President’s Letter Fall 2022 — 2 Comments

  1. I know that the report is a long document (close to 150 pages if I recall correctly).
    I am aware that the board wants to read it first and perhaps ask the consultants for some clarifications before making it available to the community at large.
    In the mean time and short of reading it all, can the members of the HPWA be able to read the Executive Summary which I hope was provided with the report.

  2. That question has a long and complicated answer. They considered runoff (because they did the study half a decade ago) but because the largest contributor sites of phosphorus (according to their study) had been remediated, they did not think that runoff was a major contributor. Even though the largest single contributor of GHP’s phosphorus is LHP (47%), there was no consideration of LHP runoff (LHP runoff was not considered in the earlier study either), even though LHP has, like GHP considerable slopes.

    The review committee has not given up on runoff and will talk with Plymouth about the possibility of doing another runoff study. We cannot sewer our watershed in a reasonable amount of time and it would be very expensive for our residents to do so. Accordingly, we have the time and the motivation to dig deeper into possible phosphorus sources. We have done that and, so far, at least in my opinion, runoff is a good place to start. Others are being investigated.

    Our next step is to talk with our Plymouth partners (Kim Tower and David Gould) and get their opinions and their ideas about our opinions.

    Thanks for your continuing interest.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>