URGENT!
Save The Bay Action Alert
RI House to Vote on Port Funding This Thursday - Call Your Rep Today!

Last week the House Finance Committee approved next year's state budget. The Committee, at the Governor's request, included $1.5 Million to continue pursuit of environmental permits to build a large load center port on Narragansett Bay, in spite overwhelming community opposition.

But its not too late: On Thursday, an amendment will be introduced in the House to delete the additional port permitting funds from the budget. Please take the time to call your State Representative TODAY, and ask them to support the elimination of funding for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process.
Take action to prevent further wasting of valuable taxpayer dollars! Governor Almond has asked for an additional $1.5 million in funding in order to continue the environmental permitting process for a container facility at Quonset Point/Davisville.

Rhode Islanders overwhelmingly oppose Governor Almond's vision of a large load center port on the Bay, and opposed the wasting of any more public money on the project. Joining Save The Bay in opposition to the Governor's plan are the Conservation Law Foundation, Sierra Club-RI, the Environment Council of RI, the RI Shellfishermen's Association, RI Saltwater Anglers Association, and 13 city and town councils all remain opposed to the load center port.

The project, which would include the digging of a 52-foot deep channel across the middle of the Bay, the filling of approximately 100 acres of the Bay, and the risk of ecological disruption from the release of ballast water from ships. Local community concerns about light, noise, and truck traffic have been ignored by the Administration.

Contrary to the Administration's claim, the environmental permitting process is not the place to answer fundamental questions of economic viability It is an expensive, time-consuming process designed to measure and address environmental impacts of a specific proposal. Unfortunately the Governor's proposal is ill-defined, lacks the required market analysis, and has failed to attract interest from reputable shipping firms. Applying for permits without a well-defined project only invites more questions and raises public concerns. To date, Save The Bay and the community have not seen a viable port proposal that fits our vision for Narragansett Bay.

So call your Representative Today and Support a Budget Amendment that would stop public funding of this ill-advised vision for Narragansett Bay! You can also remind you Representative that this is an election year.
Just click on the web link below to get your Representative's contact info.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Scripts/legbios/redirecthouse.asp

Need more info? Contact Topher Hamblett, Director of Advocacy @ 272-3540 ext 123 or thamblett@savebay.org

Thanks for Protecting Narragansett Bay!


We gotta get some word in on this too. They won't give out enough money to manage a fishery but they'll spend that money for a "project" (that nobody wants) that will make life more miserable for the agency that doesn't have enough as it is...

Whats so bad about a container port???? Well how does it effect the enviorment and fishing?

Anthony, imagine right across where you tend to fish from, 50 large container ships a week coming & dropping off goods. You've seen a lot of the ships before, leaky, bilge pumps running out all kinds of crap like oils, Chinese Nuclear Spider Crabs (the ones that eat up the Bloo Crabs :eek5: ), all kinds of foreign sea creatures that don't mix in well with our environment. All that sludge & crap spilling on top of the clam beds in the Bay. All the extra traffic on the roads.It would be destroyed.

The Bay isn't very clear right now. Up where I am, it's almost as dirty as the waters around Bridgeport CT. It should & could be a lot cleaner than that...

So if we're going to ruin the Bay putting in a container port, why bother having all the sewers go in to reduce the crap (litterally) that goes into the bay?

This is all being put together for about 300-400 jobs? A highly automated Container Port. Not something with hundreds of longshoremen moving gear like 40 years ago in a busy port but
a couple hundred people pushing buttons and pulling levers. Oh yeh, and so someone can get their name on the port :hs: ...

You want to add 300-400 solid jobs to the economy? You want to add skilled technical positions in IT (like what you were studying) - build an office area. I bet for the couple mil they're talking about for an Environmental Impact Study, they could attract some corporations to have regional offices there instead. Imagine going to work in a nice office complex on the water! Running down at lunch and tossing a line in would be real cool :D

Seriously dude - it's a bad idea for the Bay.

Gov. Almond wants his source of continuing revenue just like the previuos Gov Sundelund. Sundelund shived TF Green through and he is now a lobbyist for the benefactor, Southwest Airlines. At a couple of hundred grand a year, so what if he sold out the people of Warwick anbd Cranston. There's even a bronze plaque to Sundeland at the Southwest ticket counter.

Gov Almond may just want to follow suit and establish his own source of personal revenue. You can only ride the Providence Gravy Train for so long.

Contacting your local representative is an excellent way to get your views across. It would be even better if Almond would publically pledge that he wasn't going to obtain ANY personal enrichment from a port affiliated business entity in the future.

I think I am more ont he side of the Port on this one. The majority of the jobs that will be created will be as a result of the port, not the at the port itself. Manufacturers (with IT Departments) want to make "stuff" where they don't need to pay large freight bills to have that "stuff" hauled to and from Newark. The company where I work competes with companies in China where the employees earn dollars a day and lower shipping cost would certainly help us be more competitive.

While I don't doubt the political ambitions, if you look at some of the other container ports on the east coast you'll see that industries that serve the global market have cropped up in close proximity to many of them.

Part of the port expansion was supposed to be a rail terminal that would handle a significant portion of the cargo coming into the port. If I remember correctly we passed a bond issue to improve the rail system to Quonset several years ago.

We already have Zebra Mussels and God only knows what else is coming into Providence on some of the rust buckets you see in the bay. I don't doubt the additional shipping will do some harm to the water quality, we're still a far cry from Norfolk and Baltimore. Did you know that AGRICULTURE is the single largest polluter of the waterways?

Fishpart - I think many of the same jobs created in support of a Container Port would also be created if a Business / Corporate / Light Manufacturing went in there as well - and not have the potential for bad side effects.

Yes, I know Baltimore/Dundalk/Sparrow Point. I used to live on the water directly across from Sparrows Point and I used to boat into Baltimore Inner Harbor - very dirty water. Plus the traffic they are speaking of is a significant increase in ship traffic in the bay - with a goal of being more in line with NY/NJ than say Boston, already bigger than Prov.. Now it may be because it was an anti-port group saying that but I have'nt seen anything that really counters that either.

Agriculture is the biggest all-around polluter, but in Narragansett Bay, it's septic systems and home lawn care that do it as there is relatively little agriculture in the Bay. There are A LOT of towns and neigborhoods without sewer systems and treatment facilities. Oh yeh, and there is the storm run-off thing too....

I remember (and so will Schoolie Monster) what happened when the Boston Harbor Poop Tunnel opened up a few years ago, everyone said it would be better for the harbor and to make it cleaner. Well, the inner harbor got cleaner but not necessarily the outer harbor. I can remember a few times when an east wind would move things that didn't get "treated" like they were supposed to into wadeable bass water....

Anyway - we can all pull a bunch of reasons for and against the port. But from an ecology sense, anything that makes the Bay dirtier instead of cleaner is a raw deal for the people of Rhody. Anything done should have the track of making things better instead of worse... The Bay is the issue here and not the Port IMO. The Bay is also FAR more valuable than a Port.

Don't necessarily disagree with the environmental argument, jus ttrying to provide another point of view.

The thing that really burns me up is the fact that a few years ago this was a "done deal" and NOW I'm paying more for it.:smash:

The state should have grabbed both the Rocky Point property and the quonsett property for public land. They will never again have the chance to get such large pieces of Bay front property.

The Bay is the jewel of RI. You don't take the Hope Diamond and use it in a cutoff saw. You protect it and make it available for everyone to enjoy. The Hope Diamond is at the Smithsonion. Both those parcells should have become state parks!

I don't live (yet) in your beautiful state but if voices are loud enough and petitions are numerous enough and local referendums keep going like they have been------that could still end up being a State Park. The Squeaky Wheel gets the grease. :smash: :smash:

I contacted my representative. :af: :af: :af:

STOP THE PORT!

Mike