2017-07-14 / Letters

Leave the floodgates open for a week

To the editor:

Valentines Day again? I had no idea that John Burrows had such regard for me. I wondered who the Rivers Alliance would send in to tackle me after Kevin Flynn’s defense was so lame. Accordingly, with the cunning and subtlety of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, Burrows penned a letter framed in the MKRA’s requisite civility for the Post proposing a new and independent study by Kleinschmidt to be sponsored by the principal stakeholders in the Mousam River.

The letter is entirely consistent with his strategic plan entitled Community Engagement and Dam Removal presumably first presented at the Dam Removal Workshop in Augusta back in December of 2011. In it he makes recommendations for successful public engagement, such as the identification and recruitment of strong, local proponents (i.e. the MKRA); building broad coalitions (i.e. the legion of outside special interests allied against us); focus public engagement on arriving at a well-informed decision (latest proposal), etc.

After three consecutive electoral victories in our favor (Bartilucci, referenda questions, and now Ducharme), I can see how some palms might be getting sweaty. Good. That means we are making progress and that most of the town is on our side.

What Burrows really has in mind is finishing the legion’s clandestine war on our dams no matter what the cost or consequences will be, not building consensus or some collegial, academic forum holding hands seeking a collective environmental nirvana.

If collaboration is what the lock step environmentalists preach, why have they spent several years working behind the scenes and behind closed doors to get everyone and everything in place before letting the rest of us in on what they have already deemed best for Kennebunk? Hypocrisy is not a problem for them.

And if you want to see how they define collaboration, watch Bill Green’s interview with Landis Hudson of Maine Rivers in his segment on the deep divisions and animosity triggered by dam removal. Type http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/removal-of-dam-and-the-community/ 273287031 into your URL internet browser at the top of your computer screen and hear her declare how there can be no middle ground with their opponents “when there is a gigantic concrete structure in the middle of a river.”

This is a scorched-earth policy; total conquest is their objective and anything else out of them is simply a diversion, deflection, or smokescreen.

It’s also easy for Burrows to be magnanimous when his legion has already gotten everything they wanted: a Notice of Intent from KLPD surrendering their license, a solar contract which they hope will render our dams obsolete, and the set up for FERC to be the bad guys and order them out.

He knows that KLPD won’t pay for another report and he’s willing to bet that Save the Mousam nor the town doesn’t have the resources or will decline from making that expenditure. That way, his legion winds up smelling like a rose and looking like the only ones who are fair and open minded – the chess master is also adept at poker. Burrows is bluffing and his proposition is nothing more than a PR maneuver calculated for major damage control and spin.

Very clever, but we are not the intellectual midgets he thinks we are. Sure, an expert study by Kleinschmidt will give us the essential and unbiased information that the town should have had in the first place. As for predicting future water levels and appearance, I have a counter proposal for him – an experiment with immediate results and won’t cost anyone a dime: just instruct Kilbourn to open the floodgates for a complete and total draw-down of the river.

Leave them open for a week so that we can all take a good, hard look at what Burrows and the environmental cartel want to impose upon us.

What do you say to that John? Are you game, or will you stick to the smoke and mirrors?

Shawn Teague

Return to top