Ballot item rejects chloramine
Itís not too late to let the powers that be know that there are still a great number of voters who are against adding a mixture of chlorine and ammonia to our water in the form of chloramine. The bond for the carbon filtration didnít pass. It was an expensive proposition. It happened in spite of the efforts of a host of volunteers to educate people to the fact that there remain serious claims about the safety and efficacy of chloramine for our community. It happened even though we know that an EPA insider was reported speaking out against chloramine, that the agency itself is questioning its safety, and that there is a good provability that chloramine may be on the chopping block as one of its long-term solutions.
On March 5 the voters will have a second chance to let the powers that be know that chloramine is not desired. We should let our collective voice be heard once again on this issue and then follow up with a demand that instead we would like the alternatives for safe and clean without adding dangerous chemicals to continue to be explored. Look for the non-binding article at the very end of the second page of the ballot: Do Rutland voters approve the use of chloramine as a secondary disinfectant in the water supply? Just because the bond vote went down in November doesnít mean that we should let the conversation about safe drinking water stop.