Protect the Partrick Wetlands
and our Community


Presentation in Opposition to 22 House Cluster Development on the Partrick Wetlands

Presenter: Jonathan Greenwald
Health and need for Independent Testing of the Land

Ms Lowenstein and other members of the P&Z Commission, my name is Jonathan Greenwald. I have lived in Westport since 1967, the last 12 years at 14 Crawford Road. I am a member of the Partrick Wetlands Association (P.W.A.), but for almost 37 years. I have practiced Internal Medicine and Cardiology, and I hope that my professional training and experience allows me a chance at objectivity here.

In February of this year, I attended a brown-bag lunch hosted by Diane Farrell. After I voiced my concerns about the Wetlands dispute, she suggested I e-mail them to Kathy Barnard, which I did, and which I will reiterate tonight.

In the interest of brevity and to avoid redundancy, my concerns tonight are confined to the health of current and future Westport Residents, not only in regard to the Partrick Wetlands, but also how P&Z decisions to be rendered IN that regard would impact any remaining undeveloped tracts in Westport. I say this, if you will, as an officer of the state's HEALTH commission - in much the same way a practicing attorney acts as an officer of the COURT.

I propose that a licensed, eminently qualified firm-totally without any ties to A.R.S. or to the Partrick Wetlands Association, but agreeable to both - be hired, BY THE TOWN, to perform the necessary toxicological and microbiological tests on both the water and the soil on the site. This firm would also be responsible for issuing a prognosis regarding the impact that any and ALL proposed construction - sewers INCLUDED - would have on toxic and septic run off to those aquifers and underground streams which supply the numerous wells of the neighborhood. (The unenforceability of the deed restrictions prohibiting the prospective wetlands homeowners from using pesticides is a separate, but related issue).

For those who might ask: Why another study of the land and water, and why an independent firm? Hasn't testimony already gone on record before other Town Commissions dealing with this dispute? After all arsenic - not to mention Lead and Mercury - has ALREADY been found in previous tests on the tract. Isn't that all we need to KNOW? The answer is "NO".

In much the same way that I, as a physician, should welcome an independent opinion - often called a SECOND opinion - requested by a patient whose case is difficult, so must you - The P&Z Committee - understand that from the health standpoint, you have a client - the TOWN - which presents a difficult case. AND, it follows that (a) you should welcome a second opinion, and (b) just as a patient pays for a second opinion, so must the town.

Regarding that second opinion, ALL firms hired by P.W.A. and A.R.S. are ruled out; they are, in this context, NOT independent. Even a whiff of a suggestion that a firm is in the hip pocket of P.W.A. or A.R.S. must be avoided, so as to preempt any challenges that could come later on. But let me be clear: I AM NOT, for one moment impugning the professional qualifications or integrity of ANY firm that worked for either party and rendered, or is about to render, a report. And, for those who would advocate for the Aspetuck Valley Health District conducting the needed investigation of the tract - setting aside the very real question of the ethical propriety of that decision - no town around here has the WHEREWITHAL to perform all of the needed analyses.

The overriding principle that must undergird your ULTIMATE decision grows out of the fact that the town is entrusted by its citizens to be ULTIMATELY responsible for the public welfare. P&Z, and other Town Commissions that have addressed the dispute before us, are deliberative, decision making bodies of the town, and are ACCOUNTABLE for the consequences of their decisions. It is not only a matter of their legacies or the Town Selectmen's Legacies. The P&Z must understand that if the safeguard of getting a second opinion is not taken by the town - which would cost nowhere NEAR the amount of other, recently approved projects and then, later on, a previously tested "safe" well (or wells) is shown to be supplying UNSAFE water, it's too late. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The town could face lawsuits.

On the otherhand, if all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed - and here I say "all" to refer to ALL the issues relating to the matter before you - we should end up with a reasoned and just outcome.

A little while ago, I referred to the OVERRIDING principle that must undergird your ultimate decision. At that brown-bag lunch of 3 months ago, my impression was that Diane Farrell was thinking, much as medical students are taught to do early on, ABOUT that principle: First, DO NO HARM.

Thank you all for listening.