making a meeting in the middle of the summer in a uh different location. Uh can we start with the pledge of allegiance? >> Please stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and
to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Dia, uh, thank you for, uh, getting materials out to everyone.
>> Oh, we got Michael Burus in the house, too. Okay, the boss is here. Um included in that is an agenda which has a review of various parts. It has a a letter of support to Westport
Elementary. Um are there any other things people want either added or taken out of the agenda? Otherwise, we'll go by this agenda. Uh first uh is the minutes for our June 11th
meeting were uh sent out. I I read them. I don't know if others have had time to read them, but I thought they were complete. Does anyone want to make a motion to approve them? >> Mike Yogman, >> second by Jim Whiten. Okay.
>> Uh any discussion? All in favor say I. five minutes. Um I think you need to grab one of those >> then. Um uh we have [laughter]
at the last meeting I think we have sent out a lot of the chapters and asked various committees to review their chapters and uh uh Joseph how are you? see you come in.
>> Um and um Dia's been collecting them. Um I I don't know if Dia if you want to uh come and uh sit here and um you want to summarize what we've
received from different committees. >> Sure. Thank you everyone for your continued effort. Have to acknowledge that this mostly been Jeff organizing the feedback. Um I've kind of been taking it in and we're going to work together to incorporate everything after this, but Jeff has already created kind of like a
comment summary. Some of you might have a print out of it. Um feel free to share with your neighbor. But we've got lots of great comments from Phil regarding chapter 7 and chapter eight and some kind of general comments. Um, we can dive into those more specifically as we move through the conversation. The water
subcommittee, I think John, you mentioned you and Mike were able to meet and provide some commentary on the gooseberry study discussion, stuff on the dams, um, the RCP change and recommendations specific to water in chapter 8. Um, Bob had a lot of great feedback. I have his commentary and
Phil's printed if anyone wants to see um, the full record, but we've he's highlighted um, wants to address the top 10 recommendations. Um we're trying to get percents of parcels and flood zones. Um he has a lot of comments on like the saltwater and freshwater resources about
the cockis pond. Um the effect of phosphorus on the on sailing waters he feels like is not too relevant. But reach out to me if you want to see his um specific comments but he has a lot of uh yeah great feedback on that and then things about the historic structures and
um comments on chapter 8 specific to strategies and recommendations. He also has a section on water. And then Joseph um has some comments as well, but unfortunately I don't think we were able to incorporate them into this summary before and um I might need access to the
document you were working on. So um keep posted for Joseph's comments and if he happens to share them during this meeting, I can share them too. Um yeah, I think um Jeff might have a better understanding of how he wants to present the commentary. Um you can let me know if you want me to pull up um different documents to share with everybody, too.
Well, just the overall feedback is that um we got lots of good constructive comments and um I think we'll be able to clarify some of the questions we had. Um there was some additional topics or talking points introduced that I think are worth >> incorporating. Yeah.
>> And um actually a couple things that I think we're going to go back and revise. >> Uh >> Philip pointed out we had somehow downplayed the vector disease vector discussion as a priority in the health section. So we'll we'll correct that.
>> Um there's still I think uh an old reference to the goosebur study and results being pending. Obviously we have that and we can move on from that. >> Um >> I can uh uh
uh Jeff I can tell you what uh Mike's specific recommendation is on that. Um, and that was to keep the reference of the gooseberry study, but to I I don't have it in front of me, but it says
review and implement. Uh, he would like to say and there was just Mike and me, so there wasn't a quorum of the committee, so it doesn't represent the full committee. uh uh his suggestion and mine was uh to
review, assess and implement where warranted the recommendations of uh the gooseberry study. So you'd leave it in there, but uh he it's his feeling that the re what's in the report
doesn't uh support the recommendations. That's why he wanted to add the word assess in there. >> Yeah. >> Is that study done? >> The study is done for Westport. Remember, [clears throat] there were four areas they were looking to in
Dartmouth, two in Westport. Uh so yes, it is complete as far as Westport's concerned. I don't know whether >> accessible on their website or how do you read it? >> I I don't know. I assume so. Uh but I haven't looked for it on the website.
They did uh present to us um the Westport conclusions when they had done the Westport section of it. >> Um and >> they basically just say they didn't think that it caused what concerned
about. >> Yeah. What what they said was, you know, if you put a groin if you stick a groin out, it affects circulation. And the question was, is the uh bridge or causeway a groin?
My understanding what they said, Constance, was it is acting like a groin, but it's not the causeway. It's the island itself because when you combine the causeway and the island, you've got something sticking out into
the uh uh bay a mile and a half. And so just getting rid of the causeway doesn't interrupt the circulation. You'd have to get rid of Goosebury Island to do that. So that's my memory of uh of their
conclusion on that. Uh not that it didn't have an impact, but that it was the island more than the causeway that was having the impact. Um [snorts] but uh I asked Mike what he thought by assessment because usually with
scientific papers you get a [clears throat] peerreview process that's kind of well-known process and I said you know everyone's got opinions on stuff but you don't review scientific reports just with opinions you do a peer review. And
so, uh, I don't know whether the coalition is planning a peerreview study or whether, uh, Mike wants to figure out how you would do a peer review with, you know, disengaged experts in that field
who look over uh, the data and the conclusion and see if they're replicable. But at any rate, he his view was not to take it out, but to just say assess. >> Okay. Sorry, took too long. >> Um, I think one of the takeaways from
our last meeting was that we had a lot of recommendations, a lot of action items, and uh, we wanted to try and make them a little bit more concrete, put a little meat on them, and and some of the feedback we got included that, which is wonderful. Um, I think there's still room for some more of that. So, if you
have the opportunity to review the recommendations and kind of figure out, okay, what exactly is the plan here? who could be involved, what actions could be taken, what resources might available. Anything that can add some more details and make it a bit more of a concrete
recommendation would be welcome there. Um, we have and to Bob's point here, we have a lot of recommendations and they can't all be equally prioritized. So, one thing I wanted to throw out today is
whether we want to try and go through in some way and highlight, you know, our top 10 or the ones we feel are the most critical or doable. It may it probably will help with communication if we have a smaller set that we could have in an executive
summary that these are the ones you've got a whole bunch here in chapter 8, but we've got small set of 10 that we think are everybody should be aware of and be thinking about. duplication. >> I I'd made a suggestion, I think others
have made it, that there's a lot of duplication of recommendations and we should eliminate all duplication. If it's a recommendation, it doesn't really matter what section of the report it's in. >> I agree. >> Uh and that will make it less intimidating because it may cut the
number of recommendations in half without eliminating any thought. Uh it's just gets rid of uh duplication. Uh >> yes, go ahead, Wendy. >> So, one thing that comes to mind there
is if um if we eliminate all the duplications and the recommendation just shows up in one, you know, under one sort of um topic. And if you uh are a person who might use the plan, the the
plan and look through to the area that you are interested in. Say that recommendation X was in five places and we eliminated all the duplications and just kept it under health and I'm interested in agriculture and I go
looking and it's not there that I mean I could imagine people reading the report just just the sections that they're particularly concerned about. So to some extent somehow or another somehow or another cross reference those
recommendations that that are repeated. >> Well, the recommendation do they show up as a separate remind me >> separate chapter. >> It's a separate chapter. So, if you're interested in a or health or the recommendations are all going to be in
it's about the last chapter. So, yeah. >> Right. But it's by topic. >> Yeah. Michael recommendation. You could put an appendex at the end of the climate resilience report that a table that shows the different recommendations and you put um on one axis and then on
the other axis you have uh which parts of the plan that it relates to and then you can put dots in the the table to identify where things align across the various chapters >> and and and so the other
>> go ahead so the other level is >> um you know there's like this mix of of broad-based statements of what your goal is and then very specific um actions to take and I think that's in some ways where the duplication happens and it
could be that you and there's there's this follow-up decision which is so a new committee is formed to implement and you're going to pick okay what are we going to do in the next two years and that could be really specific
but I don't know for this report particular particularly in the in the draft form that we have to list everything that said because some are near-term and some are farterm and we don't really haven't prioritized them along the whole scale. So maybe we can just be a little more genetic
in talking about communication without necessarily specific what that message might be. >> Yeah. I mean that's that's a general strategy, right? Communication. Some of the others might be more specific. >> Yeah, they're on Yeah. work with such
such an organization on >> yeah say well that's not going to happen in the next 10 years so do we need to include it in this report right now anywhere just a thought >> yes Joseph
>> I have a question I'm uncertain who the report is being written for because this is essentially it's a punch list of without emotion and potentially without connection
It seems to be very clinical in many ways and it's written technically really well and it really outlines each of the issues I think really well but
that's great for a technical audience not necessarily for the general public. So, in my comment that I I'd sent out, I'd suggested that you could insert additional graphics. Um, even when you're listing out the hurricanes, for
example, you could have images of uh of one of those hurricanes at Hurricane Car the washing up at uh at the the point, for example, Westport Point, the waters covering the streets up to up to, you know, the windows of the houses and
boats washed up on shore. just to add a real sense of immediiacy and also locality because you could almost replace Westport put in Dartmouth in many instances. So I think if you could personalize it that would certainly help and maybe that's part of
the public meetings or the town hall sessions that will be had I think in future but I think that might be helpful. I I think uh so far we don't have photographs or graphics in here
yet, but Dia and Jeff have been collecting them and so they are going to be part of the report. I think in terms of who our audience, we have several audiences. I think our prime audience is the select board because it is the
select board that created us and asked us to you know describe this issue and give recommendations and so it's a re it's a report to the select board but uh we certainly want to involve the public
in Westport and um uh there are you know these issues don't pertain to just Westport report. So, uh pe when we finish this report, people in Dartmouth will say, "Well, it just applies to us,
too." Well, fine. They can copy it if they want. Pay us royalties. I don't know. But, uh this is a a Westport one, but the issues transcend our our boundaries. I think you know when when you did uh
your presentation at the Graange, one of the things in your presentation that was really really good was when you gave a recommendation you showed where in Westport that was actually happening. So
it made it both local and it also said this recommendation can be implemented because some people are already doing it. it just should be more people doing it. So I think that is a good example of how you make it localized and also more
persuasive. And in terms of uh consolidating I I I spent a little bit of time on 8.3 working lands and waters and you it's it's sort of poetically uh described I think the way that you've
done it u which I think is is great. Um but what I found is there there is duplication as you start talking about the the fisheries etc. So what I've done is I've sort of penciled in u changes and I see some areas where uh there are
recommendations for marine fisheries but we have agricultural comments um underneath that. So I think we have to shift things around. So I've made some recommendations of pencil. I can type them up for if you want. >> Pencil's fine. Yeah. So there is a lot
of duplication from pages uh 66 to 68 that I think can be eliminated and uh corrected to make it a lot stronger >> if you don't mind giving me a copy of your notes after. Of course.
>> Yeah. Excellent. Thank you. So, I think uh there probably a dozen different ways we could get to the finish line, but what I'm thinking as the process for doing this is we've reached out to the
committees for comments on their sections and uh and Jeff and Dia are incorporating those and so uh we'll then get in addition to
graphics and other things. Uh a next draft of this report which includes those committee comments on committee areas. uh then it's important I think for all the members of this committee
uh to review the report in totality and say uh I still want to make a change here or there and uh to suggest whatever those changes are as specifically as possible.
you know, change this word to that word or insert a sentence or but make it as specific as you can to uh improve the report from your point of view and I think uh when that's done and I don't
know whether that's the August meeting or a September meeting then I think we will have all looked at the entire report commented on it and then it's a question of uh
uh going to press and copying it and giving it to the select board. I think Shauna when we talked about this before you had suggested that we do some public meetings before coming to the select board as opposed to after after coming
to the select board. Am I is my memory correct on that? >> I don't remember. [laughter] >> Oh, good. We're in the same boat then. But [snorts] uh we can uh when we've got it done, we can then decide should we have a couple of public meetings, are there lectures
by organizations or other things that would be conducive to presenting this to an already built crowd? Uh and uh and then turn it over to the select board. I think uh I we'll see when we reduce
duplications and everything how many recommendations there are the recommendations are they I know the risks are high medium low are the uh recommendations uh prioritized as well >> not yet >> with a high medium and low
>> not yet but there's an opportunity to correlate these the recommendations with the risk >> yeah okay so I think that that's the other thing we want to make sure uh we're in agreement that uh a recommendation might have a high
priority uh or a medium or a low. Uh my sense is that some of the uh plan on implementing recommendations will be the select board when it has to do with town
actions. Um uh saying these are ones we want to do in the coming year or two. Uh but other recommendations may be uh opportunity recommendations that is a grant program
comes out uh to do something like culverts or something that uh may not be a high recommendation but there's funding to do it and it's something we think should be done. And so, uh, you don't necessarily go down the list in
prioritized order. If there's an opportunity to get something done and it's in the report as a recommendation, we should do it. Um, and so I think both those things will contribute to what we work on first.
>> John, could I Yeah. Could I say something? I think uh the discussion about who this this report is for, it's obviously for the select board because they're going to be uh trying to implement some of the recommendations, >> but they're not all for the select
board. I mean, they're all for everybody in town. >> Y >> and uh I think you have to focus that regular citizens are not going to get that. They don't want to read that. what they
want to read, what they want to see is what is my risk and what what can I do about it? And I think that after we are done with this, I think that we could put together a video that would be
available online, maybe YouTube or whatever. We could probably get some grant to to help produce it. that would uh be maybe a 20 minute video of basically what we've
covered but hit the big spots uh that would be applicable to homeowners and um we have video of the Hurricane Carol. Uh Red Cummings had a has a book about
that. Uh the 38 hurricane, we have lots of pictures about that. Hurricane Bob, we have a lot of that. And I think uh other ways to bring to the homeowner what
their particular risks are as sea level rise comes up and >> everything that you know you you can go and and put all that stuff out in an easy to see, easy to understand way as
opposed to saying, "Well, we have this report. >> Yeah, >> go for it. I mean, >> I think or you know, panels as like the Route Six study, you know, where you've got a dozen panels with graphics that explain what's in the study constant.
Well, um I think we need to be really careful about uh doing um the um the report for the layman that it doesn't get to be too uh much of a marketing thing rather than
um an actual report. So, it's not used in a bad way. We certainly don't want to be advertising some of this um to all the real estate agents around her to you know but uh I have two I have two things I want to focus on and um I
actually thank you Dia I I tried to go in and make um some comments and I'm obviously technically challenged and I thought I was making them and you were getting them and I can't find any of them so she printed it out for me so I did it like this >> and I But I'm not going to, don't worry,
I'm not going to get into all this, but I will write it. I will write each I've got questions and a couple comments. There are two things that I'd like to just point out. And um I've said it again and again, but I'm going to say it one more time is that um the chapter
five, the historical and projected future exposure that was written by us Dartmouth is simply incorrect and based on completely implausible scenarios. And I know that you did a little cutout
here with notes and teeny little print that says, "Oh, well, uh, RCP 8.5 may overstate some stuff." And so we'll look at we'll also look at the 4.5. Well, um, um, the inter um,
the international or whatever >> IPCC, >> IPCC, right? uh has now come out and said that 4.5 is too high. So they are using really really old data
here and I feel like it comprom I think there's so there's been so much earnest and very good work that we've all put in for years now on this and I think that chapter 5 provides a false basis for
this whole report and overhypes a lot of stuff that it why would we want to put out false information about like is about our town. And if you look at the charts, I'm sure you have that they use
um they are very old and very odd because like if you look at um uh you know I mean all of them are like this but you look at one that says return period mean uh precipitation intensities
for high RCP whatever in Kingston. it. The way that it's done, it says observed 1970 to 1999 and then projected 2010 to 2039.
So where's 2000 to 2010? That's like not even there. And why is 2010 to 2025 and projected and not observed? So if you look through at all their charts, it's a mess in terms of the dating of it. And
it is it anybody's reading this is like well I don't you know I think it really undercuts a lot of good work. Um and then so I I really think that needs I think needs to be thought about very
hard and um and basically taken out or completely rewritten. >> Well that's a that's a good comment. I appreciate that. I think everybody does and that's something we can go back to them and ask about. Um, I don't know if it means it needs to be taken out yet, but we'll certainly ask them. >> Thank you. Yes. Coming from Yeah. And I
think there's incorrect information and outdated information throughout the that entire chapter, which does us no good. >> Everything's outdated the minute you release it. Of course, pardon. >> Everything's outdated the minute it gets >> No, no, no. This has been I mean, this
is outdated with uh IPCC. They have long since, you know, said 8.5 is it's implausible. Not not as you have in your notes >> less likely. It is implausible. And in the past two months, they've come
out with 4.5 being the high scenario and not one. I mean, they're now looking at something a couple points under that. So, as as scenarios. So I I really think you know those people that are like okay well we we really want to do this scientifically and we care about what
the scientific community is saying. Well this is completely incorrect and does us no good as a town. Um so um and then this is to the I didn't get to come to the because it got switched out the um
water committee meeting. Uh >> yeah, go ahead and move. >> But I did I would like to just say one thing um and that is right here at the very beginning of it. Um it talks about uh how important it is how about um to
stop dune erosion and um and it talks about the various beaches that we have uh and preserving and restoring them as part of reducing long-term exposure for built areas as well as ecological concerns. So, it's right in the very front as something that is of great
concern, and I know it is of great concern to everybody uh here in Westport, but it does not uh there is no recommendation that shows up that's connected with that in any way back here in the risk and
recommendation. So there's no and that's like one of the very first things that's brought up of concern and yet there's no there's nothing recommendation to address that. So that I think that needs to be um fleshed out.
>> Those are the kind of comments we want. >> Couple of points constants. Uh I'm technically challenged too and so the way I get comments is the same way. I I print it out and write it. I wish I knew track changes and stuff, but I don't.
And so I give it to Dia and she and Jeff Incorporated. So if that's the way you're going to give your comments, go for it. That's what I'm doing. >> Any way you can get your comments in, and I think Dia has a couple of uh copies of the latest draft. We just want
the comments in in in any way. It doesn't have to be track changes, just however you can get them. >> And I I do have one question. This is just a question. I mean, I'm reading about forestry and it seems that this is the
so chapter 61 forestry. It talks about, you know, our forest lands and but the only way and and this isn't us. This is seems to be the state. The only way it talks about valuing our forest on our
woodlands is via wood products and timber. I mean, am I reading that wrong? I keep reading it going I mean, there's no valuation.
Uh oh. And and you actually made a comment about that. Is there any representation of nonproductive woodlands? I mean, I think they're all productive. I mean, woodlands are I mean, they're habitat and they, you know, >> keep the soil in place, everything, right? I mean, they're not just for
timber, but this this which is obviously taken from the state only values them in terms of wood products and timber. >> I think that that could be very easily corrected. Um, I'd submitted before a
sort of a two-page analysis of the addressing climate change and global warming phenomena risk drivers. And we broke it down according to local risks and key strategies and the forestry
um unfortunately wasn't included, you know. Uh so there's a whole listing of the qualities of of the forest that's not just for economic reasons but for ecological reasons as well. So so that
might be included. um you can do a revision for them which might be helpful but it's also tied in with for example in the anatomous fish fishery section where we're talking about the salters trout that are very
dependent on it's a temperature dependent fish and so the having a sort of a peninsula of trees or trees an LA of trees lining the the the stream corridors is is critically important for their survival. So, >> which is what they've been doing with
Angeline Brooke, trying to >> buy a property and stuff, right? >> That's true. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, so that's that's a Westport example of of how it can be done. >> So, so that's very positive. >> Sorry, Joseph. So, um are you saying you
did have these comments in um like you don't see it represented yet, but you've emailed it to us? Is that what you're saying? >> I did. >> Okay. Okay. I'll go back. Yes. >> So just um a couple things to summarize uh as far as the you know the length of the
report and how dense it is. I think we can easily create an executive summary tone down the language for you know the average person and communicate kind of the key what the process was what the key findings are what the key recommendations five pages and I think that that is something that we could
easily produce. Uh the second thing is I want to make sure that every all the subcommittees understand whatever input you provided us we'll we'll review it um we'll incorporate it if it's obvious if we have any questions or comments back we'll get back to you and that'll be you
know in the next couple of weeks or so we can get all of that kind of tied up for our next meeting on graphics uh what we have so far is a lot of cut and paste a lot of you know primitive stuff so we we want to do much more with that and if
you have ideas write in you know to illustrate this concept and we would be great to have X or here's some data on this please please please uh flag those and get them to us or if you've seen graphics elsewhere that we can use >> and then the
>> I just wanted to pop in on the graphics >> my opinion um I feel like once we get the report the script set and we're not making any more edits that would be a great time for us to really dive in on the graphics and the colors because um trying to fit them in and then deleting paragraphs, that sort of thing. It's a little like uh one step forward, two
steps back sort of thing. So, um graphics are definitely interum, right? >> Knowing we're going to have something here and putting a placeholder at least. >> Yeah. Placeholder, right? The color, right? They're not in final form at all. So, um if exactly what Jeff said. If you have, you know, ideas that you want to highlight, hey, we need a graphic here,
a table here, and then um we will unify them so that they all look like they're from the same report as well. So, that's definitely coming. Um open to all feedback for that one. Yeah. >> And what about appendix A? There was a question as to I mean it seems like a a lot on this and does
>> I think we're going to cut that. >> Yeah, >> we have a lot to cut. >> I'm not sure really what it is even about. I mean I read it but >> Well, I have a question. What is the page count goal? Was it 40 to 60 pages? >> No, I think we talked about 60 to 70 pages. >> 60 to 70 pages. Okay. >> I mean then we had executive
>> Right. So there's a lot to cut before, right? Some final stretches. >> We'll get there. >> Yeah, we'll get there. I was dead. >> Final thing was back to who's the audience. I I made a plea last meeting for, you know, more recommendations that homeowners, individuals, residents, businesses, organizations could could
implement. And we we got some of those. Uh we could certainly use more. And I think anything that we can do along those lines will help um make it tangible for the average reader, the average Westport resident. One thing just came up today that um hadn't hit me
dawn on me before which I feel stupid about but uh I shared an article with the from this old house about burying the power lines from the line to your house. >> Now if we have a big storm and the damage is on the line from the the line
from the pole to your house >> as I understand it you're responsible for that cost to get reconnected. Obviously [clears throat] bearing the lines makes it more resilient and um that's something not everybody can afford but it might be something we want
to include as a as a you know possible strategy to become more resilient as a homeowner. >> So the the other thing that we may consider or maybe we should think about anyway is regionalization of resilience. >> I'm sorry
>> regionalization of resilience because we're not an island. I mean we have Kiverton, Little Compton, Dartmouth, Freetown, Fall River all connected to us. Uh and I think Serpent
is working on a regional resilience plan, not necessarily a climate resilience plan, but a resilience plan. And um I think Dia could check with them and see see where they are in that process,
but it might be something that we reference. >> Okay. >> I think we had we had spoken about that before especially with the the fisheries because we look at the headarters for the Westport River system. Um there is
according to Brad Chase who's sort of the marine marine science scientist for the state uh he was saying that there is an incredible potential of being one of the largest spawning runs for anadimous
fishadimous fish as well there because it's all gravel bottom as you get up to the to the headarters and it's huge area. that's currently being impacted by algae growth from all the fertilizers coming up people's lawns and septic
systems and so on in in Dartmouth. Um you know where it is by the the former >> Yeah. And so that it's all gravel bottom but it's all being contaminated with the the muck and the algae that's floating
to the bottom. So the fish, you know, don't have the access that they would have, plus issues with the dam access and blockages along the way. So So that's a a real possibility for um inter
community regional cooperation here that that I'm sure would be funded uh between Fall River, uh Dartmouth, Westport, and other Wasn't there some talk about getting rid
of that dam a while ago? >> Which one? >> The one up. >> Noachchoke. >> Is it Noachchoke? Yeah. The one up at the >> Route Six. >> Yes, >> that's Noach. But there's a dam further up too. >> Uhhuh.
>> Um, which if that went uh Noachchoke go and Forge Dam, same thing. I mean, Forge Dam is owned by the people who own the factory there, even though Fall River owns the water.
>> That's right. >> But the Westport Land Trust is, I think, is working with that owner uh to try and come up with some solutions. The owner would like to keep the dam, but they're talking about trying to either do additional fish ladders or somehow
mitigating that a little better. Um, and the the dam up at the Nokachoke uh is crumbling. It's having some issues. It's owned by Fall River from what I understand and they don't want it, you
know. So, >> they don't want they want the the maintenance costs of trying to to keep that stable, but >> so that's that's a real question mark. >> Well, that's a real problem for the people who live on Lake Dartmouth. That's for sure.
>> Because they don't want to be mud front, they want to be waterfront. >> And what [laughter] about the people downstream? >> Yeah, exactly. >> So, >> so there is a site in Massachusetts that keeps track of all these dams.
>> Uh, and they say on most of them, uh, they're a hazard. >> Yeah. Whatever information is in there is in the report now >> about the dams in this area. But to show the graphic that would make those connections, I think would be
would be important. I think that one of one of our members from the watershed mentioning >> what kind of graphic you have >> a graphic. It actually shows the the dams, you know, along the way >> like a map. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Uh you want to keep going, Jeff? >> No. All right. So, um, we appreciate the comments that have come in and, uh, Jeff and Dia will be incorporating those into a a newer, uh,
draft. And then I think what we're going to want, and it may be a long meeting, is uh, to get that new draft out to people with a couple of weeks before the meeting so everyone can go through it.
and then uh be able to say at at a CRC meeting uh I've got six edits and I'd like to make them, you know, in a motion to change this so we can go through them. Uh not spend an inordinate amount
of time, but make sure we get everyone's comments on what's getting close to being a final draft. Um and and so uh later on we I'd suggested a couple of
meeting dates August 20th or 27th because we've been meeting on Thursdays. Is that uh but this depends on Dia and Jeff in terms of whether you think by mid August you you could have that
draft uh to the membership. So they have a couple of weeks to look at it. If if that's not enough time, then we should push the uh meeting into September. >> What do you think? >> I think it's reasonable to put on the
calendar if you know we get bogged down or something and give you enough heads up. Okay. We may >> Well, why don't is the 27th that just to give an extra week? Is that all right with people? >> Excuse me. >> I won't be able to participate. John, >> you're talking about August.
>> Yes, >> August is really busy. >> Yeah, I know. August, the good thing is summer people are here. The bad thing is that >> families here and everyone's got a lot of commitments.
>> Um, anyone else cannot make uh the 27th. So Wendy, if we uh stick with the 27th and we get the the next draft of the whole report to you uh and you have a chance to comment on any sections you
want and get those to Dia, we'll still take them up even if you're not here. >> All right. Yeah. Some weeks in advance as opposed to two days. >> Yes. Yeah. No, >> some some weeks in advance. It's a long
report and you got to have a couple of weeks to look at it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um >> John, >> yes, >> Phil. Um it seems um a a challenge in developing the whole report
is next level until we address the issue that constants raised about how we are going to address the predictions that are based on you know the you know
incorporate 8.5 or now there's and Um, [snorts] and for me at a different level, one of the comments I had was, um, at least the way I approached it was these reference
to statewide temperatures versus what was Westport temperatures. And the interesting research that I did was you there was a dashboard. Everyone look anyone looked at the dashboard? Anyway, there's a dashboard. You could plug in Westport and it would have numbers for
temperatures and precipitation. Okay, that's gone. Okay, now now it's just broken down into regions, but there's a real difference. So, one of the comments I made is, you know, one of the initial temperature charts um that came up in
the heat section was statewide and the difference between coastal and and inland. And um I just think that we almost need to have some like high
level or we haven't needed some sort of discussion about how are we going to talk about that because from that is going to flow all what what charts are we going to incorporate you know and how are we going to what data are we going to point to and I just hate to see all that
>> happen they have this whole report and then someone says well this is all based on the wrong data you can't say these things [clears throat] >> well I think that um you know I've been talking to people about this issue for many many years.
And um there are opinions that people have that are not influenced by data. And they're going to say that anyway, Phil. >> Yeah. >> No matter what it is, whether it's IPCC
or whether it's uh whether the state, they're they're going to say I don't agree with it. And at some point and that's why a lot of this fundamentally is uh you know where are where is
individual decision making uh so that if you think sea level is a problem sea level rise uh in your house or your business then you should have tools to deal with it.
If you don't think it's a problem, then you're not going to deal with it. But that's individual choice. That that's, you know, the way it should be. Uh I think that um
the way that Jeff had suggested dealing with that, I hope I'm representing your strategy correctly, Jeff. Correct me if I'm wrong. is uh and Bob Daylor's mentioned this too. I if if you take
temperature rising and the impact of heat on public health >> or you take sea level rise and the impact on um insurance or storm surge or property damage
um and you focus on the 8.5 or 4.5, then you're going to get into an argument. If you say that it doesn't really matter whether sea level rise is going to achieve two feet by 2050 or 2 feet by
2075 >> or maybe not at all. >> It's it's going to get there at some point. If you say no sea level isn't rising and it won't rise, then we we just we should just rip up the report and say we don't have to worry. >> Uh but
>> I don't think anybody's saying that, John. Well, and and you're talking you're talking about opinion and then you throw in, you know, they're they're going to say I uh IPCC. I mean, you yourself keep talking about science and and ICP >> IPCC
>> ICP whatever. Yeah. Inter panel continental, you know, I don't um climate >> international panel on climate change. >> Exactly. Anyway, you if you start I mean >> I'm glad you recognize that as >> well. That's what you've been basing a
lot of your and that's what they are basing this chapter five on. So, I'm just saying that they need to read up on what the new um what the new scenarios are. >> What I'm going to do tomorrow is go check the IPCC and I'm glad you
recognize >> I've actually got I've actually got two very good art. There's a lot that's been written lately about it because it's changed. And um and I've got two articles that I would like for everybody to read. They're very short, no big deal. Very well, very conservatively
written. They're not, you know, hysterical. They're just like really well documented. And it talks about um exactly that. And I just think we all ought to be educated on it. And we ought to be very careful about basing this
report on these sorts of numbers. and also with their very uh confusing and outdated um charts they have in here. I I just think it undermines all the work, all the hard work that we've done.
>> Are you done? Because I'd like >> No, probably not. >> I'd like to finish my thought if that's okay. Uh I think if you don't focus on by what date does such an impact happen
but that it will happen at some point then um and again if if people don't believe the climate's changing then that's not going to work for them. But otherwise
>> climate's always changing. Uh otherwise you want to say anything else const or can I uh finish my thought? >> Um I I'll give a couple of examples.
If you believe that temperatures are going up and heat is something that uh harms people es especially elderly and especially people without air conditioning then if there's a recommendation which I
think is in here that I think the council on aging already does something with in terms of providing uh room air conditioners uh to people who are income eligible so that they have one room in their house
that is cool where they can escape the heat because people don't tend to want to go to middle schools or high schools >> or cooling centers. They want to stay in their home. But my point is if you say if you wait until people are dying from
heat exhaustion and then say we need 7,000 air conditioners, that's a big problem. If you say this is going to happen sometime and can we find a funding mechanism that would provide 10
or 20 a year over 30 years then that's a lot easier to accomplish and and so I think there are some recommendations that um are not like eliminating a dam which is you either do
it or you don't do it but can be done over a long period of time. And if they're done over a long period of time, they cost less. And um so that's my point about deemphasizing the argument about when are we going to
have 2 feet of climate change. You know, is it two 2100? You know, that that argument doesn't help us. If there's something we need to do about sea level rise, the sooner we start on it, the
better. That's my only point about deemphasizing the issue of 8.5 or so. If sea levels rising, it's going to have an impact. >> Just don't put it in there. >> Don't put it in sea level rise. >> No, don't put the 8.5. Don't put this information in here because it's
>> I don't mind that idea. >> Constants. >> It's not correct. >> I don't mind that idea. I mean the point so is two point I mean the point one of the points I made in my comment is that and I this is he was about 4.5 but it's
like when you look at the chart okay for the probably the next 20 years all those three are extremely close and the differences between them in heat are extremely small. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It's only when you get out [clears throat]
to 2050, 2070 and beyond that there's a real divergence in numbers. And it kind of goes back to what I was saying before, but is if the focus of the report is
uh we're experiencing climate change. It is happening. You know, it's like, you know, there's people who think there were chicken littles and there are other people who we think are ostriches. Hey, look around. Look what happened in the last two weeks here. >> Look at look at the last five years.
It's been hot. >> Yeah. >> And it's going to keep going and sea level is rising. >> And so I think a focus of this report should be uh the advice that you're saying which
is what can we do what can we do now you know just looking out you know in the next five or 10 years. In the meantime, the science is gonna get better and we'll, you know, maybe we'll be able to look further than that. Not saying it specifically about that, but >> I just raised it because we're talking
about having a almost final report and what all the graphs are going to be and it's like >> we need to decide that >> now before the how we're going to handle that. And so maybe part of it is to circulate a chapter, decide what you're going to do about the with the UMass stuff
>> and circulate that chapter as a draft incorporating, you know, you're the chair and yeah, you know, and and this is how you want to approach it and get feedback on that before you issue the 75page report and
what every, you know, you built the whole thing. >> It's like, you know, get the get the basic message around this issue is what I think. >> Thanks, Phil. Joseph, >> there are other ways of communicating it
too. I think that if you were to reference, for example, the the marine heat waves that are happening there. There's currently documentation that's actually showing the temperature changes in a very graphic way that's affecting the
fisheries. So, now you're having um had been native species of fish, for example, are traveling north to colder waters, >> right? >> And you're having more southern species replacing them and you're also having changes in the forest, you're having so
on both on land and sea. We're we're seeing changes and this might be one way of bringing it alive and bringing it to to to life for
people. So you're not debating about u different numerical you know possibilities you know but instead you're looking at what what is actually happening um and how it's affecting well in case for
agriculture and fisheries you know where the where the the fishermen and women are are are sailing their their boats to and what they're catching if they stay local you know so you can have all these local examples that would bring this
alive and make it relevant to to people in in town and regionally. I I would think >> I I Yeah, go ahead, Jeff. >> I think people should be able to read this report and say, "Yeah, I'm concerned about that. I'm experiencing that." Um or that's something I'm
concerned about and as a result, they can look in and see that there are some recommendations for actions they can take, for actions they can advocate for. you know, if my son's working a summer job outside, uh, I want to know, you know, what should his employer be doing to help protect him in
case of a heat wave or can I keep him home? Uh, what should I provide him? What what kind of actions can I take? And that's something very simple. We talk about, you know, preventing risk to property and life. That's, you know, it gets elevated from there. Um, but I think we have that now. I think we have
a discussion of the kinds of threats. We've identified them. um we don't quantify a lot. Uh so it's not really dependent on the scenarios we're working with. We will talk with UMass about getting, you know, the most up-to-date information or an explanation of why we don't have more up-to-date information.
So I promise you that. Um I think Phil, have you tried to talk to the state about whether they're rerunning every any of their analysis? >> Well, I didn't do this. Maybe in part because I wanted to see, you know, what happened at the meeting at at at this meeting.
But what I understand is starting in 2023, they're going to, you know, how it's a two-part thing. They're going to redo the assessment part and then they're going to do the climate, they're going to do the resistance part of it, which is how the last the last two winters.
>> And so >> we're quite a ways from that then. >> Yeah. Yeah. So um but yeah >> 23 2023 I don't >> yeah that they were going to start they were going to they were going to update
what they had done in uh 2022 and 2023 I think were the dates for the reports that we used to do this. Maybe I'm wrong. It's 2020. Yeah, I think it's 2022 and 2023. >> Yeah. And they're going back and now I I
mean, you know, I don't not talking to people about it, but I I read it that they're going to essentially update those now and I'm sure it's going to address, you know, 8.5 um and that and that whole issue. Um
because they clearly built everything and they're quite clear about it. You know, like we're going to build on the worst case scenario. >> Yep. And that's how they did it, >> right? >> You know, right or wrong, that's, you know, that's how they did it. And um and now they're going to have to go back and
figure out how they're going to redo it. And um I mean, I think they have a lot of heavy hitters working on this. >> Mike, >> I just think that we we focus on data. We have a lot of data over the last
three years. For example, the lonear pit didn't exist uh on Martha's Vineyard three years ago. Now it's rampant >> here too. >> Yeah, right here too. Um Lyme disease. We can look at er emissions during wildfire smoke for asthma. We have real
data. We have mortality rate data in Europe from the extreme heat waves that we've had in the last few months. So we have real data to answer your question that this is happening. It's increasing yearbyear. We can't, you know, the long-term
predictions, you know, 10 or 20 years are going to depend a lot on what kinds of policies come forward from uh powers that be. So, you know, that's a crapshoot, but we'll hope it's better than it than the worst case scenario, but it may not be. But we certainly have
data that we need to pay attention to this because, you know, all this data about catastrophes that are happening all around us, it's not uh trivial. I agree. >> So, uh,
>> and can I just make a comment? >> Y, >> I just wanted to to thank you all, you know, for the incredible hard work that you that this has been a five-year enterprise, hasn't it been? So, so far, I've only been here for for almost
three. Um, but it's amazing what what you've been able to produce in a relatively short span of time and this is a very comprehensive report that you you've created. It really is it really is quite
>> it's all it's all of you. It's all of you really. >> Yeah. Well, it shows what happens when the community comes together and start focusing and and [snorts] pull pull you pulled it together >> and we're almost there. I think >> definitely we'll get there.
>> Yeah. I've been on it for all five years and uh I just don't want to see all of the work that everybody's put into it. Some people a lot more than I have, but I've been there in every meeting. Um I just don't want to see it undermined.
>> Uh I don't want to see it undermined either. So I think we have uh concluded agenda item three. >> Uh four is a draft completion. So, we're going to aim for getting uh the next draft to people [clears throat]
mid August so that we could meet on August 27th. And if that's not possible, then we can just postpone it by >> What about Phil's suggestion though? I mean, I think that's a good suggestion. I mean, how do we go and look at the
another final draft here without dealing with what Bill was talking about >> without coming together and figuring out how we're going to handle chapter five or the ba, you know, the sort of fundamental data that this is being
based on. I guess I was suggesting that um if um and I you know guess Jeff and Dia based on everything you heard and you know what you're going to do and how would
you propose to reframe at least what the perception is of the issue of you know the using state data and all that you know takes this and say this is how we want to say how we want
to approach this and you know before you build the whole thing I don't know maybe it's I I it's just an idea I mean I I you know we can deal with it either way I just don't want to have all this effort put into it
and still people are fighting about this >> I think the first step Phil would be to take a look and see you know how many instances are there where actually making specific projections based on model >> right right
>> I think disease cases and hospital admissions there I think there's more in the health area there is in the other areas but honestly >> right right >> um so all the maps on the sea level rise for example are all based on that and so how do you you know how do you address that so >> there's some real data on sea level rise
and in the seapport in Boston it there are specific examples where the children museum was underwater. They've just gotten a grant from New Balance, matching grant for $20 million to kind of refurbish the whole museum. >> There's a whole documentary about it, right? I saw >> they shouldn't have built it on a
landfill. >> Um, so that would be my first step, Phil, is to and and yes, sea level maps. That's something we need to talk to UMass about is, you know, are are there people working to develop more robust
maps that are based on current >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, [clears throat] >> I >> I don't want to be a stumbling block in moving forward. >> Yes, Jeff how he's going to do it. I I think he answered it and I I think that
uh if the emphasis is on the recommendations um and not on 4.5 or 8.5 but if someone wants to say it's not getting warmer or if someone says we're
not getting disease vectors through the spread of insects then uh my intention is when the committee comes together on the whole report. Uh someone can make a motion to delete
anything having to do with sea level rise. We'll see if it passes >> and if it doesn't passes pass, it's going to stay in there. uh and that's the way uh an organization ought to make decisions in uh you know in a public
body I think >> so >> we can say this is the best available but we acknowledge that it's probably overstating that >> it's not the best available though >> well that you know if you want to make a motion at that meeting to change something you can make a motion we'll see if it gets seconded and then we'll
vote on it and that'll close the issue because we have to move on from perpetual arguments. >> You know, water is getting warmer. That's why there no lobster inshore >> and people are catching Jonah crab.
That's the adaptation. Catch Jonah crab instead of lobster >> because the lobsters have moved up to colder waters because the water is getting warmer. >> You can't argue with that, >> right? >> It's just there aren't any lobsters in shore. People who catch lobsters out of
Westport are going off the shelf. All right. So, um, >> potential draft completion. I think we've talked about that process. >> Could we could we also get clarification on whether this draft goes to the select
board first or did I >> uh I think it should be you know there was a discussion about what level do you write? Uh, I think you should write this because it's a report to the select board and I don't think you have to dumb
it down because I think our select board members, you know, can handle it. Except for Jake [laughter] and But >> Jake can handle it. >> He can handle it. Yeah. [laughter]
anything with you know I but so I think considered a report to the select board I Shauna's idea you know we have 7500 from Bay Coast on putting the report together >> that doesn't mean just you know a
written report that could be panels for public meetings that could be the video that Shauna uh mentioned >> Jim >> or Jim uh but it it's how do you want to communicate ated and whether it's video
or panels or powerpoints or the full report, it's probably all of those things, >> but that's more work, potentially more funding needed before we can get that input from the community and then something to >> I mean I I might have been my idea to
get public input before, but they also these meetings have been public every one of them, right? So, I'm I think I'm okay with this report to the select board, but I do think that there's a community I don't think we need more public input. I think we've gotten a lot of input. Um, so I don't think we need like a public
input before we finalize the report, >> but I do think that there's some in a select word, you're going to get like 20 minutes of conversation, right? So, it might be an opportunity for a bigger a longer forum. >> Yeah. And I do think we need you need the long
version that you need the executive summary. >> Okay. Yeah. [clears throat] Do you >> So point of clarification, are we focusing on incorporating current feedback or or updating chapter 5 or kind of both before the before mid August? Everything. Okay. Y >> All right.
>> Yep. >> Okay. So that's uh draft completion, public review, comment. >> I'm sorry I have to leave, but I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, Con. Thanks for being here. >> Um, discussion of Westport's clean and renewable energy contribution.
>> I may have uh Yep. >> No, I just I've got to leave, but I do want to hear what you >> Oh, this is mostly about the IPCC approaches this with two things, mitigation and adaptation. This report
is really about adaptation. How do you adapt Westport to be more resilient? But mitigation is while it's not the subject of the report, the essential part of mitigation is burn fewer fossil fuels
and uh get your energy from cleaner places. Um and while this report is not targeted at mitigation uh in the planning board we summarized not all the solar in Westport but the
solar farms that have come to us and what is permitted and my recollection was it was like 150% of what the town uses in uh energy and so
I think we could have two lines that said that, not a chapter, not even necessarily a paragraph, but just say that the town of Westport is creating clean renewable energy. Um, more than
what we need. And, uh, that's also part of being resilient is, you know, how do you stop digging the hole? What What do you think? I I think it's a red herring honestly with respect John because you know you have causes and effects from
climate change right the causes are greenhouse gases that's CO2 that's methane that's you know [clears throat] >> we don't talk about that much the the effects are you know temperature precipitation increased storm intensity all those things that we've been talking about resilience
>> the resilience actions are to deal with the effects you know if we have a solar farm in Westport that offsets some CO2 that would be generated by a power plant. Totally acknowledge that. But is that that is a drop in the bucket as far as helping Westport be more resilient. I
mean, if I ride my bike to lease instead of my car, do I do I get a mention in the report for that? >> No. >> You know, greenhouse gas mitigation, that's not the focus of this report. >> We haven't gone through and done. No, but we haven't gone through and done an
inventory and what are the actions that we can take, which would include more solar. So, I I just think it's it's going to be a little confusing. If you want to mention it just as a as a oneliner, I have no problem with that. But I I don't think
we want to start suggesting or implying that the solar farms are either benefiting Westport uh from a from a uh because you know we're using that electricity. It's going into the grid, everybody uses it or that
it's somehow offsetting the effects that's going to help us be more resilient in any significant. But but I guess if every community did what Westport did and got 100% of its energy, Texas does this for example.
Many days Texas is generating 100% of its electricity from renewable sources. Uh if everybody did what Westport did, then you'd start to solve the problem of your point. >> We're doing more than we're our share. >> Yeah,
>> that's fine. >> Can we stop doing it now? because uh I would think that really to make Westport more resilient, the best thing we could do is stop clearing clear cutting our forest to put up solar panels. So if we've already like gone above and beyond
can we like can can we stop now doing that putting up more solar? I >> I would say if you want to introduce in town meeting a moratorum on solar panels, you should do that. Well, I mean, I think I think we're a lot more resilient if we would stop putting those
things up and keep our trees. >> Okay. >> I I didn't say this should be the focus of the report. I said a couple of sentences on it because, you know, the first part of getting out of a hole is to stop digging. I think Westport has
stopped digging. But um uh at any rate, if you you're the editors of this, so however you want to treat that, uh go ahead. >> Um >> can I just make a point? >> Yeah. >> There's a sort of a historic precedent
for all of this. So if you look at the old photographs, like I I when I lived in Dartmouth, I I worked on the uh a series of kiosks for each village and we're looking at at the history of of Tom And what was sort of amazing was the
use of water power to power the mills. Uh there were series of smaller windmills that line shores. >> Each each had a specific function. >> I grew up on a farm. We had a windmill that powered the well. >> Oh, yeah. No, they're historic uses. >> Yeah. So there's precedent for all of
this. >> All right. Um the item six is we've been asked uh by the school system to support a grant request to Mass Clean Energy
Center uh for them to uh go to heat pumps which again is a mitigation issue. It seems to me this is an easy thing to support and if someone wants and and there's a draft letter one pager that
would be signed by uh me. Um I think they're getting other letters of support as well. Uh if someone would move to >> move to support second >> okay moved by Jim seconded. Uh any discussion? All in favor say okay. Good.
We'll get that. opposed. >> You're opposed. >> Okay. >> Um the um then the next meeting uh we've talked about Dia. >> Sorry. How many voted um yes because I know some people are abstaining because they're not.
>> I I think Jake voted no. I think everyone else voted yes. I mean >> one >> you voted I >> voted yes. But I have not actually been sworn in again. >> Okay. >> Do we count the nonsworn in votes or do we not have? Uh I have Shauna as uh your
>> Yeah. >> Uh on the committee, but >> Okay. So >> yeah. So it's uh >> five. >> Yeah. >> Oh, Wendy left. Okay. >> All right. Next meeting's the 27th. Um >> I I do want to mention something. I
talked to uh Mike Yagman and sorry, Mike Sullivan uh in our twoperson subcommittee meeting. Um and uh um it may be controversial. So that's
why I just wanted to raise it. But it it's a little bit like the issue of uh trying to get people air conditioners. You know, if you do it over a long period of time, it's easier than if you try and do it in a short period of time. And that is the issue of a voluntary
managed retreat. Um and so um if uh uh we get a repeat of the 38 hurricane and I don't think anyone would suggest
that's not impossible. >> You know when that happened there was not voluntary. There was managed retreat. state bought a whole bunch of houses, knocked them down, and we have
Horsene Neck Beach. Um, and so [snorts] that it's been done in Westport before. Um, and I think that it is an issue where if we can't afford it, you know, manage retreats expensive.
Uh, so the state had or state and federal government would have to pay for it. Uh and I'm sure they are going to come up with a fund to do that. Uh what I'm
also sure is whatever the size of the fund they do to to fund voluntary managed retreat, there's going to be a lot more demand than whatever's in that fund. And anyone who's first in line uh will
be an at advantage. And I'm trying to figure out how does Westport get to be first in line. And I think if we had a plan for managed voluntary retreat, voluntary managed retreat and
it's in our document, then we've got an argument if they ever set up such a fund that hey, we've already uh got a plan. Jim, >> so there there is another uh example in Westport of that happening, but not from
the state level. In Westport Harbor in the 38th hurricane, all the h big houses up and down Atlantic Avenue were wiped out. >> Uh some people rebuilt between 38 and
44. 44 came, wiped them out again. >> And they decided as the community to save all that land and put it into a trust. >> Yeah. >> So, um I think private money too
>> Yeah. >> can be used for this >> as as well as you know it doesn't have to be that the person who owns the land who wants who wants to sell it is trying to retreat. They're just trying to sell
it. If you have a private public fund that can buy that when it's available, you know, I think that's that's a a good thing and maybe it could be combined with the Westport um land trust or some
some entity like that that could fund >> I think you're absolutely right and I think that um different people may come to the conclusion you know it A lot of people may come to the conclusion if we have another 38 or 44
hurricane, but otherwise people may come to the conclusion that uh it's too much risk to be uh in these areas and they want to sell. And uh
you know you may get two people in a year who who come to that conclusion and a combination of state, federal, private fundraising that can do that. You know, we put forth this idea on the east beach
and Tony and Kurt said nobody wants to sell. 100% of the people want to stay here. They they said that when there were already three for sale signs on East Beach Road. >> Right. But that's what I'm saying. So you don't you have to have an entity that's going to own
>> Yes. That's right. >> And you have to have an entity that is uh somehow enable like a trust or something >> that's going to make it in perpetuity. >> Yeah. >> Conservation. But but my point is I think you're absolutely right on this
and you might you know when we uh tinkered with this idea in the East Beach Committee, it was the coalition that was going to acquire and then turn it over to the town, >> right? >> Uh so you might have one entity that acquires and another that ends up as the
permanent owner. And that might be a government entity. It might be a trust. It might be a land trust, you know. But I'm not trying to solve the problem now. I'm just trying to say one of the recommendations is we ought to develop a
plan. But the most important word to me is voluntary. >> Right. Of course, >> it's not an eminent domain thing. It's a voluntary. If someone decides the risk is too much, it's a tool for them uh to to do that. But uh as I say, I think
that's still going to be controversial. But I'm just telling you why I think uh it's a tool that's useful because people will reach their conclusions individually and it may not unless it's provoked by a
disaster like supertorm Sandy, you know, it may be uh something that is gradual over 50 years. Yeah, Jeff, >> to your point about, you know, making sure Westport's first in line should such funding become available. Um, do
you know if there are similar funds already established doing these kinds of things elsewhere? >> I know that the state has mentioned this is something they think is very important and I know that there are going to be places like Nantucket where houses are falling in into the ocean
right now that are going to get primary consideration because when you see that guy sued a bank for lending him money for a house that I that's nuts. [laughter] So, if there are existing funds, um it
would be interesting to know if they have criteria that they're using to identify priority projects and what those criteria are. >> I don't think they've set up a program. They said it's important to do it. That's all. Jake, >> John, there's actually a very interesting article. Sorry, Phil. >> Okay.
>> Uh WBUR had an interesting article in October 25 on manager treat Massachusetts. an actual couple in Newbury Court decided to do that and go through the state process in order to purchase their home. It's a again, as you'd expect, it was a bureaucratic mess. It took over three and a half
years. Yeah. >> Uh to for the for them to finalize the $1 million sale of their house. But if you're looking for a little bit of background, WBUR in October 25 talks about a lot of the management process in Massachusetts. >> I mean, what about Louisiana? What about the Keys? Those are areas where they're
they're seeing this happen. >> Yeah, >> that's why I agree. But I think you you're looking at a little bit of a different political environment just as who wants to, you know, allow the management. >> Yeah. I'm just saying, you know, if those exist, let's do a little digging to understand how they target.
>> Yes. >> Oh, D has already dug it up. >> Yeah. >> I was just going to say that it's >> if we're going to talk about it, I don't I I don't think to talk about it in terms of hurricane is really the right way to do it because a hurricane could
hit tomorrow. has nothing to do with climate change. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It's more about locations that because of I think that that because of you know uh sea level rise are more vulnerable because of storm surges
>> and that's what happens on Nucket. you know, all of a sudden these moon tides are that much higher and and the >> their properties getting eroded away and um and
so uh it's like to kind of to talk about East Beach in that context just doesn't seem to it it doesn't seem to match because they're only there six months out of the year. It's, you know, I don't know. I I
think the if we want to put it in there, we maybe should identify uh, you know, what the conditions are. And I don't think it's a hurricane so much as it is this ongoing invulnerability as sea level rises. And then you get into the
whole thing about how fast sea level is going to rise and then the need to talk about it now. But you may think that you may have a combination of things because it's a combination of factors. So the uh east plan, not the just the east beach
plan about putting stuff back uh you know deals with the incremental winter storms that we're getting now. Right. >> Right. But if uh Superstorm Sandy comes, there's not going to be anything to put back.
>> No, I agree. But that I I don't I don't disagree with that. But so are we characterizing it that we ought to talk about managed retreat because a hurricane could come along and you know
regardless of climate change just come along or are we talking about it in the Nantucket and in you know some of the you know you know the these communities that almost every year are getting
flooded out you know giving in current conditions because they're right there in the you get the storm the right way and >> you [snorts] know they're the waves are blowing out second floor windows. >> Yeah. >> Those and to me that's not the East Beach scenario. That's all I'm saying.
It's a different >> Well, you would manage East Beach differently >> if you didn't have private ownership of land and trailers there six months. you would let it do what barrier beaches do, which is move.
>> Right. Right. >> Well, I'm just, you know, I I'm just saying for me personally, there's a disconnect in talking about um managed retreat in the context of hurricanes. I don't think that's how
that concept is used. And I could be totally wrong. I think it is more of the Nuckets where Sea level rise is removing dunes and other and just normal weather because of
sea level rise is having increasing damages and that's just my take on it. >> The town of Warren Rhode Island I think >> has addressed this. uh they purchased uh
had been former farms that were sort of low between river and so on with constant flooding. >> Um and they protected all of that. they bought out the property from home and
and also another example would be on the south coast in um I'm sorry Southshore in situ where there are number of of there's a beach community there and all these nice homes what happened is
>> constant storms right washing washing them out and so finally there they were I think that they were bought out and All of them left except one. And the the person who owned that had sort of a little island and the the police and the
fire and others said, "You're on your own. You know, you're on your own." I think eventually left, but everyone else sold sold their land and left. >> Well, I think my my point is that it'll be indiv if it's voluntary individual
decisions that are made for different reasons. Whatever the reasons are, people may say it's time for me to leave. And you know, the Boston plan, 10 billion dollar Boston plan didn't seem to have managed retreat. It was we're
going to put walls up. Uh we're going to keep the water back. And maybe in the seapport, that's the that's the best strategy is to wall it off and try and keep hold back the tide. But in barrier
beaches that may not be the right strategy, managed retreat might be the right strategy. But um I'm just trying to >> provide a tool if people get to a point where for whatever the reason is
>> that where they say uh I got to get out of here and you don't want to just like musical chairs keep selling it to someone else because then you haven't solved the problem. You solve the problem when barrier beaches can move
the way barrier beaches do. Well, I think in in some respects at some point both Atlantic Avenue and Beach Avenue, the town will have to make a decision when sea level rise comes up and the storms come across there >> whether or not they discontinue those
roads. >> Yeah. >> And then and then the question will be does the town have the ability to discontinue a road that has lots on it? >> Yeah. And I believe they do, but it's a
big long process to decommission a road and then abandon it. >> Yeah. >> And that doesn't mean that the people there couldn't use it as a private road, but it means that the town's not going to keep it up.
>> Uh I didn't intend this to be a 30 minute discussion of my apology. Uh I my intention was to say I would like us to consider this at some point. It's not a water committee recommendation although it really should be under the sea level
rise part and storm surge part of it and and it's we're not going to come up with a plan. It's just a recommendation because as we found out in 20 minutes of discussion it's really complex. Who knows what the plan would look like? It is just, you
know, do you plan? Uh failure to plan is planning to fail, right? Are we going to plan for this or not plan for it? That's all. >> You want some kind of a statement like that in the report that we need to begin? >> Yeah. >> To think about planning this. >> Yeah. >> So that's why this report should be a
living report. >> Oh yeah. >> And the our final is not a final. It's the 2026 report. And the people who are sitting here 10, 15, 20 years from now are going to make a different report. >> Yeah. Oh, it's going to be a living
report. But when I submit it to we we submit it to the select board, I'm going to say time for [laughter] someone else. It'll live, but not me. [laughter] All right. Uh, any other business? Yeah. >> Think about what could be written
because I I'm not sure D and I need any more. >> Yeah. I I I wrote uh dia you know it was like one sentence planned >> voluntary uh manage retreat that's a recommendation what was that four words
>> John you know in the previous discussion we were having about mitigation versus sanitation I think a paragraph just describing that this report is focused on adaptation but there is a whole other >> issue of mitigation that we're not addressing per se >> that because I think people won't
understand fill it out. That's easy. >> All right, we are journed. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. [laughter] >> Wow, that was quick. >> All right, we are journ. >> You got a vote.