Water war moves to City Hall

The “war of statistics” over the community’s 50-year water supply that has raged for months on Internet forums, in newspaper articles and at community meetings moved to a new battlefield Monday night: City Hall.

Before a packed room of almost 150, proponents and detractors clashed over the plan’s price tag, the veracity of consultant estimates and the feasibility of exploring other alternatives, especially dredging.

The many speakers Monday — roughly divided between the two sides — illustrated how public debate has been rekindled over, and passions inflamed about, a water plan that was unanimously backed two years ago by the council and the Albemarle Board of Supervisors.

“In all of my years I do not remember any controversy like this,” said Francis Fife, a former Charlottesville mayor, who urged councilors to examine other options before endorsing the costly plan.

The $142.8 million proposal calls for the construction of a new dam at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir and, to fill it to capacity, the building of a pipeline from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The water level in the reservoir would be raised by 45 feet — increasing storage from 464 million gallons to 2.19 billion — while submerging an estimated 180 acres of forests, including hiking trails.

The state’s Department of Environmental Quality has already provided a permit for the plan, but federal officials still need to sign off and the city and county have to agree on how to pay for the improvements.

The plan’s backers say it was fully vetted in a series of public meetings and supplies the community with sufficient water at a reasonable price.

“It’s the least costly plan that provides drinking water for the community and stays within the watershed. By all accounts this plan is the least environmentally damaging solution,” said Martha Levering, representing the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville/Albemarle.

Ridge Schuyler, director of the local branch of the Nature Conservancy, said the approved plan has the backing of environmentalists because it meets the growing demand, would keep the water supply within the area and would restore local rivers, including the troubled Moormans River.

But a growing contingent of residents has called for further investigation of dredging silt out of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir instead of building the new dam and expensive pipeline. Dredging would be a better, cheaper and more environmentally friendly option, they insist.

“There is more than one plan that is viable for our water supply. We have alternatives that can be flexible enough to meet the demands the city has,” said Joe Mooney, a prominent opponent of the plan and founding member of the Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan.

Dredging as the basis of the water supply has been dismissed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as too expensive, citing a study by consultant Gannett Fleming that pegged the total figure for dredging at up to $223 million.

However, many of the plan’s supporters say that maintenance dredging of the South Fork reservoir could be done in coordination with the construction of the new Ragged Mountain dam. They point out that the dam and pipeline are aging — they are more than 100 and 80 years old, respectively — and need to be replaced no matter what.

Opponents counter that the dredging figure is vastly inflated and that the Rivanna board should not rely on a single study. Other outside consultants have estimated that the dredging could cost between $20 million and $35 million.

“We believe that the consultant estimate put forward by [the board] is flawed,” said Kevin Lynch, a former councilor who initially supported the plan. “It is more expensive than it needs to be and more environmentally damaging than it needs to be.”

An outside consultant — Chris Gibson of Gahagan and Bryant Associates — has offered to do a feasibility study for $275,000 to determine what kind of sediment is in the reservoir and what could be done with it. Many speakers Monday night beseeched councilors to push for such a study.

“Right now what we have is a bunch of people shouting back and forth at each other with numbers,” Mooney said. “We really need more than one opinion on this issue.”

Lynch and Mooney have developed a list of alternatives that would cost between $80 million and $110 million and includes a combination of dredging and other needed improvements.

Many questions remain unanswered about dredging, the plan’s supporters say. Where would the dredged material dry? Where would it be buried or sold? And is there a market for dredged material?

Rich Collins, a former chairman of the water and sewer board who supports dredging, has a simple retort: “Perhaps a third party mediator would look at the facts provided by one side and the other side” and come to a conclusion.

For the next two weeks, one side will exhort councilors to affirm their previous backing of the water supply plan while the other will continue to call for further examination of dredging.

Come June 2, councilors will have their say and make a decision.

“This thing has gone on far too long,” Councilor Julian Taliaferro said.