# Appendix — Schwarz v. Coastal Resources Management Council

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1094%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1981
- **Citation:** 450 U.S. 981

## Text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1094%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.