Stop Griswold OverDevelopment

Home

A Brief History

The Issues Today

Why This Fight Matters

What Others Are Saying

Expert Scientific Reports

Is This Fight Over?

What's New?

How You Can Help

Photo Gallery

Sign Our Online Petition

Contact Us

EXPERT SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Many expert reports have been issued, and many citizens have questioned how the average layperson can make sense of the conflicting expert reports coming from SGOD and from LeylandAlliance.  It isn't easy, of course. 

Consider, however, who stands to make millions of dollars from this project, and who stands to make nothing.  While money isn't always the whole story, it's always a major factor.  No one involved with SGOD stands to profit from blocking the construction of this development.  LeylandAlliance, obviously, cannot say the same, nor can many of the supporters of Madison Landing.

Furthermore, during the public hearings on the zoning issue, Leyland refused to provide any kind of guarantee that their wastewater system would perform as promised.  If they are so sure that their experts' opinions are accurate, why would they refuse to provide insurance to back up their claims?

Robert Schreiber is an MIT-trained engineer and specialist in wastewater flow who testified during the Madison zoning hearings, and continues to serve as a consultant for SGOD.  From the beginning, Schreiber has maintained that the engineering firm hired by LeylandAlliance, BL Companies of Meriden, CT, has based its claims on insufficient data, insufficient analysis, and circular reasoning.   With no data to support it, Leyland proposed that there was a miraculous underground river from the Griswold Airport site way out into Long Island Sound, which would carry away all of the wastewater from the site.  This fairy tale has been soundly refuted since then by SGOD's experts, but Leyland continues to invoke such pseudoscience and wishful thinking to carry its amended proposals forward.

In this memo from September 2005, Schreiber responds to BL Companies' report, dated August 18, 2005.  He points out repeatedly the inadequacy of their data collection, and describes their results as "questionable", "casual", "inappropriate", "not fully backed up by data", "clear misrepresentations", and more.  Schreiber also provided detailed testimony during the DEP hearings in Hartford, in May 2007.

Brian Howes, Ph.D. is Professor of Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth, and the Director of their Coastal Systems Program. He performed an extensive review of all previous reports on the Griswold site, and also his own on-site study, to evaluate the potential for damage to the Hammonasset tidal wetlands from the Leyland proposal.  He and his PhD student donned hip waders and walked the site, toured the creeks by boat, got their hands dirty, and took their own measurements and samples.  Dr. Schreiber points out in his letter, outlined above, that Leyland has failed to do this kind of careful data collection.  Or worse, perhaps they have done it, and suppressed findings which were at odds with their agenda.  We have no way of knowing. 

Dr. Howes provides an outstanding overview of the plight of such estuaries in general, and then of this one in specific.  He discusses the specter of losing the ecologic, aesthetic, economic, educational, and recreational benefits of this rare and precious resource.  Dr. Howes' full report can be read here.  He provided additional detailed testimony during the DEP hearings in May 2007.

Keith Ainsworth, Esq., who specializes in environmental law and serves as the legal counsel for SGOD, summarizes key findings of Dr. Howes report in this letter to the Connecticut DEP.  He emphasizes the impact to the tidal wetlands not only from the Amphidrome wastewater system, but also from increased fertilizer use and the greater surface runoff.  Ainsworth notes that the impact on the Hammonasset River estuary from Madison Landing is not permissible under the Federal Clean Water Act, and he describes the Leyland wastewater model as "science fiction". 

LeylandAlliance responded to the Howes report with an analysis written by Connecticut College botanist Scott Warren.  In his report, Warren recycles old data previously discredited by Schreiber and Howes, makes no attempt even to appear that he's providing any original information, and then spins these flawed data into a set of outrageous conclusions that fly in the face of common sense, never mind objective science.  He argues that the freshwater discharge from Madison Landing would not only not harm the estuary, but would enhance it!  He also concludes that the nitrogen loading (human waste) from the Madison Landing wastewater system "...even under the most pessimistic scenario, will have no discernable impact on surrounding marshlands..." 

These claims simply don't pass the sniff test.  If freshwater is so good for the estuary, why don't we dig a freshwater well there and start pumping it in?  If human waste will have no impact on the marsh, perhaps we could raise some tax revenue by allowing septic system companies to drive into the airport and dump their trucks' contents into the estuary.  Warren's claims, simply put, are unbelievable.  His report can be read here.

In order to generate a comprehensive response to the Warren report, SGOD again consulted Brian Howes, Ph.D.  Howes composed a highly detailed analysis, which can be found here.  Briefly, Howes concludes that the key assumptions and conclusions made in Warren's report are inaccurate.  He notes that the Warren report relies heavily on unsubstantiated assumptions which have not or cannot be proven, and on making calculations based on previously contested data (i.e. garbage in, garbage out).  He details the ways in which Warren grossly overestimates the current nitrogen loading in the estuary, and thus underestimates the impact of Madison Landing.  He also assails the viability of the Phragmites control program proposed by Leyland, and again debunks the pseudoscience of the underground river theory, for which there is no evidence.  See Howes' full report for details.

To follow up on this report, Attorney Ainsworth wrote this letter to Warren Herzig of the Connecticut DEP Bureau of Water Management.  Ainsworth contrasts Howes' rational, scientific report with Warren's insistence on using poor data and wrong assumptions, and concludes: "A review of the two reports leads me to believe that LeylandAlliance has become desperate and that it is not beneath them to attempt to mislead the Department with inaccurate and exaggerated claims."  He also reiterates that Warren's own report effectively acknowledges that Madison Landing would transgress the Federal Clean Water Act, by increasing nitrogen loading in a water body designated as impaired. 

Ainsworth concludes with the following: "Given the mounting data demonstrat-ing the failure of the Amphidrome Plus system, the likely addition of nitrogen to an impaired water body, Leyland's inexplicable continued reliance on the underground pipeline to the Sound theory, and the exposure of the end-result reasoning of Leyland's experts' opinions, SGOD believes the Department must issue a denial order to avoid the appearance of supporting junk science."

Before either an approval or denial order was rendered by the DEP, Leyland "voluntarily" withdrew the Amphidrome Plus system from consideration and substituted the Zenon system.  See The Issues Today for further details on the change from Amphidrome Plus to the Zenon system, and what we've learned about the dismal performance of the Zenon system at other Connecticut sites.

Return to Top of Page