Candlewood Watershed Initiative (CWI)

There are three upcoming events -- all on Saturday, April 18 -- that hopefully will catch your interest and spur involvement.  They are designed to inform and promote environmentally sensitive actions throughout our Candlewood Watershed -- to help preserve, protect and enhance this wonderful paradise of ours.  They each have the potential to help us favorably impact our waterways, our woodlands, and our wildlife.  And they are all based on the premise that it is far wiser -- and far less expensive -- to be proactive in preventing pollution and stemming stormwater runoff than to have to fund its remediation.

All three events are free, are being funded through various donations, are being sponsored by the Candlewood Watershed Initiative, and will be held at Shaw's in New Fairfield --

       -  2009 Soil Testing Day - to underscore the merits of analyzing lawn and garden soilsbefore fertilizing to avoid unnecessary applications and help minimize the risks of excess nutrient runoff

 

     -  An 11 AM seminar on 'Soil Testing for Protecting Lakes and Ponds' followed by an 'Update on Lake Candlewood's Invasive Aquatic Plant Problem' (featuring our infamous milfoil) -- both presented by Greg Bugbee, a soil and aquatic invasive plant expert who handles the lab analysis of our soil samples and is responsible for mapping Candlewood's milfoil infestations
      

    -  A 1 PM seminar on terrestrial invasive counterparts entitled 'Not in My Backyard: Invasive Plant Identification and Control' -- by Donna Ellis of UConn's Department of Plant Science and Co-Chair of the CT Invasive Plant Working Group.
      
So we have a full day planned with events designed to inform and engage all residents in protecting our environment.  And, if you would like to volunteer to help, we need additional staffing at the Soil Sampling Site at Shaw's on Saturday, 4/18 (from 8-10:30 AM, or 10:30-1:00, or 1:00-3:00 PM) plus we may need 1-2 volunteers to help out in the Soil Test Lab in New Haven for a day during the following week-- it's really quite enjoyable to work alongside of Greg, and we'll brief you in advance on what's involved (simply email me if  interested, indicating which time slot might work for you).

 

Last year's Soil Testing Day -- the first of its kind -- attracted over 115 residents, some 15% of whom were from Candlewood Isle, a terrific display of commitment to protecting our Watershed.  Given the Isle's strategic importance among Lake communities -- it commands a prime position near the center of the Lake, and its perimeter accounts for ~30% of New Fairfield's developed shoreline -- we have a disproportionate influence on the health of the surrounding waters and an equivalent responsibility to help maintain Candlewood Lake's heath and quality.  Accordingly, if you haven't yet participated and had your soil tested, consider doing so on the 18th.  It would be terrific if the Isle continued to set the pace and example in shooting towards 100% cumulative participation -- as a demonstration of our commitment and legacy to the generations to follow.

Attached is a flier on this year's Soil Testing Day, and an article and ad series will be appearing in the Citizen News over the course of the next several weeks.  Note that it is easier than ever to participate.  Now you can pick up a Soil Testing Kit at any of three convenient locations in advance (beginning 4/1), scoop your sample on any dry day, and then simply return it to our outdoor booth at Shaw's on the 18th.  So lasso your neighbors and friends and urge their participation so the Isle, the Lake, and the entire Watershed will benefit.  Thanks and we hope to see you on the 18th.

Jim McAlister, Co-Chair
Candlewood Watershed Initiative (CWI)
18 Fox Run, CI

ToDMacPac@aol.com

John Hodge returns to his roots and true calling - staged production ... RTC fired up!

Remember the Bridge ... not one dime of taxpayers money! Well those bridges cost us taxpayers over $150,000 and the DEP forced the Town to remove them. The bridges violated policy, law, statutes ... Hodge's 'flip-flop'  the bridge was temporary before it was permanent (duh!) and then he stated it was temporary, but that was after the fact and concrete was poured and set ... well John Keary Hodge which is it? Were they [the bridges] temporary or permanent or was it a Hodject pocket feathering project. Now the town has two not so old houses with "operating expenditures"!
You're probably wondering what a "Hodject" is ... it doesn't depend on what the word 'is' is ... the following definition should help you understand a "Hodject":

Something that is supposed to cost nothing but costs a lot. Something that’s supposed to have no operating expenses, but has unually high operating expenses. Something that a majority of the people don’t want but never get to vote on, or part of which is not voted upon. Something that replaces a system that is presently working with a system that is more expensive or something that has no added value to the community. Something that came exclusively from the mind of John Hodge. Something that will accomplish little more than raise taxes. Something that is guaranteed to pit people against each other, often resulting in lawsuits or legal actions.




The following three pages below are from the DEP ... [you can click on each picture to enlarge] ... this memo was an internal DEP memo to file with a rather large distribution list.   John Hodge is not on the distribution list, neither is Rep. Mary Ann Carson. The memo simply states the obvious ... the bridge was permanent without permission of any kind, no scour tests, no hydro tests, no nothing and the DEP told Hodge to remove it.  Hodge simply through his belief that he can do what he please erected the bridge; the worse part he did it with taxpayer money ... and we didn't have a say!  Welcome to a Hodject!!!

INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM

TO:                  BETSEY WINGRIELD, BUREAU CHIEF, WPLR

FROM:            ARTHER CHRISTIAN, SUPERVISING CIVIL ENGINEER, IWRD

SUBJECT:      NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION IN FLOODWAY OF BALL POND BROOK,

                        NEW FAIRFIELD

DATE:             3/14/08

CC:                  DENISE RUZICKA, DIRECTOR IWRD, SHARON YURASEVECZ, CE III IWRD, KAREN MICHAELS, EA II IWRD

            The following points regarding this current matter are for information purposes only.  A proprosed project of this type would require a detailed hydraulic model in order to make additional and specific engineering and hydraulic conclusions associated with the project activity.

            Flood Management Certification Related Issues

1.      If the bridge project is funded with state money then Flood Management Certification approval is required since the activity is within a FEMA floodzone.

2.      As of the date of this informational memo, no pending Flood Management Certification application has been submitted by DECD to the Engineering Analysis Section for any activity within this location.

3.      DECD has been working with the town of New Fairfield as they intend to fund a portion of this project.

4.      DECD has been working with DEP to insure that they do not forward money to New Fairfield if that funding will violate the floodplain management statutes and regulations.

5.      General hydraulic and engineering comments:

a.      The bridge span is approximately 40 feet.  The FEMA floodway width at this location is approximately 100-feet.  The bridge structure as situated encroaches into the FEMA floodway.  There appears to be fill placed in the bridge x-section to form the abutments and approaches.

b.      The conveyance area of the floodway and floodplain have been permanently constricted by the placement of the bridge, the fill and the riprap at both approaches and embankment slopes.  This blocks flow in the channel in the channel thereby causing backwater effects, increasing velocities and further scour and erosion of the channel.

6.      c.  If there is not adequate unclearence at the bridge, there may be debris blockage from this type of structure, thereby causing flooding to the upstream area.

7.      d. The potential increase in water surface elevation from this new bridge may impact the Senior Center, which is currently above and outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.  Subsequently, if DECD is funding renovations and additions to the Senior Center the project may required Flood Management Certification approval from DECD.

8.      A hydraulic analysis showing that the new bridge and fill will not have any (0.00 ft) increase in water surface elevation within floodway is required both under NFIP and the FMC.

9.      If state money is used to fund the temporary bridge and the bridge is to be considered a “temporary structure”, documentation must be provided showing that the bridge will be removed within 6 months.  In addition, the bridge will need to meet the design standards for temporary structures in accordance with the DOT Drainage Manual standards.  The bridge must be anchored to prevent it from floating away.

FEMA Related Issues

1.      Construction of the bridge is in a delineated FEMA floodway.

2.      Activity performed in this floodway area constitutes a violation of the flood management regulations and allowance of the bridge placement by the Town is a violation of the NFIP program, since the Town has not enforced its own requirements for its floodplain management program.

3.      If the town wishes to keep the bridge in place, the town would need to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA and show that the placement of this bridge would constitute a no-rise (0.00) increase in the floodway; or would have to request a re-delineation of the floodway.

4.      The LOMR process is rather lengthy time-wise (an estimated 6-12+months), and requires sufficient supporting documentation for the request in the form of detailed and thorough hydraulic and hydrologic analyses as required by FEMA.

5.      There is no guarantee FEMA will issue a LOMR for the proposed request.

6.      If the bridge is to become permanent, and a LOMR is not forthcoming, the DEP must refer this action to FEMA for review and possible enforcement action including potential probation and suspension from the NFIP program if the situation is not rectified sufficiently to FEMA’s satisfaction.

7.      Probation from the NFIP would include a $50.00 surcharge placed on all flood insurance policy holders in New Fairfield (approximately 24 policy holders) and a notification that if the Town does not come into compliance with the implementation of their NFIP program, it will risk suspension. 

8.      Suspension from the NFIP would result in the non-renewal of all existing flood insurance policies in the community and a refusal to issue new flood insurance policies within the community.  This would require homeowners and businesses to pursue other very expensive insurance avenues to obtain the necessary insurance coverage for their structures (i.e., private insurance).  Mortgage lenders will continue to require flood insurance for affected loans in the community and for any future loans on properties in special flood hazard areas within the Town.

9.      Probation may result in possible ineligibility for disaster assistance from FEMA in the event of a presidentially declared disaster.  Suspension and non-participation in the NFIP would result in actual ineligibility for disaster assistance from FEMA in the event of a presidentially declared disaster.

Diversion Program Related Issue

The original submission to IWRD detailed the placement of a temporary bridge.

Because if was temporary, the bridge was not regulated by the Diversion Program.

After the placement of the temporary bridge, but before the DEP inspection of 2/29, the bridge was made permanent through the placement of poured concrete abutments and the placement of riprap.

The bridge encroached on the FEMA floodway and would most certainly cause a rise in the watersurface elevations upstream of the bridge.  As such, the bridge would fall under the jurisdiction of the Diversion Program.

If the work involved the discharge of fill to wetlands/waters a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 401 Certification from DEP would be required.

Although the hydraulic and hydrologic requirements of FEMA and 25-68b (floodplain Management) can be dealt with through the submission and acquisition of a Letter of Map Revisions from FEMA, the requirements for a diversion permit would necessitate additional documentation such as an inland wetlands delineation, environmental Impact assessments and an alternatives analysis.

The diversion permit process, even with the bridge already in place is a lengthy process, just to make application, with no presupposition that a permit would or could be issued.

Gee-twenty, Bretton Woods, George Soros ...

Name two illusions and one scumbag.



Obama's performance at the G20 ...

WATER, WATER, EVERYWHERE ... BUT ...

WHY IS THE FIRST SELECTMAN DRAGGING HIS FEET ON THE WATER IN THE CENTER OF OUR TOWN?  THE DEP HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET THE CONSENT ORDER IN PLACE SO THAT THE WATER ISSUE CAN BE SOLVED.  KEEP VISITING THIS BLOG FOR UPDATES AS INFORMATION COMES AVAILABLE.

NEW FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES 

NEW FAIRFIELD, CT

WATER SUPPLY RESOURCE INVENTORY

PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT

The 2003 New Fairfield Plan of Conservation and Development states that “during the planning period, New Fairfield should consider alternative ways to provide for a public water supply to the Town Center area to address water quality concerns in this area. A detailed study of the potential for a water supply should be conducted.”

NEW FAIRFIELD, CT 
WATER SUPPLY AQUIFERS

Each of the ten municipal plans of conservation and development has policies towards aquifers and water supply watersheds. New Fairfield's and the other nine have been copied and placed into one regional file to facilitate comparisons.

1) Short Woods Brook Aquifer: The only major aquifer in New Fairfield is the Short Woods Brook Aquifer north of the Town Center. Following Short Woods Brook it begins near Beaver Bog Road and follows that watercourse south to the Town Center. This resource includes an area of 110 acres of saturated thickness of ten feet or greater.

View of New Fairfield's Short Woods Brook Aquifer 
near Shaws. Photo courtesy of Rick Gottschalk 

NEW FAIRFIELD, CT EXISTING AND
POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS
Almost 30% of New Fairfield’s total land area is already in use as water supply watershed serving other communities. This is the fourth highest percentage of the ten communities in the region. None of the water drained from these lands is used as water supply within New Fairfield.

These watersheds are existing resource designations that will not change. What is of interest is that the entire remaining land area of New Fairfield is designated by either HVCEO or state agencies as potential water supply watershed.

According to the 2003 New Fairfield Plan of Conservation and Development "New Fairfield is unique since all of its land area is either watershed of an active public water supply (such as New York City and Danbury) or is in a watershed that has been designated as a potential future public water supply. For this reason, protecting water quality is an important issue in the Plan."

1) East Branch Croton River Watershed: All of western New Fairfield adjacent to New York State, approximately 3,750 acres of the community, drains westerly toward the East Branch of the Croton River in Town of Southeast, N.Y.

The East Branch Reservoir in New York State is

recharged in part by waters from western New Fairfield, CT

This area is part of the East Branch Croton River Watershed. The East Branch then drains into the East Branch Reservoir in Southeast, NY, and from there to the Croton Reservoir for consumption in New York City and environs. This use of New Fairfield’s water by New York City for water supply began long ago, in 1842

2) Ball Pond Brook Watershed: The CT OPM Conservation and Development Policies Plan has designated the Ball Pond Brook Watershed as a potential future water supply resource. In contrast HVCEO has so designated the entire Candlewood Lake Watershed, which includes the entire Ball Pond Brook watershed as a subarea.

3) Candlewood Lake Watershed: If Danbury ever taps Candlewood Lake as a water supply source then that part of the Candlewood Lake Watershed that lies within Danbury, primarily the vicinity of Danbury Bay, would also become existing, rather than potential, water supply watershed.

4) Padanaram Brook Watershed: About 980 acres along New Fairfield's border with Danbury is part of the Padanaram Brook Watershed. The drainage is southerly into Margerie Reservoir and East Lake Reservoir, both important parts of Danbury's water supply system. 

Landmarks denoting this section of New Fairfield include Williams Road, Old Farm Road, Barnum Road and most associated side streets.

---

NEW FAIRFIELD, CT 
POTENTIAL WATER MAIN 
CONNECTIONS TO DANBURY
Water Main Connections to New Fairfield: As shown in this 2006 study, there is a potential interconnection for the New Fairfield Town Center area.

---

CT DEP CLASSIFICATION
OF STREAMS IN NEW FAIRFIELD
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) has developed water quality standards in conjunction with the principles of the federal Clean Water Act. 

As a result each stream or water body in the Region has two classifications, one for existing use, and one for ultimate future use, written in a existing/future format such as "B/A" or "A/AA". The highest standards are reserved of existing and potential water supply areas, which are AA.

The DEP seeks to bring every water body in the State to a minimum classification of "B" or better, which would not be suitable for human consumption without treatment, but could be suitable for recreational use, fish and wildlife habitat, agricultural and industrial supply, and other legitimate uses.

There is a non degradation policy such that stream now AA or A cannot be reduced to B to allow discharges from industries or treatment plants. The classification system and application to New Fairfield is summarized below:

Class AA: Designated uses are existing or proposed drinking water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, some recreational use, agricultural and industrial supply. Discharges severely restricted.

Class A: Designated uses is potential drinking water supply; fish and wildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural and industrial supply and other legitimate uses including navigation. Discharges severely restricted. No reclassification of A or AA allowed down to B.

Class B: Designated uses are varied and include discharges from industrial and municipal wastewater treatment facilities providing Best Available Treatment and Best Management Practices are applied. All water bodies must eventually reach the minimum standards of the B classification.

Classes C and D: Indicates unacceptable quality, the goal is Class B or Class A and DEP will issue orders to require improvement. 

1. Ball Pond Brook flowing from Ball Pond easterly to just past New Fairfield Center: B/AA. Ball Pond Brook continuing from just past New Fairfield Center easterly to Candlewood Lake: B/A.

2. Candlewood Lake due to wastewater pumped up from the Housatonic River: B/B.

3. East Lake Reservoir tributaries reaching north from Danbury into New Fairfield: AA/AA.

4. Hudson River tributaries reaching into New Fairfield from New York State, except Gerow Brook: AA/AA. Gerow Brook from its source at the old New Fairfield Landfill flowing northwesterly into New York State: B/AA.

5. Margerie Reservoir and tributaries: AA/AA.

6. All other streams in New Fairfield: A/A.

MAIN WATER PAGE BETHEL BRIDGEWATER BROOKFIELD DANBURY 
NEW FAIRFIELD NEW MILFORD NEWTOWN REDDING RIDGEFIELD SHERMAN

NEW MATH ... WHEN IS AN AVERAGE $228 IN TAXES LESS THAN $100 IN IT'S WORSE YEAR?

Listen carefully to this sequence from John Hodge. The proposed school project impact on taxes is based on a 'average assessed value' of a New Fairfield home of $300,000. The impact on taxed based revenue has been estimated at an average of $228 per year, BUT ... WITH THE JOHN HODGE LOGIC the really impact on taxes in its worse year is ONLY $100 PER YEAR!



IT'S ALMOST FREE!!!

$150 dollar a barrel coming again ... if so, what is the impact on the town budget?

Airtime: Fri. Mar. 20 2009 |ET
Why oil prices are destined to rise, with Kevin Kerr, Global Commodities Alert and CNBC's Michelle Caruso-Cabrera.

DOW 6,000 IS CERTAINLY NOT OUT OF THE QUESTION ...

The entire financial system is still in flux with new policy, regulations, oversight, restrictions, etc. This uncertainty is an obstacle to investment. This uncertainty is an obstacle to long term planning for investors. This uncertainty is an obstacle to risk management.

Falling Revenues in CT ... who will feel the pain?

We all will, unless we all get involved!

IF THESE WALLS COULD TALK ...

IF THESE WALLS COULD TALK, OR IF I WERE A FLY ON THE WALL ... READ FOR YOURSELF!

The notes of Lisa Low will be release over time. An FOIA request can't dig this deep. Is New Fairfield getting hosed?  Are there side deals?  What's Rural Water's investment?  Are there too many projects in too few hands running concurrently?  Where is the transparency in local government?  Why wasn't there a Public Hearing on the plans to sell our drinking water?  

WHO WILL BE THE BENEFICIARY OF 1,000,000 GALLONS OF DRINKING WATER PER DAY?  IS IT TIME TO COME CLEAN WITH WATER?

Center of Town - Consent Order John Hodge can't close the deal

SAVE OUR DRINKING WATER! CLOSE THE DEAL!


STATE OF CONNECTICUT

VS.

TOWN OF NEW FAIRFIELD

                                       CONSENT ORDER

The Commissioner of Environmental Protection has determined that the Town of New Fairfield ("the Town") is a municipality in which pollution of the groundwaters has occurred or can reasonably be expected to occur; the Commissioner of Public Health has determined that the pollution creates or can reasonably be expected to create an unacceptable risk of injury to the health or safety of persons using such groundwaters as a public or private source of water for drinking or other personal or domestic uses; and the Commissioner of Environmental Protection has been unable to determine the person or municipality responsible for such pollution. Therefore, pursuant to Sections 22a-6, 22a-424 and 22a-471 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("the Commissioner"), with the agreement of the Town hereby orders the Town to take the following actions:

1. Describe in detail the area and population affected by the pollution of groundwater on and in the vicinity of ______________________________________in the Town of New Fairfield and determine which areas presently or potentially may not meet the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health requirements for potable drinking water.

2. Describe long term potable drinking water supply alternatives, associated costs and design criteria for each alternative.

3. Provide a [short-term and] long-term potable drinking water supply which meets the standards for drinking water established by the Commissioner of Public Health to the following properties and the areas as described under paragraph 1 above.

NAME ADDRESS
______________ _________________________________ ______________ _________________________________ ______________ _________________________________

4. The Town is further ordered to accomplish the above described actions, except as may be revised by the recommendations of a detailed engineering investigation and agreed to in writing by the Commissioner and the Commissioner of Public Health, in accordance with the following schedule:

A. Within 30 days of the date of issuance of this consent order the Town shall retain one or more qualified consultants acceptable to the Commissioner or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the Town has adequate in-house expertise to prepare the documents and oversee the actions required by this consent order and shall, by that date, notify the Commissioner in writing of the identity of such consultants or in-house expert. The Town shall retain one or more qualified consultants acceptable to the Commissioner or maintain such in-house expertise, until this consent order is fully complied with, and, within ten days after retaining any such consultant or in-house expert other than one originally identified under this paragraph, the Town shall notify the Commissioner in writing of the identity of such other consultant or in-house expert. The Town shall submit to the Commissioner a description of a consultant’s or in-house expert’s education, experience and training which is relevant to the work required by this consent order within ten days after a request for such a description. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the Commissioner from finding a previously acceptable consultant or in-house expert unacceptable.

B. Within 60 days of the date of issuance of this consent order the Town shall submit for the review and written approval of the Commissioner, a scope of work, schedule and proposed engineering agreement for the investigation and study required by paragraphs 1 and 2, [and a plan and schedule for the provision of a short-term supply of potable drinking water to the properties identified in paragraph 3 until a long-term supply of potable drinking water has been provided].

C. Within ___ days of the date of issuance of this consent order the Town shall submit for the review and written approval of the Commissioner a Request for State Grant in accordance with Section 22a-471-1 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (“RCSA”) for the [short-term provision of potable drinking water and the] investigation and study required by paragraphs 1 and 2, which includes the Resolution required by Section 22a-471-1(d)(1)(C).

D. The Town shall perform all actions identified in the scope of work [and plan] approved pursuant to paragraph 4.B. in accordance with the approved schedule. On or before 30 days after approval by the Commissioner of the scope of work required by paragraph 4.B, the Town shall submit for the review and written approval of the Commissioner and the Commissioner of Public Health, an engineering report which describes the problems, area and population affected by the groundwater pollution, alternate solutions including cost of construction or installation, operation and maintenance, design criteria on all alternatives, and a recommended alternative for water supply facilities. The report shall also contain a schedule for construction of the approved water supply alternative and for the submission of the following items to the Commissioner:

1) Contract plans and specifications for the water supply alternative approved by the Commissioner under this paragraph.

2) Verification that a contract for the installation and construction of the facilities approved by the Commissioner has been awarded.

3) Verification that said approved facilities have been placed in operation.

E. On or before 14 days after the Commissioner’s approval of the engineering report required by paragraph 4.D, the Town shall submit for the review and written approval of the Commissioner a Request for State Grant in accordance with RCSA Section 22a-471-1 for capital improvements for the long-term provision of potable water, which includes the Resolution required by RCSA Section 22a-471-1(d)(1)(C).

F. The Town shall carry out the actions specified in the approved engineering report in accordance with the approved schedule.

5. Test results.

a. Respondent shall assure that all laboratory reports of results of any well testing required by this consent order are submitted in writing to the affected property owner and occupants, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, the Commissioner of Public Health and the Town of New Fairfield Director of Health within thirty (30) days after taking a sample or within five days of receipt of such results by the Respondent, whichever is sooner.

b. Respondent shall assure that all results of any well testing required by this consent order are submitted in writing to the affected property owner and occupants with a statement identifying which, if any, parameters exceed the then current action level for any [aromatic] [halogenated] volatile organic compound [including but not limited to MTBE]. A copy of the statement submitted to the property owner and occupants shall be sent to the Commissioner within five (5) days of the date it is mailed to the property owner and occupants.

6. Standard for potable drinking water. All potable drinking water which is provided pursuant to this consent order shall be of a quality which meets all standards specified in the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, including sections 19-13-B101 and 19-13-B102, as amended and which the Commissioner of Public Health has not determined creates an unacceptable risk of injury to the health or safety of persons using such water as a public or private source of water for drinking or other personal and domestic uses.

7. Progress reports: [SPECIFY INTERVAL (e.g. “ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF EACH MONTH FOLLOWING ISSUANCE OF THIS CONSENT ORDER”, OR “ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF MARCH, JUNE, SEPTEMBER, AND DECEMBER OF EACH YEAR AFTER ISSUANCE OF THIS CONSENT ORDER”)] and continuing until all actions required by this consent order have been completed as approved and to the Commissioner’s satisfaction, Respondent shall submit a progress report to the Commissioner describing the actions which Respondent has taken to date to comply with this consent order.

8. Full compliance. Respondent shall not be considered in full compliance with this consent order until all actions required by this consent order have been completed as approved and to the Commissioner’s satisfaction.

9. Sampling and sample analyses. All [sampling and] sample analyses which are required by this consent order and all reporting of such sample analyses shall be conducted by a laboratory certified by [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [and] [or] the Connecticut Department of Public Health] to conduct such [sampling and] analyses. [All sampling and sample analyses performed under this order for (SPECIFY PARAMETERS OR TYPES OF ANALYSES) shall be performed in accordance with (SPECIFY PROTOCOL).] All [other] sampling and sample analyses performed under this order shall be performed in accordance with procedures specified or approved in writing by the Commissioner, or, if no such procedures have been specified or approved, in accordance with [40 CFR 136] [EPA document SW-846.] Unless otherwise specified by the Commissioner in writing, the value of each parameter shall be reported to the maximum level of precision and accuracy specified in the applicable protocol, and if no such level is specified, to the Analytical Detection Limit, as defined in Section 22a-133k-1 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. [IN ADDRESSING THE PROTOCOLS TO BE USED, BE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR ALL TYPES OF SAMPLES WHICH COULD POSSIBLY BE REQUIRED BY THE CONSENT ORDER.]

10. Approvals. Respondent shall use best efforts to submit to the Commissioner all documents required by this consent order in a complete and approvable form. If the Commissioner notifies Respondent that any document or other action is deficient, and does not approve it with conditions or modifications, it is deemed disapproved, and Respondent shall correct the deficiencies and resubmit it within the time specified by the Commissioner or, if no time is specified by the Commissioner, within 30 days of the Commissioner's notice of deficiencies. In approving any document or other action under this consent order, the Commissioner may approve the document or other action as submitted or performed or with such conditions or modifications as the Commissioner deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this consent order. Nothing in this paragraph shall excuse noncompliance or delay.

11. Definitions. As used in this consent order, "Commissioner" means the Commissioner or a representative of the Commissioner. The date of “issuance” of this consent order is the date the consent order is deposited in the U.S. mail or personally delivered, whichever is earlier. [ADD WHERE NECESSARY FOR UST: “Hazardous substances” shall be defined as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. §9601, but shall not include any substance regulated as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. “Underground storage tank system” shall be defined as that term is defined in RCSA §22a-449(d)-101(d)(63). “Petroleum” shall be defined as that term is defined in RCSA §22a-449(d)-101(d)(48)(b) and shall include all of the items listed as a “regulated substance” in RCSA §22a-449(d)-101(d)(48)(b).]

12. Dates. The date of submission to the Commissioner of any document required by this consent order shall be the date such document is received by the Commissioner. The date of any notice by the Commissioner under this consent order, including but not limited to notice of approval or disapproval of any document or other action, shall be the date such notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or is personally delivered, whichever is earlier. Except as otherwise specified in this consent order, the word "day" as used in this consent order means calendar day. Any document or action which is required by this consent order to be submitted or performed by a date which falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a Connecticut or federal holiday shall be submitted or performed by the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or Connecticut or federal holiday.

13. Certification of documents. Any document, including but not limited to any notice, which is required to be submitted to the Commissioner under this consent order shall be signed by Respondent or, if Respondent is not an individual, by Respondent’s chief executive officer or a duly authorized representative of such officer, as those terms are defined in §22a-430-3(b)(2) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, and by the individual(s) responsible for actually preparing such document, and Respondent or Respondent’s chief executive officer and each such individual shall certify in writing as follows:

"I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments thereto, and I certify, based on reasonable investigation, including my inquiry of those individuals responsible for obtaining the information, that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that any false statement made in the submitted information is punishable as a criminal offense under §53a-157b of the Connecticut General Statutes and any other applicable law."

14. Noncompliance. This consent order is a final order of the Commissioner with respect to the matters addressed herein, and is nonappealable and immediately enforceable. Failure to comply with this consent order may subject Respondent to an injunction and penalties.

15. False statements. Any false statement in any information submitted pursuant to this consent order is punishable as a criminal offense under §53a-157b of the Connecticut General Statutes and any other applicable law.

16. Liability of Town and others. The Town’s obligations under this consent order shall not be affected by the passage of title to any property to any other person or municipality.

17. Commissioner's powers. Nothing in this consent order shall affect the Commissioner's authority to institute any proceeding or take any other action to prevent or abate violations of law, prevent or abate pollution, recover costs and natural resource damages, and to impose penalties for past, present, or future violations of law. If at any time the Commissioner determines that the actions taken by Respondent pursuant to this consent order have not successfully corrected all violations, fully characterized the extent or degree of any pollution, or successfully abated or prevented pollution, the Commissioner may institute any proceeding to require Respondent to undertake further investigation or further action to prevent or abate violations or pollution.

18. Town’s obligations under law. Nothing in this consent order shall relieve Town of other obligations under applicable federal, state and to the extent local law is consistent with this consent order, local law.

19. No assurance by Commissioner. No provision of this consent order and no action or inaction by the Commissioner shall be construed to constitute an assurance by the Commissioner that the actions taken by Respondent pursuant to this consent order will result in compliance [or prevent or abate pollution].

20. No effect on rights of other persons. This consent order neither creates nor affects any rights of persons or municipalities that are not parties to this consent order.

21. Notice to Commissioner of changes. Within 15 days of the date Respondent becomes aware of a change in any information submitted to the Commissioner under this consent order, or that any such information was inaccurate or misleading or that any relevant information was omitted, Respondent shall submit the correct or omitted information to the Commissioner.

22. Notification of noncompliance. In the event that Respondent becomes aware that it did not or may not comply, or did not or may not comply on time, with any requirement of this consent order or of any document required hereunder, Respondent shall immediately notify by telephone the individual identified in the next paragraph and shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that any noncompliance or delay is avoided or, if unavoidable, is minimized to the greatest extent possible. Within five (5) days of the initial notice, Respondent shall submit in writing the date, time, and duration of the noncompliance and the reasons for the noncompliance or delay and propose, for the review and written approval of the Commissioner, dates by which compliance will be achieved, and Respondent shall comply with any dates which may be approved in writing by the Commissioner. Notification by Respondent shall not excuse noncompliance or delay, and the Commissioner's approval of any compliance dates proposed shall not excuse noncompliance or delay unless specifically so stated by the Commissioner in writing.

23. Submission of documents. Any document required to be submitted to the Commissioner under this consent order shall, unless otherwise specified in this consent order or in writing by the Commissioner, be directed to:

[name, title]
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Management
Permitting, Enforcement and Remediation Division
79 Elm Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106-5127

22. Submission of documents to DPH. Any document required to be submitted to the Commissioner of Public Health under this consent order shall, unless otherwise specified in writing by the Commissioner of Public Health, be directed to:

_______________________
Department of Public Health
Water Supplies Section
450 Capitol Ave., MS#51WAT
P.O. Box 340308
Hartford, Connecticut 06134-0308

The Town consents to the issuance of this consent order without further notice. The undersigned certifies that (he/she) is fully authorized to enter into the consent order and to legally bind the Town to the terms and conditions of the consent order.



_________________ _______________
Date [Name]
[Title]


Issued as a final order of the Commissioner of Environmental Protection.
_________________ _____________________
Date Gina McCarthy Commissioner


ORDER NO. SRD-__________
TOWN OF _________________
DISCHARGE CODE K

53% Say It’s Likely the U.S. Will Enter a Depression Similar to 1930’s

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Most Americans (53%) now think the United States is at least somewhat likely to enter a 1930’s-like depression within the next few years.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 39% think this outcome is unlikely.

Nineteen percent (19%) say a Depression is Very Likely while 7% say it is not at all likely.

The latest results are more pessimistic than those found in early January, when 44% said a 1930’s-like depression was likely in the next few years, and 46% disagreed.

In March 2008, only 38% of adults said the country is likely to slip into a depression, while most (55%) disagreed.

The most recent survey also found that half of all adults (49%) say today’s children will not be better off than their parents. Only 26% hold the more optimistic view, while another 25% are not sure. Those results have changed little from January, when only 27% said children will be better off and 47% disagreed. Twenty-six percent (26%) were undecided at that time.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.)Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

Adults in their 30’s are the most worried, with 62% who say it is likely the nation will slip into a deep depression. Less than half (47%) of those Americans over 65 think the country will slip into a 1930’s-like depression.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of investors and 53% of non-investors say it is likely the country will slip into a serious depression. Forty-one percent (41%) of investors disagree, along with 38% of non-investors.

A third (32%) of adults with children living at home with them say today’s children will be better off than their parents, while only 22% of adults with no children at home agree.

Related Rasmussen polling found that only 45% believe anyone who wants to work can find a job, but most say it is possible for just about anyone to work their way out of poverty in America.

As the economy continues to flounder, consumer and investor confidence continue to hit record lows.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Membersonly.

Over spending ... so where is ...

the average annual $600,000 returned to the General Fund for the last four years?

Well, I think you don't understand the complexities of the Municipal Budget.  Let me address this question with this question.  

Even Carnac the Magnificent would have a difficult time!!!

Recovery Tracking Site

Connecticut has already begun receiving some of the $3 billion in federal stimulus money. Approximately $1.65 billion is in direct aid and grants while $1.3 billion is in the form of Medicaid assistance. The federal government estimates the ARRA will create and/or save more than 40,000 jobs in Connecticut. 

“Our goal is to get the money back into the economy as soon as possible and put people back to work,” Governor Rell said. “This Web site contains links to employers and training opportunities. It also includes critical information on project deadlines and will serve as a clearinghouse for more funding sources.

The new Web site – www.recovery.ct.gov – includes sections on:

Explanation of the federal law
  Accountability of stimulus dollars
  Lists of “shovel-ready” projects and deadlines
  Latest news on the stimulus in Connecticut

Frequently asked questions