Report Inappropriate Comments

Dear Mr Corrente:

I appreciate your comments, however what you wrote clearly shows the public that you do not sufficiently understand the science, engineering, and legal issues for properly resolving watershed issues.

Yourself, as a resident, former mayoral candidate, and claimed supporter of an organization that is not registered withe the Secretary of Stare, and has no IRS tax status, and made false claims to the Warwick City Council to obtain public funds, you mean well in your comments, Unfortunately, your focus has been to verbally support an organization which mainly focuses on watershed improvements to home parcels, rather than to support he comprehensive watershed approach that professionals typically take.

It's also been pointed out to me that your focus of support for a neighborhood group is mainly to better yourself for political reasons, and while I can understand and appreciate that, you don't appear to be a supporter of the entire watershed's health or requirements of the City Comprehensive Plan or State Guide Plan Water Quality Elements,

You also stated several items that are not accurate. That's a nice way for me to tell you that you are misinforming and misleading the public.

Your wrote that "The problem is worsened by the fact that many homeowners abutting Warwick Pond have lost some or all of their backyards to this problem. Please back up your claim of where people have lost "ALL of their backyards" by your providing evidence of your statement by providing plat and lot numbers where your claimed loss exists, because to the best of my knowledge, that doesn't exist. You're exaggerating.

You're exaggerating just like your associates did when they distributed a photo of a neighbor's shed being close to the pond water's edge, claiming there was an emergency and potential to lose their shed to flooding, when a fact check with government records revealed the truth that said shed was built illegally, not meeting required set backs from the water's edge, where had they complied with zoning regulations, their shed would not have been built and placed illegally too close to the waters edge..

I agree that water levels are now higher than they have been, and that during peak storms the water starts to flow beyond the historical pond / grass delineation. Some properly owners have appropriately planned for this knowing that they live in a FEMA flood plain that will experience flooding during peak storms, just like our weather forecasters warn the public of when such storms approach. Those who have properly dealt with this have a built small retaining walls at the waters edge to prevent yard erosion and prevent pond water from encroaching on their lawns. Such walls should be designed by a licensed structural professional to assure they accomplish their goal. The group that you support, was advised to form a Lake Management Association so that they could pursue such remedies and to my knowledge have not done that. I have also made city officials aware of actual communities where the municipality has built and maintains such a retaining wall, how they can be funded, and maintained.

Your statement "In years past (the 90's) the Warwick DPW would go in and bulldoze the phragmites out. Then, Avedisian got together with the DEM people and that practice came to an end. Maybe the Solomon administration can renew it. It would be a major savings to the taxpayers, in my opinion." Well, I know Mayor Solomon and I don't believe and hope he would not do what you suggest as it would be a violation of law. Again you are revealing that you don't understand the engineering, science, legal, or regulatory aspects that exist to protect both property and watershed. That you advocated for going in doing work illegally to save money, would trigger the city getting a Notice of Violation from regulators and would cost taxpayers more,. Rick Corrente, you advocated to do so something that is illegal. It would be illegal to do what you stated. While the city may have done what you stated in previous time periods, they are now aware of requirements, that it would be illegal to go in an bulldoze within a watershed without a regulatory review, That process is there to protect people and watersheds. Mr. Avedisian discontinuing that practice? It was discontinued because that practice is prohibited by law. Work in that watershed and the wetland is regulated under the State Freshwater Wetlands Act, as well as by regulations under EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, RICRMC, RIDEM and more, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with those regulations before telling people what approach is the best solution,

i think that most people who are aware of the situation are in favor of a solution that works. We need to stock together on this. With that I thank you for supporting that something needs to be done. The city has had experts testify that a multi year program is needed for a solution to succeed, and they testified that they are only doing a one year program and it is a fact that they actually do not have the total funds to successfully complete the needed scope of work. As Mr. Langseth, Executive Director of the Greenwich Bay Watershed pointed out to you, financial concerns that the city absolutely does not have the funds to complete this project. I also testified to Warwick City Council that they need a contingent plan for dealing with toxic material removal related to the CERCLA Suoerfund Site in that area, (already managed by the State of Rhode Island as the stream restoration should too as it is on owned state land) ) and the fact that members in the City of Warwick, in my humble opinion, have not done their due diligence in that cost risk area, they say they have, however I don't agree that their proposed plan for toxic material will be allowed when toxic materials are dredged and regulatory control could go to a different agency finding the city is now responsible for additional costs which I know from experience, will cost millions of dollars to be paid for by the taxpayers you say you want to protect.

Please stop using these serious issues in our community for political reasons to promote yourself, and please open your mind a bit an attempt to get the facts straight and leave the solutions to professionals.

By the way, years ago RIAC and it's consultant invited me to a design review meeting where they were telling City Council members that their plan would alleviate flooding. I opined that their design would not alleviate flooding, and that in fact there would be continued flooding. I also took time to review RIAC's engineering calculations with hydrology engineering at RIDEM, who agreed me that the design would not alleviate flooding during certain high intensity storms. City Council Members failed to heed my advice to seek a design that would alleviate flooding. The higher than average water levels have multiple causal factors that need to be addressed. There is also a law that states who is to correct the problem, and it's not the City or Warwick or Warwick taxpayers, Mr. Langseth is correct in what he wrote..

Please try and get your facts correct before commenting, stop exaggerating and telling the public that some have lost ALL of their yard without showing evidence of such, and please support a comprehensive restoration as Mr. Hartley refers to in his well written article.

3