A reader responds to my post on the Chambers Property and the proposed Union Mills reservoir
March 23, 2007
A reader responds to my Winchester Report post on the Chambers property and the Union Mills reservoir: A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins
I have removed the name and address of the person with whom I corresponded as my only interest is seeing that as much accurate information gets out about the matter of protecting this valuable national treasure and not about disagreeing with the gentleman…
For additional reading please see my other “Soundtrack” posts: Chambers – Whittaker Chambers and the “Pumpkin Papers”
From: Kevin E. Dayhoff [mailto:kdayhoff AT carr DOT org]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:52 AM
To: 'Kevin E. Dayhoff'; --------------; ----------------; -------------------
Subject: RE: You are very misinformed! Story 3-8-07 reservior,communist,congressman
Thursday morning, March 22nd, 2007
Dear -----------------,
Good morning. Thank you again for your e-mail and thank you for this opportunity to address your concerns.
With respect to the watershed protection zone around the proposed Union Mills reservoir, apparently what is being considered - - should the commissioners decide in the future to go forward with the project - - is the property owner is to be paid to do what they otherwise want to do anyway. The property owner gets to keep their property and on top of that the county is going to make the property a protected waterfront property to be enjoyed by the property owner in perpetuity.
I have had a chance to re-read my March 8th, 2007 column in the Winchester Report on the Westminster Eagle’s web site and a number of dynamics come quickly to mind.
For the most part, especially at the local level, elected and appointed officials and members of staff are our friends and neighbors who are working tirelessly to do the right thing for as many Carroll Countians as possible.
Causing community decision makers to spend valuable time counteracting misinformation and fending off personal attacks is not helpful. Accusing public officials of “intending” to do something before they have made a decision is the stuff of enduring bewilderment.
What is productive is providing community decision makers with thoughtful feedback – especially from folks who wish the decision makers to go in a different direction.
The column, “A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins” was specifically focused on what is, in my view misinformation being disseminated in the greater community about the alleged attempt on the part of the Carroll County Board of Commissioners to “seize” the site of the “pumpkin patch papers.”
It is my view that the “pumpkin patch,” right here in our own backyard in Carroll County – is a revered national treasure and I feel rather strongly that preserving this site is a serious responsibility.
It is to that end that I wrote the column to respond to persistent misinformation that it was the intent of the commissioners to flood, “seize,” “take” or otherwise desecrate the site.
Although, I certainly do not speak for the commissioners, I have been led to a clear understanding that the commissioners share the view of many that everything possible needs to be done to preserve the “pumpkin papers” site yet nevertheless, take care of the commissioners’ basic “health, safety, and welfare” responsibilities to greater Carroll County.
I would like to call to your attention the three paragraphs in my column in which I quoted the commissioners’ from their January 18th, 2007 letter in response to Congressman Bartlett’s January 3rd, 2007 letter. The critical paragraph being:
“With regard to the Pipe Creek Farm specifically, Carroll County has no intention of negatively impacting the field identified as the location of the famed “pumpkin patch” and has designed the reservoir in a way that minimizes impacts on the balance of the farm. Indeed, the impact anticipated by the planned reservoir… is limited to the northeastern edge of the farm where the Pipe Creek stream crosses the property.
As far as properties inside “the minimum acquisition line for the reservoir”; to the best of my knowledge, the exact area of the water protection buffer zone has not yet been determined, just as the pool line is still an estimate based on the 30-year-old plans.
For those of us who are well informed; it has been rather difficult to decode and understand the quickly changing landscape of often conflicting state planning and environmental mandates with respect to maintaining an adequate supply of drinking water for Carroll Countians.
To the best of my understanding, the commissioners were placed in a position of acting quickly to preserve the option, with the state, of exploring the reservoir. In doing so they dusted off work that dates back to the 1970s and brought it to the public’s attention for feedback and discussion.
However, at this stage, no permits have been sought and no engineering or design work has taken place since the 1970s. At present, no decision has been made about the reservoir except to begin a conversation about creating reservoirs in Union Mills and Gillis Falls as options in the future.
Once the plans and the old maps were brought to light, it became obvious that the one thing that needed to be changed right away is the idea of a “minimum acquisition line.”
That has been modified to reflect an appropriate change, in my view, in the county’s approach. The map now refers to that area, approximately 2,200 acres, of which the county already owns 1500 acres, as a “water resource protection zone.” It’s not simply different words; it is a different planning concept.
If the county makes a decision to go forward with the Union Mills reservoir, it may be necessary for the county to comply with common sense and state and federal laws requiring the area around the reservoir to be protected.
The information that I currently understand is not consistent with your position, “the county intends on buying (the property in the ‘buffer zone’) and (that property) will not be able to be used by the former owner’s.”
If you are suggesting that the county needs to do everything possible to protect personal property rights, then I cannot agree with you more. From what I understand of the county’s position, Carroll County government also wants to protect personal property rights, all the while, protecting the health safety and welfare of all Carroll Countians…
But I find the statement put forth in your e-mail: that the county has placed your “little piece of the American dream” for which you have worked your “whole life to get there and then have it show up on a map marked to be taken away without any explanation…” to be inconsistent with what I believe is to be what the county is considering.
It is my understanding at present that in order for the county to comply with current federal and state mandates with respect to protecting the watershed; it does not necessarily mean the county needs to “buy” the property and or deprive the owner from the ownership, physical possession, and enjoyment of their property.
It is apparently the prevailing convention that purchasing such easements, that would help to protect the water without the landowner giving up his ownership, is for the most part, the best way to proceed.
Yes, state regulations and best management practices would lead the county to apply some restrictions to the land, but only to portions that fall within the easement.
The specific lines delineating the water resource protection zone will be determined when new engineering studies are conducted (assuming the option of reservoirs is something the commissioners choose to pursue). The only outright purchase would be of land that falls in the pool line.
Ironically, most of what I have heard from folks such as yourself, and the county; is that you are on the same page as far as preserving the land in private hands – and for facilitating open space and against future residential development or the construction of magnesium smelting factories on the properties.
The irony is exacerbated by the fact that what the county may propose is to add an additional layer of protection to the farm that once housed the “pumpkin papers,” and perhaps compensate the property owner for that further protection.
In addition, the county wishes to purchase a protection from certain properties in order for the property owner to continue to do what the property owner has already stated they wish to do – preserve the property.
To recap, apparently what is being considered is that certain (as yet undetermined) property owners are to be paid to do what they otherwise want to do anyway. The property owners gets to keep their properties and on top of that the county is going to make the property a waterfront property all the while providing drinking water (and thus protecting the health, safety and welfare) for many Carroll Countians in perpetuity.
Thank you for your time. I hope that this has been helpful. As always, your thoughtful consideration is appreciated regardless of the outcome on any particular issue. Whether we agree or disagree, always find my door open for friendly constructive dialogue.
Kevin Dayhoff
From: Kevin E. Dayhoff [mailto:kdayhoff AT carr DOT org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:12 AM
To: --------------; ----------------; -----------------
Subject: RE: You are very misinformed! Story 3-8-07 reservior,communist,congressman
--------------------,
Thanks a bunch for your e-mail. I really appreciate that you have taken the time to be in touch. I’m tied it with family responsibilities for most of the rest of the day. I’ll take a good look at the points you raised in the e-mail and look forward to getting back with you. I’m always interested in another thoughtful point of view.
Thanks again. Have a great day.
Kevin
Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.
www.kevindayhoff.net
E-mail him at: kdayhoff AT carr DOT org
His columns appear in The Tentacle, www.thetentacle.com; Westminster Eagle Opinion www.thewestminstereagle.com and Winchester Report.
From: ------------- [mailto:------------------]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:56 AM
To: kdayhoff AT carr DOT org; ----------------; --------------------
Subject: You are very misinformed! Story 3-8-07 reservior,communist,congressman
What would you do if your house and property showed up on a map inside the minimum acquisition line for the reservoir? The county has notified none of these property owners as to any thing different. You say that these areas are buffer zones and won’t be affected by the pole level. That is well and good but this is still property the county intends on buying and will not be able to be used by the former owner’s. The county commissioners could have very easily notified the affected property owners of there intentions. If this would have been done and they don’t need to purchase properties I am very sure there would have been a different result from the community.
You also say the reservoir should have been built back in the 70’s.You might be right on that but they missed there chance. With today’s technology there are numerous alternatives to the reservoir. Controlling the amount of water that is wasted through leakage alone would be a good start. If you would have come to some of the other meetings and listened you would have heard some of these other ideas. Unfortunately for the county government we have some very informed citizens that would be more than willing to share there ideas. You like the county government just want to stick with a idea who’s time has passed.
There is a lot more to say in opposition to what you have wrote in your story! But maybe for someone that hasn’t worked there whole life to get there little piece of the American dream and then have it show up on a map marked to be taken away without any explanation you won’t understand.
I do encourage you to come to some of the Union Mills Water Ass. meetings and listen further to what they have to say.
