FYI, at the special meeting of the Mt. Mount Shasta City Council on Dec. 16th, they  are considering AMR/smart meters and AMI/smart meters for the type meter to be installed for water metering.
Two council members are saying that there will be an opt out, so people need to start going to City Council meetings and stressing the importance of this.  [The next meeting is Monday, January 12, 2015, at 5:30.] 

It’s in the Mt. Shasta Herald today [12.24.14]. You can click below for the links for Page 1 with continuation on Page 9.  Emphasis added (yellow highlighting).

This issue is moving fast (approximately 6 weeks to the end of the environmental review), so please go speak about how important the opt-out is on this Water Meter Issue.  Letters to the Editor and Council meeting attendance will be very helpful.

Are we noticing how bizarre this schedule is?

  • November 12, 2014: grants were awarded
  • December 16, 2014: special City Council meeting is called
  • December 24, 2014: this article appeared in the Mt. Shasta Herald
  • February 11, 2015: Advertising for bids begins (and environmental clearances must be complete about this time also, ending the time for public input)
  • April 1, 2015: Construction (or in the case of the smart meters, installation begins)
  • October 15, 2015: Construction must be complete per terms of the grants, and “to beat the snow”.

Maybe they need to beat the snow for the ‘supply line replacement’ project, but not for the smart water meters!  Wait a minute!

The grants were awarded on November 12th, followed by two regularly scheduled City Council meetings on November 24th, and December 8th.  With that schedule, why was the water smart meter project primarily (or perhaps solely) discussed at a special meeting on December 16th?  Does a special meeting have different public notice requirements that kept more people from finding out about this in time to come and make our concerns known?

Then the article in the Mt. Shasta Herald about the December 16th meeting was important enough to put on Page 1 above the fold, but not important enough to publish until December 24th, Christmas Eve, when people are a little busy?  Pardon me if I’m a little skeptical about this big rush for projects on an “aggressive schedule”.  But it seems that it would be very easy to reduce public comment through these factors.  Obviously the supply line replacement is the big deal, and the smart meters are just a little thing — unless you happen to care about public health and private property.  Perhaps some of these factors are incidental, but they are still adding up to a significantly reduced opportunity for normal public discourse on a highly controversial and dangerous device, to be put on each residence and business.   And this is all being done because we will lose the grant money if we don’t comply with these exact deadlines.  Wow, that’s a sweet deal!  Please hurry up and EMF/RF poison my family, plants, and animals, and make sure you get paid to do it.  Come on, people, let’s learn more about this and see what we can do to change it. 

It is also a matter of serious concern that Tom Moore, (one of the two city council members who was advocating for us to have an opt-out plan, to keep our analog water meters) has died, unfortunately.  [We have been grateful for his advocacy in the past, and our condolences go to his family.]  Who will replace him on the City Council?

Those in the know: please comment below.