The mailer below was sent by the Monticello Business Alliance, before the Democratic Primary. It was obviously intended to influence the election. Click on the underlined text to see web sites backing up the claims in the paragraph below.
Errors in the above mailer:
- The dam at Ragged Mountain does not need to be replaced to be safe. The state requires that the spillway of the dam be repaired. Black and Veatch, a world class engineering firm, documented in July 2010 that the dam could be safely repaired and expanded in accordance with state law.
- The $25 million dollar cost leaves out the cost of the uphill pumping pipeline, required mitigation due to loss of wetlands, and required work on the embankment of I64 due to the water level in the planned reservoir. With these costs, the big dam and pipeline plan will cost at least $142 million dollars. That leaves out the cost of operating the pipeline, and the unknown costs involved in acquiring the right of way for the pipeline. The pipeline is absolutely required for this plan. Without it, water can only be distributed to 1/5 of the service area, the reservoir will take a long time to fill up, and all the water in the reservoir will come from the Moorman's river.
- The gallons to gallons comparison is very misleading. A gallon of water gained from dredging South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is more available than a gallon of space in the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. The South Fork Rivanna Reservoir can refill quickly from rain flowing into the Rivanna River. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir fills slowly from a mountain stream (Moorman's River) without the pipeline. With the pipeline, it will refill from the Rivanna River (which won't have the storage capacity of a reservoir, because it will be a river, not a reservoir if it isn't dredged).
- The number of gallons of water that we can get from dredging will be more than 151 million gallons. This number does not take into account more recent findings that there is less sediment in South Fork, and a slower rate of siltation than previously thought.
- The dredge first, dam later plan is not a "massive, one time dredging" of the reservoir. In fact, the best approach is likely to be a "small-bites" approach, where a little bit of the reservoir is dredged at a time, over time. The previous HDR dredging feasibility study was constrained to not allow this approach. Dredging first is inherently a flexible approach, which is one of its major advantages. We are not saying to dredge and be done with it. We are saying to maintain and repair our current infrastructure, and raise the dam in the future if and when it is necessary.
- The "Number of Days of Extra Water" makes it sound like building the new dam at Ragged Mountain will give us extra water immediately. It will not. The pipeline is scheduled to be built in 15-20 years. Until it is built, the water at Ragged Mountain can only be distributed to 1/5 of the service area.
- The pictures in the mailer for each plan are very misleading. The dried out mud hole that is intended to represent the dredging first plan really more accurately portrays the Rivanna River if we don't dredge. The big new dam and pipeline plan gets all its water from the Rivanna River. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir is just a big hole in the ground. To fill it, water will be pumped from the Rivanna 9.5 miles uphill to Ragged Mountain. Dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir increases its storage capacity and its resiliency in a drought. Stream flows in the Rivanna will be preserved in a dredging first, dam later plan. Stream flows in the Moorman's river can also easily be improved in a dredge first, dam later scenario, by installing flow meters above the Sugar Hollow Dam to see how much water flows into that reservoir, and improving stream flow controls below the dam to let out what flows in.
|
|
