Branch Pond Association Home Legislation

Branch Pond Association Home Legislation Index
Legislation

VAN TERRELL'S PRESENTATION TO THE ELLSWORTH CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 14, 2003

Subject: LD 824

In my role as Head of the Branch Pond Association and on behalf of the many property owners on Branch, I wanted to share with the Council the specific concerns expressed to me in the past month or so. Those I have heard from via the telephone and e-mail have serious concerns regarding LD 824 and are unanimously opposed to its passage. Those of us who have followed the ongoing sad story of the spread of "Invasive Aquatic Plants" into the State of Maine, cannot understand why so many people still don't realize the seriousness of the threat of the "Invasives" to the economic soundness of our City, our Region, our State and to the health and well being of our citizens.

Hancock County, the City of Ellsworth and the property owners on Branch Lake are all fortunate, as best we can tell, in that no foreign invasive species have been found in our lakes and ponds. As stewards of Branch Lake, our commitment is to do all that reasonable human beings can do to keep this most terrible nightmare out of our waters. Our desire is to work in partnership with the City of Ellsworth in all matters involving Branch Lake. Our theme is prevention versus containment once it arrives.

Although, I am not yet in a position to present the BPA's present formal position, at the request of the City manager, I have solicited opinions from the 120 families who have e-mail addresses. Through last night, I have received replies from 56 families who own property on Branch. Again, all have expressed strong opposition to LD 824. As an aside, I also heard from Mr. Rob Reeves who you may know as President of the Bangor YMCA. He's quite concerned about LD 824 and any increased traffic on Branch in terms of water quality and the safety threat to Camp Jordan's people, students, attendees, etc. Tim King has heard from Rob directly regarding this concern.

In order to determine the opinions of the remaining 200 or so property owners on Branch, I would need to conduct a snail mail paper survey, which would take a while to complete. However, I will tell you the results of the abbreviated informal e-mail survey, if accepted as a fair sampling, conclude that 100% of the respondents are not supportive of any type of public landing construction on the State land. With all the threats to the quality of the water and the overall environment, it just does not make sense to folks. Additionally, many resident's have observed that the existing unattended State and City facilities are frequently littered with diapers, garbage, beer cans, and other trash. Several folks have also observed and heard late evening partying that goes on at these open, unattended facilities. So much for "no supervision."

Herb Hartman of the State DOC has advised me that the State continues with the position that they will provide NO supervision at any State launch site. This philosophy, in our general view, is a dangerous one from an ecological and economical perspective.

Some of you may recall that when the State Landing question surfaced in 2000, the State steadfastly refused any type of Launch staff, supervision, inspections, curfews, etc. The State's unwillingness to provide such resources coupled with the increasing concern about Invasive Aquatic Plants and their impact on the City’s drinking water supply were the basic reasons the City council voted unanimously to direct the State Department of Conservation to discontinue its pursuit of a large unstaffed public launch on Branch Lake.

Tim King recently advised me that Mr. Herb Hartman – State DOC contacted him the day following his testimony before the State Legislative Committee. During that call Mr. Hartman inquired of Tim as to the City's willingness to consider working with the State in improving the City landing as an alternative to building a public launch on the State land. Tim advised me that he advised Mr. Hartman that the City would be willing to discuss that possibility and Tim later inquired of me as to whether the BPA would support such a discussion. I advised Tim that I could not present a formal BPA position until I either had a meeting of the BPA, or conducted a paper survey. I did tell Tim that I had e-mail addresses for about 120 property owners on the Lake (40%) and that I would get a questionnaire out to people, providing an update on the legislation and presenting the idea of improving the City Landing versus supporting the State of Maine constructing a large unsupervised public landing.

I advised Tim that the BPA Executive Board was opposed to LD 824, but would likely support a discussion of an improved public access at the City landing, but only if several realistic conditions were to be met. These conditions would fall into the arena of supervision and boat inspection capability. It was also my sense from Tim that if improvements were agreed upon by the parties, including the BPA, such improvements would be funded by State Dollars. Such an approach would seemingly accomplish what seems to be the ultimate goal of the State, i.e. to allow people who like to fish, improved access to Branch Lake. Everyone I have heard from, including Herb Hartman focuses on allowing fisherman greater access to Branch. An improvement project at the City Landing would also solve several other problems, i.e. the City's desire to allow its residents improved access to Branch. Economically, such an approach would likely cost a great deal less than the alternative.

All I have been in contact with are concerned about the dangers that an unsupervised State Boat Launch presents to the ecological health of the lake and its citizenry. Most every one (52 out 56 families) has indicated their willingness to discuss alternatives including additional access to Branch by improving the City Landing area. All who support such an endeavor have stated that any such improved access would have to include appropriate supervision. One respondent presented some specific thoughts on the legislation and some sensible conditions, which appear reasonable and sensible in light of the multiple threats to the City of Ellsworth’s drinking water supply.

And I quote:

"To paraphrase the following would be ideal:
1. Council pass a resolution expressly opposing LD 824
2. Legislature to set LD 824 aside
3. Legislature to pass a resolution that would mandate that the DOC and the City of Ellsworth reach agreement as to HOW to best allow improved access to Branch.
4. IMPLEMENT THE ACCESS WITH IMPROVED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE LAKE AT THE EXISTING CITY LANDING AT THE DAM.

A. REQUIRE A FENCE AND A GATE,
B. HUMAN AUTHORITATIVE TRAINED SUPERVISION,
C. SPECIFIC HOURS OF OPERATION (TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY NOISE IN THE EVENING),
D. A WASHING STATION
E. STAFF WOULD BE TRAINED ON PROPER METHODOLOGIES OF BOAT, TRAILER & JET-SKI INSPECTION.
F. A FEE WOULD LIKELY BE CHARGED TO PAY FOR STAFF SIMILAR TO WHAT MR. TUITT (HANSON’S LANDING) USED TO CHARGE.
G. THE ROCKS AT THE BRIDGE CAN BE DEALT WITH, ETC. IN OTHER WORDS, PREVENTING REASONABLE SIZED BOATS FROM ACCESSING THE BIG LAKE CAN BE MANAGED BY THE STATE AND THE CITY IN PARTNERSHIP.

THIS APPROACH WOULD SENSIBLY ACHIEVE all the objectives:

ADVANTAGES:

1. Use what's already in place, i.e the access road is a city road and is already there.
2. Minimize the cost to everyone
3. Accomplish the objectives of access for fishing
4. Guard against contamination of the lake from milfoil and other invasives.
5. Keep the noise down with specific hours of operation
6. In keeping with fee for service, charge a fee to those who want to use this. What a great job for a college student for the summer or on weekends!"

I did receive an e-mail from the McGeorge/Fenn family, who oppose any additional traffic in the mill pond area. Their comments are as follows and I quote:

Subject: Re: LD 824 PUBLIC LANDING

Date: Saturday, April 12, 2003 11:20 AM

Dear Mr. Terrell, I am Judy McGeorge and my family, Patricia McGeorge, my mother and William Fenn my Uncle and my eight siblings and cousins own the property at the lower end of the Lake that abuts the City Landing. We also own and maintain the bridge. We would be extremely opposed to the proposition that you outline and will fight it as hard as possible. There is already far too much traffic on Red Bridge/Mill Stream road for drunken teenage parties at the city landing with accompanying noise from squealing tires and partying, garbage and pollution. The police never respond to calls to patrol the road more frequently. I do not think the EPA would look kindly on blasting out the rocks as it took us over a year to get an approval to fix the bridge! The State owns plenty of land along the Rte 1 side of the Lake. The City taxes should not be used for this venture!!!!. I will have as many of my siblings and cousins contact you as possible.

Sincerely, Judy McGeorge Tel: 207 667-4591"

Three other individuals expressed opposition to any improved access to Branch Lake.

I understand that Branch Lake is presently in the R-3 zone, which is a natural resources zone, designed to protect the quality of the Branch Lake watershed and the quality of the City's drinking water supply. It is also my understanding that the R-3 zone prohibits the construction on "Public Landings."

I understand as well that the "Clean drinking water" people are opposed to this legislation or any movement to construct public landings in bodies of water that are public water supplies. Anne Hayes, resident of Branch Lake and Co-Chairperson of the City of Ellsworth's Comprehensive Planning Committee will discuss this in more detail.

I would also like to mention the damage to the lake from non-point source pollution stemming from building new roads and disturbing the growth within the shoreland zoning area (100 feet back from the water's edge). I understand that non-point source pollution remains the number one threat to any inland body of water.

I also understand the State DEP - Department of Human Services has issued a report warning of the dangers to drinking water quality stemming from water turbidity caused by decaying plants. Although I do not understand all of the science on this, I do understand that a potential health threat exists as water purification methods and filtering systems can possibly become inadequate. Anne Hayes has the documentation of the various threats to drinking water quality and I can certainly appreciate why the City Council would wish to be mindful of these threats.

Before I close, I would like to make mention of particular poignant sentences from some of the e-mails I received from people around the Lake.

FIRST:

I agree with the general approach to improving access at the City’s public landing, but only with the strictest of monitoring. I had long worried that Hanson's Landing was an ecological accident waiting to happen, with the large number of transient boaters, often with uninspected watercraft.

Everyone likes to assume that a milfoil invasion would not happen here. However, how would everyone feel if we allowed that one contaminated boat onto Branch Lake, the one that would bring in milfoil OR EVEN worse, HYDRILLA, from another contaminated lake? The folks on the lake and in Ellsworth would feel terrible, that they had allowed one of the most spectacular assets around, to be spoiled and greatly reduced in worth. The tax roles would suffer because of the great drop in value of the lakefront property and drinking water quality for everyone would be endangered. And the people who carelessly contaminated the lake, maybe just that one single boat that was overlooked or not examined and cleaned carefully enough, would probably never know (or even worse, not care) just what a disaster they had caused.

However, worst of all, our lake would be contaminated with a disease that could never be cured. I have seen it happen before to other lakes. One good sized lake near my home in Western Massachusetts has been turned into a weed choked mess, no longer good for boating, water-skiing, sailing, or for that matter, fishing. The communities around it, along with the state (when they still had some cash), have spent tons of money with weed harvesters (failed) and chemicals (failed) and now have pretty much lost the struggle against the invasive aquatic plants. The rotting mass of weeds smells in the summer and lies spread over the surface of the lake. Of course another lake that was formerly the town's backup water supply has now been infected and has befallen the same fate. What a tragedy it would be, particularly when we know better, it this were allowed to happen to Branch. Good luck with your efforts to do the right thing and I hope the people of Ellsworth act quickly and decisively to save this great and irreplaceable lake.

Sincerely, Terry Holland.

Here’s another:

"Thanks for your up to the minute updates. For the record, I am against any attempt to transfer land from the DOC to the IF&W without the express input of Ellsworth City Councilors and Branch Lake property owners. The idea of improving the city landing is a very positive step but to allow a landing to be built anywhere on Branch Lake without proper protective measures would be irresponsible.

During the 21st century, drinking water will be the most precious commodity of any town or city throughout the United States and many parts of the world. It would be reckless to not have a daytime manned cleaning and inspection station for the various types of invasive plants that are slowly being spread by mobile boats on trailers. Mr. Tuitt's (Hanson’s Landing) operation was successful and responsible because he and his wife were there keeping an eye on business. Any type of unstaffed landing is ill-advised such as the current Sand Beach situation. Many times people do not leave when the sign says they should and party well into the night. I understand the hassle of keeping an eye on things on the west side of the lake. Easy police monitoring of a site should be well-considered due to the nature of un-manned site after hours,

Public access to Branch Pond is important but not to the detriment of the City's water supply and the property owners of Branch Pond and all who drink her sweet precious waters. Protecting the source of drinking water and it's immediate environment should always be given the highest priority and consideration whenever decisions need to be made regarding the recreation and/or use of land adjacent to Branch Pond."

Cordially, Joel Ranger

Heres’ a copy of a letter I received from Mr. Kevin Pottle, Director of Water Treatment for the Bangor Water District.

Van Terrell
President, Branch Pond Association
Ellsworth, Me 04605

Dear Van:

I have read the information sent to the property owners of Branch Lake and as a stakeholder, I concur with your position, and the City of Ellsworth’s, regarding the proposed boat launch at Branch Lake as outlined in LD-824.

As a water professional, with a career that spans nearly 20 years, I strongly oppose the creation of another boat launching facility on Branch Lake. I take this position based on several issues that can’t be ignored in any forum.

Branch Lake is Ellsworth’s water supply. I deal on a daily basis with the ongoing efforts of the Bangor Water District to manage a watershed within a geographical area of four-season recreation. The success of the Bangor Water District to protect this upland water supply against all potential risk factors does not come cheaply! The Bangor Water District management could make an extremely, strong case to the BPA, City of Ellsworth, IF&W or any other organization that the protection and responsible stewardship of a surface water supply is absolutely critical for public health reasons, maintaining water use rates for residential and commercial customers and avoiding astronomical treatment costs in the future. Remember, the federal government will be the governing body making the policy changes regarding water quality in the future, not the IF&W.

I certainly hope that the legislative committee members, who are reviewing this proposal, have a clear understanding of what increased pressure on Branch Lake could mean in the future. Again, it’s the source of drinking water for thousands! Increased use from a number of polluters will change the ecosystem for generations to come.

True leadership from government, at all levels, should clearly see the significance in protecting this resource. Protection costs far less than treatment. Public health is at stake! Millions of taxpayer dollars could and probably would be spent on treatment in the future once trace amounts of toxins are detectable. EPA’s list for testing grows each year. There is always another MTBE yet to be identified.

I cannot make the trip to Augusta on Monday to personally testify before the committee. I hope that this committee is well educated regarding matters of such critical, long-term impact on citizens who drink this water or any taxpayer within the City of Ellsworth.

Yours truly, Kevin W. Pottle

In closing, we would hope that the City would to take a formal stand in opposition to LD 824, which is out of order and against all principles of "Home Rule."

We appreciate that it is important to have Branch Lake available for all to use. The Branch Pond Association would like to continue the dialogue with the City and maintain close and open communication with our City Council. I would appreciate your advise as to how best we can work through this and what the BPA can do to support the Council.

As president of the BPA, I am proud to represent a group of people who are committed to the Stewardship role we play in protecting this most valuable resource. What gets into this lake is a concern to all of us.

Thank you all for taking the time listen to our views.

Respectfully submitted,

Van L. Terrell
President of the Branch Pond Association