Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.

 

Cost of a special election in Grafton District 9 won't be that much

To The Daily Sun,

As an Ashland resident, I would like to thank the Board of Selectman for voting to look into the feasibility of a special election to replace Representative Jeff Shackett (Grafton District 9). It is important that we honor the New Hampshire Constitution. The citizens of Ashland are entitled to two representatives and, if one drops out for whatever reason, there's a need to hold a special election. In the current political climate — both in the state and nationally — it is more important than ever to follow our Constitution and make sure the people have appropriate representation.

The remaining representative of House District 9, Robert Hull, cannot possibly represent our area. He lives closer to Hanover than he does to Ashland. He does not know us or our issues. Jeff Shackett resigned shortly after being sworn into office, which leaves our area with yet another year without his voice in Concord.

One of the reasons that some towns in District 9 are resisting the special election is the cost, but the state has said that they will provide the ballots for us, which will mitigate the cost. The employees working on the election are mostly on payroll, so there will be minor expense to each town. The fiscal argument is not valid.

Thank you so much for seriously considering this very important constitutional issue.

Mary Catherine Gennaro, DO
Ashland

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 517

We need rules & regulations to safeguard our water supply

To The Daily Sun,

The previous two letters that I submitted about water have dealt with the waste and misuse of our most precious resource. Even more insidious is the contamination of water both on the surface and underground. I am not alone in the concern about the current deregulation efforts focused on loosening EPA rules relating to water purity.

I remember the era that followed the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1965. I arrived in New Hampshire in 1969. I had left a highly populated suburban region of New Jersey and was looking forward to getting back to a more rural life. Yes, I found rural, but it was more contaminated than it appeared. The lakes and ponds were pretty and relatively clean
but the rivers were a different story. Fishing was possible but eat at your own risk was the advice I got as related to most of the rivers. Sewage infrastructure was poor and in some places, nonexistent. Industrial wastes were poorly handled and lacked regulation to prevent abuse.

Federal plans growing out of the 1965 law arrived in the form of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Study. Towns were advised and a delivery system was designed and offered as solution to the sewage problem. A plant was created on the terminus of the system. The plant was located on the banks of the Merrimack River at the south end of Franklin.
It was, and still is, a model for the rest of the state.

Addressing how to handle surface water and ground water contamination was the focus of the Clean Water Act. That law put some teeth into the EPA's bite. Identification of hazards came first. Once identified, the contaminates were listed. Then came the debate about control and clean-up methods. For instance, a whole industry grew out of chemical
storage tank identification and testing. Those that were above ground were easily identified and cataloged. Those that were leaking were put on a list as source water hazards. It was called the Location of Above-ground Storage Tanks, or the (LAST) list. The underground tanks were not quite so easy to locate. Many of them had been abandoned for
one reason or other. The search continued, however, and soon there was the Location of Underground List, or the (LUST) list. Cute names given to some pretty ugly business, I thought.

While the storage tank search and remediation continued, a whole array of contaminates affecting the ground water were found and their potential hazards were identified. Most of us in Hew Hampshire are familiar with the chemical MTBE. It was a gasoline additive that was found in our ground water in sufficient quantities to be considered a
hazard. After a length series of court cases, we received monies from the petroleum companies for remediation. It, by no means, is the only contaminant endangering our well-heads. Fertilizer, road salt, household chemicals and septic systems are the most common, but the list continues to grow.

I think you get the idea. We need rules and regulations. To make sure the chemicals and hazards are kept away from our drinking water supply we need trained personnel and enforcement capability at the state and national levels accompanied by local ordinances that help ensure our ground water is safe to draw from a well.

Bill Dawson

Northfield

 

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 990