Questions We Have for Chatham Health District

The intervenors in the Morgan Estates subdivision application are meeting with Chatham Health District (Health Department) on Thursday, May 14, 2009 to discuss the apparent disconnect between the Health Department's review of the subdivision application and thousands of dollars of expert testimony submitted into the Town of East Haddam's public hearing of the application. The following questions were developed by the intevenors and submitted to Preserve Landing Hill to post in a blog.

1. Does the Health Department use email?
2. Does Liz Davidson's email currently work?
3. Has there been a problem with it in the past? Has she ever received any emails from any of the intervenors? Ms. Davidson has never responded to any of our emails. Who does the Public Health Department serve?
4. Did Chief Sanitarian Knauf ever visit the site of the proposed subdivision?
5. Upon what information did Mr. Knauf rely to approve the suitability of the site for septic systems.
6. In an email to Health Department Director Thad King, Mr. Knauf indicated that he knew nothing of expert testimony submitted into the public record by the intervenors and their experts. Is this true?
7. Was any of the information in the public record developed through the public hearing process, other than that which was submitted by the developer, considered by the Health Department?
8. Was just some of the public record considered, then?
9. Does the Health Department consider this a fair and balanced review of the pertinent information with regard to approving the application?
10. Does the Health Department consider the information it reviewed as impartial?
11. During our initial conversation, Mr. King indicated that there were reports filed by Ms. Davidson, in addition to the field notes, that were used by Mr. Knauf in support of his approval of the application. Yet no reports were provided in response to our request for all correspondence between Mr. Knauf and Ms. Davidson. Are there such reports and may we have copies of any such reports, as requested?
12. Was any of the correspondence between Knauf and Davidson via email?
13. Was this correspondence subject to any email service interruptions experience by Davidson or any other employees of the Health Department?
14. When emailing Director King, a message regarding a delay of delivery of the email was received. Is there a problem with Director King's email?
15. In evaluating the Deep Hole Testing (DHT) information submitted by the developer regarding ground water levels, were index wells referenced? Index wells are local, monitored wells that indicate relative ground water levels at any given time based on recent weather and rainfall. The DHT provided information about the relative proximity of ground water levels to the so-called mottling line, one way of understanding the average or normal ground water level.
16. If index wells were not referenced, how do you determine the relevancy of the DHT?
17. If index wells were referenced, which dates did you then use to compare the data given that the dates of the field notes do not always match the dates on the application? For example, the field notes indicated some testing was done in March of 2008, yet when it was submitted in the application, it was shown to have been taken in April of 2008. Given that April is typically wetter than March, this would provide for inherent bias that would make the relative level of the ground water to the mottling look better than it really is.
18. Did the dates of the field testing indicated on the developer's application ever change? Do they currently correspond to the field notes (those that have dates)?
19. Is the date of DHT relevant in way to the review of the Health Department?
20. In a telephone conversation, Mr. King referred to our concerns as focusing on minutiae. Do you think the disconnection between the public record of the review of this application and the Health Department's review, minutiae?
21. Are you aware if the Attorney's General has taken an interest in this case?