Hello!
A group of interested community members around Smith and Sayles Reservoir, Chepachet, Rhode Island has decided to gather together electronically to share information, insights, community, news, events, and happenings.
There are no dues or required meetings. You do not have to be a lakeowner to participate.
We want to have a place to share what we know about our wonderful lake with others. This is that space. If you'd prefer to receive information via the U.S. Postal service, we'll send along a periodic newsletter that summarizes the information on this site.
We cherish community, as do you. We want to hear about your observations, items you've retrieved from other publications, and your memories of this very special body of water. You, too, can become an author by sending us your short articles. We value your voice and opinions.
If you'd like to be included in this conversation, send us a quick e-mail or a quick snail mail to let us know. Each time we post new information about Smith and Sayles Reservoir, we'll send you a note so you'll be informed.
Welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Save The Lakes: The Other Side of the Story.
ReplyDeleteSeveral newspaper articles, like a front page story from the July 19th, 2008 Providence Journal, have presented a one-sided view of efforts to control milfoil on Smith and Sayles reservoir (aka Sand Dam Pond). The 7/19/08 article quotes the president of the Sand Dam Reservoir Association (SDRA) as claiming “the lake was useless” in reference to the summer of 2007. During that summer, my family used the lake almost every day for swimming, fishing, kayaking, and canoeing. Sometimes the milfoil was thick, and my husband and I would rake it out to clear the area for swimming. But overall we had a lovely summer enjoying the lake. Little did we know that it would be our last summer to enjoy our beautiful lake.
On June 11, 2008, the SDRA dropped more than 10,000 pounds of the herbicide Navigate 2,4 Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid into our lake. According to the Sierra Club “Despite industry efforts claiming the safety of this chemical, there is a large body of evidence indicating major health effects, from cancer to immunosupression, reproductive damage to neurotoxicity.”
The Sierra Club report can be obtained from http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/health-environment/pesticides/2-4-D-overview.pdf.
Another source detailing the risks of this chemical can be found at:
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/2,4-D.pdf
In November of 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to ban 2, 4-D based on evidence of its neurotoxicity, link to cancers (especially non-Hodgkin's lymphoma), and negative health effects on many species (sadly, it is expecially toxic to dogs).
Despite protests from concerned lake residents, the SDRA has arranged for the lake to be treated repeatedly (September 11th, 2008; July 22nd, 2009, with plans to treat in 2010 & 2011 as well). DEM has binders of information documenting that 2, 4-D is not effective at eradicating milfoil (though sadly, it does seem to be effective at eradicating bullfrogs. Prior to the 2008 treatment, a bullfrog chorus sang me to sleep every night in the spring and summer. Since the treatment, I’m lucky to hear a lone bullfrog every now and then). Since I am unwilling to expose my family to the risks of 2, 4-D, we can no longer swim, boat or fish on our lake.
It is my hope that the efforts of groups like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council will eventually lead to a 2, 4-D ban. However, the leadership of Sand Dam Reservoir Association has now established an organization called Save the Lakes. The STL agenda includes treating 49 RI ponds and lakes with this toxic chemical. Even if the repeated, wide-spread use of the chemical could eradicate milfoil (which it can’t), would it be worth the cost to human and ecosystem health? Will we be left with weed-free toxic soup lakes and ponds, great for powerboats and jet skis but deadly for wildlife? Any federal ban on 2, 4-D may come too late to protect RI lakes from the misguided efforts of the Save the Lakes group.
I urge readers to work to protect our lakes and ponds from this toxic chemical. Contact Save the Lakes at stlri.org and urge them to adopt a more sustainable approach to milfoil management.
I do not see information on this website that I ususlly look for when judging the crediblity of the site. First - who is the author of this site? What is the intent of this site? Does the author have a bias? Why is SMith and Sayles being signled out? If these laws apply to all water bodies in RI then shouldn't the website target a much larger group than just one organization. I teach my students to carefull examine a website for accuract. They know that if the site doesn't have an author, or presents a point of view that is biased then they need to carefully look at the facts and realize that any web address that ends in a .com can be created by anyone and can say anything. I choose anonymous just like the author of this web page.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous...I would think yes the author of this site has a bias...just like you. Everyone has a bias. I do not live around the lake, nor do I know everything that is happening in this community. It is obvious what the intent of this site is. Some people are trying to get their voices heard, but the great thing about a blog is that anyone and everyone can get their voice heard. You don't have to be a PhD or "credible" (from your point of view) to speak your mind.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Smith and Sayles being singled out...because this was created by people who live around the lake and are being "infected" by the SDRA's decisions.
You bring up an interesting point though...how long before the STL starts poisoning lakes all across the state of RI. The choices that are made now will target a much larger group in the future.
Please note SDRA and STL are 2 distinct enteties. STL came about because SDRA could not get any cooperation from DEM to use lake lowering as a means to control the weed infestation. Please become informed about STL's goals, by-laws and constitution. STL does not promote chemicals but has used SDRA as an example as to how chemicals were used as the only DEM approved option. STL is not only about using chemicals, it is to help lakes find and use any and all alternatives. The Board of Directors consists of many people who are in the "environmental business." as well as concerned citizens. These individuals stood up and have been courageous enough to put themselves in the public eye and public scutiny in an attempt to unify resources that can preserve all the affected lakes in RI. STL addresses issues that are broader than just invasive weed management and include many problems that have been brought before to the attention of state legislators.
ReplyDeletePlease send information to this blog about the STL. If it is a pilot program for chemical applications across RI lakes, then it has the same agenda as does SDRA. If it does not, how are the two separate entities. Your comment does not offer particular information but suggests that viewers of this blog should already be aware.
ReplyDeleteWhere is information located about STL for public access? Does one have to attend meetings to receive updates about the advocacy in which STL is engaged? Transparency is all