15 August 2013: Observations on PPM and AQF Comments

thinkerI’ve had a chance to reread and ponder (like the chump at left) the comments posted by Tony Buxton today and I have a few observations to make before I move on. First, very little of the document has anything to do with the actual restrictive covenants themselves, which is what this exercise was all about I think. In fact, only one paragraph on the first page addresses them at all. I particularly like this part:

1. Declaration of Restrictive Covenants:

“As consideration for PPM agreeing to be bound by the Restrictive Covenants, AQF agreed to waive certain of the claims it may have had prior to adoption of the Restrictive Covenants against PPM for damage from flows of water in excess of 50 cubic feet per second.”

So we’re to believe that Richard Smith coerced Paul Kelley into agreeing to be bound by the covenants in exchange for waiving the right to press claims he “may have had” (or might not have had?) for high water damage to the mill building. Really?

Buxton offered no rebuttal of my assertion that Kelley’s Covenants are invalid and will have no effect on the ability of the Department to place and administer a water level order on the Clary Lake dam. The rest is of no consequence.