Sierra Club wants officials to reconsider reservoir dredging

Momentum appears to be gaining for local leaders to reconsider Charlottesville and Albemarle County’s long-term water supply plan.
An area environmental group has asked leaders to reconsider the possibility of dredging a central area reservoir, a move also being advocated by a group of residents critical of the existing plan to expand the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. That $142 million plan would require the construction of a new dam and a large pipeline from South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to fill Ragged Mountain.
Critics say the plan hasn’t been fully fleshed out and that dredging silt out of the South Fork reservoir would prevent the loss of trees and the flooding of land. Two city councilors also said Monday — in perhaps the starkest terms yet — that they have not yet made up their minds.
Tom Olivier, the conservation chairman of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, wrote to local leaders expressing skepticism about the plan the club supported in 2005. The Board of Supervisors and the City Council both unanimously approved the plan in 2006, and officials then heralded it for its widespread support.
“Our support for this plan was based in part on high estimated costs of dredging the Rivanna Reservoir provided earlier,” Olivier wrote in the letter to the Board of Supervisors, the City Council and the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority.
John Cruickshank, the group’s chairman, said new information has come to light, leading him and others to reconsider their support.
“At the very least let’s re-examine this issue … certainly before you’re going to flood out large number of acres,” Cruickshank said. He said that he’s not a water expert, but has been influenced by the opinions of former Councilor Kevin Lynch, University of Virginia professor Rich Collins, media reports and others who have studied the issue. He says he’s skeptical of estimates from the RWSA that put dredging at upwards of $200 million.
Cruickshank said that support is “absolutely” breaking down for the adopted water supply plan.
“I’m not sure that we were wrong, but I’m not absolutely sure that we were right either,” he said. “I think we need more information.”
Supervisor Dennis S. Rooker said he has always supported maintenance dredging to maintain the health of the South Fork reservoir. He said that he would like to see the RWSA move forward with getting the necessary permits to build the pipeline and new dam. The state has already approved the plan, and officials are waiting on a similar blessing from federal officials.
“I don’t think we’re in a mode where getting the permits forecloses us from doing that,” Rooker said of looking at maintenance dredging and the possibility of dredging as a long-term solution.
Councilors Satyendra Huja and Julian Taliaferro also expressed desire for more information.
“I’ve been told that I’ve already made up my mind,” Huja said during Monday’s City Council meeting. “I didn’t know that. I think city councilors are open to ideas and information.” Taliaferro echoed those thoughts.
Betty Mooney, a city resident and member of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan, has pushed the City Council to get a new estimate on dredging.
“We were misled,” she said. “We now know that the numbers we have are highly inflated. We need to get a second opinion about those dredging estimates.”
RWSA officials have stood by their consultant’s estimate.
Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council, an organization that supports the adopted water supply plan, said so far the opposition has offered only accusations and little proof of a better plan. He also said that critics omit the fact that the water supply plan will save the Moormans River by adding water, and would protect land near streams in the northwest part of the county.
He said the PEC pushed hard years ago for the city and county to look at dredging, and he still supports dredging for maintenance reasons. Werner said he eventually became convinced that it wasn’t a viable long-term solution after years of study and debate, and sees no reason to question the results now.
“There seems to be no discussion about what would be lost to scrap this and start over,” Werner said. “The burden of proof is on [critics]. What is it that would compel [an elected official] to say, ‘You have an idea there.’ I haven’t seen that yet. It’s not that I’m hoping it doesn’t exist.”
The City Council has slated a work session May 6 to discuss the issue.