Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
In the wake of the June 6 drowning in the Housatonic River at Bull’s Bridge in Kent, The Lakeville Journal asked owners of businesses that cater to river sports for advice on safety.
Dave Fairty, co-owner of Backcountry Outfitters in Kent, had some blunt advice for swimming in the Bull’s Bridge section of the river.
“I wouldn’t swim in it at all,� Fairty said. “Swimming in small rivers is a bad idea. If you are swimming in a 500-foot wide river near a village, that’s one thing. But in a little gorge where a massive amount of water is funneled through a tiny space, water amounts are staggering.
“People always think that the Housatonic is a tiny river. It’s not.�
Fairty said swimmers who choose to go into the river sometimes do not have a sense of how hydraulics works.
“Even people who think they are good swimmers don’t understand the situation,� he said. “You may think you are a good swimmer, but when you are pulled into the water, you are never going to be more powerful than the river. What always seems to happen in these drowning cases is that the victim gets pinned underwater by the current.�
Harold McMillan of Housatonic River Outfitters, which caters primarily to fly-fishermen, said for the wading angler, “We always recommend a wading staff. It’s better to purchase one that’s all metal — a wooden one can float away or break.
“We also always recommend you wear polarized sunglasses. For some reason the Housatonic has a lot of glare. Polarized glasses let you see rocks if you’re stepping into a deep pool. A lot of people fall in the river by not watching where they’re going, falling over a rock and taking a face plant.
“In this river, most of our wading shoes incorporate a felt bottom that sticks to the rocks and moss and gives you better traction. Sometimes embedded in the felt sole is a metal cleat� for additional stability.
McMillan said just hopping in the river in an old pair of sneakers or hiking boots is a bad idea. “A rubber hiking sole is the worst thing you can wear. A typical Vibram or rubber sole is very slippery in this river. It’s fine to get in and out of a boat but not for wading in the river.�
Fishermen taking float trips on McMillan’s boats are required to wear life jackets, he said.
“We have a life jacket for every person in our guide boats.�
McMillan said visitors to the river should check the U.S. Geologic Survey website and look at the flow rate at the dams on the river. “Anything over 2,000 cubic feet per second means ‘approach the river with caution.’�
And if the river is cloudy or muddy it’s caused by turbulence or a rise in the water levels, he warned. Anglers and waders should avoid stepping blindly into areas with poor visibility.
Clients of Clarke Outdoors in Cornwall are required to wear personal flotation devices on boating trips, according to co-owner Jenifer Clarke. This applies across the board, whether customers are renting a kayak or canoe or going on a rafting trip.
“We make sure they know how to swim,� she added. “And renters who use our transportation service get a safety talk on what to do if they tip over.�
She had some additional advice:
“Never stand up in a rapid. Foot entrapment is a danger — you get your foot caught on a rock and you’re in trouble.
“Float on your back with your feet first, so your feet and not your head hits any rocks.
“Avoid downed trees — we call them ‘strainers.’ The boat might go through but you won’t.�
Clarke said that alcohol is not much of a factor in accidents with her clientele.
“It was worse in the past, but the mentality has changed and people just want a day on the river. They can drink in camp afterward.�
Fairty thinks that there should be warning signs posted around the river warning about the dangers of swimming in it.
“It seems like almost every year someone drowns in the Housatonic,� Fairty said. “And in almost every single case it happens to be a teenager.
“Teenagers think they are invincible. Something really needs to be done because there have been too many lives wasted.�
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.