsecccccsceeeslO

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. .11,5,6,13

FEDERAL REGISTER. .ecccceeeeeee 12913920

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,ii

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

E.0. 11988, FR 6030,FEB.10,1978

PAGES 27 through hleeceecccsceeses20

GRIMARD V., CARLSTON...cccccccccccceet!

U.S. ve CITY OF PROVIDENCE. ..ceccecee?

WRIGHT AND MILLER, .cccccccccccccesesed

In CFR 33,Sec.240 deals with protecting

people and property, and building in the

floodplain. It details specific actions

and regulations for the Army Corps of En-

gineers to adher to, and the Corps has

ignored it entirely. Sec.320.2 (b) The

accomplishment of any other work affect~

ing the condition of such waters, is

unlawful unless the work has been recom-~

mended by the Chief of Engineers and au-

thorized by the Secretary of the Army.

EXHIBIT ONE: Copy of ELOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

GUI 1 °

CFR_33 Sec, 320,3 RELATED LEGISLATION

(a) Sec, 40) of the Fed. Water Pollution

Contol Act Amendments 1972 (Pub. Le 92-

500;86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1341) requires

any non-Federal applicant for a Federal

license or permit to conduct any activity

that may result in a discharge of a pol-

lutant into waters of the U.S. to obtain

- a certification from the State in which.

the discharge originates or will origin-

ate, that the discherse will comply with

the applicable effluent limitations ang

water quality standards. A certification

obtained for the construction of any fac-

ility must also pertain to the subsequent

operation of the facility. Also,(b), (c)»

(d), and (e).

ii.

APPENDIX

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

COUNCIL,STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

AND CITY OF WARWICK,

CATHERINE E, SCHWARZ | ”

* CA.NO,

V. i

* 80-137

; COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

*

*

PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 19 JUNE 1980,IN THE

ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE IN THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE

ISLAND BEFORE HONORABLE FRANCIS J. BOYLE,

JUNE 19.1980

THE COURT: This is an application for:

a preliminary injunction with respect to

, the location of a pumping station by the

City of Warwick,Rhode Island,adjacent to

the shoreline of Narragansett Bay.

The plaintiffs appear pro se,and the

Court has endeavored to extend to the

plaintiffs a liberal opportunity to est-

ablish a basis for, (1) jurisdiction of .

1.

this Court and (2)a reason why this Court

should excercise this jurisdiction.

It appears that the pumping station is

part of a sewer project which encompasses

at least e part of the City of Warwick,

Rhode Island.

The Court is,it seems to me,required

to take judicial notice of the fact that

as society moves forward,certain needs

are created,not the least of which is a

method for disposing of waste. That type

of question,the method of waste disposal

is essentially,to begin with,an engineer-

ing question. Perhaps you're dealing also

in issues of the other sciences. And it

is a question which,under our system of

government,is determined in the first in-

stance,by the legislative branch,consist-

ing of the city council,City of Warwick,

apparently a sewer commission in that

community, CRMC, EPA, have ait netes in

one way or another with respect to this

Co

proposal,

It is obvious that all actions of gov-

ernment are not going to receive unanin-

ous approval of the Public. It is also

clear to this Court that the plaintiffs

here are sincerely concerned about this

plight,and the plight of the environment

about them. The question is whether there

is an issue for this Court to decide.

The legislature is entrusted with the

general regulations of the affairs of

society. People are elected to positions

in government with that responsibility.

If the-Public is dissatisfied with their

activities,the remedy is at the ballot

box. It is not in the judicial branch of

government. The issue here is the grant

of a preliminary injunction.

In Wright and Miller,Sec. 2948,the au-

thor states;A formulation that has become

popular in all kinds of cases,although it

was Originally devised in connection with

De

stays of administrative orders,is that

the four most important factors are, (1)

The significance of the threat of irre-

parable harm to the plaintiffs if the in-

junction is not granted; (2)The state of

the balance between this harm and the in-

jury that granting the injunction would

inflict on the defendant; (3)The probab-

ility that the plaintiff will succeed on

the merits: and (4) The public interest,

It seems to this Court that the public

interest must be presumed to be expressed

in the actions of the City of Warwick. It

may be that a substantial minority of the

people are opposed to those actions,but

in view of the fact that the municipality

has acted here,and is acting,on the issue

of public interest,it seems to this Court

that the weight falls on the side of the

city.

The plaintiffs seem to be arguing that

the proposal violates 33 Code of Federal

he

_Regulations,Part 240, That regulation,it .

appears to this Court,applies to govern-

ment projects being conducted by the Caps

of Engineers and relates to work within

the floodplain on such government pro-

jects. It is not remotely suggested that

this project fits within that definition.

Therefore,it appears to this Court at

this time,that the project is not one

that is covered by those regulations,

The plaintiffs also argue that by Fed-

eral law,discharges are to be prohibited,

Now,it appears that the parties are not

in disagreement that this project does

not involve the deliberate present con-

tinuing discharge of pollutants into the

navigable waters. The plaintiffs argue

that in the event of a catastrophe such

as a hurricane or in the event of the

passage of time,the normal wear and tear,

in the event of the normal kind of acci-

dent that can be expected in the opera-

De

.tion of any kind of mechanical facility,

dealing as this one does in handling mil-

lions of gallons of substances over a

period of time,are all subject to leaks,

spills,overflows,accidents of all types,

and that therefore this type of activity

is prohibited by federal law which proh-

ibits discharges.

Assuming for the moment that the plain-

tiffs' view is correct,the federal law

does impose such a prohibition,one of the

hallmarks of our society has been that

the rules that govern our society are

applied in a reasonable fashion. The Fed-

eral Government could not have intended

that by legislating against discharges,it

would thereby have prevented any and all

accidental discharges into the navigable

waters, That would be an unrealistic con-

struction to place on any provision of

the law. What is in mind here certainly

is the prohibition of the deliberate

66

. dumping of materials into the navigable

waters,

Now with respect to whether or not

there is such a prohibition,this Court

in United States of America v,. City of

Providence,77-0374, filed May 2,1980,at

Pages 9 through 11,dealt with the present

state of the law with respect to dis-

charges,and held that the Federal law

does not prohibit discharges into navig-

able waters,but requires that a permit

be obtained and provides for the regul-

ation of these discharges,at least until

1983. I might say that the legislation,

it appears from some of the decided caseg

was legislation that was adopted by what

appears to have been a very enthusiastic

but somewhat unrealistic Congress, that

decided to put a lid on discharges into

navigable waters,which initially I be-

lieve was 1972. It has since been extend-

. ed a number of times,and the latest step -

Daowccr:

in the process is to require by 1983 the

use Of the best practicable methods of |

sewage control,elimination of discharges.

Society has not - the technology of soc-

iety,at least,has not yet arrived,unfort-

unately,at the melanian}and we still have

a long way to go. *millennium

It seems to me with regard to the mat-

ter of public interest,with regard to the

matter of probability of success on the

merits,the plaintiffs' claim here is lac-

king. I have substantial doubt that there

is any issue here upon which there is a

probability of success on tne part of

the plairtiffs.

It seems to me in the public interest,

the project,at least,should proceed at

this point without interference by this

Court. | 7‘ |

Addi tionally, there is the threat,at

least the Court must perceive such a thr-

eat, to the public health of the citizens,

8. -

- Of the City of Warwick, This project pr-

esumably will improve their lot,in that

it is hopefully a step forward for a ci-

vilized society. Sometimes those steps

forward do affect the interest of other

people. But there is a substantial inter-

est in seeing that the public health is

protected,and this is one method of doing

s0. So that the significance of threat of

irreparable harm to the defendant city is

substantially more than the threat of ir-

reparable harm in the event of an accid-

ent or hurricane or some such catastrophe

to the plaintiffs.

It seems to me that the state of the

balance between the harm and the injury

rests with the City rather than with the

plaintiffs in this action,

It therefore appears with respect to

all four factors,the plaintiffs' action

fails on preliminary injunction,

Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary in-

9.

junction will be denied, Plaintiffs may

have an exception. The defendants will

prepare and present a form of order,

Now, Mrs. Schwarz, you may have some

appeal rights that you might want to look

into, -~Judge Francis Boyle.

4 REE HHHHEHE

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

CATHERINE E. SCHWARZ

CoA. NO.80-1429_

Ve

CRMC, STATE OF R.I.

AND CITY OF WARWICK

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

BEFORE COFFIN, CHIEF JUDGE,

CAMPBELL AND BOWNES, CIRCUIT JUDGES.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Entered September 15, 1980

The plaintiff-appellant filed suit in

the U.S. District Ct. for the District of

R.I. seeking to enjoin the completion of

construction on a sewage pumping station.

The District Ct. denied preliminary in-

junctive relief. Appellant has now filed

before this Court a "Motion for Injunction!

10,

;

_

It is difficult to determine from this

motion what specific relief she is seek-

ing from this Court. If appellant's mot-~

ion is construed as a request for a stay

or an injunction pending appeal, Rule 8

(a) F.R.A.P., the same is denied for the

reasons stated by the District Court. If

motion is construed as a request for re-

view of the denial of a preliminary in-

junction, 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) that or-

der is affirmed, First Circuit Rule le,

because we can find no abuse of discret-

ion or any clear error of law. See Grim-

ard v,. Carlston,567 F.2d 1173(1st Cir.

1978). The reasons stated by the District

Court amply set forth the lack of any

probability of success on the merits and

demostrate why the balance of hardships

tilt in favor of the defendants,

Appeal dismissed. By the Court;

/s/ DANA H, GALLUP, Clerk.

SAAHHAAASHSHHEHHHHEEEHEHEEHEHE HEHEHE HEHEHE

Rehearing denied,October 6,1980, supra/

11.

EDWARDS & ANGELL

One Hospital Trust Plaza

ProvidencaRhode Island 02903

Mr.Kenneth Jackson February 15,1979

New England Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

424 Trapelo Road

Waltham,Massachusetts,02154

"We submit that the construction of.

this pumping station is subject to the

permit requirements of the Corps of Army

Engineers,

The proposed pumping station is to be

located on a peninsula surrounded by nav-

igable waters. The actual structure will

be within 200 ft. of Brush Neck Cove, a

navigable waterway, The area in which the

pumping station will be built is subject

to constant flooding and severe storm da-

mage. At frequent intervals in the last

century,whole structures in the immediate

vicinity of the proposed location have

been destroyed by natural disasters,

The waters of Brush Neck Cove are pre-

sently unpolluted. If a natural disaster

were to cause the flow of raw sewage into

Brush Neck Cove,navigation of that water-

way would be severely affected. Moreover,

the waters of the cove are presently used

for fishing and clamming, It is possible

that only one serious storm would be en-

Ough to end these activities in Brush

Neck Cove forever,

Our examination of the Army Corps of

Engineers' regulations indicates that a

permit is required for all structures or

.work affecting navigable waters in the

United States. See 3522.3 (a),Federal Reg-

12,

ister, Vol. 42, #138 (July 19,1977). Al-

though the structure of the pumping sta-

tion will not be within the navigable »

waters of the United States,if its design

ie not adequate to withstand the severe

storms to which the area is frequently

subjected,it will severely affect the na~

vigable waters of the United States, In

addition,it is the policy of the Depart-

ment of the Army to consider not only na-

vigability but also fish and wildlife

conservation, pollution, aesthetics, ecology,

and the general public interest. See 55

C.F.R. 209.120. All of these interests

would be affected by placement of an in-

adequate structure at this site.

To the best of our knowledge,the War-

wick Sewer Authority has not yet applied

for a permit from the Army Corps of Eng-

ineers. Moreover,it does not appear that

they intend to do so. Therefore,we would

urge the District Engineer to commence an

investigation of this project in accord-

ance with 326.3,Federal Register, Vol.42,

#138 (July 19,1977)."

Very truly yours, Patricia A.S. Zesk

SHKHHHHEHHEHHHEHHEHHHEHEHEEHHHHH EHH HERE EE

Q. Why has the Army Corps of Engineers

abrogated its duty where this Floodplain .

site,at navigable water, is concerned ??

fe F

Sewer pump location

said ‘ridiculous’

To the Editor:

I, Robert D. Bowman, would like to

state that I am not in favor of having

the proposed sewer pumping station

in the planned location, It .is .a

ridiculous plan for many reasons,

1. The area gvag: Ky orden J

storms coming up the bay whith.

would ruin the pumps and other ex-

pensive equipment and make the

pump station inoperable.

2. The water-tight door they have

planned might hold out rain water,

and that is only a maybe. But it

definitely would not hold out flood

waters.

3, The 6 inch intake and 6 inch

exhaust pipes 9 feet in the air will be

the first things that snap off in the

surge of hurricane force waves with

boats and other debris pushing and

hurling against them.

4. | worked tor the City of Warwick

ior 2 years in the mid 60's with the

waterfront department. We were

taking out the remnants of broken up

foundation walls that had collapsed in

the 1954 Hurricane. We were werking

to make a nice place for swimming at

Oakland Beach. Naw a sewer pump

3 lines of barbed wire all around it will

be a real eyesore at the only clean

water to clam in and fish and swim. It

' eset cee anerreonfiogenpabers

sewage onto the beachfronts and

‘Warwick City Park the Public will

know who to blame.

5. I worked on the Narragansett

Sewer Treatment Plant, the Smith-

field Treatment Plant, and the

eee em Derg itas ‘ Wms Ov we ee sete Th ete

An employee of Hart Engineering,New England

specialists in sewer pump building and main-

tenance,Bob Bowman took plans to Boston ar-

chitects,consensus above.Lived 22

Brush Neck Cove,clammed there all

rse On

is life,

and now a supervisor in building; R.I. Hos-

pital Trust Bank, Howard Johnson Complex

etc. Been on T.V. and in news on this but

no attention paid to real

; though

Experts

defendants admit they call him when they

have problems they can not solve themselves.

Quoting Fred Hoernle,the top engineer from

C.E.Maguire,"We call on Bob every time we

‘have a knotty problem,"

14,

pt sta-

.

| protest site of ;

250 in W

. ae

he

wage ——.

se

te gli de

TI

2 ey EAE An fades at}

Sie Hil il: a Ho0 i

Mghting this

y engineers, where

run-offs do exist and

engineers planned sewer

nan

Defendants say Petitioner fi

pumps for this cove. Both totally false

statements. Public Hearing transcri

tes east side picked b

city-owned land and lowest point,Warwick Cove.

case alone, and

pollution and septic

15.

Warwick man dies in car accident

|

Bristol shellfish ban lifted Eugene Montecarlo Jr. of 81

BRISTOL — Although she complained it was@ | powhatan Street died in a car accident

bit late, Town Administrator Sarah Amaral said in Providence early yesterday morn

yesterday she got some good news aver the | in, providence police reportedthat the

weekend — Bristol Harbor has been reopened for} ian apparently suffered a heart |

shellfishing. attack while driving and his car left the

In an Evening Bulletin story Friday, Mrs.| road at the corner of Niantic Avenue

Amaral said she was ready to storm Governor | and DuPonte Avenue, whereit strucka .

* Garrahy’s office if the state ban on shelifishing in| puilding.

Bristol Harbor was not lifted An assistant medical examiner ©

appeared, Mrs. Amaral said she | pronounced him dead at the scene

neat a Carvtnn Maine, the state Department | shortly before 1 a.m. The man was 55 °

of Environmental Managements’ (DEM) regula- | yearsold. !

- tion director. Mrs. Amaral said Maine told her the {!.n2..>°. fine nit ae stsi_oaeiill

habor was reopened for shellfishing one week

ago today. : Mr. Montecalvo last

words to me, “Watch

Street_sewage pumping station. and don't let them

| “The west half of Bristol Harbor, incuding an (defendants)get to

area off Poppasquash Point where quahogs were yoOu'', The answer was

transplanted from polluted waters of Narragan- wwe will fight the

| sett Bay last fall, is now open. injustice of this

naseliching lo banned Prtinmeameinte case a5 long as God

sevent of sewage equipment breakgowng gives us the health

~iust and strength",

SESSA HHHEHHHHRHEHHHHHE HEE

With 9 members of CRMC signing the Decision for

Permit; stating no adverse effects from sewage

pumping stations on ourshellfishing cove, while

there are raw sewage overflows from sewer pump-

ing stations all over Re 1 Ferry has been com-

mitted. CRMC doesn't protect anything.Just close

off and point out messes after they permit them

to happen,even through criminal actions.

The defendants are using Federal money to vio-

late Federal laws, ' leen ‘iater Act,Sec. 350

Water Quelity, and § 1), (bo), 2nd

(c) (2)Felsifyine documents and certification,

end representation.

16.

$ sey sea ieee Gee ARABS a tUge tue Si

dag Uidetsiieee iit [igeea eg tha is ell

d ee

a HS tit wa gigt

2 1F Ht al it cei i whi Ha tin

See aE

— ti i tr He itt i Ut RAE

- te mul FH Tere i ea i

OHTA Reo A

- Inthe good —.

Of government? |

Te aoe it te’ “De Memon te

Warwick City Council in ‘‘passing’’

the zone ordinance for the Pontiac

housing project, was unaware that a

valid affirmative vote had not been |

registered? 8 8 °

Are we to believe that skilled

elected officials, schooled for years in

the intrigues and shenannigans

deemed laudable in mastering party

politics, had no inkling of what they

were doing? And must we accept the

wailing remonstrance by members of

the Council that, before voting, their

legal advisor withheld enlighten-

ment?

: How fortunate that Carmine Ginolfi

. gay en a

“ignorance” to prevent

the City Charter, Warwick’: Council

members are sworn to uphold. How

fortunate too, that Warwick has the

Benoit’s and Sharkey’s to “guide”

Mayor Walsh and Council President

‘Pellicano through the

quagmire of Charter requirements. It

may be that, as suggested by Nanette

M.R. Poussin and others, the time has

come to form Ward Community

Associations to lead our elected

oficials out of their “‘perplexities.”’

Mayor Walsh has mounted a strong

campaign against the un-hygienic

operation of the Providence sewer

treatment plant, while Catherine Sch-

wartz writes in the

wa '-

wick has left in entire city.” In this -

, no city Island is

immune from -pointing. Does

Warwick have ‘‘clean hands?”’

tricky }

courageous one-man campaign waged

’ by Harvey Flint about 30 years ago,

against the failure of the State to

prevent industrial pollution from

destroying Narragansett Bay. Then,

the Providence River stenching

through Market Square was described

as the “World's largest open sewer

pen gcprece ne rg et

Tui paid odvertising, ‘Flint

publicly BS meal firms and city

‘systems throughout Rhode Island,

who were the chief offenders. It forced

Governor Pastore finally to promise

action. Harvey's resources were not

unlimited. His efforts could not be

. sustained. Conditions in Narragansett

Bay reverted to what exists today,

er due to the lack of citizen

Gallucci in the Pontiac vote change

' gives ample proof that voters are

under a serious misapprehension

when it is assumed that elected

_ Fepresentatives give priority to the

concerns of their constituents. They -

do what party powers tell them to do,

or with less merit, what special in-

teres(s demand. Alarmingly, the

motives of government increasingly

ae p Anes yee The incompetence

moral deficiencies evident at all

raat age ese reasons the

judgement that an ability to

the legitimate

advertising

slogan, federal, state and local

are not always the

>

| Avery supports moying

Oakland Beach sewer pit

, * UGA, Pie drbs ters

‘o the Editor; - i pall

.,Candidate for Mayor Edwin Avery

ge? tO FP Ou ’

made ‘'" ‘several!:’ down-to-earth.

slatements gt the public hearing on

ture ‘plans ‘for Warwick ‘ sewers. *

Pirst'and foremost’ he’ stated. ‘ that

since the residents of ‘both sides of

Brushneck Cove did not want a sewer’

bumping station built in a floed plain «

yecause of the danger of destruction

juring a hurricane and: pollution to.

Buttonwood; and Brushneck Cove; it ©

would be only reasonable to move it.

Mir.'Avery mentioned that several

laces - on * high ground. had’ been

juggested that would keep the threat.

M devastion from -hurricanes away

rom the’ pumping stations and

ollution to the. only cove’ left’ in

Warwick’ where residents from all

wer Warwick now enjoy clamming

ind swimming at Warwick City Park

ind they should not. be jeopardized.

‘Mayoral candidate Avery also

nentioned that when he. saw. the

etition several weeks back.. it: had

ver $00 names on it and he wondered : meeting to protest.

se people's thoughts were {

ot taken into consideration since they

vhy these

vere the people living in that area.

5 ” i .

Th the year) ee eran

‘yea! bien

Over 400 people

showed up at City

Hall mid-March '78

and 380 at this, A

but ignored,

Brg Ave. resident who —

suction pump

ee) eae e

Vabdyiel §

+ Oa Sh

iter * BONS

4 374 ! : is

mp... -:

Ps + “> ,

Wie BEACON

Seer DT LA

| RP | é' , vr | o-* ‘

,O. Beach residents fo: :

protest sewer project’ .,

id

the

Ppisk

"A Statewide Planning high ground out

Council review of the extreme’ high

held Thursday, April 20

from 9 to 10:30 a.m. in the

Statewide Planning office

at 265 Melrose. Street,

Providence.

are expected to attend the

Catherine Schwarz, a

spoken out strongly

against’ the pumping says she was told

station, reports that Sewer

Authority meetings in

; > pump

‘station in the Oakland .

: Beach area be changed toa

placed on

pe am sre wrath nae

19.

‘Defend clean water we have left?

To the Editor:

“This is an open letter to all the

politicians, past and present. who

have created all this filthy mess along

‘ Don't you politicians realize that all

the intelligent people of R.1. are tired

of all this sewage polluting every |

stream. brook. river. and. sub-

; sequently, al] Narragansett Bay?

Don’t any of you realize sewag

belongs in the land where it will

enrich, not in the water where it will

pollute? uit

‘Does raw sewage have to rain down

on your heads before you will wise up?

Hasn't the past two calamities taught

you anything? January's floods with

all the sewer treatment plants

throwing out untreated sewage into

the Providence and Pawtuxet Rivers

for three days. didn’t teach you

anything? Raw sewage from ruptured

sewer pumping stations un-

treated human waste into nearest

waterways for three days. didn't

teach you anything?

‘~~ All last week a deluge of raw

sewage festooning the beaches from

East Providence and Cranston to

Warwick, did that teach you

anything? sc

There has got to be some intelligent °

life left in Rhode Island. And if there is

i

A

F

3

:

Fi

:

in the long run.

fected by the rupturing of this sewer

pump but all Greenwich Bay. Look on

your maps, you yachtsmen and come

and defend the little clean water we

- have left. fee

Are‘ these politicians all wearing

their neckties too tight? Has the

- circulation to the brain stopped en-

tirely? i:

~ Again, Catherine Schwarz andt

Siation site. Yet the law governing ,

sewer pumps in Floodplains states:

With enou h Public Protest an

Nernate site has to be found.” The

velihood. Of course less centralize

government would be best served at

local level with the people having a

voice, where sound government could

be made to support itself at the lowest

possible level.—That is the message

the people must send out at the Special

‘Referendum, the primaries and in

November.

As Voltaire wrote: “If.a man is born

free, he aught to govern himself! —If a

_ man has tyrants, he aught to Gethrone,

them!"’ We are living in a vast

graveyard with blighting shadows over

all our activities, we must get out of this

graveyard, out where there is light,

where there is brave significant motion,

hope and joy. Out into the broad road to

‘ Truth—and Honesty.

Nanette M.R. Poussin

Warwick

The best engineer of all!

To the Editor:

On Thursday evening, February 8 at

7:30, a pudlic hearing will be held at

Warwick City Hall. Coastal and

Natural Resources is conducting this

hearing on an application for a permit

to build a sewer pumping station in a

flood plain’. We all saw and heard what

happened last weekend all over this

state, where all the sewer treatment

plants and all the sewer pumping

stations that were in flood areas were

overflowing with raw sewerage into

the nearest body of water. This went

on for three days.

The nearest body of water in this

case is Brushneck and Buttonwoods

Cove and it is the only class‘‘A”’ cove

left in Warwick. Our cove is a haven

for clammers and fishermen all year

long (even ice fishing). Warwick City

Park and Beach is right in the center

of Brushneck-Buttonwoods Cove and

thousands of residents from all over

the state spend many a warm day

there and bathing. All this

will be taken away with the

destruction of one flood. Mainly,

because of the way it was created. It

has two long narrow branches with

only one small opening at the end of

Buttonwoods Point. The narrow

opening and the shallow bottom of

most of -Buttonwoods Cove

does not allow for a tidal sweep. So

from a station

it would be even wane the

Providence River. ,

With a thousand petitioners I never

have been working alone and it is

these same petitioners that have paid

the lawyers fees. And we have the best

of lawyers to deal with the flood plain

21

laws. Mr. Deming Sherman and Ms.

Pat Zesk of Edwards and Angell law

firm were highly recommended for

work of this nature in conservation. In

fact, it was only a matter of minutes

before Mr. Sherman had the law

stating that nothing in the state of R.1.

can be built near any body of water

without the 200 foot set-back now on

the books. By 1963. the new land

management. act will have a 300 foot

set-back from any body of water.

These laws have to be enforced and

maintained if we are to keep our clean

water to drink. and our clean water to

‘swim and fish in. All our en-

vironmental laws are there to protect

all of us from the folly and greed of a

few.

The new land management act will

keep all flood plains for natural and

out constantly, by either rainwater or

salt water, but we never had raw

TLE

ae

dT

tHE

mT

ey

A

I

i

re

days. Yet. I have. in writing,

statements from them stating that our

fears of flooding are groundless as

they know everything that nature can

do and have planned for all con-

tingencies.

Last weekend proved that they don’t

know what nature or the Creator of all

this will do or can do. In fact, they

don’t even know what they are

doing...these engineers that are

destroying all the good things of life in

the name of progress. It is not

progress. It is greed.

Not only do we have several en-

vironmental groups aiding the ‘‘Clean

Cove Committee’’ but the Sisters of St.

Ann have put our petition with my

picture on it at the altar of St. Ann and

prayed we would win. This Cove is

their vacation spot and they dearly

love this place and appreciate the

clean water. as they swim every day.

They also told me they would pray to

St. Jude, the saint of the impossible,

so how can anyone think I’ve been

doing this on my own or alone. I never

was alone or the leader. I have been

led and pushed forward to do my best

and to keep going. as we will even-

tually win. We have the greatest

engineerof all cn our side.

Catherine Schwarz

Warwick

22.