When the camp was created, Charlestown had a small population and Charlestown like much of South County was mostly undeveloped. But land use has changed dramatically over the decades and the importance of the remaining large unfragmented forest parcels has greatly increased for species that depend on these large parcels.
Rhode Islanders’ rights to the shore are clear, but what is less clear is where exactly you get to enjoy those rights. Legislation that provides a clear and easily measurable line of where public access starts would help everyone. Just landward of the seaweed line might be a good place to start.
Even if bobcats are becoming more common in parts of Charlestown, they are still elusive. Bobcats seldom venture out during daylight hours. You are most likely to catch a glimpse of them at dusk and dawn when they are most active.
Alone on the river it can feel like you are in a wilderness, 1000 miles from anywhere, just you and a startled beaver and the splash of sun bathing turtles diving into the water.
Changing the Charter as the CDTC suggests, to require the automatic appointment of the “next highest vote getter” from among the defeated candidates, is not following the voter’s choice. The voter’s choice can only be measured in an election, and when there has been time for a special election the voters have chosen to defeat again the “next highest vote getter.” We should leave our Town Charter as it is.
Now that the Narragansett Tribe and Invenergy have terminated their contract to truck water from Tribal land in Charlestown to Burrillville to cool the turbines of Invenergy’s proposed power plant in the forest of that town, Charlestown has lost its intervenor status. That is great news for the wetlands of the Indian Cedar Swamp and for anyone who lives or travels in the path of the proposed tanker truck caravan. Yet despite escaping this threat to our local roads and wetlands, Charlestown remains connected to the forests of Burrillville in several important ways.
The Energy Facility Siting Board should not accept Invenergy’s proposal to withdraw groundwater from within the Town of Charlestown to satisfy any requirement for a water supply.
This application is before the Energy Facility Siting Board, but if it were an application before the Planning Commission, our Planner would stamp it incomplete and send it back to the applicant. The EFSB should do the same.
It is now up to Invenergy to prove that a dot on a map in a wetland is sufficient and environmentally acceptable. I don’t see how they can do that and hope that as soon as the Show Cause Hearing is held, the EFSB will require that the water withdrawal plan for Charlestown be removed from Invenergy’s application.
On Tuesday, December 5, the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) held a hearing in Charlestown to hear testimony on Invenergy’s proposal to truck water from Tribal land in Charlestown to Burrillville to cool the turbines of Invenergy’s proposed power plant in the forest of that town. Hundreds of citizens attended the meeting, dozens spoke against the water withdrawal plan, no one spoke in favor of the plan. Many speakers asked questions, but Invenergy provided no answers.
Post includes videos of the speakers.
When: Tuesday, December 5 at 6 p.m. (doors open at 5 p.m.)
Where: Charlestown Elementary School, 363 Carolina Back Road (Rt. 112), Charlestown
What: The purpose of the hearing is to hear your public comment.
Who: This is entirely the Energy Facility Siting Board’s (EFSB) hearing. This is not a Town meeting and the Charlestown government has not been allowed to make a formal presentation. The applicant however gets an opportunity to present to the public and the hearing will begin with a presentation by the applicant Invenergy Thermal Development LLC.
Ideas for questions to ask the EFSB on Tuesday night are at the end of this post.
In denying the Tribal Council’s motion to intervene, the EFSB claimed approval of the motion would put the EFSB in the position of taking a side in internal tribal politics, instead they would just take the contract between Invenergy and “two members of the Tribe”, Matthew Thomas and John Brown, at its “face value”.
Since this November 27 EFSB hearing I have wondered what the EFSB meant by the “face value” of the contract. And what is that face value?
If things weren’t already complicated enough with the proposal by Invenergy to truck water from Tribal land in Charlestown to Burrillville to cool the turbines of Invenergy’s proposed power plant […]
Letter from Ruth Platner: “The Energy Facility Siting Act requires that the EFSB base their decision on a finding that the applicant has shown that there will not be “unacceptable harm to the environment and [that the proposal] will enhance the socio-economic fabric of the state”. With the facts of the water withdrawal hidden from the public, is the EFSB expecting us to just trust their judgment?”
When: Tuesday, November 21 at 7 p.m.
Where: Cross Mills Library (map in post)
What: Invenergy plans to withdraw groundwater from Charlestown and carry it by tanker trucks to Burrillville where it will cool the turbines of the proposed gas and oil fueled power plant. You can learn all about the project that will use this water at this informational meeting.
Who: This event is sponsored by the Rhode Island Association of Conservation Commissions and the Burrillville Land Trust. Burrillville Land Trust President, Paul A. Roselli will lead the presentation and discussion.
Invenergy now proposes to connect Charlestown and Burrillville with a caravan of tanker trucks carrying water from the Indian Cedar Swamp in Charlestown to cool the turbines of the power plant in Burrillville.
Once we get more reliable data, we’ll be able to assess impacts such as safety, noise, air quality, cumulative damage to roads, and energy used. Invenergy will pay for the water, but all these other costs associated with health, safety, and diminished quality of life will be borne by the communities the trucks pass through. And it all depends on how much water is trucked on any given day.
The Energy Facilities Siting Board should not allow the developers of the Invenergy power plant to use an agreement to withdraw groundwater from within the Town of Charlestown to satisfy any requirement for a backup water supply because of insufficient notice to the Town of Charlestown, insufficient information provided to the Town, and a need for the Siting Board to seek additional legal advice.
Over 75 Charlestown residents attended the Solarize Charlestown program at Cross Mills Library on June 27 to learn about the State Incentives, Federal Tax Credits, and group purchasing power made possible by the partnership of the State of Rhode Island and the Town of Charlestown that make this an affordable time to add solar panels to your roof.
If you missed the program or just want to review the June 27 presentation, we have put together a slide show with a short summary of what we learned.
Since 2010, Charlestown Town Councils have worked well with most commissions by practicing the philosophy of government that recommends you keep your political opposition close and work with them to reduce acrimony and find common ground. But a small faction of the Parks and Recreation Commission has used their appointments to politicize the commission to attack the Town Council.
The EIS, planning, and preliminary engineering etc., is prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff/AECOM Joint Venture. It’s reported that $40 million has been spent so far on this planning process. How hard would it be to spend a few more pennies to write a letter stating that the plan includes “new rails and a new rail route in your community”. Or better yet, why not have included the towns in the scoping process from the very beginning?
The following letter was submitted to NEC Future as a request for an extension to the comment period on the Tier 1 Final EIS and is shared with us here […]
Connecticut’s US Senator Richard Blumenthal held a town meeting at the Old Lyme Connecticut Town Hall at noon on Thursday, December 22 to discuss the Federal Railroad Administration’s plan for the “Old Saybrook to Kenyon” bypass.
He said this proposal must be countered and combated, it must not be allowed to be approved as a plan.
The following letter was submitted to local newspapers and is shared with us here by the author Ruth Platner. Ruth Platner is Chair of the Charlestown Planning Commission. The North […]
On Wednesday, June 22, the Charlestown Planning Commission gave Preliminary Approval to ChurchWoods, the affordable, senior housing proposed for commercial land next to the Episcopal church in Cross’ Mills. New […]
On June 18 the Rhode Island Legislature passed another version of the so called “Dry Lands Bill” that “provides that wetland buffers not be excluded from the calculation of buildable […]
Boston.com found three easy-to-get-to places in New England with a great view of the Milky Way and listed Frosty Drew as number one! The other two were the much more […]
The following letter appeared in local newspapers and is shared with us here by the author Ruth Platner Granting a conservation easement over undeveloped land is very much like hiring […]
The following letter appeared in local newspapers, and is shared with us here by the author Ruth Platner On April 23, the Westerly Sun published a story, “Group seeks $1 […]
The following letter appeared in local newspapers and is shared with us here by the author Ruth Platner. Ms. Platner is Chair of the Charlestown Planning Commission. The meetings of […]
Guest Post by Ruth Platner (guest posts are moderated, but not approved or endorsed by the CCA Steering Committee) ———————————————— In the last 15 years there have been 5 major […]
