Subsequent to today’s New Britain Herald’s Editorial I have received emails from some Aldermen claiming that Southington doesn’t need us they just can dig a new well and say “Good Bye to us.”
Because of the many contaminates according to Mr. Bligh, director of New Britain’s water department, that town rented the Patton Brook well from us because their drinking water has been exposed to toxics from two sites The old Southington landfill and solvents recovery of New England. Both sites became Superfund cleanup sites.
With ten or so contaminants under the ground surface existing it would be very doubtful that the state would grant an approval for a new well site.
Rather than our mayor negotiating lower rates with that town she should raising it many times more annually.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
The proposed lowering the lease of the Patton Brook Well a Common Council issue!
Subsequent to today’s New Britain Herald’s Editorial I have received emails from some Aldermen claiming that Southington doesn’t need us they just can dig a new well and say “Good Bye to us.”
Because of the many contaminates according to Mr. Bligh, director of New Britain’s water department, that town rented the Patton Brook well from us because their drinking water has been exposed to toxics from two sites The old Southington landfill and solvents recovery of New England. Both sites became Superfund cleanup sites.
With ten or so contaminants under the ground surface existing it would be very doubtful that the state would grant an approval for a new well site.
Rather than our mayor negotiating lower rates with that town she should raising it many times more annually.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It too bad that these Democrats do not understand what contaminates are and what they can cause to the quality of water we drink.
"CONTAMINANTS" ,currently do not exist in the PBW.
NB doesn't need the well now nor, according to experts, never will. Putting the squeeze on Southngton to lease the well at exorbitantt rates does nothing for New Britain.
The person that made comment #2 apparently doesn't know what he is attempting to say. when he says: "CONTAMINANTS" ,currently do not exist in the PBW" That is not the issue because the water at the Patton Well is ok the problem that exist is the under the ground Catmints that are existing under the Southing grounds with many adverse chemicals.
Most of the Democrats on the council are "CONTAMINANTS"
OK Frank, you win. But New Britain will NEVER need that Well. So let's hang on to it, right Frank? That way the City of NB will continue to pay to maintain the property. GOOD THINKING !
Frank:
What, about this issue will make you happy? OK, NB still owns the 0.6 acres that house the PBW. What should NB do with it?. Let us all know. In the meantime latch on to another issue. This one is dead.
Post a Comment