2016-09-16 / Letters

Mousam River letters ‘really struck a nerve’

To the editor:

Looks like Bill Pasquill’s knickers are all in a twist. Trying to respond to Dr. Doug Coleman’s blockbuster letter for two weeks in row, it’s obvious that Coleman’s letter really struck a nerve. As the town crier for civility in what has become the Battle for the Mousam (in lib-speak civility means: don’t challenge our agenda; don’t question our narrative; and after we get what we want at your expense, let’s all still be friends), maybe it’s time for him to focus more on the content rather than the tone of some of our rebuttals.

Now that the scales of public opinion are tipping in our favor, it seems like his own civility is wearing a little thin. Absorbing the shock that someone with Coleman’s credentials and experience would ever disagree with him and the pack of special interest groups that he runs with, Pasquill has latched on to the statement that there are two sides to the coin of dam removal. This, of course, was taken somewhat out of context. Coleman’s point in that paragraph was that residents of Kennebunk have been seeing only one side of the coin – namely, his and that of the River Alliance.

If Pasquill was genuinely open-minded on this subject or willing to consider the numerous financial reviews by Albert Kolff and newly elected trustee Dan Bartilucci, he would have found the answers to all the questions he raised in last week’s Post.

There is also the replacement/refurbishment assessment (Appendix C) to the Wright-Pierce report for much of that information as well, for what it’s worth. As for the unknown ecological impacts of keeping the dams, the answer is quite simple: things will remain just as they are. We know what we’ve got; all the unknowns belong to their side of this controversy. To gloss over them, the River Alliance has crafted two narratives for their propaganda:

1.) It’s far more expensive to keep the dams than it is to scrap them. This narrative is based on grossly inflated and biased financial projections in addition to underreported generation numbers.

If our hydro facilities were that unproductive and unprofitable, why are there presently two hydropower companies actively interested in buying them now that it is obvious that the KLPD is incapable and/or unwilling to do the job they were elected to do – run and maintain our hydro facilities to generate power for our town as it has for over 125 years.

How is it that our hydro facilities have fallen into such a deplorable state of disrepair when the KLPD budgets up to 90k per year for standard maintenance? If the

Return to top