—————————————————> Joel R. Anderson
Mary Jane Engle, MPH, R.S., Dir.
13 George Drive
Old Saybrook CT 06475-2636
1 November 2011
CT River Area Health District
166 Main St, Unit #2
Old Saybrook, CT 06475-2386
Dear Director of Health Engle:
Re your letter (a/k/a "NOEL" Notice of Entry Letter) of
25Oct11 entering Map/Lot 003/242 into Old Saybrook's
Wastewater Management program; specifically, Exhibit A's
bogus Time-is-of-the-essence language, "You must submit the
completed application, including any revisions to the
information about your property, within thirty (30) days of
receipt of this application form."
1. No one receiving your 25Oct11 NOEL need respond in 30 days.
Time is NOT of the essence. There's no valid health reason for
a WWMD-owner response "within thirty (30) days of receipt of
this application form."
a) Exhibit A is in NOEL_4-28-10.pdf. You sat on
distribution of Exhibit A to Cornfield Park owners for
18 months (since April 28, 2010), a delay that attests
to Exhibit A's lack of urgency.
To any "Phased Implementation" excuse for your NOEL-mailing
nonperformance: the physical side of the implementation may
have mechanical constraints, there being only so many
workers who can occupy the same space at the same time, but
there is no similar constraint on when the NOEL can be
mailed, it's only paper.
b) You could have mailed the NOEL to Cornfield Park
owners when you mailed to Saybrook Acres owners. Your
option. You didn't. Once again signifying a lack of
c) You could have mailed the NOEL to all owners in the
WWMD. You haven't. Some owners will not receive a NOEL
for years. Once again signifying a lack of urgency.
There's no excuse for not mailing to all owners within the
WWMD at once. Not to mail to all owners simultaneously is,
in fact, a CRAHD continuation of the obnoxious "Divide and
Conquer" policy of Michael A. Pace, Old Saybrook's 1st
Selectman. CRAHD is acting in bad faith with its delay in
in mailing NOELs for political reasons; to avoid organizing
massive opposition (created by a mass mailing) to what
amounts to a $42m program to prevent wastewater recycling.
2. Re your NOEL 25Oct11 cover letter language: "Failure to
complete the funding waiver section on the application means
you will be entered in the CWF funding program."
On what authority does a health agency or health officer
decide for the public how compliance with a health order
will be financed, especially when there's no health order in
the NOEL of 25Oct11?
a) If CRAHD can force a WWMD-owner to spend 50 percent of
the cost of an upgrade, CRAHD can force a WWMD-owner to
spend 100 percent of the cost of an upgrade. 50 percent
or 100 percent is a distinction without a difference,
provided, of course, that CRAHD has the authority to
force a WWMD-owner expenditure.
Why isn't CRAHD forcing WWMD-owners to pay 100 percent of
the cost of an upgrade?
Because under the 100 percent (Box B) scenario, CRAHD
doesn't get paid.
3. The Town of Old Saybrook (WPCA) hasn't identified any
pollution coming from my property. CRAHD hasn't identified
any pollution coming from my property. CRAHD, in its NOEL,
25Oct11, doesn't even allege that my property is polluting.
Neither the Town of Old Saybrook, nor CRAHD, can force WWMD
owners to pay for a solution to nonpollution. "It ain't
broke, fix it" is not a compelling legal arguement.
For the three (3) reasons cited above I will not be filing
Exhibit A within 30 days of receipt. CRAHD does not have my
permission to place me into Exhibit A, Box A, accepting CWF
(Clean Water Funds), by default, for my lack of a timely
filing, a timeliness identified and proved bogus (above).
Absent proveable pollution emanating from 13 George Drive,
CRAHD has no health reason (and therefore no reason) to
investigate my property. CRAHD has taken upon itself powers
that neither the Governor nor the President of the United
States has. Old Saybrook has become a fascist distopia where
bureaucrats rule with the club of misbegotten law (everything
done in the Third Reich was legal), and where neighbor is
turned against neighbor solely to keep down property taxes and
enhance the electabilty of politicians who do.
CRAHD must today send a letter by Return-receipt Certified
Mail to Cornfield Park owners, the same owners who received
your NOEL of 25Oct11, notifying them to disregard the 30-day
requirement in Exhibit A, and that CRAHD will not attempt to
enforce its proposed default CWF enrollment (cited in your
cover letter), for filing beyond 30 days (or ever).
Very truly yours,
Joel R. Anderson
N.B: a copy of this letter is posted to oswpca.com.
Electronic and paper copies have been distributed
to interested parties.