OSWPCA: Sunshine / CRAHD - 25Oct11 NOEL's False Urgency - 01Nov2011

Text facsimile

—————————————————> Joel R. Anderson

13 George Drive
Old Saybrook CT 06475-2636
860 388-9858
1 November 2011

Mary Jane Engle, MPH, R.S., Dir.
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.

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 urgency.

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.
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.

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.