Editor,

According to Wikipedia; “A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.”

If you want to see a classic example of a “red herring,” just read the Journal Tribune article “Corridor Commission delays Saco Island redevelopment project.”

In that article, Saco River Commission Executive Director Dalyn Houser justified delaying the project saying her board would “take the time needed to make sure the quality of the water and the river are protected, noting that the Saco River is a drinking water source for thousands of people.”

Why is this statement a red herring? Because the Saco Island project sits on the salt water side of the river so not a drop of that water is used for drinking.

I consider myself an environmentally conscious person and I believe this development may be the best way to contain the toxic waste on this island from leaching into the Saco River.  Let’s face it; neither the state nor federal governments will ever justify the tens of millions of dollars needed to remove all the toxic coal ash and other chemicals dumped on that island for almost two centuries.

I walked that property last year during a public presentation and was disturbed by the present uncontrolled flows of water above and below ground that was most likely leaching toxins into the river.

I was also disturbed by the presence of dilapidated tarps and loads of trash from transients who had taken up residence in the wooded areas of the island.

The Corridor Commission should allow this project to proceed unless they can secure the millions needed to clean up that island.

Allowing this project to proceed and requiring the developers to properly cap the surface of the island and control the waters flowing through it may be the best thing we can do to save the water quality of the Saco River in that area.

Ted Sirois

Saco