Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Destruction resumes on the Charles River West of the BU Bridge

Marilyn Wellons follows up on Bob La Tremouille's early morning report:

Bob La Tremouille posted this alert early Wednesday morning. As soon as I could, I went to Magazine Beach to find out what was up.

Fortunately, for the moment, there's no major construction at Magazine Beach now. According to the MWRA workers I talked to, the extensive stack of items at Magazine Beach is a large quantity of pontoons, leftovers from the Head of the Charles regatta, now removed from the river.

If not today, major construction is nevertheless coming, if the City of Cambridge has its way. Phase 2 of the joint Cambridge-DCR project here--replacing 7 acres of ball fields and wildlife habitat there with 7 acres of commercial sod (zero wildlife value but lots of chemicals)--will go out to bid in November.

Cambridge City Councillors, the Conservation Commission, and State Senator Galluccio insist on going ahead with this project. They seem to believe, or want voters to believe, that they're giving Cambridge children more playing fields. In fact the project adds ZERO to the number of playing fields, ZERO to the city's inventory of open space, and $1.5 million of city funds to the DCR and its contractors.

This project also gives us more toxic algae blooms in the river. The blooms in 2006 and 2007 followed the installation of 6 acres of commercial sod downriver, at the Ebersol ball fields in Boston near MGH. Runoff from the chemicals applied there fed the algae and will continue to do so. Now Cambridge is paying $1.5 million to repeat the blunder and add more chemicals to the river from these 7 acres for bigger and better blooms.

We've paid $60 million so far to clean up the river, but that will be down the drain, so to speak, when Cambridge and the DCR are done.

What a deal.

Bob's alarm this morning was certainly reasonable.

One morning in October, 1999, the DCR's agent (Boston University) began destroying the goose meadow, where the White Geese nest, before the ConCom even met to consider the DCR's request for permission to do it. And BU's contractors cleared and poisoned much more than they ultimately told the ConCom they planned to. When dealing with the White Geese, the DCR has, to put it delicately, not been bothered by laws.

Three years ago, in September, 2004, the City of Cambridge and the DCR suddenly put up 3 lines of barriers between the water and the fields at Magazine Beach. Suddenly, the White Geese, who had been feeding there for more than 20 years, couldn't. They couldn't get ashore--and this at a time of year when they would ordinarily have been feeding from before sunup to after sundown on the grass, to prepare for winter.

The geese were frantic. We, their friends, tried to feed them as best we could, but it has been very hard to keep them from starving in the three years since that September. Until that time I had no idea how merely supplementary any food the White Geese got from their human friends was. That is, the geese--vegetarians--had survived for more than 20 years on the Charles on the grass and other riverfront plants. It is their primary food. Three years later, the geese still cannot get to their primary feeding grounds safely.

The DCR and Cambridge are very clear they don't want the White Geese on the river. So it's fair to say that preventing the geese from feeding at Magazine Beach is a deliberate policy. (Our Freedom of Information search of DCR documents in 2000 revealed the agency's written policy against the White Geese.)

So by noon today we knew that construction hadn't started yet. However, since the Cambridge City Council, the ConCom, and Senator Galluccio insist on proceeding with this project despite knowing about the algae blooms of 2006 and 2007, we are alert for the start of construction at any time.

Marilyn Wellons


Bob's report, early Wednesday morning, October 31, 2007:

There is a tradition in Cambridge, MA.

The really vile behavior is commonly saved until just after the election.

This morning early symptoms were at Magazine Beach and across the Charles River on the Boston side.

On Magazine Beach were seen 14 to 15 combinations of 15 packages each of nearly rectangular hollow black plastic objects. These objects were identical to each other, one to two feet in flat dimensions, a bit less than a foot high.

The last time this sort of this showed up at Magazine Beach, the vile City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation created three walls in the Charles River blocking access between the river and Magazine Beach with the obvious starvation impacts.

On the south side of the river was a work crew with police protection. The plastic walls were in place pretty much walling off the south shore from the river in an area starting from about the BU Bridge and ending across from the outfield at Magazine Beach.

We have bureaucrats and pols with contempt for the environment.

The last time this happened at Magazine Beach, wetlands, native protective vegetation and animal habitat were destroyed to put in bizarre bushes which kept dying and which were unfit for the Charles River. Deliberate starvation was targeted at the Charles River White Geese. The leadership of the DCR explained four years of promises not to harm them by saying that they did not consider starving them harming them.

On the south side, the DCR would appear to be going public with its contempt for native, protective vegetation and animal habitat. Previously, they hid behind the Charles River Conservancy.

Reprehensible, business as usual in the City of Cambridge and with their state bureaucrats and pols.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Injured Canada Near WBZ

Reported by Bob La Trémouille

An old friend wrote to seek help for an injured Canada near WBZ on Soldiers Field Road in Allston - Brighton.

The following are his comments and my reply. If anybody can help, it would be appreciated.

Since this was initially published, comments have come in from Marilyn, Cheri and Ellen as well, plus a few others.

I have added a nice summary from Cheri. Of necessity, this is the end and I cannot include all the comments. This is getting too long.

1. Injured Goose.
2. Your editor's reply.
3. Marilyn.
4. Cheri of Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA.
5. Bob in Response to Cheri.
6. Cheri - Summary.

1. Injured Goose.

William Budington writes:


Hello friends of the Charles River White Geese,

I am contacting you because Cheri from Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA alerted me to a situation which has been troubling her. A man that works for a radio station in Boston located at 1200 Storrow Drive called Cheri and told her that there is a Canadian Goose with one foot living near his place of work, and that this goose would often cross Storrow when looking for food and water. He is concerned that the Goose will get hit by oncoming traffic, especially given its disabled condition.

The goose is also ostracized from the other geese living there because of its condition.

Since Cheri has to take care of the animals on the farm, she doesn't really have any time to come into Boston. So she called me to see if I could look into it and hopefully bring the duck to her, so that it can live out its life in peace on the farm. Today, myself and a friend of mine went to investigate, and we found the goose. After numerous attempts to approach the goose, he just flew away.

Recognizing that the attempt was futile, we stopped and figured we would need some additional help in this situation.

We were wondering if any of you have any experience with this sort of stuff, and if not, if you can refer us to someone that can help us.

Cheri has a net that we can possibly use, but we personally have no experience with capturing geese.

If you can help, please let me know. I am available at this email and my phone number is 857 204 6906.

Thank you,
Volunteer, Boston Animal Defense League

2. Your editor's reply.

I am copying a number of people who might be interested. (Aside to Marilyn: I can't find our Brighton contacts.)

Unfortunately, Little Brook, the Native American who cared for the Charles River White Geese for a number of years and who also does not live that far from you (1) does not have direct email access and (2) is not in very good physical shape.

Little Brook, however, is the only person I am aware of with experience providing comfort and native medications to water fowl in need.

I will also post your notice of the Charles River White Geese blog.

A few thoughts, however. In 2001, a nut ran around the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese. He killed a number of nesting geese and finally graduated to the rape and murder of a young woman for which he has been tried and convicted.

He was emulating the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge and Department of Conservation and Recreation. These two entitities egged him on with the silence of the guilty.

The nut's attacks on animals reached a pinnacle in July 2001 when, in an clearly political act, he apparently was the killer of Bumpy, the leader of the gaggle. WBZ-TV telecast the removal of Bumpy's body from the Charles as the lead of its 11 pm newscast.

Our first knowledge that something was wrong when Bumpy was killed was when some youths found a young female goose who had been stabbed in the side. She was one of five other geese, besides Bumpy, attacked in that outrage.

Iowa, as we called her, hopped around on one foot until the following November or December when she finally was able to start using that leg. She got a lot of treatment from Little Brook. After a period of years, she recovered so much that her prior infirmity was fully healed for all practical purposes.

I find the fact that the Canada is flying away from you to be a positive thing.

Iowa hopped around on one leg for many months, either fully off her injured leg or, then, favoring the injured leg. Iowa also kept away from all humans other than Little Brook. I would think that your one-legged Canada should be able to survive quite adequately, especially since he has retained his ability to fly.

Iowa was never rejected by the gaggle. The fact that he is ostracized is ominous. [I, however, remember a Canada who was similarly ostracized. I saw him during the spring in the park between the Gardner Museum and the Museum School. If this is the same one, the fact that he is still alive says a lot. This other guy's problem, however, looked like angel-wing, an odd wing formation.

My and Marilyn Wellons' (my co-chair with the Friends of the White Geese) experience has been that free animals, more than anything else, want to remain free. When they are so hurt that they allow themselves to be carried by somebody wishing to help, especially to be carried away from their habitat, they commonly have been beyond help.

Thank you for your true concern about animals (and your name is familiar).

PS: I also remember Cheri, and I do so with good feelings. I am copying her as well.

3. Marilyn.

Bob, Mr. Budington,

I'm trying to see Little Brook sometime this week and
will raise the issue of the injured goose.

My own reaction is that if the goose can fly and is
eating, it will recover or not, as nature decides.
Iowa, the goose Bob mentions, wasn't excluded by the
flock when she was so hurt. She definitely kept
herself apart to nurse her wounds, though. In time
she recovered and rejoined the group.

I've seen solitary geese over the years of walking on
the Charles. Since geese are social animals this is
unusual. Given all the water traffic from big motor
boats in the summer and shells leading up to and
including the Head of the Charles, it wouldn't
surprise me if there were injuries among migrating
birds whose flocks moved on without them.

There are, apparently, ways of treating injured geese,
and Little Brook knows them. I will ask him what he

Thank you so much for caring about the goose! I'll
get back to you asap.

Marilyn Wellons

4. Cheri of Maple Farm Sanctuary in Mendon, MA.

I received your email that you also sent Bill regarding the goose on Soldier's Field Rd. The fellow who originally called me (from the radio station) called me a few minutes ago, still concerned. I explained I had several people that went there over the weekend to observe the goose.

Like you, I'd rather see a wild animal remain where it feels safe and live out it's life. If he were in desperate pain I would take a different action. But it sounds like the goose can fly (although it can't push off as well as a normal goose) and it eats well. According to this concerned fellow, the flock left and this goose is all by itself now. This fellow has found another group in Bellerica that is willing to take the goose in but they need someone to bring the goose to them (the group is Beaks and Noses I believe). I tried to discourage him from putting the goose through that trauma but ultimately I can't control his final decision.

Any further words of wisdom would be deeply appreciated...

Maple Farm Sanctuary

5. Bob in Response to Cheri.

It sounds like we are in agreement.

My only words of wisdom (aside from passing your comments on to the same key people who got the original transmittal of my response to him) are that I would love to add your comments to the blog report.

As far as the Canada being left back by his gaggle, my strongest wish is that he find the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese in such a manner that he is comfortable going there.

The Charles River Urban Wilds people (one of the bcc's) regularly feed needy water fowl. I have been aware of, in one case, a Canada whose mate was killed who simply stayed her. I and some others referred to him as the lone Canada.

Food is available for this valiant bird in addition to what he would normally find anyway. I hope he finds it, but birds survive during the off season.

You are a good person and an old friend. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in you.

6. Cheri - Summary.

Bob, Ellen, Marilyn,

It's been so wonderful having this support system even though my instincts have certainly guided me to our combined opinion. The fellow who first contacted about this goose is very concerned about the wellbeing of this bird, and I'm grateful for anyone having concern for the environment and it's inhabitants. I think his concerns brought him to the conclusion that captivity would protect and heal the goose.

Hopefully he is beginning to understand that the best thing is to allow the goose to live out it's life in the wild, with some assistance. Some of my friends are now making regular visits to make certain the goose has food. At some point I'm hoping the goose will find the feeding station by the BU bridge.

My thoughts, prayers and respect go out to Little Brook if anyone talks to him...

I will contact Bob if there are any changes we need to be concerned
about. Thank-you all for your kind hearts.

Maple Farm Sanctuary

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Do Cambridge Pols Have a right to Lie about Environmentalism?

Bob La Trémouille Reports:

1. Introduction.
2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.
3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!
4. Editor's Response.
5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.

1. Introduction.

On the front page of the October 4, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle, the newspaper reported that Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley's campaign manager acted in a key capacity in a candidate's night without being disclosed as his Campaign Manager.

This failure to disclose struck me as business as usual from Kelley and his buddies on environmental issues, so I wrote a letter to the editor saying that. The letter I sent is reprinted in section 2.

I was rather pleased with the letter, so I distributed it to 400 or 500 of my closest friends on about a third of an email list I used for perhaps 500 environmental reports before Friends of the White Geese started this blog.

One of the members of the list is Kelley's campaign manager. She responded with the email quoted in section 3.

Section 4 is my response to a key point in her response.

The Cambridge Chronicle printed my letter very prominently this morning, Thursday, October 11. It was preceded only by Kelley's response to the article. The Chronicle omitted two paragraphs of my letter. That reporting is quoted in section 5.

The secret definition of "environmentalism" as elaborated by Sam Seidel on behalf of the Cambridge pols may be found at:

2. Kelley and Friends Claim to be Pro-Environment While Being Environmentally Destructive.

Cambridge Chronicle

I appreciated your front page exposure of Craig Kelley giving people the false impression that his campaign manager was a neutral party at East Cambridge ’s candidate’s night. On environmental matters people giving the false impression about where they are coming from is the norm in Cambridge. Kelley's 2005 race was an excellent example.

Kelley went so far in 2005 as to put on a special presentation telling people about environmental protection. He actually gave people the impression that he was pro-environment, rather than being as environmentally destructive as all nine of the then incumbents.

Sam Seidel did an excellent presentation in The Alewife a few months ago in which he mocked me for being consistent in my protection of the environment. Seidel bragged that the Cambridge pols have their own (secret) definition of environmentalism which he called much better than the one I (and most people in our world) live by.

Kelley and the rest of the active pols have shown flat out contempt for the environment on matters particular to the City of Cambridge and particular to the REAL powers of the Cambridge City Council.

The continuing outrage on Memorial Drive is only one example.

Nine city councilors told their constituents that they were protecting the Radisson Hotel area by the Memorial Drive Overlay District. They neglected to mention that their protections were a flat out lie as is demonstrated by the building soon to come there towering over the sidewalk.

Kelley and the others claim to be "green." They neglect to mention that the green they are talking about includes algae they are inviting to the Charles River by the second part of the outrage continuing on Magazine Beach. Poisons are not now necessary to protect the playing fields at Magazine Beach. Kelley and the others have demanded that the governor go forward with digging up our perfectly good playing fields and replacing them with dirt, sod and poisons. Cambridge kids are expected to roll around in this stuff.

The predecessor project to Magazine Beach , Ebersol Fields near MGH, saw the DCR dump on Tartan (prohibited near water) when the basic poisons did not work. The next day, the Charles River was infested with algae from the harbor to Mass. Ave.

I could go on with massive, needless destruction of healthy trees. I could go on with destruction of wetlands. I could go on with the encouragement of WORSE traffic on Memorial Drive. I could mention the apparently thousands of healthy trees being destroyed at Fresh Pond.

I, and the rest of us, live in reality. Kelley and the rest of the Cambridge pols live in a fake reality in which they casually define "environmentalism" to include environmental destruction.

Once again, thanks for the front page article and the editorial. On Kelley's key issue, environmentalism, I see only one candidate so far who is fit to be respected, and there is no similarity between the spelling of "Podgers" and the spelling of "Kelley."

3. Kelley's Campaign Manager: How Dare You Call Kelley a Liar without a vote of an Impartial Jury!!!!


I thought the American Justic System stated that a person was innocent until proven guilty. You don't know me nor have you asked me what has happened. How sad. To go from a simple error which could not have been corrected to stating I was not a neutral party without knowing the facts to Kelley is against the environment leads me to think there is something very wrong with your thought process. The two are not related. Please take me off your list.

4. Editor's Response.

The outrage which passes for environmentalism in Cambridge is based exactly on your argument.

Kelley and the other destroyers claim to have a right to destroy our city's environment while loudly calling themselves environmental protectors.

"It is improper to call me a flat out liar without a jury decision calling me a liar. I have a flat out right to lie and lie and lie while at the same time destroying and destroying and destroying."

That is a little bit clearer than Sam Seidel's piece.

Thank you.

PS: You are off the list.

5. Cambridge Chronicle Publication.

In the first of the two letters, Kelley's second paragraph of two (referring to his campaign manager activities in that candidate night) read:


People in Cambridge rightly expect me and everything I'm associated with, to be as open and transparent as possible. I blew it in this case and will strive to learn from this mistake to make sure my actions are even more open and transparent in the future.


The Chronicle deleted two paragraphs in my letter. The result was that Kelley's letter and mine were pretty much the only letters on the letters/editorial page. They printed the beginning of a third letter on that page.

The Chronicle's printing deleted the third paragraph of my letter, starting with "Sam Seidel" and deleted the third paragraph from the end providing more general examples of environmental destruction by Kelley and his friends.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Cambridge City Council votes to pollute the Charles, expose children to pesticides and other chemicals

On September 24, 2007 the Cambridge City Council voted to endorse the joint Cambridge-DCR project at Magazine Beach. Councillor Davis's Order, described here on September 23 ("Environmental Destroyer"), passed, 8-0-1. Councillor Galluccio was absent.

The September 23 blog also posted the text of Marilyn Wellons's letter to the City Council and a copy of her July 29, 2007 e-mail to to Rep. Marty Walz ("Reality on the 'Renovation' of Magazine Beach").

After the Council's vote, Wellons sent the following letter to the Cambridge legislative delegation and attached the July 29 e-mail to Walz as documentation. (This entry reposts that e-mail.) She sent similar letters, with the attachment, to the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, and to the Governor.

Since these elected officials represent non-Cambridge municipalities and voters who have paid to clean up the Charles River and Boston Harbor, they may bring some common sense to the issue if the Cambridge City Council will not or cannot.

Cambridge voters might ask themselves and candidates this election year why we should pay for the ill-conceived project. Like Ebersol Fields, it will create toxic algae blooms in the river. According to the city's agreement with the DCR, it will give Cambridge public school children first priority for exposure to the herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides needed to maintain the 7 acres of commercial sod.

Voters might also ask candidates for City Council and School Committee how this project affects natural ecosystems, water quality, pollution of the environment, and exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.

Leaving aside fears of brain-eating amoebas that feed on algae in warm water, anyone with hopes of swimming in the Charles should ask how this project advances that goal.


Dear Members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation:

Last night the Cambridge City Council voted to urge you to "assure that work goes forward [with the joint Cambridge-DCR project] at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline," i.e., contract out to bid in October, construction in 2008. Cambridge has placed $1.5 million in escrow for it, to be released at the Governor's discretion.

The project will replace 7 acres of dirt and grass adapted to the riverfront environment with 7 acres of gravel, topsoil, commercial sod, an irrigation system, and fences.

Its prototype is "Teddy Ebersol's Red Sox Fields at Lederman Park" in Boston, near MGH. Runoff from the 6 acres of commercial sod there polluted the Charles River in 2006 and 2007, creating a public health hazard. As a result of DCR ongoing maintenance of the professional-level turf, pollution from this source and resulting dangerous algae blooms will continue.

The fields now at Magazine Beach simultaneously accommodate an existing regulation Little League field, soccer, frisbee, golf practice, other active uses, and "Bordering Land Subject to Flooding"--rich wildlife habitat and important passive open space for us city dwellers. A second regulation Little League field is less than 200 yards away, at Lindstrom Field between Memorial Drive and Granite Street.

As at Ebersol, at Magazine Beach the commercial sod will get repeated applications of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides to maintain it. Children and adults, pets and wildlife, all will be exposed to these chemicals. As downstream, runoff from the fields will pollute the river and, subsequently, the harbor.

You represent not only Cambridge but other municipalities in the Charles River watershed, whose taxpayers have already paid $60 million to clean it up. Another $19 million will be spent before 2013 for this purpose. Please exercise judgment and urge the Governor to protect the river, not destroy it.

I am writing the Governor and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, to alert them to these problems and ask for common sense from them as well.

Attached please find my e-mail of July 29, 2007, to Rep. Marty Walz. It outlines the connection between installation and maintenance of Ebersol Fields and the resulting algae blooms of 2006 and 2007.


July 29 e-mail:

Dear Rep. Walz,

Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).

The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.

Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)

Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)

Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)

In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)

The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.

The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.

The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)

The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.

In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.

With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.

I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.