| Chronology of Related Events | Bibliography and Sources | Proposed Site of Nuclear Power Plant | Return to Home Page |
Copyright © 1998 - 2009, Nancy E. Wood
Introduction"Lake Champlain constitutes one of the last remaining large bodies of reasonably pure water in the United States.. The Champlain Valley is an area of outstanding natural beauty, as yet relatively unspoiled by industrialization or urban growth. The recreational value of the Lake and its area constitutes one of the most important social and economic assets of our region." Lake Champlain Committee October 22, 1968
On October 16, 1967, Dick and Mary Thurber signed an option agreement to sell their farm in Charlotte, Vermont, to the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS). The Thurbers knew that CVPS was interested in the land as a future site for a nuclear power plant. They supported the concept, believing it to be in the best interest of their family and community. They could not have known how strong the reaction to the proposed plant would be, or that they were setting in motion forces that not only would successfully oppose the plant but that would also strengthen appreciation and protections of the environment of the entire Lake Champlain region.
This is a story of one family's decision to sell their farm, and how the community mobilized in response to the potential consequences. This story also has great significance for me personally. In 1967 the Thurbers were my in-laws, and I lived in a house on their farm. Two of my children were born during the time of controversy and uncertainty about the nuclear power plant proposal. During that time I avoided as much as possible involvement in the issue because of potential conflicts with both the Thurbers and my own parents, particularly my father, Lyman Wood, who was one of the major opponents of the project. Looking back now has given me greater understanding of the issue, and appreciation of my family and community.
THE SETTING
Charlotte is a beautiful rural community on the shores of Lake Champlain. From various hill tops and ridges that run north to south through the town there are spectacular views of sunrises over the Green Mountains and sunsets glowing over the lake and Adirondacks of New York. The lakeshore is varied, with high cliffs and rocky beaches, sheltered harbors and islands. Two summer colonies, at Thompson's Point and Cedar Beach, occupy the two main peninsulas. Year round residents own most of the rest of the lakefront. In the 1960's there were still several farms, including the Thurbers', that included significant lake frontage. Public access is limited to the town beach, which was leased from the Thurbers at that time and later purchased, a state owned fishing access at Cedar Beach, and another access for boat launching and ice fishing at Thompson's Point. The town owns the land at Thompson's Point, site of the original "poor farm," and leases it to the summer cottage owners.
According to the first Comprehensive Town Master Plan (1969), there were 1550 permanent residents in 1969 and 500 seasonal. Only 10% of the residents were born in Charlotte; 54% were native Vermonters, the other 46% had moved here from out of state. Business was still good at the Old Brick Store, a landmark in the west village, as 50% of the residents indicated that they shopped for food primarily in Charlotte. 94% owned their own homes. Agriculture was the primary land use, with about 50 dairy farms still in operation at that time. Open meadows and pasture covered 80% of the 42 square miles.
It was a time of change. The Town Plan indicates that increasing costs, taxes and a shortage of labor were discouraging farmers, and population pressures in Chittenden County were making development attractive to landowners: "When farms are sold today in Charlotte, their next crop will probably be houses." Influenced by these changes and by a growing interest in planning and environmental protection on the state level, during 1966 Charlotte residents had approved zoning, joined the newly formed Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, and formed a Planning Committee. The selectmen were struggling with issues of waste disposal, and whether or not to accept a gift of $250,000 from Harry Webb for a town water system. With houses being built at the rate of 15-20 per year the local school was overcrowded, and a bond issue for $350,000 for additional classrooms was passed in May 1967. Property taxes were rising rapidly to support rising school costs, and inequities were rampant in the grand list. A Residential Taxpayer Association was threatening legal action. That, and state pressure, led to a complete reappraisal of the town in 1967. This was a major factor in the Thurbers' decision to sell their property.
These local issues were the here and now of our lives, but we were well aware of monumental clashes on the national scene. The horrors of the Viet Nam war were brought into our homes every night on the 6 o'clock news. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had outlawed discrimination in public places, but the push for desegregation had incited riots in which over 100 people were killed between 1964 and 1968. The environmental movement was underway with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962. Industrial and economic forces were far from accepting the concept of, or responsibility for, externalities and social costs of their pollution.
The growing appetite for energy was fueling the nuclear power movement. Energy use had doubled in the U.S. between 1960 and 1970. (Gyorgy) The Northeast was shocked by the great blackout on November 19, 1965, which left thirty million people in the dark from Canada to New Jersey. Reliable, cheap power was of greater interest than conservation. Nuclear plants were on line in New York (Indian Point Station in Buchanan) and Massachusetts (Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe). In Connecticut the Haddam Neck Plant was ready to go on line in 1968, and the Millstone Nuclear Power Station was under construction in Waterford. By 1969, sixteen nuclear power plants were licensed to operate in the U.S., 54 were under construction and 35 more had been ordered. (Gyorgy)
THE DECISION TO SELL THE FARM
In 1886 John Holmes & Sons grew fruit on a 210 acre farm on Lake Champlain in Charlotte. There they had an orchard "of five thousand apple trees, the fruit of which is shipped direct to the London markets." There were also 500 pear trees, 400 plum trees, and they "engaged in the breeding of blooded horses." The farm eventually passed to one of the sons, Charles T. ("CT") Holmes. After a drought in the 1920's, Holmes went to considerable expense to irrigate the orchards. According to his grandson, Charlie Ross, the bottom fell out of the apple market and Holmes went bankrupt. With the onset of the depression the family was unable to recover and lost the farm to foreclosure. Richard B. and Mary D. Thurber purchased the Holmes Farm on December 11, 1937, for $11,000.
After graduating from Harvard with a degree in geology, Dick Thurber had gone west for work and adventure. He met Mary at the ranch her mother was managing in Red Lodge, Montana. They married several years later after she graduated from Carlton College. How they came to buy land in Vermont is not known, but they moved onto the farm and began a 30-year commitment to the land and farming. They went through various stages of animal raising, including beef cattle, pigs and sheep. They were active in the community, helping their neighbors, raising three children. Dick served for a number of years on the school board, and was instrumental in the transition from one-room schoolhouses to the Central School, which he helped to build in 1949. Ironically, Dick's interest in geology also took him back West to search for uranium during the 1950's. Both he and Mary loved the desert, and began spending more time in Arizona where his brother lived in Wickenburg. The last of the sheep were sold by the early 1960's, and trees were planted in some of the pastures.
In 1964 Dick and his son Sky, my husband, decided to go into the home building business, and became dealers of Vermont Log Homes. They were soon joined by a son-in-law, Ralph Clark, who had just returned to Vermont to study engineering at UVM. He and Mary, Sky's sister, were living in a house on the farm with their four children. Sky and I, with our infant son Andrew, moved there also, first in a small cottage, and eventually into one of the two log cabins that we built there. Sky's other sister, Judy, had married Dynan Candon who came from Proctor, Vermont. In the mid 1960's he took a job in Rutland with CVPS, where he was in a training program to become a nuclear electric generation specialist.
Property taxes were becoming an ever-increasing burden on the Thurbers, as they were on all the farmers in town. State policy required fair market (development) value appraisal of property, but farmland had traditionally been appraised based on it usefulness for farming. The listers undertook a partial appraisal in 1966 that raised the values on some properties, but contributed to the dissatisfaction of many taxpayers. Mary Thurber was appointed to fill one of the listers positions in June of 1966, at the same time that Dick was made the town's first zoning administrator. So both Thurbers were involved with taxation and land use issues as the critical year 1967 approached. The results of the professionally run reappraisal in the winter of 1966-67 were a shock to them. Their farm was appraised as valuable lakeshore property, at $17.50 a front foot, and double that for the 450 feet of home sites. Their tax bill that year must have been close to $4000 - more than a third the price they had paid for the farm! The Thurbers appealed their assessment. Their appeal was denied by the Board of Civil Authority on June 27, 1967. In July Dick offered to sell 300 to 400 feet of lake shore to the town for the town beach, at the price assessed.
Unhappy with the taxes, the Thurbers started to think of selling. They had already sold several lots in recent years. Family members were eager to offer an alternative plan. Mary Paolucci (formerly Mary Clark) remembers a big meeting held on the lawn at her house with a variety of our friends, trying to work out a proposal for the Thurbers. With Ralph's and Sky's construction skills, plus the legal, real estate and other business talents of ourselves and friends, we thought we could design a development that would keep enough land intact for family members, financed by selling lots and building houses for others. But the Thurbers were skeptical. Dynan proposed another alternative. He knew that CVPS had purchased the Williams property in Vernon, Vermont, a couple of years before as a nuclear power plant site. He approached Tom Borst, their right-of-way and land acquisition expert, and suggested that CVPS contact the Thurbers to discuss an option on the farm, to "bank" for future use. Apparently they did, and the rest is history.
THE COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE
It is not clear when or how the community learned of the option. Ann Baker believes that Dick Thurber inadvertently mentioned it at Town Meeting in March 1968, probably as part of a discussion of the Town purchasing the town beach. Ralph Clark believes that CVPS "leaked" the information in order to test the waters. Dynan Candon suggests that it became obvious when the option was recorded - which occurred on December 29, 1967. Once the option and the accompanying map were put in the public record the word must have spread quickly throughout the community. Mary Paolucci remembers several meetings with neighbors in her parents' living room, perhaps before the option was signed. She says that her parents offered the land to the neighbors, and made it clear they would rather sell to them than to the power company. But the neighbors did not follow-up; instead they urged the Thurbers to say "no" to CVPS. Among that group would have been several individuals who became influential opponents of the power plant. These included Douglas Burden, whose land adjoined the Thurber property to the south; Blake Lawrence, whose property abutted Burden; and Elizabeth Thompson, who owned land (bought from the Thurbers years before) on the north, and her daughter Sallie Soule."There is a wealth of talent available in the Charlotte area." Theodore M. Riehle, Jr.
On the town level, both the Board of Selectmen and the newly appointed Planning Commission became immediately concerned. The minutes of the 5/14/68 meeting of the Planning Commission indicate a considerable amount of community awareness-building had already taken place. Replies to a letter sent by commissioner Tom Schermerhorn to 40 townspeople indicated "certain reservations regarding the proposed atomic power plant both from an aesthetics and a pollution point of view. Those replying also emphasized the need for a general master plan." Minutes of almost every meeting during 1968 include reports of discussions about the plant, meetings with others including representatives of CVPS, cooperation with the Lake Champlain Committee, and technical information on pollution that could be caused by the plant. Neither the Board of Selectmen nor the Planning Commission were quick to take official action to condemn the proposal. CVPS as late as November 1968 had told selectman Richard Jensen that they had no plans to build a plant, but that they would pick up the option. In December the Planning Commission voted not to take a public position at that time because "a great deal more information was needed re the pros and cons before the commission can determine whether an asset or liability to the town."
According to Mary Field, who served on that first Planning Commission and who had served with Dick Thurber on the school board years before, there were members of the Commission who did not want to take a stand against the Thurbers. But some individual members of both boards were adamantly opposed. Peter Bergh, the chairman of the Planning Commission, says he believed a nuclear power plant was a "potential disaster" to not only Charlotte, but the whole area. He says that he, with other commissioners and selectmen, rallied the town to opposition. Other residents of Charlotte had varying opinions. Many farmers supported the idea of a power plant because they believed it would reduce their property taxes. Some supported it out of loyalty to the Thurbers. Others were opposed and angry. Mary Paolucci says that she and Ralph were co-chairs of the PTO at the time, and the animosity came out when they were planning an information meeting about the nuclear power plant. When Ralph insisted that representatives of CVPS be invited so that both sides could be heard, he was "impeached!"
The major organizing force against the nuclear plant was the Lake Champlain Committee (LCC), representing the entire Lake Champlain region including New York, but heavily weighted with Charlotters. The committee was formed in 1963, "born out of concern for a proposal to use Lake Champlain as a seaway link between the St. Lawrence and Hudson Rivers." (Exploring Lake Champlain and Its Highlands). The seaway was defeated, and the Committee went dormant. It awakened and took on the nuclear power plant with a vengeance in 1968. As Peter Bergh puts it, the committee was "looking for a dragon at that time." The officers of the LCC included, among others, Vermont Co-Chairman Blake Lawrence, Secretary-Treasurer Lyman Wood, and executive council members W. Douglas Burden and Mrs. Gardner (Sallie) Soule. Two other influential people became involved for professional and personal reasons: Charles Ross, great grandson of John Holmes, and Dan Kiley, landscape architect and Charlotte resident.
Ross had to maintain neutrality because of his membership on the International Joint Commission (which had influenced the Champlain seaway proposal) and as a member of the Federal Power Commission (FPC), a position he resigned in September 1968. His had been the only vote in opposition to the pump storage plant at Storm King on the Hudson, later vindicated by a Supreme Court ruling against the project. Ross says it was the expertise and sophistication of the Lake Champlain Committee that was the "sparkplug" that defeated CVPS. He also credits the involvement of Dan Kiley as significant. Kiley, then as now, was considered one of the top ten landscape architects in the world. His fame attracted attention to the debate, resulting in the filming by PBS for national broadcast of a major public meeting on December 6, 1968. That meeting was moderated by Ross who lent great credibility to the proceedings.
CENTRAL VERMONT'S MOTIVATION AND PROPOSAL
On January 5, 1965, an article in the Burlington Free Press ("Out-of-State Electricity Prospects Dim") reported a "bleak beginning as far as Vermont's electric power situation is concerned." Ernest W. Gibson III, chairman of the Vermont Public Service Board, was quoted as saying that, "The most serious immediate problem is the stoppage of deliveries of Canadian power to Vermont by way of the Power Authority of the State of New York." Ten months later the Northeast Blackout dramatically brought home to Vermonters the reality of the power crisis. Vermont utilities were seeking long-term sources of power inside and outside the state. CVPS, the state's largest utility, was making provisions for the future. They were the principal investor in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. which planned and soon began construction of a 540,000 kilowatt atomic power plant at Vernon. Securing an option on the Thurber farm was a logical step in their efforts to develop new sources of power. The site was strategically located in Chittenden County near Vermont's largest and most rapidly growing population and commercial center. It was on the open lake, within a mile of the deepest spot (399 feet) with the coldest water that could be used for cooling a nuclear reactor.
The option on the Thurber farm was due to expire December 31, 1968. Throughout the year of 1968 CVPS denied having specific plans for an atomic plant on the site. This was reiterated by CVPS President L. Douglas Meredith at the public meeting on December 6, 1968. However, at a Vermont Water Resources Department meeting the next week CVPS revealed that they were considering construction of a 2 million kilowatt nuclear or 3 million kilowatt fossil fuel plant on the Thurber site. However, according to an ad run by the Lake Champlain Committee on October 22, 1968, "several months ago the major Vermont power companies let it be known that they were examining the possibility of constructing a 1,000,000 KW nuclear reactor on Lake Champlain to be operational by 1980." In April of 1969 the Burlington Free Press headline read, "Charlotte Land an Investment, CVPS President Meredith Says." He is further quoted, "The demand for more power is coming from the public and keeps us running to keep ahead of the demand." The article says that "he predicted that unless his firm correctly planned for the future, the people would be cooking on kerosene and reading by candlelight." But he indicated that, as far as the Charlotte site was concerned, "We have no drawings and no one is working on drawings."
The opponents of the plant did not wait for CVPS to do their drawings. They fought the dragon before it came out of its cave. And the battle continued over several years as various studies and plans were considered. A Charlotte News article in the January 7, 1971, issue refers to the proposed plant as a "nuclear plant with once-through cooling." Another article on June 18, 1970 identifies the factors of the Charlotte site considered favorable by the power company: good road and rail access, seclusion from housing development, technical factors, and the ample supply of cold water from Lake Champlain.
THE CASE AGAINST THE POWER PLANT
Residents of the area opposed the plant for many reasons, some already mentioned. The Lake Champlain Committee researched them all, and presented them in detail in their full-page ad run on the back page of the Burlington Free Press on October 22, 1968. The Committee said it based its opposition to the plant in Charlotte or at any other location on the lake because it:
A letter written by Douglas Burden emphasized another issue related to thermal pollution: "the impact on the weather and thus the ski industry" in Vermont. He goes on to say that "it seems certain that a large power plant located here will change the entire character of this community and a large portion of Vermont. I would far prefer to go back to the candles and kerosene lamps that I grew up with as a child than to have the open spaces and green hills of Vermont destroyed by industry and all the ugly slurbias that accompany population growth in America."
As the nuclear debate matured the issues of disposal and transportation of radioactive wastes became central to legal arguments against licensing of plants. Vermont passed legislation controlling all transport through the state, and the licensing of the Vernon plant was delayed because of a lack of disposal plans. All of these arguments were developed prior to the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which turned theory into reality.
THE CASE FOR THE POWER PLANT
The case for the plant was never as strong as the case against it. But a poll taken in Charlotte by the LCC in the summer of 1970 showed that 27.7% of the residents were in favor of it. Reasons stated were cheaper power and lower taxes. The Burlington Free Press report of the December 6, 1968, public meeting gives little space to the arguments made by CVPS: "Meredith said Vermonters as well as the CVPS have the common responsibility of keeping pace with the mushrooming demands for `adequate, reliable, low cost electric power'. He pledged that if an atomic plant is erected in Charlotte it would be in no way harmful to the environment." It was argued that new sources of electricity were necessary for economic development, and that nuclear power was clean compared to fossil fuel plants. There was the promise of jobs for Vermonters.
Property rights were also an issue. Leonard F. Read articulates some of these points in a letter to Douglas Burden dated December 2, 1968: "We have an atomic power plant along the Hudson here in Westchester County. I am told it attracts great numbers of visitors and pays all of the school taxes plus a high percentage of other local taxes for the district in which it is located. It seems to me that if all communities were zoned against atomic power plants, then it would be necessary to apply the power of eminent domain in order to locate and build such a plant. How many of us should be allowed to vote on that matter? Where do we draw the line if we abandon the principle of strictly private ownership and control?"
THE STRENGTHS OF THE OPPOSITION
Charles Ross says, "The decks were stacked against CVPS." The residents of Charlotte and the Champlain Valley were not "boondocks residents" but highly sophisticated individuals. Peter Bergh has a masters degree from Harvard in planning, and brought with him to Vermont the knowledge and experience of working in other communities. Lyman Wood and Bill Wheeler, a member of the original Planning Commission, had years of advertising and marketing experience between them. As former partners in the advertising firm Wheeler, Wood and McCleod they had designed the highly successful advertising campaign for the state development department that featured the slogan "Vermont, The Beckoning Country." The full page newspaper ad run by LCC was vintage Lyman Wood style, and the LCC files indicate his hand in the membership mailings that rebuilt the committee. Peter Paine, the General Counsel for the LCC and summer resident on the New York side of the lake, brought the experience of his big New York City law firm to the case. Justin Brande and Jonathan Brownell were brilliant advocates for the lake and environment, representing the LCC and the Vermont Natural Resources Council."The presentations were, to be charitable, below the standards that we set for student seminars; expected information was not forthcoming, and many in attendance got the impression that we were boondocks residents to be patronized." Richard M. Klein, "Bananas in Vermont"
Hundreds of other citizens and members of the LCC contributed multiple talents to the fight, including Governor Deane Davis and the Vermont state legislators who passed far-reaching legislation giving the state control over future nuclear plant construction in the state and the transportation of radioactive wastes. Richard M. Klein in an article in Natural History titled "Bananas in Vermont" points out the importance of the Town Meeting tradition in the state. He describes a public meeting at the University of Vermont the previous fall conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and arranged for by Senator George Aiken and Governor Deane Davis. About two-thirds of the program was presentations by the AEC, "closely followed by the audience." When four environmentalists joined the panel, and questions were invited, they were "sharp and to the point." "This was the first time that the AEC had mounted a massive public meeting, and one of the few times that variant opinion was allowed to share the same platform."
Another strength in the Charlotte community was the presence of the local newspaper, The Charlotte News, and Marge Coleman, who was the dedicated volunteer editor during those years. Issue after issue contains clear and concise information about the status of the power plant. Every resident of the town has received The Charlotte News regularly since 1958, binding us together with the information that's needed to understand what this community is all about. Timing was clearly another key to defeat of the power plant proposal. Vermont was well into environmental awareness and the need for planning. Charlotte had taken the big steps of accepting zoning and creating a master plan. Individuals were empowered as Planning Commissioners to provide an organized response. And other communities were also organizing to oppose nuclear power, so that there were others to share information with and to learn from. For example, Anne Baker, who was the secretary for the LCC in 1968-69, said much of the LCC campaign was patterned after the efforts of a citizens' group that was fighting a plant on Cayuga Lake in New York. The LCC even used the same slogan for its bumper stickers: "Don't Do It In The Lake!"
Science also was catching up with the push for nuclear power, leading to firm guidelines against thermal pollution. By 1971 the search for nuclear power sites in Vermont had been narrowed to nine locations, not including Charlotte or any other on the lake because of the strict regulations against heat pollution that had gone into effect. Also helpful to the opposition were the growing costs of construction, licensing and litigation related to nuclear power. By 1969 CVPS had already invested $140 million in Vernon, which was then only about 32 per cent complete. Dynan Candon suggests that they could not pursue the development of the Charlotte site because so much of their capital was tied up in Vernon, with no return expected for several more years.
CONCLUSIONS
On May 2, 1978, CVPS sold the Thurber farm to Willett and Pamela Foster, ending ten years of uncertainty about the potential use of that site for a nuclear power plant. The land is now developed with large residential lots; the beach where the cooling water intake and outflow pipes might have been is substantially untouched. The Lake Champlain Committee continues its work to combat all kinds of pollution that might endanger the lake, given vital life by the support generated from the nuclear threat. The Town of Charlotte maintains is rural character, unscarred by power transmission lines and cooling towers. Industrial development is very limited and located appropriately near the railroad tracks - not on the lake.
The nuclear power debate in Charlotte heightened awareness of the environment and the importance of careful planning. Peter Bergh, in the Planning Commission Report in Charlotte's 1978 Annual Town Report, talked about the changes in Chittenden County from 1968 to 1978. He said that those who have lived here a decade or more "should be amazed at the negative change in the quality of the natural and man-made environment in most towns. It is a sad fact that these Towns have been unable to come to grips with development pressures, and the resulting strip development, subdivisions, traffic jams, overcrowded schools, dwindling open space, soaring taxes, etc., are monuments to indecision and poor planning. Charlotte has grown and changed over the past decade; but as a result of many factors, including a strong Town Plan, this growth and change has for the most part been logical, attractive, and has not overburdened the taxpayers or municipal services. Consider that Charlotte's adjusted tax rate continues to be one of the lowest in Chittenden County."
Would the taxes have been much lower with a nuclear plant? Would
more than the handful of dairy farms that survive have lasted longer if it had
been built? we'll never know for sure, but I for one agree with Douglas Burden that the whole character of the
community would have changed, and am thankful that there was the
leadership and vision here that prevented that from happening. The
alternative would have been irrevocable, leaving its radioactive mark on this
landscape for thousands of years.
Chronology of Related Events
Bibliography and Sources
Return to Home Page
Comments may be sent to nwood@gmavt.net
Website updated 5/6/2009