Although it might seem that the project is crippled by lack of public support–after all, the only money the MWRA has is our money–there is no sign that Governor Patrick or new Environmental Secretary Bowles (now chairman of MWRA) will intervene. We at Friends of the Blue Hills generated 240 letters to Bowles six weeks ago and just today we had our first conversation about it.
When MWRA built its biggest-of-all storage tank beside the Mass Pike in Weston not long ago–that elongate terraced mound complete with lights and flagpoles–it not only replaced the two acres of wetlands that were lost, but gave the town $3.5 million to buy conservation land. Perhaps the lesson here is that Quincy is not Weston.
In my dreams Patrick suspends the project, reaffirms the no net loss policy, and makes MWRA protect wetlands in the Blue Hills. Hey, he already removed the project’s best friends from office.
More info at:
because I haven’t heard of the issue before and I’d like more people to consider it.
The ‘no net loss of wetlands’ policy is a good policy, and should be adhered to.
And one more reason to be profoundly grateful I do not live in an MWRA community.
Isn’t the MWRA receiving a $25 million subsidy this year, as in past years, to “keep down rate increases”?
<
p>
Why do they need to build underground storage tanks to the tune of $38 million? What’s the justification for that? Terror-related?
The ‘subsidy’ is the debt service on the Outfall Pipe, a shotgun aimed at Cape Cod’s belly and possibly responsible for our red tide problems, as algae blooms are more common in water which has decreased salinity – which the treated freshwater effluent certainly contributes to.
<
p>
When the bonds for the outfall pipe were issued as a part of the Boston Harbor cleanup, the debt service was represented as too much of a burder to fall upon the ratepayers all at once. So, the state would ‘temproarily’ pay the debt service to phase in the increases. Of course, it was never done, Rep. DeLeo has seen to it that the bonds are still paid for with state money, and we get to indirectly subsidize the degredation of Cape Cod Bay and our maritime industries through our 5.03% taxes.
<
p>
Not that we’re bitter or anything.
All MWRA water has to be covered downstream of the new treatment plant in Southborough to protect it from microbes introduced by wildlife in open reservoirs (giardia, cryptospiridium, etc). But there is no requirement stating how much water must be stored or where.
MWRA has also claimed the tanks will protect us from terrorists, but has never explained how. See:
http://www.friendsof…
and
http://www.friendsof…
To be honest with you I am kind of at a loss as to why you are opposing this so vigorously. I live in Randolph and take my dog walking in Blue Hills park almost every weekend and have even walked in the drained reservoir last year. I consider myself to be an avid environmentalist and in fact work daily on the environmental restoration of land affected by oil and chemical spills.
<
p>
A couple of quick facts as I understand them:
-This reservoir was man made, including the wetlands around it.
-The reservoir was taking offline in the early 1980’s because of biological contamination. (Hence the reason for constructing enclosed tanks.)
-The plans for the tanks only includes about half of the land previously taken up by the reservoir and that the remaining half of the area will be developed with wetlands to the tune of about $8 million.
-The tanks themselves are going to be covered with grass areas that will be usable to park goers.
<
p>
As I see it, this project is a net gain to people in the in area. A contaminated reservoir will be converted to tanks to contain potable water. Approximately half of the current reservoir will be restored, including associated wetlands. The tanks will be covered with grass areas that can be used by park goers while access was restricted around the reservoir.
<
p>
Your (by “your” I mean the Friends of Blue Hills) complaints seems to be solely that the about of area restored as wetlands does not equal 1 for 1 the man made wetlands being disrupted by the construction of the tank. While I completely support the 1 for 1 rule as it pertains to private construction and most public construction projects, this appears to be a perfect example of the type of project the variance was intended to cover. A project that restores the environment, is a net gain for the community surrounding the wetland and the cost of 1 to 1 restoration would be detrimental to the project actually getting done. The MWRA (and by that I include myself and anyone else who already pay the extremely high MWRA rates) has estimated the project to cost $31 million (don’t know where you got the $38 million from), $8 Million of that is already being spent on environmental and wetlands restoration for half of the reservoir area. The proposed alternative restoration areas would likely cost much more then $8 million considering they included taking back land from a golf course, restoring the wetlands, then reconfiguring the golf course.
<
p>
And you seem to want to ignore the fact that this area is man made, not natural. I believe from reading your website before (a year or 2 ago) that you even made a big stink about the fish that were being lost in the pond, large mouth bass, calico bass, sunfish, pickerel and perch. All species that are far from endangered. This area is picturesque, but it is not unique or natural.
<
p>
Your descent on this project seems to me to be much ado about nothing. I equate this to the guy with the “stop global warming” sign in his front yard with an SUV parked in the drive way. The preservation of conservation land is something I feel very strongly about, I volunteer a lot of time working for various groups in this area. But the Friends of Blue Hills seem to be spending a lot of time on issues that don’t really do anything but add time and money to public work projects. I think I recall you making a big deal about filling the Quincy quarries with the soil from the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, again, much ado about nothing. Filling in a huge public hazard that is esentially a granite vault with soil that low levels of urban contamination and the construction of a golf coarse, hiking trails and ball fields. Would this area have been better with a giant hole that killed several kids per decade or what is there now?
<
p>
What’s next, are you going to make a stink about highway improvement projects that affect the man made storm water run off areas under this same wetlands protection regulations? You seem to be the type of busy-body that spends all of his time trying to be David against Goliath in a meaningless fight. And in doing so you actually hurt the wetlands protection cause because you give oppents cannon foder to use against the cause. When was the last time the Friends of Blue Hills did something actually productive like organized a cleanup day for the park? A tree planting day? Or a trail restoration? Or spent time educating people to the importance of staying on the trails and not walking where ever they feel?
jk:
<
p>
If I thought you really wanted to do something in the park,
I’d tell you about our dates this spring. If I thought you
wanted to hike at Quarry Hills, I’d direct you to the
walking paths.
But I’m weary already. No offense, but I’m glad you’re on
the other team.
Makes me wonder if a “no net loss of natural lands” policy would ever be feasible nation-wide. Taking an economic view of it, one city’s expansion could lead to the creation of the same amount of protected space in another part of the country. Although in the same way that Alaskan wildlife regions are not replaceable by Nebraska plains, even the protection of another wetland area wouldn’t replace the beauty of the Blue Hills.