P.E.C. opens new fronts in war on dredging

Thank you Hawes for all your efforts on this topic. You have presented the facts in a clear and understandable manner. Frankly I am surprised at PEC's stand against what seems to be the environmentally sound thing thing to do, i.e. save the existing water supply, and save tree canopy.

It would seem that the local water monopolies like raising the cost of drinking water as much as gas companies like raising the cost of gas. Will it never end? Will we have to decide whether we can consume a gallon of water today or but a gallon of gas? Is not PEC concerned about the costs to users of the water from these impoundments?

Thank you Hook. Thank you Hawes.

What I find incredibly disheartening is that the PEC and others have tried to imply that the pro-dredging folks have some sort of hidden agenda. There is absolutely NO evidence of this. Since when is demanding more transparency and honesty in government ever "offensive" and "inappropriate"?

Hawes Spencer has the cojones to look into the story and report on it. The PEC are making idiots of themselves by shooting the messenger. If I were the PEC, I'd save my ire for the people whose actions have brought so much negative attention onto the plan in question-- that's the RWSA Board and Gannett Fleming.

Rob Schilling is a moderator of the highest calibre. Good show!

I assume the damn will not exceed $143 mln or Jeff Werner will make up the difference since he is so confident with his numbers. Hopfully when he states the damn is the "least expensive" he is not even considering the comical over estimate of $225 mln to dredge for comparison. Was that ridiculous number fabricated to make the damn look like a bargain? Seems like someone has alot of concrete they want to sell.

Will the Rivanna now be called the Pantano?

I believe the $225M came from adding a 25%+ contingency fund to the original $175M figure. Overrun O'Connell has started using 25% rather than 10% to calculate this contingency because of "inflation." I personally think it's a sign of bad project manangement which falls in his lap but for which he refuses to take ownership. Certainly his staff and friends at Albemarle Office will go along with this because one day they may be in his shoes.

I visited the P.E.C.'s website again and looked at its list of Directors: http://pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,130,518,0,html/PEC-Board-of-Directors . Does anybody know any of these people?
From its homepage: "The Piedmont Environmental Council is a 35-year-old non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and protecting the Piedmont's rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty." It appears its emphasis is upon rural economies and preservation and not specifically urban problems that are reflected in reservoir issues. I suspect from their perspective, the issue of Moornman's River take precedence over the issue of water rates. I guess the lesson here is that all segments of the public can not take for it granted that every non-profit has its interests at heart and should have its own watch dogs. That would make for a healthier democracy. By the way, does anybody know who currently owns the 340 acres south of I-67 that's supposed to go towards creating an urban replacement park at Ragged Mountain under the Nature Conservancy's management?

Here is a new article in Today's Cville that's takes a fairly balanced look at this issue:

http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064431134&ShowArticle_ID=1143...

What you all are forgetting is that one of the primary successes of the approved plan (championed by TNC, PEC, and other conservation groups) was that it kept us from drinking polluted water piped in from the James River at massive cost. Further the approved plan by its very nature requires conservation because we are relying on our local watershed to solve our water supply problems. If TNC and PEC had not lead the charge for this plan while others like Hawes and the Hook were sleeping we would have no reason to be stewards of the Rivanna watershed for future generations. I applaud the efforts of TNC, PEC, and the other conservation groups in our community for taking a leadership role when it was needed.

Oh snap, that Cville article begs for a Hook response! Fight!

From what I've read, $25-35 million would ONLY cover the cost of the initial dredging. This does not qualify as a long term water supply plan. This cost does not include:

- the purchase of land on which to put the dredged material...?
- continued maintenance dredging. sediment will not stop flowing into the SFRR....?
- the Ragged Mtn. to SFRR pipeline (or replace the SH to SFRR pipeline)...?
- repair of the Ragged Mtn. dam...?
- upgrading of the O'hill treatment plant...?

Adding all of these items together seems to push the price tag of this alternative north of $150-million, well over the 142-million adopted Plan. Why won't someone lay out the numbers line by line for the dredging option to at least be considered.

Jane, I don't think that's quite accurate. From everything I've read and heard PEC supports (and has for years) maintaining the health of the SFRR.

Cville Eye- Only a coward would attack the integrity of so many people and organizations behind the veil of "Cville Eye." If you have to get your apparent anger off your chest, have the gumption to lob your accusations at people in person, and spare us the above garbage, which adds nothing to a productive discussion.

Follow the money.

Follow. The. Money.

OK, folks, first we need to get our facts straight. Then we can have this debate. Mr. Spencer says we are currently using 9.7 MGD, a figure he gets from Tom Fredericks. But he says we can reduce that to below 7.0 MGD because we did that during the (2002?) drought. But the truth is the current 9.7 MGD demand is occuring during another drought, with drought use restrictions in place. so it's not really a very accurate use of our community need for water. Perhaps a more accurate figure would be the 14.1 MGD used in the top month of 2006, when drought restrictions were not in place. But that figure is rather inconvenient to Mr. Spencer's argument that we could be using 14.0 MGD at some distant future point when our population doubles, a figure that could largely me met by dredging South Fork. If you look at the reality that we are on our way past 14.0 MGD toward, if not completely to, the 18.0 figure projected by RWSA, then the dredging solution falls on its face because it just can't meet demand without another piece of the solution, most likely the larger dam at Ragged Mtn. Obviously, Mr. Spencer should know this. So, either he didn't do his homework ... kind of like saying the cost of dredging without the largest factor (disposal) included is a good cost figure for comparison purposes ... or he's hiding the truth. Either way, I'm tired of him pushing this 'story of a lifetime' without telling the whole story.

Sidney, Get real! Why are we having this conversation in the first place? PEC is not without blame here. PEC is "in" and has been "in" with the powers that be. That is a problem because the "powerful" ones have already made up their minds, as to direction, before they have all the facts.
And I'll assure you, the county and city powers will win this one, unless the other side really turns on the heat/keeps up the pressure, or maybe hires lawyers/threatens a law suit. That is just the way politics goes around here!
The good piece, the other side is being shamed and embarrassed, as they deserve to be. Cvilleeye is right in the ballpark too. Seems he is a bother to the "other side". He makes perfect sense to many.

And Austin, Who is a coward? It is a choice not to use your whole name. You made that choice also. What a joke for you to criticize another for doing the same thing you are doing.

You know, this is all rather funny. I don't know any of you people--other than Betty--but you all seem confident you know me and the PEC. I hadn't really cared what was on this blog until some people urged me to read it; maybe even respond. But what's the point? In the web world of anonymity, I don't know whether you all are several people, or just 2 or 3 writing under differet psuedonyms. Heck, maybe I am not even Jeff Werner; you never know. Think about it.

I do want to thank Betty Mooney for pointing out all of our hard work to keep the water supply plan IN our own local watershed. I don't think people yet realize how substantial that was. That "victory" is but one in numerous effort we and other organizatuons have been involved in over the years. Funny, but in the recent effort to get real Mountain Protection regs implemented, an effort to truly address the sediment going into our local streams--and reservouirs; I don't recall the Hook taking up that banner. I could go on, but I won't. Anyone interested in what we have been working on and is welcome to call me at 434-977-2033, or e-ail me at . I am hardly the stubborn, disinterested person I have been portrayed to be. In fact, I am quite doogedly stubborn about one thing: Integrity. Ths hearing that I am some mere pawn in a larger conspiracy over the water supply plan has given me belly laughs.

And, if yopu want to ever come by and discuss all that we and other groups have done regarding keeping our water supply local, please come to my office any time. 410 East water Street, second floor.

And, in what may be a disappintment to some of the conspiracy thoerists out there, I am a City resident. So my interest in this matter is hardly a distant and

But I will offer this one challenge and some thoughts:
Above it is stated above, and inferred in the Hook through the use of partial quotes, that the PEC "refuses" to consider the dredging of the SFRR. Yes, I have said that in the CONTEXT of the current water supply plan dredging as an option--even with the various estimates from the Hook--does not represent a less expensive alternative. However, neither I nor the PEC have EVER argued that we should not take action to maintain the SFRR. In fact, I challenge anyone to show me where I or the PEC have opposed some level of maintennace dredging of the SFFR.

Now that the BoS has unanimously come out in support of the current RWSA plan, it's obviously a done-deal. Mr. Werner and PEC have moved on and now are invovled in formulating the city's storm water management program. The public was not invited to participate, just to comment later during a public hearing. It must be nice to be a member of the privileged.

I hope the voters of Albemarle/Charlottesville(and Virginia) are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore! This of course must include those who have repeatedly voted in supervisors like Thomas, Rooker, Slutzky and Mallek(as well as other state tax and spend democrates) whom under the ruse of conservation continue to vote to tax and spend. These four supervisors are creating a hostile environment for landowners of Albemarle county. I personally have seen my real estate taxes increase 50% since 2005. Though the BOS does not assess property for tax purposes they certainly set the tax rate based on their spending habits. The local budget has been increasing at a rate that has essentially been tied to the increases in real estate tax assessment(15% roughly) and revenues which for the past 5 years has been overly inflated and not sustainable. However, instead of planning ahead and saving for inevitable lean years(now), these tax and spend supervisors have declared war on the small landowners exemplified by their decisions to make it more difficult if not impossible to develop property and more difficult to keep it in a tax deferred state(land use). All very nonprudent(to quote Mr. Crutchfield) decisions. These same BOS members have no problem approving the huge developments like Biscuit Run that create the most infrastructure problems for the city and county and do so without demanding guaranteed proffers.

Now these same brilliant BOS members want to have a revalidation process for landowners in order to keep their farm land in a tax deferred status. Sally Thomas says some landowners cut grass and sell it for feed in order to qualify(I wonder if that is how she qualifies for tax deferral on her property). This type of irresponsible statement makes one wonder if she is clueless with regard to the time and effort and cost of equipment for making hay not to mention the fact that there has been a hay shortage in this country and Albemarle has been fortunate in that regard. If the production of hay in the near future(next BOS vote) will not allow farm land to be considered as farm use property then I and others will be forced to place cows on the property which are probably the single most damaging decision one can make for streams and water quality(lots of e-coli). Another nonprudent decision. Why don't they vote to tax defer farm land for not having cattle on it to ruin the streams and water quality? That would be prudent. Mr. Rooker says he will raise the bar a little bit. The "bar" he refers to is reduction in landowner rights and his telling you what you can and cannot do with your property(new proposal that you cannot develop it for 4-10 years). Mr. Rooker also states there is land in the deferral program that the owners are looking to flip. I would like him to be more specific. Do the owners live on the property and consider it home? Mr. Slutzky want's to force landowners to put their land in a conservation easement or else higher taxes. Another example of using their position and taxation to force you to do their will.

This leads into the discussion that Virginia should have a statewide MANDATORY homestead exemption law in place and even better a cap on future increases in real estate taxes for primary homeowners.

Until you the voters are willing to force a state wide referendum on these issues and vote out the legislators that only listen to the business paid lobbyists then you only have yourselves to blame.

There is no question that the environmental community (including myself) got played when Ragged Mountain was chosen as the preferred alternative. There are even a few well meaning folks like Jeff who still believe that this was an idea put forward by environmentalists. This email from Mike Gaffney, shortly after the RMR solution was put forward, ought to dispel that idea.
http://cvillewater.info/Rivanna_Environmentalists.pdf

All of us environmentalist types were so busy congratulating ourselves about the Ragged Mountain solution and how we had saved the community from an expensive growth subsidy (the James River pipeline), that we forgot to ask ourselves how we nearly got sold down the river in the first place.

The reason that Ragged Mountain looked like such a good solution in 2005 is that Gannett Fleming told us over and over again that dredging was prohibitively expensive. If you still believe that dredging would cost $223 million dollars, then yes, enlarging Ragged Mountain and pumping 25 million gallons per day, nine and half miles and 300 feet uphill still looks somewhat reasonable. But now we know that these outrageous claims of dredging costs simply do not hold water. When we can restore the South Fork to its original condition for 24 million dollars or less, suddenly that 142 million dollars of shiny new pumps and pipes and concrete doesn't look like such a bargain.

This community used to believe in something called sustainability, which is why dredging was part of our original 2002 water supply plan (which we have been paying for by the way, even though nothing has been done in six years). When we originally hired Gannett Fleming in 2003, part of their job description was to do the engineering for dredging. Three months later, they told the Rivanna board it would be too expensive (back then, too expensive meant 42 million dollars). Next they told the board that raising the South Fork reservoir with a four foot bladder (also part of their original job description) was unlikely to get permitted. So what should we do? Two years and millions of dollars in consulting fees later and the answer is ¢Ã¢â??¬Š surprise! Dams and pipelines! How convenient!

Some of us were not convinced that dams and pipelines were the answer, and I give Jeff credit for being one of those folks. Sally Thomas and Dennis Rooker also deserve a lot of credit for not swallowing the company line (and more recently others on Council and BOS have raised similar questions). Why not dredge we asked? It solves most of our water supply problem and other communities are doing it much cheaper. When we asked, Gannett Flemming came up with more hand waving, increased the dredging estimate again (and again), and then sent us a bill for their troubles.

What Gannett Fleming never told the public, or the Rivanna board for that matter (at least not according to the records we FOIA'ed) was that while they were blowing smoke up our collective asses about the prohibitive costs of dredging, two dredging firms with operations in Virginia had come forward with proposals for doing the job at a fraction of the cost. Dock Doctors and Blue Ridge Sand both deserve credit for trying to creatively solve the problem. But their proposals never saw the light of day. If it were not for the reporting of the Hook we never would have known about them. While Hawes may not be a ¢Ã¢â??¬Ã?â??water expert¢Ã¢â??¬, he has done a whole lot more actual work to solve the dredging question than any number of people who got paid with our water bills to supposedly solve the problem, and we should thank him for this.

When we saw the proposals of Dock Doctors and Blue Ridge Sand in the FOIA'ed documents of Rivanna, we were naturally outraged. How did this happen we asked? Why hasn't Gannett Flemming been fired for this? What other cost numbers in our water plan might also be misstated by an order of magnitude? For some reason, instead of answers from the Rivanna board, all we got was talking points. ¢Ã¢â??¬Ã?â??Well, those proposals are old now ¢Ã¢â??¬Š. The price of diesel has gone up ¢Ã¢â??¬Š the land they were going to buy for storage is no longer for sale ¢Ã¢â??¬Š the airport might not need a new runway after all ¢Ã¢â??¬Š too late, you missed your chance for questions ¢Ã¢â??¬Š full steam ahead with the Emperor's New Water Plan!¢Ã¢â??¬

Now we have a new proposal from a local consortium of firms with plenty of expertise, capital, a good site for dewatering and long term storage capacity if necessary. And these arent the only folks looking at how to solve the problem. I believe that with a competitive bidding process and better information on the sediment composition, we can get the initial cost of dredging below 20 million dollars. If we build forbays to capture the incoming sand, gravel and clay where it can be easily removed, the value of the material could pay for future maintenance for the next 50 years. Dredging the material costs around 7 dollars a yard. Sand for concrete sells for 30-40 dollars a yard. Gravel for asphalt is around 15-20 dollars a yard. The airport is planning to spend 12 dollars a yard for fill. Do the math.

By dredging the South Fork Reservoir and keeping it properly maintained we can add 5.5mgd of capacity to our system. That's more than half of the 50 year water need, even if you believe Gannett Fleming's inflated water demand estimates which overstate future population, understate conservation in a drought and ignore the fact that for the past ten years our water demand has actually been dropping as we have become more efficient in our use of water. If you take these factors into account, dredging can easily provide two thirds of our 50 year need ¢Ã¢â??‰â?¬Å? maybe more.

So why isnt the latest proposal by DDR great news? Why arent public officials talking about which parts of our expensive 142 million dollar water supply system are now no longer necessary? About how we can reduce our environmental footprint at a very reasonable cost? Maybe even lower the water rate? Why indeed?

The answer my friends is that even when they don't realize it, bureaucracies love to grow. Government bureaucracies especially! Bigger pipes, bigger dams, pumps and bigger water bills make for bigger paychecks and bigger departments. Bigger desks! Bigger toys! Bigger pension plans. The board of Rivanna is four bureaucrats and a developer. That's a recipe for a cash burnin' clear cuttin' dam buildin' high water pumping machine! Toss Gannett Fleming and a 30 million dollar cash reserve (thanks ratepayers!) into the mix and now the embiggening machine is running on all cylinders and belching smoke. And the best part is (depending on your perspective of course) none of them are accountable to the public!

Fortunately, the Rivanna board IS accountable to the elected officials (at least in theory ¢Ã¢â??‰â?¬Å? in practice this doesn't seem to always happen). And the elected officials are accountable to the public. Which is you.

If you are tired of seeing your water bill being used to finance a New Deal program for bureaucrats and consultants, please come to Monday's City Council meeting and go to the next Board of Supervisors meeting. Tell them that they've been stalling long enough! Its time to move forward on dredging now ¢Ã¢â??‰â?¬Å? starting with a sediment survey right now and followed by a request for bids to restore the reservoir to its original storage as soon as the survey is done. They can call it maintenance or restoration or whatever else they want to call it as long as they call it done! Otherwise prepare to pay dearly for the next 15 years while Rivanna's board builds their pipe dreams at your expense.