Why do I detect hostility and skepticism in your coverage of this matter? Despite your choice of the word "defend" in the headline, the College has nothing for which to apologize. As to your complaint that the College has applied for federal dollars to help with the cleanup, so what? That's what the dollars were allocated to do. Returning a polluted site to a productive educational use that spares us another waterfront housing development and provides public access is an accomplishment to be celebrated, not disdained. Lighten up, Tim. We're not the enemy.

TW: Sorry you detect hostility, Kevin. I understand that you're a former member of the college's board of governors and support the school I've written several stories about Washington College and its Sophie Kerr Prize over the years. I gather the school and its supporters have had their eye on this property for years to develop as a waterfront campus. But it's my job to ask questions.

A college press release received Friday said the school entered into a partnership with Leroy Kirby Jr. last year to buy the 5-acre riverfront tract plus 70 other acres of farmland that are classified as suitable for residential development. The college intends to sell its interest in the larger tract to Kirby once he receives the necessary approvals to develop it.

Is there some prospect in that deal of a profit for the school that explains why school officials are willing to shoulder the costs of cleaning up extensive contamination from the former farm chemical and petroleum storage businesses that once resided on the waterfront?

Even if so, I'm still wondering how the estimated cleanup of this site went from $4 million two decades ago to $1.5 million or so now. I gather, from the college press release that the state has told the college it can deal with some of the farm chemical contamination by "capping" the tainted soil instead of removing it. Is that the reason for the cost difference? And if that's the case, what assurance can the college and the state provide the public that none of the contaminants are in the ground water now or are able in future to seep into the Chester River?

The college press release also said oil-contaminated soil would have to be removed and ground water monitoring would be required in that area. For how long? Is there ground water contamination now? If there is, how does soil removal deal with that?

Meanwhile, can the school please clear up whether it's seeking government grants to help with the cleanup? The Chestertown Spy quoted college officials saing they plan to apply for $400,000 in federal funds for the cleanup, then the op-ed by the college's Bryan Matthews says the public wouldn't pay anything. There's certainly nothing wrong with cleaning up a brownfield, or with applying for government funds earmarked for such cleanups. But which is it? Won't donors want to know how much they're on the hook for?

Finally, on a more basic level, I'm wondering why the school and its donors should be saddled with any of the cleanup of this site. If it was known to be contaminated so long ago, why were those responsible for the soil and ground water being tainted permitted to sell the tract without cleaning it up?

This is a terrific idea! Thank you Washington College. Cleaning up brownfields is like a gift to humanity, I worry about what other toxic places are being created at the moment that will require millions of US tax payer dollars to clean up. People who resist the idea of climate change and environmental crisis should be continually informed about the cost of our failure to care for the environment. Maybe this would get them on the band wagon.