The debate as to whether Woodstock has enough water to add large users continues. There is not too much evidence supporting the "yes there is" side of the debate, so guess who dusted off some 80 year old document and drummed some up.
Yesterday in a letter to the editor to the Woodstock Times, [note: this link will not work once next week's letters are posted,] RUPCO director of Community Development, Guy Kempe, made a huge error in that he claimed that Woodstock can hook up to the Kingston water supply in order to have plenty of water to supply Woodstock Commons or whatever else the Woodstock Water District needs to hose down.
Right after the letter appeared, I received several helpful emails explaining to me that the Kingston water supply, which comes from Cooper Lake, is untreated, while the place that it is "ready" to join the Woodstock water supply is where Woodstock's water has already been treated. Therefore, joining the two supplies without building further infrastructure such as a treatment facility or intake of Kingston water to the Woodstock treatment facility, produces only a contaminated water supply to the entire water district.
No thanks, Guy Kempe.
Also in the letter, Guy Kempe referred to my "busy law practice." I do not know why he wrote that, since I believe he is aware that I am not an attorney. Furthermore, I never claimed to be an attorney, and do not practice law without a license. I have written two Article 78 petitions and filed them, clearly signing both as a pro se litigant. It is neither funny, clever, nor helpful to anybody for Guy Kempe to mislead the public.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment