Dredging gains steam with council
With the price tag of the area’s long-term water supply plan possibly rising, some Charlottesville city councilors are curious if dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir could play a role in the plan and possibly keep some costs in check.
“It might reduce the need to spend quite as much. I don’t know that though,” said Councilor Julian Taliaferro, adding that a dredging study could provide more answers.
The City Council on Tuesday demanded that local water officials study the cost and feasibility of dredging despite some officials saying the study would be a waste of time and money.
John Martin, a member of the Albemarle County Service Authority’s board, said in an interview Thursday that the council’s call for a dredging study is a political move to appease critics of the water supply plan.
“The city’s behavior is reminiscent of the medieval feudal city-state of 10th-century Europe, and not in 21st-century America,” Martin said.
After a joint meeting of the four boards that oversee the water plan in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, city Mayor Dave Norris said: “I hate to say it, but we hold all of the cards,” adding that the water supply plan “will not move forward without the city’s support.”
But Martin said he resents what he sees as the City Council’s deviation from the water supply plan approved in 2006, which would pipe water from the South Fork Reservoir to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir after a higher dam is built at Ragged Mountain.
“The city is claiming, since they own the land on which the reservoir is located … this community is not going to have a water supply unless the city says so,” Martin said, adding that the City Council waited to express reservations after all four boards approved the water plan and got it permitted.
“It took legislation on behalf of 120,000 people who live in this community, and now the City Council is coming back and saying, ‘Well, it didn’t mean anything. No, because we weren’t elected then, so we can just change our mind and do whatever we want and to hell with everybody.’”
A changing landscape
However, some circumstances have changed since 2006.
The initial $142.8 million cost estimate for the water supply plan has become shaky. An engineering firm overseeing the construction of the new dam at Ragged Mountain said that the cost of the dam, originally estimated at $37 million, could nearly triple, because fractured bedrock was found at the site where the new dam would be built.
The Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority has not endorsed the new cost estimate and convened an expert panel to review the project. RWSA Executive Director Thomas L. Frederick Jr. expects the panel to finish reviewing the project several months from now, with a goal of determining the least expensive way to expand water supply, while staying within the framework of the approved plan.
Though city councilors have said that officials should move forward with the approved plan, the new cost estimate has raised concerns and some councilors say that other options for supplying water should be left on the table.
“I think it’s a good idea to look thoroughly at all of the issues, to make sure there’s not some way dredging can be part of the equation,” Councilor David Brown said. “But I just don’t see how it can be, just because it’s so much cheaper to gain additional water supply by making the [Ragged Mountain] Dam taller.”
Brown said that he doesn’t believe dredging could be “a centerpiece for a water supply plan.” However, depending on how much it costs to dredge, it might make sense to gain additional water to supplement the approved plan and provide a safety net, in case there’s a drought before work on the long-term plan is finished.
Doing more with less?
Many officials maintain that dredging alone would not supply enough water to meet the community’s long term needs.
However, Norris said, “The question is: Can you get away with a much smaller Ragged Mountain Reservoir and still meet the long-term need, and I think it’s conceivable that we can, and I want to know that information.”
Norris said that he wants to know if a combination of changes to the existing plan, such as dredging and measures to conserve more water, would allow officials to repair the existing Ragged Mountain Dam and raise it 13 feet, instead of building a 45-foot dam — an adjustment he says might save tens of millions of dollars.
Both Norris and Taliaferro said that more information about the cost of dredging and the cost of the current water supply plan is needed.
“I don’t think you could go forward with a plan, based on speculation,” Taliaferro said. “We’ve heard figures … [on how much] dredging will get versus how much we’re actually going to need. And supposedly it’s less, but I don’t think that’s really been tied down entirely.”
Taliaferro said that he’s also uncertain a $56 million cost estimate for a pipeline from the South Fork Reservoir to the expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir is accurate.
“I feel like I’m working in the dark,” he said. “If the price [of the water plan] keeps growing at the rate it’s growing, we’re going to have to look at some alternatives.”
Proposal coming
In an interview late last year, Frederick said that he doesn’t think it’s wise to start looking toward alternative plans before the expert panel finishes its work, because developing alternatives for something as complex as the water supply plan is time consuming and “a very, very expensive proposition.”
By the end of March, the RWSA plans to complete a proposal to seek bids for a dredging study, Frederick said, and then the proposal would be sent to the area’s four governing boards for suggestions. Submitting the request for a proposal would ultimately require a majority vote of approval by the RWSA’s board of directors.
It was the City Council that officially called on the RWSA to complete a proposal to seek bids for a dredging study. However, Albemarle Supervisor Dennis S. Rooker said, “There’s nobody in the county that objected to what the city was asking for. What we said was we need something in writing to respond to.”
Whether he would support a study of the South Fork Reservoir depends on the cost and details of the proposal, Rooker said.
Some local officials have estimated that it would cost about $275,000 for a dredging feasibility study.
Reader Reactions
Hey - I apologize for the reverse order of the parts of my post; the omission of the names of City Councilors Kevin Lynch and Kevin Hamilton and Charlottesville Mayor Francis Fife (all of whom feel they were mislead during the approval process); and the ***s and other placeholders.
What I have learned is that it is not permissible to quote an actual word printed on the front page of the Daily Progess in your quote ... when that word describes an underworld in certain religions. So, online, we have to use HECK, while in print the DP can use the real word.
I’m sure the DP’s parent company will soon get with the 2000’s and bring some real competition to The Hook and The C-ville! 
Finally, if there is evidence of ancient city-state behavior, let’s look at City Councilor Brown’s historic statements and think about the Trojan Horse ploy, while reading today’s news:
“Brown said that he doesn’t believe dredging could be “a centerpiece for a water supply plan.” However, depending on how much it costs to dredge, it might make sense to gain additional water to supplement the approved plan and provide a safety net, in case there’s a drought before work on the long-term plan is finished.“
This is from the city councilor who has been solidly aligned with the Albemarlers throughout- and who uses that old “approved plan” lingo.
The fact that he has changed his position and is now saying there might be some use for dredging is most likely due to the political heat he is feeling as more of his constituents find out the facts of this case. Kinda reminds you of modern day Washington as well as the ancient city-states, no?
*************
Finally, the article states”
“Doing more with less?
“Many officials maintain that dredging alone would not supply enough water to meet the community’s long term needs.
“However, Norris said, “The question is: Can you get away with a much smaller Ragged Mountain Reservoir and still meet the long-term need, and I think it’s conceivable that we can, and I want to know that information.”
That’s what I’m talking about ... the need to “know that information.“
Norris is a smart guy—although stuck in a political minefield not of his own making, he knows what is going on and he is trying to rationally discover the facts to avoid having ruinous price increase threaten his constituents for the next 30 years.
Notice he is NOT saying “we’ll cut off water supply to the county” or “We’ll substitute our own plan and go our own way.“
He’s just stating the obvious - that the current ‘plan’ is highly flawed and built upon enough misrepresentations and bad data that he wants to get real facts before taking a suicide leap off the bridge.
The Albemarlers can shout all they want that it’s just a 5’ drop into a warm, deep stream ... but Norris is smart enough to check things out. He realizes that even if the City has walked all the way to the edge, there is still time to pull back rather than move forward on information you don’t trust and in lockstep with people who have misrepresented things on a regular basis.
I don’t know what Norris will decide in the end, but this is the kind of man I want leading my government ... and I bet there are many in the County who would agree.
************
Lastly, from the DP article,
“In an interview late last year, Frederick said that he doesn’t think it’s wise to start looking toward alternative plans before the expert panel finishes its work, because developing alternatives for something as complex as the water supply plan is time consuming and “a very, very expensive proposition.”
The fact is that a $275,000 dredging study will tell you a LOT—including: how much water can be gotten from the South Fork after dredging; the probable cost of dredging; and the value of the dredged material.
It is only a government employee or a true non-profit partisan that might look you in the eye and honestly state that ‘it is not worth spending $275,000 to get information that could save $200 million.‘
But, that is what we are used to hearing from our local politicians on this subject, isn’t it ????
************
THE END ... sorry for the reverse order and filtering ... the Daily Progress autocensor engine is not very good and I had to keep guessing why it wouldn’t reprint their own newspaper quote!
I don’t know where this board member lives, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he uses a well and septic tank, like most county residents. Thus, the huge increase in water rates (doubled in the past 5 years while the RWSA socked away $30 million in the bank) and the even bigger increases that will come if they do their $200-250 million project will be crushing to many city residents.
He goes even further to say:
“The city is claiming, since they own the land on which the reservoir is located … this community is not going to have a water supply unless the city says so,” **** said, adding that the City Council waited to express reservations after all four boards approved the water plan and got it permitted.
“It took legislation on behalf of 120,000 people who live in this community, and now the City Council is coming back and saying, ‘Well, it didn’t mean anything. No, because we weren’t elected then, so we can just change our mind and do whatever we want and to HECK with everybody.’”
What the city really is asking for are the facts. Yes, the city did agree to some things, but later found out that the RWSA and sponsors of this plan gave them, at least, “bad information” in order to move this plan forward. Three former Charlottesville City Councilors/mayors have publicly stated that they received bad information and two say they would never have voted for the plan if they had gotten true facts. So, Charlottesville’s leadership is now wisely saying, ‘hold on, let’s get the facts here.‘
[This post keeps getting rejected by the DP autocensor, so I keep eliminating names, substituing ****, ‘etc., to figure out why—- that’s why I left the names out of the councilors ... I also took the alternate word for Hades out of a quote that appeared in the DP ... let’s see if that does it.]
Contrary to this ACSA board member’s assertions, they are NOT saying “this community is not going to have a water supply unless the city says so”. There have been NO threats to withhold water and, in fact, the city is showing good government and responsibility in the way it is proceeding. In contrast, Albemarle County/RWSA have lit the fire on the locomotive and tried to push this plan quickly, before anyone could find out the facts.
Even Albemarle’s own utility guy (****2) has stated that the demand assumptions underlying the RWSA plan are faulty and overestimate the demand in 50 years by a significant amount ... which is just typical of the way Albemarle exaggerates future needs and also exaggerates the cost of any solution they don’t agree with.
************
END PART 3
One of the big proponents of this project is an Albemarle County Service Authority board member:
“John Martin, a member of the Albemarle County Service Authority’s board, said in an interview Thursday that the council’s call for a dredging study is a political move to appease critics of the water supply plan.
“The city’s behavior is reminiscent of the medieval feudal city-state of 10th-century Europe, and not in 21st-century America,” Martin said.“
I don’t really understand what he means by this ... I thought that the weaker parties in the 10th century usually just gave up, rather than have their heads cut off.
In contrast, the City of Charlottesville is attempting to use sound 21st century reasoning and science to get the facts that will help to make the best and most cost-effective decision.
That’s tough to do—because the county and RWSA have hidden and misrepresented key details (remember the $220 million dredging claim?). Their credibility is shot and the City finds itself in the tough position of having to put handcuffs on the RWSA and County merely to find out the facts—because they know they can’t trust what they have been told.
***********
END PART 2
These Albemarlers are starting to really get out of hand. First, they keep claiming the dredging opponents are trying to change “our approved plan.“
Historically, they use this phrase to make us think of the state-required community water plan. If so, that plan will not even be submitted until 2011. WE HAVE NO PERMITTED COMMUNITY WATER PLAN today - it’s a red herring to say so.
However, if they mean the local plan developed by the RWSA/Nature Conservancy, they are correct – many people ARE trying to change that plan because they think either it is a bad plan or far too expensive. Also, they distrust the plan because it was approved using faulty information and misrepresentation.
In reality, we have indeed obtained permits to do a few items that may be OR MAY NOT become a part of our state-required plan. The Ragged Mountain Dam comes to mind ... many ‘water plan advocates’ claim it is a dangerous dam and the state has required it be upgraded.
BUT, the fact is that the dam is safe, although it might need some spillway repairs. The state changed the rules on this dam ONLY BECAUSE WE DEVELOPED TOO MUCH DOWNSTREAM. The increased number of people and value of property below the dam put it into a new bureaucratic classification. In fact, this happened years ago and we have regularly gotten extensions to do the work, so don’t believe the scaremongers who misrepresent this.
***********
END PART 1 ... trying to get around the filters in the DP site is tough ... might have to post this on The Hook ... I’ll keep trying ...
DR you are right there is no requirement to provide 50 years of water today.
The state requires a 30-50 year plan to be filed by 2011. It’s a plan not a requirement to build anything.
This plan requires accurate decade by decade calculations for the amount of water a community will need and the population increase.
Our community does not have a state approved water plan and our group has advocated this should be done first before spending hundreds of millions of dollars and not having accurate cost or demand or conservation information.
What business person would do this ?
We need affordable water that takes a decade of conservation under consideration.
We pay dearly for the infrastructure they build. Let’s get the best deal and not burden the present or future population with a huge debt and still make sure we have an adequate safe water supply.
I have a very basic question that develops from ignorance. Why do we need a water supply plan for 50 years that must be implemented now? Why not implement a plan to help us 10 years or 20 years? It is impossible to know what new technologies and improvements could develop 50 years from now. Maybe 50 years from now every home can be equiped with a space shuttle box to convert waste to drinking water for zero discharge households. Think back 50 years (1959), who would have known with certainty how to plan for what exists today? I suspect there is some regulation that requires RSWA to have a 50-year plan. Does that Regulation require the 50-year plan be built now? How about building or doing something for the next 10 years? Technology and design will improve such that 30 years from now, maybe a cheap solution will exist 50 years from now. How often do we need to upgrade our 50 year plan? Maybe 10 years from now our 50 year plan will be worthless.
Half of the money for the dredging study is already slated to be spent on a bathymetric survey which is routinely done on the Reservoir. That leaves only an additional $125,000 for the needed geotechnical survey. A pittance compared to the second opinion now required on the new dam at Ragged Mt which is $264,000 and will cost more if the current 3 dam experts recommend more borings at Ragged Mt.
If dredging the Reservoir will give us all the water we need after we re-calculate with appropriate conservation the amount for 50 years and possibly will save rate-payers over $100 million then we’d better find out the cost and get going to provide more water ASAP.
As you know the more water we conserve the more RWSA charges us and so as they plan to take on an additional $200 million in debt on top of the $45 million they already we need to call a halt. They also have $28 million in reserve. Probably enough to pay for dredging without any more debt.
Remember the banking scandal people were told—sure you can take on 4x more debt and we wouldn’t raise your rates and look where we are today.
Get the dredging costs now and don’t let this happen to Charlottesville !
Here’s hoping the City Council has an independent auditor review the RFP before it is released. Call me cynical, but I don’t trust the current head of the RWSA, who is CLEARLY opposed to dredging, to have anything to do with this study. This conflict of interest isn’t likely, it’s obvious.
Advertisement