Open letter to Gov. Mills

It is outrageous that you would veto LD 125, An Act To Prohibit Aerial Spraying of Glyphosate and Other Synthetic Herbicides for the Purpose of Silviculture. Does your administration realize the toxic effects of industrial glyphosate? For example, studies showing its adverse effects on bees and and monarch butterflies? Are you aware that many insect species have declined by more than half since you and I were children?

Your support was greatly aided by youth activist outreach. Not outreach by Irving Corp;  nor by Iberdrola SA. Are you adequately representing the young people whom I canvassed with in Waldo County last year? Sadly, and outrageously, the answer is no.

It’s not enough to be more polite than Paul LePage while following in his footsteps.

Bob Morrison


Company contradicts its own position

In extraordinary sworn testimony June 23 in Waldo County Superior Court in Belfast, Nordic Aquafarms Chief Financial Officer Brenda Chandler said Nordic’s position is that intertidal land in front of the Belfast waterfront property of Janet and Richard Eckrote is “unclear.”

This is extraordinary because Nordic needs that intertidal land for its saltwater intake and effluent discharge pipes, and it is precisely Nordic’s assertion of Eckrote ownership of those tidal flats that is now being disputed in court. And now that assertion is being undermined by Nordic itself. Nordic’s well-documented incompetence rides again.

But there’s more.

In order to apply for its Maine Department of Environmental Protection permit, Nordic had to establish “sufficient right, title and interest” to all lands it needs for the $500 million industrial fish farm it wants to build in Belfast, and Nordic opponents’ longstanding rejection of Nordic’s RTI claims has consistently fallen on deaf ears at DEP. But with Nordic now contradicting its own RTI claim, will DEP do the right thing and require Nordic to establish true RTI — as opposed to the hocus-pocus RTI apparently not even believed by Nordic itself? And would Nordic be able to establish real RTI, given Chandler’s testimony?

As RTI is a prerequisite for submission of any DEP permit application, will DEP now follow Maine law and require Nordic to resubmit its entire DEP permit application?

And lastly, will DEP take Nordic’s application away from the amateur three-ring circus that is the DEP offshoot known as the Board of Environmental Protection? Will DEP put Nordic’s application where it belongs: with trained, experienced and professional DEP staff? Given Nordic’s wish to dump 7.7 million gallons of effluent per day into Belfast Bay, it would seem the people of Belfast deserve at least that from their own state government.

But, as an official intervenor in the original Nordic DEP/BEP application process, I advise against holding your breath.

Lawrence Reichard


Nordic trial witness presents ‘conundrum’

Nordic and proponents’ four-year struggle to provide facts, reality and truth has just finished up with three days of trial in Justice Murray’s courtroom.  I would like to share some highlights of this first pass through the high bar of Superior Court.

Nordic’s attorneys once again stated that the state administrative agencies run by the Mills administration have a low bar for right, title and interest. There, the evidence and fact-finding standards regarding property law, document authenticity, “sufficient” right, title and interest seem to be at the whim of the administrators.

The real deal (i.e., the judicial system of the state of Maine) plays under an actual set of rules designed to weed out the false statements and bogus documents submitted as “proof.” The “redacted“ release deeds  from the “heirs” of Harriet L Hartley  are an example.

Now registered in the Waldo County Registry  of Deeds (along with a real estate transfer tax form), these deeds are now  a  forever reminder of the false documentation provided by our duplicitous friends from Norway.

Bill Kelly, Esq., on behalf of the pro-Nordic City Council and providing lawyering for the supposedly quasi-judicial Planning Board, stated “we have release deeds and these are from the heirs of Harriet Hartley; we have a genealogist.”

Nordic at trial was forced to abandon its claims of  “partial rights” to a lost piece of land — the contested area of beach. These claims supposedly resulted from the signing over of mythical locations and rights held by the distant relatives of the former owner from the ’50s , Harriet L. Hartley.  It turns out that after the opponents  conducted lengthy, costly and comprehensive Pennsylvania and Waldo County probate research and document acquisition, Nordic created out of whole cloth these legal nullities. They had to be abandoned because of stipulated facts and  the testimony of their “expert,” Mr. Dorsky.

Just previous to trial, apparently Mr. Dorksy PLS had a revelation that there is no way that the heirs of  Harriet Hartley own this land.  As a matter of sworn testimony,  he stated that he reviewed no probate verification in Waldo County or Pennsylvania that support these release deeds’ authenticity!

I don’t envy our esteemed justice’s task, and I do admire his careful and attentive hearing of the professional opinions of Don Richards PLS and James Dorsky PLS regarding all the law, facts and explanations of monuments, deeds and surveying practice.

I am left post-trial pondering Mr. Dorsky’s conundrum that is the basis for his recent revelation and his professional opinion. “Along high tide mark of the bay” really means “along low water mark of the bay,” because “high water mark” is a line and not a beach or shore with width.

Nordic, the state attorney general and I will know the answer to this riddle in a year or two more.  Going sailing,

Paul Bernacki