02 July 2014: Kelley’s Water Level Management Plan Disappoints

Paul Kelley responded today to DEP’s June 2nd letter clarifying the requirements of Special Condition #5 of the water level order and giving him till today to submit a revised Water Level Management Plan (see 03 June 2014: DEP responds to Paul Kelley’s Water Level Management Plan). Instead of a revised plan, Kelley responded with 4 separate documents: a letter to Beth Callahan, an email exchange he had with Beth Callahan back in March of this year, a copy of an email from DEP staff person Erle Townsend dated September 20, 2011, and a page of historical rainfall data from the NOAA website.

In short, more of the same. The email from Erle Townsend is the same as Kelley’s “Exhibit L” entered into the record during his testimony at the public hearing back in August 2012. We’ve seen it before. DEP has seen it before. Kelley seems to think it is relevant to the situation. It isn’t. As for DEP’s request for a condition compliance application and $146 fee to go along with the revised water level management plan, Paul Kelley only had this to say:

“Your seeking submission of a “condition compliance application” for approval, which allows DEP, as you state, to “review your plan and issue a licensing decision” appears to be a continued department confusion regarding the statutory process it has invoked.”

I gotta admit Paul, you got nerve. While thumbing your nose at the DEP is probably satisfying now, it is not going to work out for you in the long run. This is probably a good time for you to review the Department of Environmental Protection’s Non-Compliance Response Guidance.


1 thought on “02 July 2014: Kelley’s Water Level Management Plan Disappoints

  1. Colin Caissie

    “The DEP typically uses 80K actions where administrative settlement efforts have failed, where such action is necessary to prevent environmental harm, or to prevent an alleged violator from subverting the administrative process. All Rule 80K actions seek to obtain a court ordered resolution that includes any necessary corrective action and penalties.”

    Well that’s our boy….causing environmental harm and subverting all processes.

    Like watching a bug crawl out on a burning stick. He can fry if he wishes to, all I want is a return to a functional lake.

    Makes me wonder if any community resource should be held in the hands of a single person. I mean, what happens if your wellbeing is at the mercy of an immature, selfish, unreasonable and destructive twerp? People begin to pass laws to overcome this, and then we complain about loss of freedom.

    Freedom is the ability to overcome our nature and raise ourselves to reasonable and compassionate action. Kelley (like any 9 year old) thinks freedom is doing whatever you want.


Comments are closed.