Vis-a-vis the dredging issue and the credibility of the company that did the estimate, someone should set the record straight. Gannett Fleming does dredge, and they state as much on their website: http://www.gannettfleming.com/envmanagement/nepa.aspx
Anyone who went farther than the first 2 pages, or bothered to type "dredging" into their search engine, would have found that page.
Since the cvillewater.info group has made much of the fact that they didn't see dredging operations listed among the company's areas of expertise, I thought it would be a service to correct that.
And just to make sure the point carries, I did a Google search "Gannett Fleming dredging" to see if I could find verification from other sites that they've been connected with dredging:
IDSWater, which appears to be an industry supersite, lists them at http://www.idswater.com/water/us/gannett_fleming/ozone_technology/9089_0/directory_listing.html
Western Dredging Association's member directory lists a dredging expert from Gannett Fleming at http://www.westerndredging.org/member_directory.php?letter=s
They were involved in the North Park Lake dredging project in/near Pittsburgh, PA, and there's a report on that project online at http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LZJiJtCiK54J:www.lrp.usace.army.mil/pm/append5_exh4.pdf+Gannett+Fleming+dredging&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us
I don't know about the general populace, but I personally have a really hard time believing the unsupported suppositions of 6 disaffected Charlottesvillians over these and 800 other sites on Google that specifically associate Gannett Fleming with dredging operations. At this point in time, I see no reason to believe their estimate was incorrect.
29 February 2008
26 February 2008
They just don't get the Western mindset...
China View has an opinion on why Sunday night's Oscars show was the least-watched ever. You can read it at http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/26/content_7673967.htm.
Somehow, though, in all those implied criticisms of American taste and snobbery, they didn't notice the fact that the WGA writer's strike, which lasted slightly over 3 months and ended only 12 days before, had continually threatened the Oscars telecast. We watched the Golden Globes go down in flames as both writers and A-list actors picketed during the run-up. We watched as show after favorite show went dark, their previously entertaining hours doomed to rerun hell or filled with half-baked B-list pilots that had been previously rejected by the studios for primetime line-up.
Many of us turned off our TVs long before the Oscars. Funny thing about drying out from a drug like that--you find other, sometimes better, addictions to take its place.
Somehow, though, in all those implied criticisms of American taste and snobbery, they didn't notice the fact that the WGA writer's strike, which lasted slightly over 3 months and ended only 12 days before, had continually threatened the Oscars telecast. We watched the Golden Globes go down in flames as both writers and A-list actors picketed during the run-up. We watched as show after favorite show went dark, their previously entertaining hours doomed to rerun hell or filled with half-baked B-list pilots that had been previously rejected by the studios for primetime line-up.
Many of us turned off our TVs long before the Oscars. Funny thing about drying out from a drug like that--you find other, sometimes better, addictions to take its place.
21 February 2008
Water Supply--The Combined Form
The Progress, Cville, Hook, Cville Tomorrow, and Cvillenews.com have all covered the water supply debate. To buy wholly into the Cville Water Supply group's position throws out years of discussion and planning. I don't think that's wise. Furthermore, I am beginning to resent the "We should do this, not that" presentation of the arguments. For once, can we get beyond the "my way or highway" mentality surrounding this issue? The only two people I have consistently seen demonstrate an openness to amend plans backed up by practical knowledg of workable solutions are Ridge Schuyler and Tom Frederick. They've been getting short shrift from the media these days, and have certainly taken a pounding in the recent "debates," but they still remain open. For this, they deserve a lot more respect and better treatment than what they've gotten.
I cannot speak for all of us who support the Ragged Mountain Dam/South Fork pipeline option, but I can say that I see the dredging of the SFRR as a separate issue. And I support both.
Dredging the SFRR is, in my opinion, a short-term solution. The problem with the South Fork is sedimentation--specifically a high rate of sedimentation than an expert (and I am not one, but I talk with them frequently) would deem normal. That is true throughout our watershed, by the way. There is too much erosion, too much sediment in our watershed overall (my guess is that it's due to overdevelopment and poor stormwater management practices/systems), and it is silting in SFRR. Until we can get a handle on how to slow and eventually stop that process, the monies we spend dredging the South Fork now will need to be followed up with more monies to dredge it again. How soon, I do not know. But, again, I would guess that, without more monies spent on drastic, remedial buffer repair and streambank restoration, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
This I do know: Vegetation takes time to root, that means it will be a while before it can do its job of filtering sedmiment from a stormwater event before it hits an open watercourse like a stream or river. Whether we decide to do restoration work on the open courses that feed the SFRR or not, we will still have a sedimentation problem for years. To me, therefore, dredging the SFRR as a water-supply solution it does not sound like a great option for the near haul. For a 50-year plan, yes, but for a 10-year or 20-year plan, not so much.
As Kevin Lynch has so frequently pointed out, this is the kind of infrastructure project that has to be done in phases. What sense does it make to spend most of your front-end money working on a project that does not have a front-end return?
For that reason, I support raising the Ragged Mountain Dam and building the pipeline from SFRR. But what I would like to see is a combination of these goals. This could be produced by raising the RM dam 20-22 feet (not the full height) and building the pipeline in the first phase. As Tom Frederick has pointed out several times, to apparently deaf ears, this would also satisfy DEQ permits already received.
While that is going on, get a second estimate on dredging and let the Rivanna Basin Commission do its job by reporting back on what it would take to alleviate the sediment issues around the South Fork. Dredging the South Fork once makes sense, because the job might pay for itself given that the airport needs the dirt. Dredging it multiple times if the causes of sedimentation aren't addressed doesn't.
Then, if it seems that the sedimentation issues can be addressed, look into the costs of that project and incorporate them into the second phase of the water-supply project. If it can't be addressed, then look into raising Ragged Mountain the rest of the way.
This is a more nuanced position than I'm hearing out there from the cvillewater.info group. It's not a sexy option, it's a practical option. It allows RWSA to get on with its business of actually proving to the state we're going to do something about water supply while still keeping the dredging door open provided further information proves the project long-term viable.
I cannot speak for all of us who support the Ragged Mountain Dam/South Fork pipeline option, but I can say that I see the dredging of the SFRR as a separate issue. And I support both.
Dredging the SFRR is, in my opinion, a short-term solution. The problem with the South Fork is sedimentation--specifically a high rate of sedimentation than an expert (and I am not one, but I talk with them frequently) would deem normal. That is true throughout our watershed, by the way. There is too much erosion, too much sediment in our watershed overall (my guess is that it's due to overdevelopment and poor stormwater management practices/systems), and it is silting in SFRR. Until we can get a handle on how to slow and eventually stop that process, the monies we spend dredging the South Fork now will need to be followed up with more monies to dredge it again. How soon, I do not know. But, again, I would guess that, without more monies spent on drastic, remedial buffer repair and streambank restoration, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
This I do know: Vegetation takes time to root, that means it will be a while before it can do its job of filtering sedmiment from a stormwater event before it hits an open watercourse like a stream or river. Whether we decide to do restoration work on the open courses that feed the SFRR or not, we will still have a sedimentation problem for years. To me, therefore, dredging the SFRR as a water-supply solution it does not sound like a great option for the near haul. For a 50-year plan, yes, but for a 10-year or 20-year plan, not so much.
As Kevin Lynch has so frequently pointed out, this is the kind of infrastructure project that has to be done in phases. What sense does it make to spend most of your front-end money working on a project that does not have a front-end return?
For that reason, I support raising the Ragged Mountain Dam and building the pipeline from SFRR. But what I would like to see is a combination of these goals. This could be produced by raising the RM dam 20-22 feet (not the full height) and building the pipeline in the first phase. As Tom Frederick has pointed out several times, to apparently deaf ears, this would also satisfy DEQ permits already received.
While that is going on, get a second estimate on dredging and let the Rivanna Basin Commission do its job by reporting back on what it would take to alleviate the sediment issues around the South Fork. Dredging the South Fork once makes sense, because the job might pay for itself given that the airport needs the dirt. Dredging it multiple times if the causes of sedimentation aren't addressed doesn't.
Then, if it seems that the sedimentation issues can be addressed, look into the costs of that project and incorporate them into the second phase of the water-supply project. If it can't be addressed, then look into raising Ragged Mountain the rest of the way.
This is a more nuanced position than I'm hearing out there from the cvillewater.info group. It's not a sexy option, it's a practical option. It allows RWSA to get on with its business of actually proving to the state we're going to do something about water supply while still keeping the dredging door open provided further information proves the project long-term viable.
15 February 2008
Missing Mitch
I tried to make it to Mitch Van Yahres's memorial service, which started 1 hour, 15 minutes ago. But even arriving at 1:54 pm with a line of only 5 cars in front of me and 15 behind, I could tell it was a no-starter. In the farthest lots, black-suited men with walkie-talkies were parking SUVs in the landscaped islands and bushes. After 10minutes of circling 3-4 lots, I didn't know what to do with myself, so I went back to work.
I wanted to go because I miss Mitch. I didn't know him well, but I enjoyed his company and his viewpoint every time I met him, usually through Dems functions. He seemed to me to be a fierce believer in the power of the common person to effect a positive change. I'd go further and say he absolutely expected it--of all of us--but I'm afraid of overstepping. After all, I'm a cynic who doesn't believe most people will get off their tukuses until forced to do so. It is difficult to believe that a man could live in this modern world to age 81 and still maintain such ideals and such ethics. But it wasn't difficult to believe in him--he had a double helping both.
Never mattered if I agreed with him on something (living wage) or not (the erstwhile Rivanna Parkway), I was always ridiculously pleased to see him, talk with him, take in his opinon. Judging by the faces of others around me, everyone else in the Democratic party had a similar reaction.
I wanted to go because I miss Mitch. I didn't know him well, but I enjoyed his company and his viewpoint every time I met him, usually through Dems functions. He seemed to me to be a fierce believer in the power of the common person to effect a positive change. I'd go further and say he absolutely expected it--of all of us--but I'm afraid of overstepping. After all, I'm a cynic who doesn't believe most people will get off their tukuses until forced to do so. It is difficult to believe that a man could live in this modern world to age 81 and still maintain such ideals and such ethics. But it wasn't difficult to believe in him--he had a double helping both.
Never mattered if I agreed with him on something (living wage) or not (the erstwhile Rivanna Parkway), I was always ridiculously pleased to see him, talk with him, take in his opinon. Judging by the faces of others around me, everyone else in the Democratic party had a similar reaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
