Public Hearing on 125-year-old Water Plan
Charlottesville, Va.—City Council will hear from the public Monday evening on the latest phase of a civic water plan set in motion in the late 1800s when all the land for the latest expansion of Ragged Mountain was purchased. Two reservoirs have already been built here in 1885 and 1908.
The city has allowed hiking trails and other public uses until the community decided to further enlarge this water storage. In June 2006 and again June 2008, City Council approved the water plan resulting from an unprecedented series of community forums held by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority beginning in 2005. The County has also repeatedly approved the plan.
The purpose of the latest public hearing is to delay the plan. Vocal opposition has arisen from previous supporters of the plan and former water officials who want to dredge the South Rivanna Reservoir instead. This reservoir went into operation 1966 and flooded the African-American community of Hydraulic Mills.
Typically Council counts the number of speakers for and against a project. If Council agrees with the majority of speakers, Council will act accordingly. If Council disagrees with the majority of speakers, Council will hold hearings until the latest majority agrees with Council. Then Council will say they’re acting on the will of the people.
But the current community water supply plan is the will of the people. The community could have chosen to dredge. But instead they decided to build a new dam. All the permits have been granted from state and federal agencies. The only issues to be ironed out are funding and the size of the new dam.
Previously, following the community’s record drought of 1977 and first mandatory conservation, the Rivanna agency purchased land in 1983 for Buck Mountain Reservoir near Free Union before permits had been obtained. The reservoir was never built but Rivanna refuses to give the land back to its legal, rightful owners. This abuse of eminent domain is one reason people don’t trust the Rivanna agency, whose creation was initially negotiated in secret meetings in 1972.
To further show that Council is now blocking the project, they have commissioned more studies and are now formulating guidelines for Request For Proposals on dredging even though proposals have already been submitted and rejected. We already have a wide array of cost estimates for dredging.
The most recent study of the 1908 dam shows the old dam can safely support as much as 51 feet of additional height. Previous studies have indicated fractured bedrock under the existing dam and an earthen dam might be built more cheaply. The integrity of the 1908 dam was called into question as soon as it was built and an earthen face was added for strength. State officials have said the old dam does not meet new the new safety rules.
Under new leadership since 2004, the agency has built a great deal of trust despite the complex subject. Meanwhile, the dredging supporters, some who didn’t dredge when they were in charge, have not been able to gain traction. The dredgers have used personal attacks, rhetorical gimmicks and omissions.
However, the administration has been professional and shown restraint while doing their job—building a new dam as the community has instructed them to do.
One thing the new dam has in its favor is accountability and transparency. You can see it. In the future when ask if that dam was ever built, you can point and say: Yep, there it is. Did they ever build the Buck Mountain Reservoir. Nope, nothing to show for it.
What about dredging? There is no accountability. The project is invisible and under water. How will we know if the right volume of sediment is removed? We'll have to commission yet another study and be forced to trust yet another group of people.
The benefit of building the new dam is we can see it. If we make this century-old plan a reality, we will truly have something to show for all those forums and for all those millions of dollars spent.
Related stories and background
'Crying Drought' Fatigue, Mar. 9, 2009
"Rivanna Four Party Agreement 1972 to 2012", Feb. 15, 2009
"Ex-Councilors oppose their own water plan", Jun. 5, 2008
"Council approves water plan again", Jun. 2, 2008
“Dredging alternative at Citizens forum” May 5, 2008
"The emperor has no water" Hoax, Mar. 16, 2008
“2007: Year of the Non-Drought” Jan. 3, 2008
“50-year Water Plan for 76% more population: Ragged at same phase as Buck Mountain”, Sep. 18, 2007
“Rivanna uncomfortable using Buck Mountain land for Ragged Mountain plan” Nov. 2, 2006
“Council approves Ragged Mountain option: Water for another 50 years” Jun. 6, 2006. Includes Tom Frederick’s report to Council Feb. 7, 2005
posted by Blair at 9/19/2010 08:21:00 PM
1 Comments:
" “In June 2006 and again June 2008, City Council approved the water plan resulting from an unprecedented series of community forums held by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority beginning in 2005.” The State requires that certain components are submitted before it is considered a “plan.” This is a “concept.” What the State actually did was grant a permit, one of several that will be required before actual construction can begin. The State has said that Charlottesville is not locked into any concept at this time. Also, I'm glad you referred to the preliminary planning sessions as “forum.” That is exactly what they were, forums. The public was allowed to give its opinion on numerous occasions on the concept and a lot of special interest groups weighed-in in support of the concept. This is a reasonably good way of determining, let's say, a menu for a Fourth of July picnic. However, a large component of solving the long-range water supply plan is the engineering and costs requirements. That requires actually getting information from experts in the field. The process finally went into that phase. When the cost of the different components came into question, it was determined that additional information was needed and thus the City spent the money to get some of it. For example, it was discovered that the cost of dredging has been estimated about 1000% too high. Thus dredging came back on the table. The whole problem in 2006 is that during the brainstorming sessions dominated by special interests groups with little or no expertise in designing anything more complicated than a picnic table, our elected officials had jumped the gun and approved a concept that had not been adequately examined.. Many members of the public are asking that this mistake be corrected by examining the evidence for each component again. This will save the community tens of millions of dollars. We do not need a $200 million new water supply we have not even looked at the contributions of other sources of water like Beaver Creek.
“The purpose of the latest public hearing is to delay the plan.” Actually, Blair, the purpose is to gauge the public's opinion after valuable information has now come forth since the public's prior input.
”Typically Council counts the number of speakers for and against a project.” They will also weigh the opinions expressed in hundreds of emails.
“The community could have chosen to dredge.” Not with the erroneous price tag of $223 million dollars.
“All the permits have been granted from state and federal agencies.” Not by a long shot. For example, the Feds have not granted any permit concerning the project and I-64.
“State officials have said the old dam does not meet new the new safety rules.” Actually, the State said the spillway only needs repair.
I for one do not want a water supply plan that was designed by a political science major and a veterinarian, so I am very pleased with the latest events.
Post a Comment
<< Home