George,

This ex-city councilor parade is getting more interesting. Blake Caravati has now entered the fray on the side of the dam-builders, and in the process charges those ex-councilors who are in favor of the dredging-plus conservation and sediment limiting alternative, with "crying balderdash" and "hidden personal agendas". As an opponent of the Goliath dam and pump scheme I'm curious: what exactly are these "hidden personal agendas". In my discussion with Kevin Lynch, Rob Schilling, Francis Fife, and Kendra Hamilton I've concluded that they are sincerely concerned about the costs of this project and the financial and environmental impacts it will have. Aren't these legitimate concerns? Hasn't Kevin, particularly, been instrumental in ferreting out new information on the dredging technologies and economics?

I wasn't an elected official, like these people, but I have been much engaged in the water supply issue. I feel that the current dam project plan emerged when The Nature Conservancy helped to fill a political and managerial vacuum that existed at RWSA in 2003.. The city representatives to the RWSA were at least partially victims of the ensuing malaise rather than progenitors of it. The RWSA and RSWA "twins" muddled along during the critical year of 2003 when there was temporary Executive Director, while a search for a new Executive Director ensued, and a new Chair for RWSA, was appointed by the county (it was their turn to appoint this Chair) and one of the wettest years on record following the drought year of 2002. During that critical time the Integrated Water Supply Plan that was on the threshold of approval by the DEQ and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers was abandoned. In its place Gannet Fleming convinced the RWSA that the consultants for this plan had made errors in calculating safe yield for the enlargement of the SFRR pool. With a new model, some different data, and a pliant staff at RWSA , they came up with the James River pipeline as the unofficial, preferred water supply alternative. New consultants, new lawyer-lobbyists, and visions of dams dancing in their heads. Dredging , however, had also to be discredited in order to get state and federal permits. That dredging report is at the heart of the current controversy. With the Integrated Water Supply plan and dredging dismissed as insufficient or impracticable, the James River-out-of-the Rivanna watershed pipeline emerged as the unofficial, but favored alternative.

The ensuing rebellion led by local environmental groups concerned about the James River pipeline alternative (which rebellion did not include the Nature Conservancy), emphasized the positive, sustainable vision of additional water supplies coming from our own watershed. When that vision, led by insurgent groups, became too powerful to resist, the goliath dam-pump-back up the mountain scheme emerged. The celebration of the environmental groups that the James River pipeline was dead, led them to support the project - concept of the Ragged Mountain dam pump-back. I personally abandoned the concept project when the RWSA's executive director in a public meeting in September of 2007 held a public hearing in which he said the pump-back project might be too expensive to do all at once, and further, he couldn't estimate the cost for city rate-payers because that was the responsibility of the "retailer" city. This is when the Citizens for A Sustainable Water Plan group was formed .

Now, thanks to Mayor Dave Norris and the other current members of city Council for saying "whoa" until we study less expensive alternatives, most notably, dredging. The next RWSA meeting will be a true "watershed" event. The City's designated representatives, and city employees, will have a clear duty: inform other RWSA board members that the City Council has approved the water supply plan but only after the dredging and conservation measures are studied. If these studies show that the dredging alternative particularly is not less expensive and more sustainable, than the plan, can then proceed to the water/earth moving stage. But the "plan" or "project" should not include activities that would preempt dredging and additional conservation as the preferred alternative. Thankfully, the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers permit will give the RWSA much to do with its mitigation concept plan and its pipeline assessment before it needs to bring on the bulldozers.

Rich Collins (Electronic mail, June 11, 2008)