b'C H A P T E R T E NIts no surprise the issue had advocates on both sides. Realtor and selectman Norman Howes took the view that a deeper river channel would improve flushing of Oyster Pond, thus relieving periodic pollution - in his words, the pond would benefit from a greater exchange of water from tide to tide and thus would be cleaner . Better, cleaner water in Oyster Pond, and let the shellfishermen and boaters fight about the rest. End of issue in my mind. Consultants from Normandeau Associates, recalls Scott Tappan, determined that the only benefit (of dredging) was bigger boats would be allowed to go at low tide, (but) no flushing benefit.To Shellfish Warden Smart Moore, Scott Tappan notes, it was a terrible idea.Building up to the FCW- sponsored summer 95 meeting, the Waterways Committee and the Shellfish Department figured the only way the dredging could be stopped was to make itcost so much that the townYou Are Cordially Invited To The wouldnt do it, as Tappan remem Friends of Chatham bers. When the NormandeauWaterways Annual Meetingprofessionals looked at the 1971 blueprints, they realized that newMonday, August 7,1995 - 7:45 p.m.dredging was involved,calling forForgeron Meeting Room,a whole environmental impactEldredge Public Library, Main Street, Chathamreport.That, says Scott Tappan,The program will be proceeded by a brief business meeting to was the death knell.But thetransact business.FCW meeting and selectmensAnnual Meeting Programfinal vote lay ahead. At FCWsOyster River Dredging Project public session in August, a fullAn Informational Forumhouse at the library reflected the tension worked up by the dredg Carrying out its long commitment to offering ing proposal. Chairman Kimballcitizens facts and views on matters of moment, encouraged everyone withFCW bought space in The C hronicle to urge concerns to bring them up. residents to attend the annual Friends meeting And they did. After all, this wasin 1995.Thre, they would hear both sides on a VERY political issue, asre-dredging Oyster River.Scott Tappan phrased it. David Oppenheirn had been invited to take part to explain why he favored the project.One of his questioners was the venerable Robert Edwards, perennial interrogator at public gatherings. He aimed at Oppenheims voiced concern that unless the river channel were deepened, there could be a serious accident. Edwardss comment to David Oppenheirn, as Tappan recollects, went like this:185'