Dredge time: Council to save reservoir... and dam when ready

water-kutterspeaks-mJust four days after winning America's top experimental car competition, Oliver Kuttner urged Council to dredge.
PHOTO BY HAWES SPENCER

After an appeal from the victor in a car-of-the-future contest and about two score of other dredge fans, the long-running water debate reached a cascade in City Hall on Monday, September 20 with a cobbled-together compromise that focuses on dredging the silt-choked Rivanna Reservoir but first fixes the broken Ragged Mountain dam with a 13-foot rise.

The unanimous decision came at 11:45pm, nearly five hours after the City Council hearing began.

Automobile inventor Oliver Kuttner was one of the first speakers during the marathon event. "Building things to peak use is wasteful," said Kuttner. "Maintenance is a really good idea."

Fellow dredge fan and HotCakes bistro co-owner Keith Rosenfeld tried to score guilt points on the probable swing vote, Councilor Satyendra Huja, by pointing out that Huja once offered to take him out for an Indian dinner while preventing him from cutting down a tree blocking the HotCakes sign.

"Now we're talking 50,000 trees," Rosenfeld said, "and I want to take you up on that dinner."

Asked after the meeting if the compromise was a victory for the dredge-lovers, Rosenfeld was cautiously optimistic. "The devil's in the details," he said.

At issue was whether Charlottesville, which owns all the local reservoirs, should turn over at least 150 acres of land for an expansion of one of them designed by the Nature Conservancy. For at least two years, Mayor Dave Norris and a citizens group have been calling the Conservancy plan destructive, expensive, and unnecessary.

news-water-stevemillerdragondredge-mDredge seller Steve Miller (with Dragon photo) proposes a dredge program whose gross cost of $16 million could be reduced by selling the extracted sediments.
PHOTO BY HAWES SPENCER

"This has been an interesting experience," said former Albemarle Supervisor Sally Thomas, who spoke in favor of the dam/pipeline plan. "I think I can say in 16 years of sitting on the Board of Supervisors I never heard such hateful statements about the city as I've heard here tonight made about county."

Her allegation brought a smattering of quizzical sighs and hisses. The Hook checked the tapes to find hateful statements, but the sauciest comment came from one-time City Council candidate Stratton Salidas who said, "There's a huge difference between being a good neighbor and a patsy."

It was actually dam/pipeline supporters who did most of the scolding. For instance, Ben Bates of Earlysville called dredge supporters "the group of no," and local veterinarian/county waterworks board member Liz Palmer urged the Council, "Please don't be dissuaded by a small group that are very well organized."

As it turned out, the number of dredge supporters topped dredge opponents–- there were about 60 speakers in all–- by a ratio of two to one. And the dam/pipeline supporters had some pretty big guns: the Chamber of Commerce, the aforementioned former Supervisor, the League of Women Voters, and–- as always–- the Nature Conservancy.

news-claytonsons2Why dredging might be a smart business: Clayton & Son (shown) sells topsoil for $55 per cubic yard; Luck Stone sells sand for $31.50 per cubic yard.
FILE PHOTO BY HAWES SPENCER

The vote is widely considered a victory for Mayor Norris, who overcame vociferous opposition from the county and from within Council. Councilor David Brown, for instance, has long dismissed the notion that water conservation–- which has already stunned officials by falling 28 percent since 1999–- might continue to fall. During the meeting, he talked of his own rain barrels and low-flow toilets as an example of what "everyone" already possesses. But even ardent dredge fan and former Planning Commissioner Betty Mooney admitted to Brown from her spectator seat that she owns neither. ("Well, shame on you," laughed Brown.)

The water debate has been in high gear ever since the waterworks director claimed that dredging might cost as much as $223 million. Mooney's group, Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan, recently heard from a dredge salesman who alleged that a 14-year dredging program might cost as little as $16 million–- and even less if the extracted soil and sand could be successfully marketed.

The Citizens group includes an engineer named Richard Lloyd who has recently been running ads for what he calls a "small bites" dredging program. And the group has asserted that the dam/pipeline plan, originally priced at $142 million, could soar over $400 million if interest payments are included.

In recent days, as the so-called "Norris Plan" was gaining momentum, some decision-makers began seeing their dreamed-of dam slipping away. The county waterworks, the Albemarle County Service Authority, sent an emissary to Council to say that it would pay for all of the water supply. And Albemarle Supervisor Ken Boyd, who works as a financial planner, appeared in Council Chambers ready to speak, but he left the meeting before any action was taken.

One of the more humorous pro-dredging speakers was Ernie Reed. He brought a yellow bucket to the lectern and proceeded to explain how an engineer, upon finding sand in the bucket, might attempt to expand it by constructing higher sides and a modified handle.

"It's good to seek simple solutions," said Reed. "I do know that I don't need a chainsaw to slice a pat of butter, and I do know that the solution to our water problems could start with something as simple as pulling out a handful of sand."

And then there was Henry Weinschenk. The owner of Express Car Wash, Weinschenk knows what it's like to get pushed out of business during a water shortage. He didn't stake a position in any camp–- except the action camp.

"What we're missing is the bucket we need for dry periods," said Weinschenk. "I'm nervous. I have 23 people depending on my business for their livelihoods. So please do something."

Asked later if the vote might be a rebuke to his leadership, the man who bandied about the quarter-billion-dollar dredging estimate, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority director Tom Frederick, downplayed his role.

"As you well know," Frederick writes in an email, "the water supply plan has never been my plan or any one individual's plan, but rather the community's plan developed after many public meetings and extensive public input."

Read more on: dredging

197 comments

John Martin also clearly identified the problem that got us in this mess back in 2004 at a public meeting. The RWSA board contained no elected officials. If only we had heeded his warning and changed the structure. Now we have one official from the county and one from the city, and daylight has begun to shine in. Let us hope there are more structural changes coming to allow more accountability to ratepayers, and not to special interest groups that have managed to gain control of this Board.

Comment from Mr. John Martin 2004 public meeting:

"The SFRR is a very valuable reservoir and serves this community well.
Many people think it would be unethical to do no more than dispose
of it and walk away from it. There are some very important
governmental decisions that need to be made with respect to whether to dredge or not to dredge.
Unfortunately, look around here tonight; our government is not
here. One Supervisor was here for a short period of time at the beginning, and he is not here now.

We cannot do this by ourselves folks. We cannot do it. We
have got to have the people who we elect to office to be knowledgeable about this and to work with Rivanna.
There is no other way to do it.

Betty what possible difference does it matter now what John Martin thinks? why don't you talk to him, if he will speak to you. Heck, your might be one the reason he quit in disgust from the water board after the 4 board meeting.

Betty you really aren't allowed to use Kuttner who left Charlottesville for Lynchburg because he thought the city made it impossible for him to do business. I'll bet you all the money you have that if you told him he could build to peak demand for 1% construction cost he would be all over it. The man is all about peak performance for low cost.

Betty , what does the 2004 John Martin quote have to do with today and why should we care? Right now there are plenty of supervisors and councilors on the RWSA. 2006 plan happened 2 years after your quote.

Special interest now control the board? Please tell us why this is true or is this just another baseless accusation and continued personal attack from you. If it is not then please enlighten me and this blog on what evidence you have for your charged that the RWSA is controlled by special interest.

Once again Betty, demonizing isn't debate.

Dear Not Betty Mooney,

I guess you and are going to have to disagree.

I agree with 3 City Councilors who, when given only two options to chose from - for a WATER WITHDRAWAL PERMIT (they did not vote on a plan) in 2006, voted against going to the James. They chose the only other alternative on the table at the time, the dam/pipeline option.

With the new information we now have, they believe, they were misled, and that they would not have voted for this now. I agree with their assessment.

We are lucky that wise officials, like wise business people, have taken the new information into account, which will possibly save as much as 100 million dollars for the ratepayers, by not building now, what we may never need.

Now, based on the new information, Council has supported the Norris Plan. It is based on facts and data by unbiased consultants, hired by the City, to make sure no conflict or interest exists with consultants working for RWSA, who stand to benefit from the dam/pipeline plan.

The City is on a prudent path, of overseeing the information they have paid for, concerning the feasibility of repairing and raising our original Ragged Mt. dam and dredging the Reservoir. It is in all our best interests that they continue to do.

( Not Betty Mooney ) will surely disagree

Dear Not Betty Mooney,

Perhaps a bit of history will help us with our differences. Have you ever read this letter ?

Letter from Thomas Jefferson - "The Earth belongs to the Living"

To James Madison - Paris, September 6, 1789

_To James Madison_
_Paris, September 6, 1789_

DEAR SIR, -- I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter.
I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish
to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general despatches

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind
another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side
of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only
to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles
of every government.

http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/lit/jeff03.htm

And Not, did it ever occur to you that the 18.7 mgd was permitted BECAUSE THAT'S WAS ASKED FOR? Jeez.

We can list environmental groups who support the 2006 plan and not your preliminary study Norris plan. You really can't face or defeat the very simple fact that the 2006 city/county approved plan makes downstream flows safer. You can ignore it but you can't change the fact that the Norris plan isn't going to be better for downstream flows. What is the Sierra Club qualification to support the Norris plan? Has any state or federal agency deemed the Norris plan safe for the environment- because that all that is going to matter in the approval process.

I love the title of the Crutchfield article "I'm no dredging expert." But my favorite quote from the thread is Kevin Lynch "but for the regulators who approve a water supply project, the criteria are clear: wetlands impact, stream impact and endangered species impact." The 2006 plan has passed this test -the Norris plan hasn't. The 2006 city/county plan is environmental sound- they have the permits to prove it. Build the dam to it's full height and you can get dredging if it pass permitting and an RFP as well- wouldn't that make you happy? Prudent business men would build the dam to it's full height now for little money and not go though the process again.

Betty I'm pretty sure John Martin doesn't admire you as much as you would like. He quit to lobby for something you don't believe in. Please call him and see how much he admires you and the Norris plan. It would be wrong for me to speak for him at all, so dial him and say hello. Convince Mr. Martin of your noble cause -that would impressive.

Betty I would be happy to talk about the pipeline but don't you think we could talk about the Norris plan significant flaws, omissions, and it's preliminary supporting study. Could we do that first or do you want to change the subject again?

Mayor Dave Norris has a new blog post highlighting the Ragged Mt. Natural area, and the wisdom of the new City Council Resolution in minimizing destruction of forest habitat in this ecological gem. This magnificent area is open for hiking, and right on the City-County line. A forest we should all strive to protect, for our own souls, as well as for future generations.

http://cvilledave.blogspot.com/

@ Not Betty Mooney. The question that needs to be answered now is: given that water use has, and is falling dramatically, that, coupled with increased water storage capacity at South Fork Reservoir and more capacity at Ragged Mt. Reservoir ( the Norris Plan) this will do far more to increase the flows in the Moorman's than a huge Reservoir at Ragged Mt. that can not be filled for 15 years if ever.

When is the last time you heard any one on the RWSA Board, county official , or Mr. Frederick mention the $63 million dollar pipeline. The enormous expense of this pipeline makes it unlikely that it will ever be built and all the rivers and streams will be in far better condition if we dredge and restore capacity at South Fork Reservoir now.

Rivanna's own consultant wrote this in a memo. Dredging gives you more water than a full height dam at Ragged Mt. without the pipeline.

We can strike a balance for cost, stream flows and sustaining our current infrastructure and ecological treasure ( the Ragged Mt. Natural Area) with the Norris Plan.

Please e-mail Council and ask them to support Mayor Dave Norris and the effort he is putting into bringing this plan about. He is running into obstructionism at every turn and will need our help.

Listen to his latest thoughts and those of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan in interviews yesterday with Coy Barefoot on WINA

http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4932724

http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4932870

As I understand it Sam, the city is proposing a new plan that according to DEQ may need to go though entire new permitting plan. The Norris plan has only been adopted by the city council for now.

The city can block the final adoption of the previous plan as the county can block the Norris plan. There could be a stalemate and nothing could be done. There does not have to be any compromise or action but there could be. The county may take a hard line and say the 2006 plan is all they will support. That was a compromise as well. The city only has the power to stop the previous plan they can't force compromise or get the Norris plan adopted without the other boards support.

This is probably going to get messier before it's all over. And a prolonged stalemate would probably mean a lawsuit and further delays

Anthony you make some good points, but why not now that we have 2 dams, not maintain all the current Reservoirs, and not destroy any more habitat.

And, you fail to mention that Ragged Mt., if it is enlarged to full height, requires a power hungry uphill pipeline climbing 350 ft. over 9.5 miles in Albemarle County, that doesn't even have a route, and is estimated to cost $60 million before operational costs are added in .

Why pump sediment filled water uphill to a Reservoir that cannot fill itself ? Surely dredging is a better alternative. It will improve water quality at South Fork, give us more water supply at the lowest cost, and do the least environmental damage. We can also at the same time take low cost measures to insure that the sediment inflow at SFRR is reduced, this is already underway to protect the Chesapeake Bay.

Given our falling water consumption, we can dredge and have a small addition while we repair the Spillway at Ragged Mt. ( the Norris Plan) ,and still have plenty of water for people and streams for 40 years and probably much longer; given the way the world is changing and all the new technology that will come in the next 40 years. Why spend so much money and destroy so many trees when we can dredge South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and have all the water we need ?

caseonia,
Did you pay for the infrastucure to your house before it was built? Whoever owned the raw land paid taxes on it since the inception of property taxes. That is how it works.

I am sure there is another local yokal who wishes your house was still a meadow or forest. Should you have been prevented from getting on the grid?

Landowners have every right to develop land within the zoning ordinance and they have the same rights as you when your house was built. Businesses collect sales tax and every dollar that their employees use to pay their taxes comes right through their cash register.

If a business sits on half acre with ten employees at 50k each, sells 2 million dollars worth of widgets to the public they will have collected 100k in sales tax. Contibuted 40k to fica, paid their employeess enough money to pay their 3000 dollar state tax bill, 10,000 dollar federal tax bill and at least 1500 in property taxes to wherever they live either directly or through their rent.
Assumng that they are not using water for their business as a manufacturer then all of the water consumed would be consumed at home anyway. It does not matter where the toilet is that you use if the water comes from the same resivoir.

Meanwhile your half acre pays 2-4k in property taxes (average) while if you have any kids they consume 10-12k (per kid) in the school system.

The county makes net money on busnesses in the long run or the county would be in debt, the schools would still lack air conditioning and we wouldn't have any public parks to go to except Mcintire.

You get one vote. An out of town landowner does not even get that. An in town landowner with 20 properties only gets one. That is how it works and it works well. The county has a legal obligation to supply infrstructure to all taxpayers within the zoning and master plan. Your inability to understand the concept does not make you right.

If it is true that safe yield will be reduced by 10%, so what? Does that mean somebody's going to run out of water? Does that mean the less water that will sit up there on the mountain and evaporate? Do you know what safe yield is? When the water rates soar are you expecting some kind of subsidy to pay your water bill?

Gary O'Connell can't be trusted? Why cause he ran the city for years? That's a bold statement, care to back it up?

So you can't trust the county, Fredrick or your former long time city manager. Who beside Betty Mooney and Mayor can you trust?

Betty Of course your friends at ellicott will say their way costs less. they want to sell you there pig in a poke (sorry, I mean equipment).

You also said earlier that ragged mountain is a 980 acre contiguous forested area. last time i was there there was a lake in teh moddle of that contiguous forested area. Is it gone now?

Yes, I can back it up, Liz. I stopped trusting Gary O'Connell when he told the RWSA to ignore Kevin Lynch's comments that appeared in the DP because he (his boss) would be leaving Council SOon thereafter. I'm sure that these are exactly the kind of peopl;e you are accustomed to dealing with. I am not naive enough to believe that Mr. Frederick actually believ ed that dredging would cost $223M. When the county officials insisted that they wanted an extraordinarily huge bath tub "to provide water for our grandchildren" I knew that group was telling a bald-faced lie. (What ever happened to that silly rationale, anyway?) And as for you, I have spent way too much time listening to you half truths and distortions on kthe Schilling Show and the Coy Barefoot show to last a lifetime. Why did you exaggerate the condition of the dam at Ragged Mountain when you knew full well it was the spillway. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for conducting the public's business in this manner. The public has already shown you are not smart enough to fool everyone.

"the UVa per capita sentence should say if we reduce per capita by 20% and add 20% more people than we are at the same place." @Not, you have just butchered high school Algebra I.

cville eye, your revisionist history of the 2006 agreement by the city and county is a quite a tale. The county and city sat down and agreed that the 2006 plan was going to take care of the area's water needs for 50 years. They sent off all the supporting documents and got approval from DEQ. I don't think the city was forced or tricked in 2006 and your version isn't accurate. There was no uproar in 2006 to match this one.

Why,why, why would you not build the dam to it's full height if only going to cost 1% more and city ratepayers aren't footing the bill. That is fiscally conservative.

Building the dam to 13 feet is 20% of capacity, dredging isn't ever going get you the other 80%. Also the 42 foot dam is 3 foot shorter than proposed because-wait for it- the county wants to dredge enough from the base to build the dam that they can get the same capacity as a 45 foot dam.

I reject the notion that you just ask for 18.7mgd from DEQ- the science and demand analysis lead you to a plan that if approved will achieve the safe yield arrived at by state certified study and science. And when you "jeez" me you even ignore that it would have been the city and the county that submitted the plan and all the supporting documents not just the county, jeez

"not", Making belligerent, illogical, seemingly very angry, personal attacks is not a very good way to get your point across in a public forum. You have engaged in numerous logical fallacies, ad hominem, straw man, and more, have chosen a screen name that seems intended to be insulting and provocative, and so far have presented no good reason for following the course of action you so desperately seem to want followed.

I'm posting under something other than my own name, but I have no real interest in any particular outcome. I only want the best choice to be made given the information that is available at the present time. I think I have a pretty open mind about this and have read quite a bit of the information presented by all of the various groups who would hope to influence the outcome of the discussion. The "Norris plan" looks to me to be a good compromise all things considered.

You on the other hand, have been relentlessly posting for days now, apparently hoping to influence a particular outcome that you cling tightly to without revealing who you are. Is that because you have a particular personal interest in that outcome? I can see no other reason for what you have been doing and I for one will have to continue to make that assumption unless you would like to show me to be mistaken.

Your only real argument in favor of building a bigger dam is that the county will pay for construction. That may, if we ignore the operation and maintenance costs, seem like a good deal for the city. But, as any homeowner knows, the cost of upkeep and utilities are significant long term expenses that need to be considered. If you have addressed those costs, I've missed it.

Those costs, which will dwarf construction costs in the long run, and the difficulties that are certain to come with attempting to run a pipeline 9 miles across Albemarle county are the basis of my conclusion that the plan you cling to is a really bad idea. When will you address those points?

I think Norris is generally ineffective, not particularly clever, and I'm in no way a "fan." I do however agree that the plan he has presented and the city council approved is the best compromise choice for the city. I'm pleased that Norris has finally developed a bit of spine and shown some leadership. I hope he and the others can stand strong through the rest of this process.

If you hear the dry weather we're having used as a rationale to build the dam/pipeline plan - the answer to that is - the quickest way to immediately get more water supply is to dredge. All the talk about how difficult it is to get a dredging permit; how long it will take; how expensive it will be, is in the same ballpark as the $223 dredging estimate.

Not Betty, you didn't address my points: The city already HAS paid money for this plan and will be asked to pay more (e.g., for the pipeline). But most importantly, I honestly truly believe that you are vastly overestimating how much water the county will need over the next 50 years. This will be confirmed, I believe, when RWSA does its state-required new demand analysis next year that must, by law, take into account conservation. This is where the Santa Barbara example is relevant: They overestimated demand and paid the cost.

This really isn't about the city trying to screw the county, it's about trying to avoid spending millions of dollars unnecessarily--something that I would think the fiscally conservative Board of Supervisors would resonate to. If I'm wrong, then we raise the dam later. That's what the Norris plan says. If your side is wrong, we waste millions of dollars and destroy a natural area. Seems prudent to me to wait and see.

1. The city says if they allow us to build a bigger dam people won't save water, anymore. That is provably false and counters everything that history has revealed. During the drought people cut back 30% of usage and have done a great job to keep demand lower by many different means. to believe the city's logic if a new dam is built the area residents will suddenly become callous and stupid. It's the city belief that only by their enlightened governance can the future be saved.

2. The city is doing it to save trees! Wow this may be the silliest and most insincere reason yet. The 150 acres of trees will be replaced with over 200 acres of new trees. And what will these trees be replaced with ? Not buildings or roads but a bigger reservoir. So trees are good and more water is evil?? Oh and all those trees the city wants to save are where- yeah that's right in the county where they are not the duly elected representatives of that area. The city takes our tax dollars and thinks they should control of what is in the county's best as well.

Betty Mooney and her ilk would have you believe that the city paid for very new and reviewed preliminary study shows a cheaper dam, it is just another smoke screen of delay and FUD. The water gang are masters of Fear, Uncertainly and Doubt to delay this project and wear everyone down. They aren't here to save ratepayers, they only want to strangle the water supply so the city can control any possible growth in the county.

This four board hearing was a shameful exercise and the city callous and false concern shows they have been hijacked by folks that say they want to save rate payers but are just using water as a weapon to strangle the county and impose city council agenda on a parcel of land that is in the county to begin

1. The city says if they allow us to build a bigger dam people won't save water, anymore. That is provably false and counters everything that history has revealed. During the drought people cut back 30% of usage and have done a great job to keep demand lower by many different means. to believe the city's logic if a new dam is built the area residents will suddenly become callous and stupid. It's the city belief that only by their enlightened governance can the future be saved.

2. The city is doing it to save trees! Wow this may be the silliest and most insincere reason yet. The 150 acres of trees will be replaced with over 200 acres of new trees. And what will these trees be replaced with ? Not buildings or roads but a bigger reservoir. So trees are good and more water is evil?? Oh and all those trees the city wants to save are where- yeah that's right in the county where they are not the duly elected representatives of that area. The city takes our tax dollars and thinks they should control of what is in the county's best as well.

Why doesn't the County supplement its water supply by using Beaver Creek? Because RWSA lans to use that $30M it has stockpiled from city and county rate payers? Thank goodness we never formed that transit authority.

Let's see Betty Mooney won't answer about Kuttner leaving Charlottesville because of a burdensome and over meddling government.( she suggested he is someone we should listen) Is it only 2010 Kuttner and not the 2006 Kuttner we should listen to?

She won't discuss explain or acknowledge that she inserted herself in a public meeting where she wasn't staff or duly appointed to be a member of any board and there was no public comment permitted.

She won't speak to the fact as cited by DEQ in the August 2nd letter that the Norris plan reducing safe yields as previously approved by 10%.

She won't say how reduced safe yields will allow for more water for river and streams below the dam as she claimed the Norris would provide

She won't talk about the fiscal prudent move of increasing capacity by 400% for very few ratepayer dollars.

Betty you talk about compromise but truly you don't believe in it. Compromise would be to allow the county to pay for a full height dam- you have never proven the harm that would come to the city if that "compromise" was allowed. You want and will only accept the Norris plan. Like your definition of free enterprise your concept of compromise is not one I understand.

The 2006 agreement was compromise and it's off the table now as far as you and the city are concern. Dictating terms after agreement has already been reached is the antithesis of compromise.

And all talk of per capita water use falling forever is the folly of straight line regression. That line can't go down forever or even with predictive certainty. Are you going to tell the University that they have to stop growing because their water use rates have been going up and are not falling anymore.

And lastly though I asked her several times, she will not type one line that justifies the city ability to limit the county water supply by fiat, which s what the Norris plan does as compared with the 2006 approved compromise plan that had been agreed to.

Betty you always say you happy to sit down and talk about it? Sit down at your keyboard and address these question, if you would be so kind.

So BM, I will assume that you did interrupt the meeting with your note passing and you won't talk or defend your actions. Along with the other myriad of things you won't answer, like:

Why does it matter how the dam is (t the city) if they aren't the ones paying for the increased height?

Why did Mayor Norris withhold the DEQ letter that shows the Norris plan is, according to DEQ, a non starter and an enormous waste of time with it's insistence of building a 13 foot dam?

Why is it OK for the city to exert it's will over Albemarle future? A future the city council wasn't elected to determine?

What's the 1000 acre forest you were going on about?

If you answer these question I'll answer yours.

Songbirds can't find new homes in the replanted forest, really? Don't they build new nest every year? Your analysis is assuming full pool height which won't happen for DECADES. Come on, Betty stop with the half truths. The new forest can be 20 to 30 years old before the full height, maybe much older than that.

The plan doesn't call for the destruction of 980 acres, if so, I haven't seen it. All that is talked about with tree mitigating is about 150 acres. Could you explain this difference?

No one has ever said there should not be dredging, certainly not me. Let's dredge and still build the dam to it's full height as the plan call for. But let's not put dredging in the new plan just so you can delay this plan's adoption.

Ok What about the DEQ letter Betty? Why did Mayor Norris withhold it.

What notes were you passing and why is it OK for you to be part of the meeting? Why can't you answer this?

Why does it matter how the dam is (to the city) if they aren’t the ones paying for the increased height?

Why is it OK for the city to exert it’s will over Albemarle future? A future the city council wasn’t elected to determine?

Just found a bunch of "Not Betty" comments in our spam folder. Not sure why the machine flagged 'em as spam. In any event, sorry, but I couldn't get them out of there without having them post at their original time which was yesterday afternoon, so if you wanna see 'em, you gotta scroll back thataways. Sorry!--moderator

@another try,

It's not just Sally or outsiders who see the hate. I'm a City resident and I am not proud of our behavior when it comes to this particular debate. Opponents of the original plan have been strident, vitriolic bullies toward anyone--but most especially the other authorities involved in the decision-making process--who did not jump to agree with them outright. Sally in particular deserves no such censure as was levied against her at the top of this comment column by "Toto."

I see an asterisked disclaimer below that says "language stronger than 'darn,' insulting words like 'stupid,' ... usually results in the deletion of the comment." That's apparently not true, if you are posting something insulting that amuses or agrees with the approvers. By the alleged rules of the board, Toto should have been struck. Instead, it remains as a testimony of just how much gratuitious nastiness this whole process has generated.

If we click our heels three times, do you think we could go back and try to do this with more dignity and respect? You would think such an educated and engaged community would be beyond the need to sacrifice Goats on artificial altars.

The city has been revealed been as a complete fraud during the meeting yesterday. It's all there on the audio. The city doesn't want the county to have any more water the they (the city council) wants them to. The city mere ownership of the reservoir shouldn't give them the right to put the people of Albemarle at risk for NO reason at all. The city wants to tell the county who is really in charge of the water supply. No compromise from the Council will be arrived at, as usual it's their way or no way. It's time for the county to stand up and just say no more.

The cost to build a bigger damn is almost no more than to build a smaller dam. And the city wouldn't have to pay for a bigger dam. The county has offered to pay the higher cost and not have it cost the city ratepayers a dime. The city council is LYING if they say they won't build a bigger dam to save city ratepayers a dime. The reason that are left not to build a bigger dam are weak and very tenuous.

1. The city says if they allow us to build a bigger dam people won't save water, anymore. That is provably false and counters everything that history has revealed. During the drought people cut back 30% of usage and have done a great job to keep demand lower by many different means. to believe the city's logic if a new dam is built the area residents will suddenly become callous and stupid. It's the city belief that only by their enlightened governance can the future be saved.

2. The city is doing it to save trees! Wow this may be the silliest and most insincere reason yet. The 150 acres of trees will be replaced with over 200 acres of new trees. And what will these trees be replaced with ? Not buildings or roads but a bigger reservoir. So trees are good and more water is evil?? Oh and all those trees the city wants to save are where- yeah that's right in the county where they are not the duly elected representatives of that area. The city takes our tax dollars and thinks they should control of what is in the county's best as well.

Betty Mooney and her ilk would have you believe that the city paid for very new and not peer reviewed preliminary study shows a cheaper dam, it is just another smoke screen of delay and FUD. The water gang are masters of Fear, Uncertainly and Doubt to delay this project and wear everyone down. They aren't here to save ratepayers, they only want to strangle the water supply so the city can control any possible growth in the county.

This four board hearing was a shameful exercise and the city callous and false concern shows they have been hijacked by folks that say they want to save rate payers but are just using water as a weapon to strangle the county and impose city council agenda on a parcel of land that is in actually the county.

This is the text of Kendra Hamilton's letter written to ask Council not to support the 2006 water plan

Sat, 31 May 2008

Friends,

I've been very reluctant to get involved in city politics since stepping down from Council in December, but I'm growing more and more concerned about the 50-year water supply strategy proposed by the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. I believe the citizens are being asked to pay for a pig in a poke, and I have to speak out.

I learned earlier today that Council is preparing to vote Monday night on a resolution endorsing the current water supply strategy. This set off alarm bells so I went online and read it--and learned that the resolution makes no mention of potential cost savings--amounting to as much as $50 million--that might be realized by dredging, nor does it discuss the health of the Rivanna River. Instead the entire focus is on building an enormous dam and pipeline and protecting the Moorman's River--a lovely  resource but one that primarily benefits well-heeled private property owners and those with the transportation and the means to purchase a trout fishing license.

I'm writing, therefore, to plead with you to contact City Council to ask them not to support the resolution at this time. My reasons are as follows:

1) I believe this resolution misrepresents the will of council--or at least my will during the time that I served on City Council. At no time was I presented with accurate information on the costs of dredging while I served on council. I was told that it was impossible to dredge the South Fork of the Rivanna River for less than $200 million and that the costs might be as much as $225 million. Lately, the public has received information that three, private, LOCAL firms are eager to do the job for between $25 million and  $28 million. There is no way that I would have supported the current water supply strategy without significant changes had I been aware of those numbers.

2) I am deeply concerned about the class implications of a plan that privileges the Moorman's River over the Rivanna. The Rivanna is a public resource--there are miles of trails alongside it. The common people of Charlottesville fish in the Rivanna every day--and they aren't sport fishing, they're trying to catch dinner. Yet the water supply strategy endorsed in the resolution (it does not qualify as a plan) completely abandons the Rivanna to the degradation that results from silting--in effect abandoning a city resource and the needs of city residents, potentially tripling or even quadrupling already high water rates--to turn the Moorman's into a theme park "scenic river" which can only be enjoyed by a well-heeled minority.

I am certain that the city manager has justified voting on the resolution on Monday on the grounds that the business community, the state, and our partners in the county need to be reassured that the city council "stands firm" on his water supply strategy. I can assure you they do not. Rivanna has three years to present a plan to the state.

I am equally sure the city manager has responded to councilors' fears or questions about dredging by saying "we can fix it tomorrow." Well, I sat on that dais for four years and I'm here to tell you that "fixing it tomorrow" is a loser of a strategy for creating public policy. Not just because "tomorrow never comes" but most importantly because, in this case, the people who will pay the price are the ordinary ratepayers of Charlottesville and Albemarle.

Now, if we truly had no choice in the matter, that would be one thing. We would simply have to suck it up as a community and figure out a way to pay the cost. But the latest information indicates that we DO have a choice and that staff is seeking to nullify that choice BEFORE  council has an opportunity to fully consider the options available.

So here's what I'm hoping you'll do. Please send an email TODAY to council@charlottesville.org. It could say something like this:

I want a safe, sufficient supply of water for the future of Charlottesville-Albemarle. But I want the decision about that water supply to be based on the best data possible -- on facts, not on scare tactics, momentum, or ignorance. Please vote NO on the resolution to support the current water supply strategy on June 2. And please vote YES on demanding that the sediment studies on the Rivanna River be performed. These studies will tell us accurately and for the first time what the costs and benefits of dredging the Rivanna are--and they will only take 90 days. The decision about the water supply is a 50-year decision. Rushing to take a vote without obtaining full information is an abdication of your responsibility to protect the public.  We have so many needs as a community. If alternative water supply strategies can save us money, it's up to you as our representatives to fully consider those alternatives before endorsing a possibly flawed water supply strategy.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

All the best,
Kendra Hamilton

Edward -

"People that own undeveloped land have the RIGHT to develop it and have as much right to public water as the next guy."

No one says they don't have the right to the water. What is being said is that they don't have the right to demand someone else pay higher taxes or water rates to cover the increased infrastructure needs due to their development. Unless, of course, the developer is willing to share a portion of the profits with all those who now must contribute to his development?

All this is easily explained via orthodox economics using terms like 'spillover costs'.

As always, it amusing to see the right leaning BOS with it's supposed conservative principles up in arms to force citizens of another municipality to contribute to their needs.

As a local yokal, I am tired of the silly development that has just lowered my quality of life and places greater strains on my taxes. I think it's time we took a break, and started making our ewntire community more efficient. Dredge, clean up, and then see where we stand. As it is, Albemarle County is having a hard time taking care of what it already has. The City isn't far behind.

Building permits went up recently to help defray the costs of development. Isn't everyone happy to know that their little deck will now cost more so that

the UVa per capita sentence should say if we reduce per capita by 20% and add 20% more people than we are at the same place.

Betty Why don't you and the mayor come clean about your misleading dedging comparison? GFs number of $223m was for the entire 50 years not just one time and was put together when fuel prices were at their highest ever in our history! Gas was $3.50 a gallon! Their previous number of $143m was also for the entire 50 years but when fuel prices were lower. HDRs number of $40m before the sale of sand is for one time. One time only - not 50 years. GFs estimate for one time dredging was - you guessed it - $40m! You can't compare 50 years of dredging (norris plan) with one time! If you want to go with the norris plan and dredge for 50 years then you'd better get ready to fork over $140 - $223 million!

well confused did he work against the city's interest while he was city manger or not? You suggest that he did. That is are the question that I'm asking you. You could just answer the question

It's quite simple did he work against city interest while the 3 councilors were in office or not. If the answer is yes why did the councilors sit idle by?

Old Timer- you and others here have a lovely time guessing my motivation and various personal details. It's the most amusing part of the whole thread by far. You can continue to try divine my true motivations with a dowsing rod no doubt.

And Betty, thanks for coming back in and ignoring that UVa total water use rates have head back up . That building more buildings that use water saving tech doesn't negate that those new buildings use more water. And that your entire last statement about per capita use ignores the fact that they just more people. If we reduce per capita use by 80% and add 20% more people then we are using the same amount of water. Spin it all you want UVa total water used is increasing.

Listening to Dede talk about the "trial" of the 4 boards was hysterical. Calling the county supervisor an angry mob. Betty accuses Fredrick of being a county dupe. And Coy fawns over them as all, as he always does. When caller LF said that he disagreed with Betty, Dede and the gang and bought in his facts (he claimed to be a former BOS member) Lynch only can respond with "I believe" I'm right. He's only response was let's put it all out to bid and find out what's cheapest. What's cheapest isn't what is always best. No one would mention that the Norris plan would proved 10% lower safe yields and would provide less water for preserving down stream flows.

And as always Betty please consider answering any of the question list in this thread that you have ignored.

wow. this is an interesting microcosm of many political debates today. one group that seems to have the facts all mixed up is livid and ranting and ready to kill, and another group that are not homogeneous but have thoughtful nuanced arguments sand up and are confused by the vitriol. not betty, if you are not one of the developers or rswa apologists (er, developers and engineers and construction companies) who want to make money off the public dime, then you are a champion kool aid drinker on this issue. I heard about a study that showed when people hold a position that is proved to be wrong they entrench even further despite the proof...i guess thats why rush and glenn are millionaires....

You people should know that if you raise the water level by 1 foot at the dam you would increase the capacity of the south Rivanna reservoir by 150 million gallons.

This time City Council got it right.
Dredge, baby, dredge!
I do think though that we need do more with water conservation. We still waste so much water. With this drought, why aren't there water restrictions in place? Imposing milder restrictions could even alleviate the need for more stringent ones later on if the drought continues.
I still see people washing parking lots and watering lawns(and sidewalks) despite the lack of any substantial rain in the past couple months.
Unless there is a gas spill,there is no sense in wasting water washing down parking lots at any time. And if there is a major drought I don't want to not be able to take a shower or flush the toilet because some idiots have wasted thousands of gallons of water on their acres of stupid lawns!
If not building a new reservoir makes the development interests decide not to ahead with with some projects that eat up more open space, that will be the greatest consequence of Council's decision.

Cville Voter,

City water use has gone down, but if the city grows, eventually it will need more water. However, the increased demand will be far slower because of the improved water savings. As the City grows very slowly, clearly this is a water plan that primarily benefits the County.

Considering the attitude of the County residents posting right here on this forum, I say the City should put their boot up their backsides, and tell them to learn how to dig for water. Long ago the City invested in the infrastructure to supply the City with water. The County has used these resources long before and long after annexation, because it was not staying a county.

Time to man up County and learn how to live off well water.

The audio is now available of yesterday's 4 Board Meeting. Many citizens are calling to ask what happened at the meeting. News accounts are very confusing.

This decision will have a huge impact on water rates for all City residents and half of the county who are not on wells.

It will also mean the possible destruction of 100's of millions of dollars of City owned water infrastructure and County control of future infrastructure that the city will be forced to pay for, under the guise of " maintenance costs", instead of calling it what it really is, infrastructure for county growth.

Please listen to the podcast of the meeting, not just the written report, and decide for yourself what is going on:

:
http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2010/09/four...
rds_on_water.html

To another try: You gotta be kidding. Can you name one time the county has put aside its own interests and acted in favor of city interests? Let's see, they tried to violate the revenue sharing agreement and take our school money . . . they're trying to bully the city into paying for more water for the county (water use in the city is going down). . . they've failed to build the Sunset-Fontaine connector even though they said they would . . . Kudos to Dave Norris and the other City Council members for standing up to the county bullies. I say, if county residents don't like the city looking out for its own interests, then move to Louisa County.

It appears that all this debate is water under the bridge. The Council already caved in to dredging being outside the water plan and only for the upper parts of the south fork. They agreed to build the whole dam and let the state tell them how much water to put in it. The Mayor also had egg on his face for lying about the official letter from DEQ read by Anne Mallek. His plan won't meet demand, won't meet river flows and costs more than the approved plan. It's that simple. And the DEQ said it'll be a major deal to change. The mayor got his britches blown off by a room full of fiscally responsible, environmentally smart, factually accurate (finally!) people who questioned him when other Councilors meekly capitulate.

Betty, if you decide to run for city council, you have my vote

I may be stvpid, but didn't the Hook publish nude pictures of women? So you're concerned for offending whom exactly with the ban on the word "stvpid?" We can see teh bewbs, but not say an idea is stvpid?

Just curious.

@Michael: Guilty as charged: LINK Now please get back on the topic of dredging and damming (if that's still possible).--hawes spencer

What I'm suggesting is the letter from the August 2 letter and the study released on July 25th may not contain exactly the same wording and conclusions- I say this because of the reaction to the BOS mention of the letter and the councils reaction that they never saw it.

That says to me that there must have been something that were different. If it was exactly the same, then why did it cause such a stir? If someone knows the answer please feel free to enlighten me and this blog.

It's not just the analysis that is in question but that the alternative may generate an entire new permitting process that is the issue here. Basically that the DEQ official states that the Norris plan doesn't meet 2006 approved safe yield flows and may start a new permitting plan

Again, if the August 2 letter and the July 25th study are exactly the same then I'm at a lost to explain why it was such an issue on the tape of the Tuesday meeting.

What I hope reasonable fact oriented citizens will see, once they realize that you can't drive a car by looking in the rear view mirror is that -there is NEW INFORMATION, and any fiscally responsible elected officials would take that information into account, if it meant spending less of the taxpayers money and destroying less of their citizens assets.

How can anyone disagree with this ?

Mayor Norris's plan supplies plenty of water to city and county homes and businesses for 40 years and provides a safety valve, every 10 years, to monitor- if we need to add more height to the dam, or some other better solution that may arise in the next 40 years.

Our country will never progress if we are unwilling to change course when the facts dictate that. That is the beauty of the free enteprize system we live in , creative individuals like Oliver Kuttner will lead the way and creative leaders like Dave Norris will be right there alongside him.

Cville voter If you don't think an already approved plan from DEQ has any merit then what more is there to talk about? Your dismissiveness without argument or consideration of any of my previous points show that you don't even think that a detail response is worthy of your time. That is fine but it doesn't improve your case for waiting, delaying, and removing the county's sovereignty.

The pipeline really isn't worth talking about yet since you just throw it up there to avoid so much else the on the table. You don't think that a pre approved and agreed by all parties plan is worth anything. Why it the world would you care what I have to say about the pipeline. Changing the subject from why the city can limit the dam height to 13 feet and restart the entire permitting process is something no one has yet explain to me in a rational and reasonable way.

If someone can make a compelling argument on why the city can exert it's will over Albemarle citizens other than mere ownership of the land, I would love to read it. Otherwise your pipeline question is a mere side show to avoid the central questions I've raised.

Moderator what about this comment?

Not Betty Mooney September 23rd, 2010 | 11:03 am

It's still waiting as well and has several question that I would like the real Betty Mooney to answer, if she would be so kind.

Thanks for the un spamming

"Not Betty Mooney," if you are suggesting that Charlottesville Tomorrow and the Daily Progress did not run an article on July 25 on the very DEQ analysis which you claim was "hidden" until this week, even though the Charlottesville Tomorrow website clearly says the article was published there and in the newspaper on July 25, then I don't think I can help you any longer.

"Not Betty Mooney," the DEQ analysis you keep referring to as being "hidden" from City Council was written about in an article with a banner headline across the front page of the Daily Progress back on July 25. I believe they call that "hiding in plain view." Charlottesville Tomorrow had to FOIA the analysis from DEQ, because DEQ's preference is to NOT play the heavy, but rather remain on the sidelines and let the City and County work things out. That analysis was old news by the time the Four Boards met this week. Since DEQ wrote its letter, members of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Supply went down to Richmond to meet with DEQ to point out several inaccurate assumptions in its analysis. DEQ has yet to respond to that input. Try another conspiracy theory, because this one doesn't hold water.

I disagree with your new information because- where does it stop when making a decision of this magnitude. There will always be new information when it take years to come to agreement. City Council is once again trying to undo what previous council have agree to. Agreement was reached by all parties in 2006 and the DEQ permitted a plan.

What did the DEQ say about your new information (which I assume is the Norris plan)? It said it could start the process all over again, meaning it could be disapproved and then we are we?. The DEQ also said the Norris plan reduce safe yield as calculated by the 2006 approved plan by 10%.

What about Albemarle's right to determine what is the best course to keep it's citizen's water supply for decades to come? Why can't you answer this question?

The free enterprise system??? What in the world does the city dictating to the county have to do with that? How does that even relate to this? Essential government service (which the water supply is) are clearly not part of it. If you beleive in the free enterprise system then let the county build the additional height it will pay for. Anything else is the county straining under city fiat and control

But including Kuttner in a defense of the city- well my, my.
I love Kuttner to but nobody has fought the city more and if you seem to forget that he left this town for Lynchburg to develop his car and real estate- Why? He didn't like the amount of control that the city exerted over him. Even your champion of free enterprise had to throw off Charlottesville's yoke of control and more full engage in the free enterprise in another city.

The x prize winner could have been designed and built in Charlottesville but city government meddling prevented that from happening

Not Betty, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. It seems obvious to me that plans should be reconsidered when new information comes to light. And how can you not consider the cost of the pipeline? That's like saying, "Let's build a foundation for a house and not worry now how much the actual house will cost."

Still waiting to hear if you are a rate payer or not.

Okay, we found that our ban on the word "stvpid" (misspelled intentionally because it's so insulting) was killing a bunch of comments that otherwise didn't violate our rules. So we're gonna let that one slide for a while. But don't push us. Or we'll make that word verboten again. (And as a matter of fact we did take down the insulting post about Sally Thomas yesterday morning. Don't ever use our space to insult people!)--moderator

"It is an undemocratic power grab by city council and should be exposed"

From the city charter: "The council of the city, except as hereinbefore provided, shall have the power within said city to control and manage the fiscal and municipal affairs of the city and all property, real and personal, belonging to said city-"

I live in the city and I voted for city councilors to manage the affairs of the city in a way that serves my best interests as a city resident, not the interests of anyone who lives in another locality. I believe the plan the mayor devised and council approved does serve my and the rest of the city's best interests. It would be "undemocratic" for them to do anything else.

Not Betty,
You don't help your case by making serious, unsubstantiated accusations. The explanation for the DEQ letter is clear: Dave Norris hadn't seen it before the joint meeting. Nor is it a big obstacle. The permit gives permission for a plan, it doesn't require that we do it. We could ask for a new permit.

You have avoided answering other questions. For example, if the dam is raised 45 feet, how will the reservoir be filled to that level? The plan calls for building a $63 million pipeline to pump water uphill. The county has not promised to pay for all of that, which is by far the biggest ticket item in the entire plan.

Not have you explained why there is a rush to raise the dam. We have plenty of water for the next several years, especially if we dredge. We can build the dam later if needed. What's your hurry?

I'd be curious to know whether you pay water rates in the county or use a well.

980 acres at Ragged Mr. Natural Area, I stand corrected. When you build dams and roads in a pristine Natural Area you severely impact the survival rate of species that depend on large contiguous stands of mature forest. We are all blessed with this gem of nature, so close to the City, and it is in all of our best interests not to destroy it. Dredging, conservation and a small dam will suffice.

"The Ragged Mountain Natural Area (RMNA) is a beautiful 980-acre park located two miles south of the Charlottesville city limits. With its mature forest and rugged topography, RMNA offers near wilderness hiking within minutes of town."

Smithsonian Finds Exceptional Habitat at RMNA

"Forest songbirds have been in serious decline for several decades. In the summer of 2002, Dr. Matthew Etterson of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center conducted a research project on the effects of forest fragmentation on nesting success of Wood Thrush at several sites in the Piedmont, including Fernbrook, Humpback Rocks, Betsy Bell, Fortune's Cove, Natural Chimneys, Paul State Forest and Ragged Mountain Natural Area. He found that among all these sites, Ragged Mountain Natural Area proved to be not only the most productive, with a total of 64 nests, but also the site of greatest nesting success. Etterson attributed that success to the maturity of the forest and the protective topography of the land."

http://www.cvillewater.info/threat.html

@ not-so&so
If you take the time to read the recent information being disclosed you'll see that in fact the DEQ letter clearly states that the so-called "Norris Plan" can meet streamflow requirements for a demand of 16.8 mgd (dredging and dam restoration on page 5 in the letter)-- which low and behold is what the RWSA sanctioned "Swartz Report" came up with for a revised demand in 2055 (not 2060 which is the card trick Swartz played.)
My oh my.... Norris was right all along.

So .. if you take the time, here are the sources:
DEQ letter at http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/docs/water/20100802-DEQ.pdf

Swartz report at http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2010/08/swar...
You can do the math, or simply look at the graph. He assumes a drop of 3 mgd from the UNADJUSTED Gannett Fleming trend line. Even without consideration of a per capita drop in use, that comes out to 16.6 mgd in 2055. (19.6 - 3 = 16.6 mgd)

I'm from the county and I do not support the building of a dam and pipeline to facilitate it's further development and the enrichment of a select few at the expense of the rest of us.
Even though I realize that development is inevitable, after seeing the discrepancies in figures used by those who want this done right now I think we should hold off.
I feel someone should be held accountable for the costs of all the studies necessitated by the use of figures which were found to be vastly inflated to make one side of the argument look feasible.
Even if culpability on the part of the RSWA can not be proven their house should be cleaned out for ineptitude.

The beauty of the Norris Plan is that it takes the new information into account, and is a compromise. Compromise needs to be a way of life, both locally and nationally. We are all fortunate to live in a country where we have a choice.

The construction climate is very favorable right now and dredging and repairing the dam with the 13ft rise should move forward. As I said, there are expedited dredging permits available, from the Army Corp of Engineers, and any dredger will tell you, our reservoir is a straight forward, low cost job, using a market based approach.

None of us can afford to be wasteful anymore. Many are suffering, and cannot afford higher utility bills. We already have one of the highest prices for water in the state.

The Norris Plan does address your concerns- please read Mayor Norris's new blog post

http://cvilledave.blogspot.com/

Besides the charge that the stream flows will not be adequate, in the Norris Plan, the other charge is that it does not provide enough water for the county. This is untrue.

Dede Smith answered this question from a concerned citizen and we welcome all the concerns that both City and County residents have and will attempt to provide factual information to address them. It is heartening to see so many citizens engaged in this important decision, better to get it deliberate, when there is no water shortage or crisis, than to build something we do not need, and cannot pay for, without huge rate increases for our citizens and the loss of tens of thousands of irreplaceable trees.

Here is what Dede wrote:

You are right that population will go up... we've never disputed their projections and in fact their projections are very accurate. Population HAS gone up 12% in the last decade BUT in that same period, water use has gone DOWN 25%.

This is largely because of a federal mandate in the mid 1990s that lowered the maximum water use by household plumbing fixtures. I know that sounds lame but look around, we are a largely residential community and even our industry is people oriented (think education and tourism)

What this means is that PER CAPITA use is decreasing, which also means that the rise in water use tied to each person moving in slows down.

The projections upon which the plan is based used data from 1973 -2001. For most of that time, urban water was used by the old Charlottesville housing stock... we're talking 5 gallon toilets minimum not to mention showers and faucets .. all of which were made more efficient in the federal law (by a LOT) . In fact the percent water reduction expected from that law is 30-40% per household. That's a BIG difference... in fact if you do the math, by 2055 it means ~5 millions gallons PER DAY less... that's down from under 20.

We are still down more than 25% below what the plan projected (based on that old fashioned water use) and it is clear we haven't changed out all our old fixtures, esp toilets.

That doesn't even take into account the 32% reduction in per capita use by UVA which is still 20% below 1999 or the innovations taking place in the business community which are of course financially motivated to reduce their water use (we have among the highest rates in the state)

Have you noticed that while there has been a drought watch in much of the state since mid summer there is none here. RWSA just "requested" that people conserve but their computer models all say we are fine for now.

Yes, SFRR looks awful.. of course it does, it's shallow, slited in, it'll be the first to "look bad" but the fact is most of the storage is deep by the dam. What you see is a small portion of the overall storage. But what you see is also the most valuable in terms of recreation.

So let's kill two birds with one stone and encourage dredging because it will sustain us for a LONG TIME... at least 2-3 decades, possibly more if water use per capita continues to fall.

Not Betty,

"When can’t the owner of a property be over ruled by the sovereign power in a necessary public service?"

Because the Virginia State Constitution says they can't. Imminent domain has much bigger limitations, ESPECIALLY when something is being done for the benefit of say...um...development and developers? Why would either the County or the City be growing much if it weren't for development? Growth is not an absolute.

Dawg, why have you skip over the many other things I've addressed?
Environmental concerns of down stream flows, sovereignty of the county being usurped by the city, are lakes evil and trees good?, and many others.

You can pronounce the Norris plan as conservative but you cannot prove your claim. Conservative is paying 1% more construction cost to increase the capacity 400%. Add to the Norris plan the withholding of the DEQ letter to other councilors and you have a plan that can' t get approved by the state. Plus the city isn't saving city ratepayers money if the county pays for a taller dam- and that is all the city should be concerned with-leave the county concerns to the elected county officials.

Given the state of the economy we should get the most bang for our buck. Building the damn to it's full height makes sense and gives us investment in infrastructure that's actually great for the economy.

All "Not Betty Mooney" focuses on is money. (And she is wrong about the approved plan being too expensive.) Cost is important, but it's not the only consideration. The city--and rightly so--took multiple factors in addition to cost into account when making the decision. Given the state of the economy, it's likely that water demand will not grow as much as forecast. The Norris plan is indeed a more conservative approach.

I don't see how not finishing our first reservoir, which won't ever need to be dredged and was never intended to be a park, and instead building two more dams on rivers that are creating flow issues and will always be prone to sediment is considered the most susstianable solution. Its too late now, but had we simply raised the Ragged Mountain dam 50 years ago, Sugar Hollow and South Fork could have been avoided altogether. Those dams also created tree loss and construction and maintenance costs, so why are they so precious? A true long term plan would find a way to eliminate the south fork dam altogether since it blocks a major river and will have to be dredged FOREVER, as opposed to Ragged which doesn't block anything and will never need to be dredged. Also, Ragged was built before any interstate, but South Fork was built with 2 roads already crossing it, how intelligent was that decision? It seems silly to have walked away from our first dam, built two more, and now consider the youngest one the most precious and deserving of preservation.

I meant now that we have 3 dams.

The latest information is that the present dam at Ragged Mt. is in excellent condition and only needs a spillway repair. The City paid for this study and if further study is needed I hope they will trust their own consultant to provide it, and not return to engineers and consultants, who previous to any study of the dam declared it to be unsound. That would again be a set-back, and not provide factual unbiased information to base a sound decision on.

There is no reason to build a new dam, now that we know it is cheaper to repair the very sound dam we already own and should maintain.

Well now my comments are getting stuck "awaiting moderation"
what's gives?

Not Betty Mooney, I've had that occur too -if you put in too many links it holds up your post.

By the way, let me know who you are so we can sit and talk. If you don't want to reveal yourself here, just contact me at

cvillewater.info

while my other comments to Betty await moderation I have read the letter dated August 2 that Mayor Norris didn't share with the other councilors before the debate- something he has yet to explain.

the letter says that the council was researching methods "beyond the permitted approach". That means new approvals and more delays
further it says that the yield of the plan would be 10% below the 2006 permitted application safe yield. That means less water than approved Dede.

The letter further says "These storage volumes assume the full Ragged Mountain expansion is completed." and even clearer the letter says that the permit would need to be "significantly reworked" and that these changes would force DEQ to review whether these would constitute a DIFFERENT PROJECT and "require a new permit application".

The Norris plan is laid bare in this letter and it's about stopping the 2006 permit cold and giving the city the power to dictate the county growth for decades to come. It is an undemocratic power grab by city council and should be exposed

Well Betty you have of course gone to the old chestnut of question my motives or guessing what motivates me to some how justify cravenly ignoring of any of the previous question I have ask you.

You're just a citzen who has stood astride this issue as a self appointed expert yet can't or won't answer the simplest question I've put to you. One wonders why your own interest is beyond question?

Betty cutting and pasting isn't argument nor debate. Your refusal to answer the simplest question like how does reducing the safe yield 10% actually make rivers flows safer is troubling but you can still fix that. I ask you again to answer the many question you have avoided. Really why are you so reluctant to engage. Do you not have answers or do you just want to admit that I'm right.

"not" i'm the one who questioned your motive. you have been at this allday and seem really angry so much that sometimes all your point is lost in attacking.who has that energy to waste. i'm tired just reading

Old timer you're a real hoot and a horrendous judge. If you have a problem with ad hominem attacks look no further than the defenders of the Norris plan. The Norris dictators has attacked the motives of everyone in this process that hasn't agreed with them. Tom Fredrick, Gary O'Connell, the entire county, and any study that hasn't gone there way.

I have given countless reason that are based on logic that Betty and you have no answer for. You can say or write anything you want but have talk about how the Norris plan reduces safe yields 10% from the 2006 city/county compromise and already approved plan? that's just for starters

Well what do you got Old timer , real logical refutation or more ad hominem attacks and armchair psych evaluations. Character assassination of me and my motives shows that you got nothing but disdain.

has any one estimated teh yearly costs of pumping all that water uphill yet? will Albemarle pay for that cost or is it going to be us in the city i wonder. this summer i visited an old watermill and saw how much power water going downriver produced so i think it must take alot of power to send water back up. its more than 9 miles uphill isn't that the plan.who pays that?

Not Betty,

"Old timer said the some folks from the county want to destroy city assets, Old Timer supports the Norris plan- is that so difficult to understand?"

Well it is, if that is what Old Timer said. I went back and read Old Timer's comments, and while I saw the first part, I never saw the second part. What I have gleaned from Old Timer's comments are that he/she is pretty much opposed to doing any more development in the County or major capital investment regarding the water supply. The basis seems to be the opinion that neither municipality is doing a good job taking care of what they already have, especially the County.

That hardly qualifies as support of the Norris plan.

So, what don't YOU understand about that? Pretty rational to me.

Old Timer the use of not before someone's name is quite common. Not Larry Sabato became quite famous- it's not an attack but an clear statement of opposition. You don't spend a second wondering where I might be on the issue of water. On this we will simply have to disagree. You can continue to call me juvenile as you wish.

It's was unclear to me from what you had written that you didn't want the Norris plan, do you want no plan at all? I get that you don't like anyone from the county government and think O'Connell is unfit to serve but what do you actually support? I assume you don't want the 2006 plan and that's why I thought you wanted the Norris plan. But if you don't want either you better hope this ends up in the courts for decades because the state is eventually going to make us do something

The fact that you brought up the "destroy the assets" argument means you believe it has some merit- that is what I responded to. If you think it is one person screaming at the wind that was not clear from what you wrote.

As for the 10% reduction of safe yield under the Norris plan- I'm am happy to tell you where it came from -DEQ. The letter dated
August 2 says that the Norris plan with dredging and dam renovation will produce 16.8 mgd- that is less than the projected demand in the 2006 joint permit application of 18.7 mgd.
16.8 is 89.8% of 18.7 which a difference of 10.2%. Rounded down to 10%. The only numbers that matter in approving this plan are the ones that DEQ and the state accept and permit-everything else is just a maybe.

Betty, you have alleged the RWSA is controlled by special interest and yet when asked to explain or prove it-silence. Why are you protecting these people with your silence or is your accusation just another attack that no one ever challenged before?

Your are either doing a disservice to the public with your silence or character assassination of public, appointed and elected officials-that is shameless. Care to comment, no of course not.

Let's support the 2006 city/county approved plan with it's higher safe yields and well designed earthen dam. It provides for both the county and city with the county paying for the higher dam. It's already been approved and doesn't use a city only paid for study that is just preliminary study that has yet to be peer reviewed.

And Mr Martin quit and is no longer a decision maker or member of the board- kind of like you are, come to think of it- so why does he matter now?

Mr Martin matters, because he said he quit to lobby for the 2006 dam/pipeline plan, which the Nature Conservancy takes credit for.

I admire his passion for the environment and hope someday he will admire mine as well. But, this is not a conservation plan it is a water supply plan, as Mr Crutchfield has eloquently articulated. I believe the Norris Plan is both fiscally conservative and environmentally sustainable and is the best path forward for the city and county ratepayers.

Mr Crutchfield thoughts are worth repeaating as written to the Hook:

What is the professional qualification of the Nature Conservancy for developing this plan? Apparently, an official with the Nature Conservancy devised it. According to its website, the Nature Conservancy’s mission is ââ?¬Å?to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.” The Nature Conservancy performs this mission admirably. However, designing municipal water systems is not one of their core competencies. Prudent businesspeople would not have based a decision on a plan developed by an organization that did not have the appropriate expertise and experience.

Did the Nature Conservancy understand the full environmental impact of their plan? It has been reported that their plan calls for clear cutting 54,000 trees over 180 acres. Apparently, the Sierra Club now understands the plan’s impact and is withdrawing its endorsement of it. Prudent businesspeople would have understood all aspects of a plan before adopting it.

How much money will local water customers pay and how large is the carbon footprint for the incremental electricity production? Little has been said about the energy needed to pump enormous quantities of water through a 9.5 mile pipeline and then up a small mountain. Prudent businesspeople would factor the financial and environmental costs of a plan that requires the use of so much electrical energy.

http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/14/crutchfield-im-no-d...

@Not Betty Mooney- The reason the 10% greater safe yield is a sticking point between us is- it has far greater implications than just how much water is available in times of drought, both for people and rivers.

Several questions come to mind - What does it cost to provide 10% more, and do we even need that 10% more now, that our actual water usage has dropped 22% over the last 10 years, and this is a trend of using less water overall. In other words, our actual usage is 22% below the RWSA plan estimates for our future needs for water, even though our population has increased, and more homes and businesses have been hooked up to the system.

If this trend continues do we need the dam at all, or will dredging give us all the water we will need ?

The beauty of the modifications to the plan by City Council are; they allow us to assure an abundant water supply, and at the same time, do not lock us into a huge mistake in our calculations, that could add a hundred million dollars more to the cost, and necessitate unneeded water rate increases.

Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan would argue; we need no rise on the Ragged Mt. dam, to supply all the water we need in the state required 30 - 50 year time frame, but the City Council Plan provides more than we need, which we see as a compromise with those who argue for an oversupply.

The entire water plan is to store water in our reservoirs in times of drought, so that the community is assured a safe water supply, when no rain is coming into the system.

We can see what happens when that storage runs low and the community is asked to conserve, to make sure they do not run out of water, by just looking around the state. Recently, communities in the Richmond area went under mandatory restrictions. Our system did not. This shows that currently, because of the 10 year trend of lower water usage, even though our population has increased, we have more storage capacity than in the last ( what some call) the drought of record in 2002.

Some would argue, that to so overbuild the supply, by building new reservoirs and dams, is an unnecessary expense for the ratepayers, who must then see their rates increase, to pay the money, that must be borrowed ( debt) and the interest payments on this debt.

Others argue, that in order to attract businesses to the area, and developers, who will expand the housing stock, you must have that oversupply ahead of time, so that these developers are assured water for whatever they want to build.

I believe the City Council modifications to the 2006 plan provides a balance. It provides both an abundant water supply in times of drought, and does not tamp down development. It allows a decade by decade assessment of the actual use; so that the system is not locked into costs associated with unneeded oversupply, and gives the community the flexibility, which is actually mandated by state law, to reassess the actual needs on a decade by decade basis.

Currently the dam/pipeline plan is based on a water use in 50 years that this year is 22% too high, in other words we are using 22% less water overall, than the consultants Gannett Fleming determined when they calculated how much water we will need in 50 years

A far more accurate determination of the amount of water we have in the system now, taking into account more water resources than either the last consultant, or the most recent consultant did, is required by the State to be completed by next year.

There is now a state law that Governor Mark Warner pushed through, when he was in office, that every locality, by law, must submit a 30 - 50 year water plan to the state for approval. That plan is due next year. The RWSA permits for water withdrawal do not qualify for the state plan, nor does the Gannett Fleming analysis of how much water we will need in 50 years, or the updated review of the Gannett Fleming analysis by Swartz.

The State mandated Water Plan, requires a more thorough analysis of how much water we have, and how much water we will need in the 30 -50 year time frame. This review is a critical one to determine the safe yield for the system, which is currently outdated in the RWSA analysis.

Not Betty Mooney, I hope you agree that this is the most critical information to assure that our community has all the water it needs, and at a cost it can afford. Let us both lobby RWSA to get this done now, because they must do it by next year. We both know you can't build a dam in a year, whether it is concrete or earth, and then you can rest assured that your major concern- stream flow to the Moorman's River is taken care of.

One previous commenter also pointed out, that if the need is shown to be there, the City Council plan actually provides for more than the 10% in safe yield that seems to be your major complaint with their modifications to the plan.

Here is a Hook report on dropping water use and rising debt:

http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2009/03/02/usage-dwindles-but-...

The area described in Mayor Norris's new blog post can be seen in this 2008 slideshow by Hawes Spencer

I agree with Mayor Norris, if you have never been there; Fall is a beautiful time to go because of the magnificent colors of the oak, hickory, maple, and many other varieties of trees.

http://www.readthehook.com/galleries/g/ragged-mountain#http://www.readth...

I do not understand why one of my comments is awaiting moderation. It's long, but there is nothing I can possibly find wrong with it.

Would you take a look Hawes?

Jim Nix and Ken Boyd, thanks Bill, that says it all !

Saying the county will pay for all the costs is a red herring. First, RWSA has already spent a lot of city rate payers' money to plan these projects. Second, the county says it will pay for all the costs of "growth" but not "maintenance." But how do you define that? I'm guessing that they will try to define the new $63 million dollar pipeline as "maintenance," for example, and charge the city half. Not to mention the annual costs of pumping water uphill for nine miles.

Further, the harm of building the dam to its full height, besides the cost, is the loss of a beautiful natural area (assuming the reservoir is filled to that height).

The Santa Barbara example is relevant, I believe. No, we won't build a water salination plant. But that only cost SB $34 million, when the county plan will cost a minimum of $140 million--with interest nearly $300 million. Now, I know that some of that is for needed maintenance. But a lot of it is for new water that, I predict, we will never need, even taking into account population growth in the county. In fact, I believe that dredging alone will provide plenty of water for all the growth you county folks want, as new water saving technology (much of it mandatory) kicks in. You may disagree. Why don't we wait and see who's right?

To Old Timer: It is unlikely the city will ever need more water, for two reasons. First, there will be only very limited growth in the city, in terms of population. Second, per capita water use is going down. Last year, the city used less water than it has in 35 years.

the more I read from "not" the more questions I'm having. funny that someone would have an emotional reaction so intensely about this subject. betty and other's I can understand,but who does this allday with out a real good reason. what's that reason "not"? why does this matter so much that you would spend a whole day writing. i'm lukewarm on norris and worse on the rest,but here is one time they have doen what truely is right for the city and should be applauded.

Cville voter it clearly shows the letter was addressed to him and Chairwoman Mallek, she got it and Norris hasn't public stated that he never received it. The fact remains that the letter that DEQ may have to repermit the entire process and the yields will be 10% less then approved in the 2006 plan. You need to re read the letter.

If the earthen dam is built it will only have to be 42 feet high. That's because 3 feet will be dredged (yeah that's right, dredged) from the base of the dam to provide materials for the dam.The city will still have to approve the pool height before it would increased to it's full height of 42 feet.

If you listen to the meeting the pool height (or fill level) is also determined by the boards. So you can have a dam built to full height and not filled to it's pool height for decades. It gives the maximum flexibility to the boards and doesn't add significant % of cost to the overall project.

My hurry(if one can call a plan that has taken about a decade to get to) this process shows that the wants to change what was already agreed to 4 years ago and currently permitted by the DEQ. Construction cost may never be cheaper. The city not paying for the additional cost.

Why do we have to wait?

"Not Betty Mooney," since you apparently missed it, here is the link to the story from July 25 which discusses the DEQ analysis: http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2010/07/deq_...

Betty thank you for your kind invitation to sit and talk. However, I'm only interested in talk with you in an open forum like this blog. I don't want you passing me private notes, like the 4 board meeting, where you might have expectation of privacy. There has been far too much of that, as you yourself has pointed out on this blog and other places. I have been quite trouble by that meeting and believe the city has stop being an honest broker and it saddens me.

I would be most pleased if you would take the time to respond to my comments once they are moderated (they contained no hyperlinks)

Cookie jar, the city owns the reservoir but it isn't the governing body of that land. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand. They have the rights of a property owner only and not of a sovereign governing body.

What rights have they lost as a property owner to allow a higher dam? When can't the owner of a property be over ruled by the sovereign power in a necessary public service? Why does city get to tell the county how much water it needs in a reservoir that is on county governed land? especially when it's not going to cost the city any money to build the higher down. What is the city's compelling governmental interest

Ownership of the land isn't sufficient cause or condition to limit the right of Albemarle county's elected official to protect the water supply of it's citizenship. This is a basic function of government and in the paper yesterday one board member resigned because in his words it was wrong for the city to put itself in a position of limiting the county's right to self determination.

The city council does not have the democratic right to limit the county ability to provide for it's citizens the water supply they feel (and the state agrees) is necessary to safely protect it from drought and other shortage.

Not Betty--so do you pay water rates or not? And why do you steadfastly refuse to talk about the $63 pipeline and who will pay for it?

The argument that the plan was approved 4 years ago is not at all compelling. There were plans approved before that that were never implemented. And, since then, critical new information has come to light, such as the fact that demand is 25% less than the projections on which the plan was based, and that dredging won't cost the $220 million that Gannett Fleming said it would. You seem to think we should close our eyes and hold our ears and forge on as if we didn't know these things.

That's $63 million for the pipleline, not $63 -:)

Sorry tinfoil- the DEQ letter wasn't addressed till August 4- so your link of July 25th would be before that. Unless you are trying to tell me that CT can predict the future?

And there is an ongoing, did Mayor Norris have the letter or didn't he, which has yet to be resolved in public. Listen to the tape and hear the other councilors say they didn't know about the letter.

Tinfoil- save your aluminum and get your hat to the recycling center you're not making any sense.

billmarshall,

"Did you pay for the infrastructure to your house before it was built?"

Well, now, that's the neato coolio thing about a lot of Charlottesville - many of the homes predate not only the current water supply, but even having things like indoor plumbing and sewers and gas lines. When the time came to put that infrastructure in, you can be sure they knew they would have to pay for it, and not spread the cost across people of the county.

Take a walk sometime down the likes of Yorktown drive. Those homes all still have septic tanks. Ever wonder why? Why, the county didn't offer things like sewer systems. You lived in the County.

What's more, just because someone has been allowed to put their costs off on an entire community in the past, doesn't mean they should still be allowed to today.

I watched tax rates in the County go up to pay for more schools like Monticello High to meet the needs of places like Mill Creek. I'm not interested in doing it now so they can make more money off of huge developments down 20 South. I darn sure don't think the City should have to pay for it, now the County has pretty much forced them into zero growth and even land loss due to the University.

The City doesn't have a water supply problem. But some people in the County - unlike me- sure do.

You want to live in the County, live in the County with well and septic. You want to live in the City, move into the City. Don't expect someone else to provide you City living in the County.

"Let the city represent the city’s interest and the county represent the county’s interest."

Someone was calling that undemocratic earlier in the day....

Why do you get to frame the debate Betty? Why won't you simply admit that the Norris plan means less water, 10% less safe yield.
Water use isn't falling at the University and it's wrong of you to imply otherwise. The University is the engine of growth around here and they are going to need more water. The Pool heights of the dam are going to take decades to raise with agreement from all boards, saying it will never be filled is just a unscientific guess on your part. And again Betty why should you or Mayor Norris care about the extra height if city ratepayers aren't responsible for paying for it?

Betty Mooney won't answer any question if it doesn't further her cause or fit into her agenda. Only you Betty could take Mayor Norris plan and call anyone who doesn't agree to an obstructionist. That only shows you assume Norris is right and everyone else is wrong. I would say that Mayor Norris is the obstructionist to adopting a 4 board solution. He is the one that has taken a decade of agreement and study and sent it off the tracks.

cville eye I would be happy to talk about the pipeline or Beaver Creek but not until Betty deems any of my many asked questions. It's OK for her to only questions she see fit, so I going to do exactly the same. If you got a problem with my non response blame Betty not me. Moving the debate away from the Norris Plan that the DEQ says may be DOA is all anyone here wants to do. The Norris plan isn't a compromise it's the city dictating terms.

Please remember, not me, that 3 of the City Counilors who voted in 2006, on what was a request to go forward with a water withdrawal permit, would not approve it today. They have said they were misled. What we know now would have changed their vote.

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2008/06/12/NEWS-water-GaryProblem-B.a...

I can understand your frustration if you have committed much of your life to improving streamflows on the Moormans, or if you work for the Nature Conservancy, an organization that has invested years of time to get the county plan enacted, in order to make it a national model.

But the truth is, permits are modified all the time, and it is not as onerous as you make it out to be. Reservoirs as small as ours are easily dredged and some don't even require a permit. So all the obstacles that you are throwing up to stop dredging as part of the water supply plan are not unexpected. The savings for ratepayers, far outweigh the minimal cost of modifying a permit.

The truth is, streamflows will be improved in the Norris Plan and the entire plan needs to strike a balance between cost to the ratepayer, streamflows in all the rivers and streams, including the Rivanna, as well as the Moormans and Mechums, and ecological damage to City owned assets that Councilors are responsible for maintaining, as an obligation of their oath to represent City residents.

I hope in time you realize that what you care about is not being ignored in the Norris Plan and that it represents the greatest good for the majority of citizens

Well said, Real Betty!

The new information hasn't been proven by anyone to be a better plan- it's only the possibility of what might be- if approved the Norris plan would also have 10% lower safe yield. A plan that might cost more because in the 2 years it might take to get approved the cost of construction goes up and might make the Norris plan more expensive then building the entire dam now. It's not a fully formed and vetted plan yet and it's wrong of you and betty et al. to pretend otherwise. You all got a big box of maybe and you act like it's shovel ready- it's not even close

Betty why no defense of Kuttner leaving Charlottesville to fully experience the free enterprise system somewhere else from you?

No defense of passing notes and disrupting the last meeting?

Please do me the courtesy of telling me how you improve stream flows by dropping the safe yield 10%. You can't make better flow below the reservoir with less water. We don't disagree that dredging has some merit but it needs to be a separate project at this point. It should get it's own approval and be considered after a really RFP is returned. It's another box of maybe from you. It could work and it could not be approved or be more expensive than you think.

You really shouldn't be so concerned about Albemarle rate payers and saving us money- it's not your job. Let the city represent the city's interest and the county represent the county's interest.

The Norris plan dictates that the city shall be the sole reason the previous plan cannot go forward. That the county offer to pay for the full dam will not be considered even though it allows for safer yields and at fraction of the cost of the project. 400% increase in capacity for nearly no cost. How is that not prudent and a fantastic use of ratepayer money. What about all the money in studies ans delays that would have morehan paid for the extra cost of the higher dam. And now the Norris plan will spend even more to get vetted and approved.

Why Betty have you ignored the questions of Albemarle's sovereignty and self determination, do they discomfort or confuse you? Are your rights more important then mine?

Cville voter: You don't answer anything I asked you and then write I'm ignoring the pipeline. Which really ignores what I wrote previous and proves my point about your defense entirely. Thanks for making that clear to all.

Not Betty, for a start could we agree to insist that RWSA do what they should have done years ago, and put a stream guage monitor above the dam at Sugar Hollow on the Moorman's, so that we can determine what is natural flow on that river ?

Former City Councilors Hamilton, Lynch, and Schilling, have certainly painted a portrait of Gary O’Connell as someone who can't be trusted to work in the City's best interest on this issue.

So why didn't they fire him? They were all his boss. Have they said this in public, somewhere you can link to or is this gossip? I'd like to know.

You and Cville eye are saying that while O'Connell was city manager of Charlottesville, he actively worked against the city's interest and elected official who knew this just let it happen? That Schilling, Hamilton, and Lynch were all duped by the city manager and did nothing about while in office?

I not saying I don't beleive you but you're just going to have to give me more. Gary O'Connell is a man that gave decades of his life working for the city. Two poster have questioned his character with little more than assertions so you excuse me if I ask for a little bit more than just your word.

@Not Betty Mooney, you ask, what right do I have to frame the debate. My group has only asked for better data upon which to base the water plan- does anyone believe that dredging our reservoir will cost $223 million or even close ? Does anyone think water use per capita has not fallen in the last decade? This is NEW information.

And even if UVA grows they are still way below their use a decade ago and all new buildings and students will use far less water with the new plumbing low flow fixtures. I posted Dede's comment above about UVA

"That doesn’t even take into account the 32% reduction in per capita use by UVA which is still 20% below 1999 or the innovations taking place in the business community which are of course financially motivated to reduce their water use (we have among the highest rates in the state)"

Interestingly, the business people I talk to in the City and small developers, are in favor of the Norris Plan, as a way to keep water rates affordable ( good for busineeses too) and to supply a back-up supply for drought. They understand that any business, given new information, would not push forward with outdated data that would mean higher costs or building infrastructure that would go unused for 50 years or longer.

The debate is being framed by the new information, and thank goodness, we have some elected officials not stuck driving their car by looking into the rear view mirror.

I think not only all the City Councilors understand this but several members of the Board of Supervisors as well

I hope more community leaders will have the courage to come forward, as a Republican leader of the county did. Randolph, who said he was a free market conservative and limnologist, with experience in the field of water. He spoke eloquently yesterday on the Coy Barefoot show in support of the Norris Plan.

http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4932870

Not Betty Mooney,

You sure do seem to feel that your are personally losing out on the fact that the taxpayer won't be paying for your property upgrades.

It isn't easy to fire someone in a position like O'Connell was, especially when you manage to bamboozle a few of the more weak minded Councilors.

O'Connell is not someone I want in control of my water supply, and after this winter, I wouldn't want him, and a number of individuals in Albemarle to have the keys over assets like a giant pipeline. They can't handle 26 inches of snow, over the infrastructure you already have, and you think they are capable of something like this?

You need to start answering questions in a rational way instead of making accusations of conspiracies before getting mad at Betty Mooney. I don't agree with all her points but she does actually address them.

Cville eye "p hecotytlltstht o eciy" I have no idea what the heck you've written there but gosh it must be Norris plan code I'm not privy to.

The Norris Plan provides 10% less than the 2006 plan that makes the safe yield of the 2006 plan safer than the Norris plan's yield

Get a grip? Just read the thread above you. Old timer said the some folks from the county want to destroy city assets, Old Timer supports the Norris plan- is that so difficult to understand? Why did Old Timer bring it up if he/she didn't believe it to be true. If you want to say that Old Timer doesn't support the Norris Plan, that might be true but he/she seems to favor it here in the tread. If Old Timer wants to say they don't support the plan then fine.

I don't have any disagreement with what YOU say about O'Connell. But is it too much to ask, if it was true that O'Connell work against city interest (which he has been accused of) to ask why nothing was done by the city councilors, who were his boss? Is it too much to ask that his accusers what it is he actually did?

The reason it matters that the reservoir is in the county is a simple one. Some of the other reasons I have already written about. The Norris plan crowd have used the concerns of a sovereign government (which the city is only in the city limits) to justify concerns the city had about the reservoir. The city is in this case has no more rights than a property owner. So when protecting songbirds (just one example) as Betty has cited on land that isn't the city's isn't their governmental concern. That is best decided by Albemarle county. That can be over ruled by the state or federal government but not the concerns of an adjoining county, unless a court case decides otherwise.

Lastly ad hominem attacks (which are personal in nature), If someone makes statements (like Old Timer or O'Connell accusers) and I ask a question based on their statements that is not an attack. I'll call it by it's proper name an inferential leap allowed by logic and reason by anyone in a debate. You concern would carry more weight if you spent a line or two taking to task those on the other side who you seem to give free reign to questioning my motives with personal attack. If you perceive that as an attack it was not nor is simply naming myself Not Betty Mooney.

The Norris plan crowd is now saying that County folks are opposing the city's idea because we want to destroy city asset (which is actually in the county itself)?! Wow, who is wearing the tin hats now?. It couldn't possible be because we think the Norris plan a terrible idea.

The majority of personal attacks without facts are almost entirely by the Norris crowd. When I have a problem with Betty Mooney it's for a factual and not personal reason. I'm mean "fear mongering overlords" who give us our marching orders. How dismissive you all are of anyone but yourselves being right. The intolerance of someone else view must be attacked and ridiculed because you can't imagine that there could be be any answer but the one cobbled together by Betty and her group and present to Mayor Norris.

The way you twist safe yield calculations is a fantastic bit of fiction and quite possible just a lie. If the Norris plan is adopted we get a 13 foot dam. If we get the 2006 city/county approved plan we get a 42 foot dam. Now you can spin that all you want but you would have to have more construction, more meetings , more agreements to reach the 42 foot height with the Norris plan full implementation.

There is ZERO logic, reason, or physics that make the yield safer in the initial Norris plan than the already approved 2006 city/county 42 foot dam. I do love the use of the world "accommodates" tinfoil, please explain to all, how long and what has to happen for that "accommodation" to actually occur. Is there really anyone here who wants to argue that it isn't faster easier and cheaper to raise pool height on an existing dam then build another concrete structure 29 feet higher? To go though another series of meeting and wait another "earnest" group to come forth with Norris 2 plan.

Betty the surest way to guarantee future water supply is with the 2006 plan and dredging. There is no magic to having more water to have higher safer yields with a bigger dam. There is no better way to make safe downstream flows. You can't say on one hand "we only need a 13 foot dam" but on the other hand "that would provide a higher safe yield than a 42 foot dam" it's just not true.

@Caesonia, glad you brought p hecotytlltstht o eciy. I guess we can confiscate those. Not Betty is definitely not Betty. I am curious to know how is "safer yield" related to "safe yield." Care to explain Not?

Not Betty - I am not a fan of Norris at all, but I think there is little wrong and questioning someone's motives if their logic is shown to be unsound. If a Gary O'Ã?â?¡onnell was doing things that do not appear to be in the best interests of the City, yet as the City Manager, people are well within their rights to ask why. They have a right to try and understand that, and then remove them if necessary.

"The Norris plan crowd is now saying that County folks are opposing the city’s idea because we want to destroy city asset (which is actually in the county itself)?!"

Who of the Norris plan crowd is saying that? Are you suggesting all the people posting on this forum that are annoyed with the county or happen to disagree with the County plan are Norris Plan fans? You have proof of this?

Do you understand this is why you are accused of ad hominem attacks? Do you understand this is why you arguments are viewed as weak?

I know plenty of people in the County who are livid over the revenue sharing arrangement, now it's no longer convenient for them. I would not put it past a few to be that spiteful.

Who cares if the water reservoir is in the County. The County Courthouse, administrative offices, and pretty much entire government is in the City of Charlottesville. Using your logic, I guess that means those are really city assets huh?

Get a grip. Maybe this is why the plan you support is losing out finally to common sense.

Cookie jar that's actually amusing and I've got to love someone who's not putting their real name either give me grief about an incredibly common occurrence on every blog in the county. I have explained the use of "not" if you don't like it there is nothing to do about it. I have followed the rules of the Hook blog and reasoned debate, you say otherwise and that is your right. But you or I don't make the rules here, the Hook does. If you would like to get me banned just ask the folks at the Hook.

I hope you will now spend some time taking about my arguments and facts rather then just say I'm not debating to your standards.

I think that your maintenance question has merit but before it can be considered the city would have to allow for the higher dam. What if the maintenance question could be answered to your satisfaction? What if the county also agreed to pay more maintenance?. As long as a 42 foot dam is off the table we will never know. See, that would be called a true compromise, the Norris plan is still a dictate. Remember the 2006 city/county plan was also a compromise by all parties.

The only reason anyone wants to know who I'm is to take me a apart piece by piece. I would rather have you deal with what I've said because no matter who I was, the moment I said it, the ad hominem by people with a screen name would begin. If you want to use your real name, then by all means feel free. If you choose to deal with my words fine, if not that is your choice.

"the hounds have been The city has been revealed been as a complete fraud during the meeting yesterday. It's all there on the audio. The city doesn't want the county to have any more water the they (the city council) wants them to. The city mere ownership of the reservoir shouldn't give them the right to put the people of Albemarle at risk for NO reason at all. The city wants to tell the who is really in charge of the water supply. No compromise from the city will be arrived at, as usual it's their way or no way. It's time for the county to stand up and just say no more.

The cost to build a bigger damn is almost no more than to build a smaller dam. And the city wouldn't have to pay for a bigger dam. The county has offered to pay the higher cost and not have it cost the city ratepayers a dime. The city council is LYING if they say they won't build a bigger dam to save city ratepayers a dime. The reason that are left not to build a bigger dam are weak and very tenuous.
loosed

C'ville Voter what wrong with the people elected by the people of Albemarle paying for a bigger dam that won't cost the city rate payers more money?? It's not on city governed property. It's really a case of the

Santa Barbara isn't a red herring it's a great red whale and you Ahab if you think the is more to compare then the fact the both involve water.

Is a renewable tree more lovely than a lake? It's not like we are building building there or ruining the landscape by leaving it bare.

The city is saying their judgment is more important then Albemarle's sovereignty and that's just wrong and should be fought with all the county's might.

Not Betty Mooney,

You sound like the guy blaming everyone for getting his car towed, when it was he who left it sitting on the street with way out of date tags and an old rejection sticker. It's everybody else's fault. He just owns the car, and has no role in it's condition.....

"The city mere ownership of the reservoir shouldn’t give them the right to put the people of Albemarle at risk for NO reason at all."

The City isn't putting the people of Albemarle at risk. The people and BOS of Albemarle did.

Albemarle, and its residents, voted to stop annexation, which means all those areas that look like the city around Albemarle High, the outer Hydraulic loop, would now be City residents and the City's problems. But they decided to remain County, and that means they took on the responsibility of providing a denser population with water.

Albemarle's BOS decided to allow sorts of urban sprawl garbage development to take place along the 29 corridor, and directly south of the City, with all the modern conveniences. That means they now have defacto City populations with City water demands.Woops. Guess they should have thought of that huh?

City had nothing to do with it. A long time ago, the City planned to meet expanding water demands for an urban population. Too bad the County didn't make the same plans when they decided to look like a City.

Good for the city leaders for sticking to their guns. I moved from the city to the county only because of family complications, and I cannot stand the people who run the county -- they never met a developer they didn't like, and they act like the county is entitled to do whatever it wants, regardless of the impact on the city. County officials (and the power brokers they toady to) seem to be mostly greedy, selfish republicans--like that jerk who built his mansion on top of a mountain, an eyesore for all to see. I can't wait to move back to the city, where the leaders actually seem to care about what the people want.

I've read the plan and listen to the tape from Charlottesville Tomorrow and it laid bare the city's true intent. http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2010/09/wate... But your condescension on the matter is to be expected.
Dave Norris is a nice guy who has been put in a bad place.

It hurt the city not at all to build the dam to it's full proposed height. It's folly not to when it won't cost the city any money from their rate payers.

The city is trying to exert it's will over people they haven't been elected to serve

Kuttner can design cars but it not an damn engineer so why you think he trumps or adds to this discussion is quite troubling. If he had disagreed with you would you be so swooning in your praise?

It's not being build to current peak demand it's being built for the future. What is so wrong about getting 500% more capacity for almost no additional dollars- that's fiscally prudent. They aren't going to be city dollars anyway.

Betty, the County water board disagree you and the city about the county rate payer, and btw what business does the city have with saving the county ratepayer? It's beyond the cit council's charge, mission and preview.

The Norris plan is a scam that limits the amount of water to MINIMUM standards that has never been the water plans intention. The DEQ won't allow it according to the county.

I have heard from people at the meeting that you and your group actually were passing notes to the city councilors at the meeting. You aren't staff or a part of the board, what were you doing? Telling them what to say?

What wild life will be lost? What about the fish and aquaculture that will be gained? No animals or wide life will be drowned , you do a disservice with your implication. They will move to other places as the water slowly rises.

What 1000 acre forest are you talking about? How about 150 that the plan actually calls for. Have you ever heard of forestry and the fact that trees are a renewable resource? What about the 200 acres of new forest that will be planted? Has all that escaped your notice??

The Norris plan isn't smart it's selfish, it is far from fiscally responsible it's penny wise and pound foolish. And once more it's not going to cost city residents any money to build the dam to it's full height.

Truth must be told not the fable you have stitched together from shards fear, uncertainty and doubt.

The Sierra Club has withdrawn support for the Nature Conservancy dam/pipeline plan. The Sierra Club supports restorative dredging of the South Fork of the Rivanna Reservoir for water supply, preserving the forest at Ragged Mt. and water conservation to improve streamflows; all measures included in the Norris Plan.

Read the Sierra club position here:

http://virginia.sierraclub.org/piedmont/water_plan_position_09012010.pdf

And one more thing about the environmentally irresponsible Norris plan - it severely puts at risk stream flows during a drought. Having more water, even if it isn't used for people can preserve stream flows and even provide need water for wild life down stream that Betty seems so concerned about. That's why the Norris plan is NOT support by leading environmental groups.

Old timer -in case you missed it when you (like a true sexist) told me and the county to "man up" the county offered , in the interest of the free market, to pay for the increase cost of building the entire permitted damn that is in the Norris plan.

JennS, I understand why, not Betty Mooney, would spend all day blogging on this site to support the dam/pipeline plan.

I think I am right in guessing, they are a member of Friends of the Moorman's River, a group that was very instrumental in advocating for stream flows , lobbying the DEQ, enlisting the help of the Nature Conservancy, who wrote the stream flow requirements in the permit, and probably lives on or near the Moorman's and has a strong attachment to the river. I respect their advocacy for the river, that belongs to all of us, although it is very difficult for many to use, as Kendra Hamilton, former City Councilor who originally voted for the plan and has since withdrawn her support, pointed out in her letter to the Hook:

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2008/06/05/NEWS-water-HamiltonSpeaksC...

We certainly need to make sure that all our rivers are well managed, which the RWSA is not currently doing, and the Norris Plan and increased water storage at the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and at Ragged Mt., will make this possible. But we need to balance the stream flow issue, with the human need for abundant, clean, affordable water which the Norris Plan provides.

I doubt if the Friends of the Moorman's will ever support the Norris Plan, but I hope someday they realize that this is only about storing water in times of drought and not our daily water use, and that it doesn't matter where the water is stored. Increased storage, no matter where it is will improve flows to the Moorman's

The real threat to the Moorman's would be a massive 112ft dam at Ragged Mt and no way to fill it, other than the Moorman's River. Ragged Mt. Reservoir needs a pipeline to fill it from another water source, it has a very small watershed. The cost of the new pipeline proposed from South Fork to Ragged Mt., in today's dollars is $63 million, that is without operating costs. It is an uphill pipeline covering at least 9.5 miles of expensive County real estate, and is not slated to be built for 15 years.

Can anyone guess what the $63 million estimate and land costs in Albemarle County will be in 15 years? And there is no designated route for this pipeline. Where will they find a place to dig up that much land in the County in 15 years, and what will lawyers need to be paid for the land acquisition lawsuits that will result ?

These are all unanswered questions about the RWSA/Nature Conservancy Plan, and my bet is there will never be the money to build this uphill, electricity generated, water pushing system of sedimentation removal plants, and pumping stations and all the personal costs to run them. -and the cost of electricity, 15 years from now.

That will leave us with a 112ft dam at Ragged Mt., that will have to sit half empty, because with the permitted stream flows it cannot be filled from the Moormans.

By then the South Fork Rivanna will be choked with wetlands and almost impossible to dredge. Now, that would truly be a water crisis for the community, and possibly force the need for withdrawing more water from the Moorman's , because or a crisis situation.

Dredging is the fastest cheapest way to immediately increase our water supply , the dam will take years to design and build.

The Norris Plan protects the Moormans and all the rivers and streams and the magnificent forest at Ragged Mt. It maintains the infrastructure we have by dredging the SFRR and all for a cost that will not burden the ratepayers with an enormous debt.

It may not be perfect, but it certainly provides for an abundant affordable supply or water for 40 years and probably much longer.

What part of your statement "Gary O’Connell as someone who can’t be trusted to work in the City’s best interest on this issue" did I misunderstand?

Obviously, the part that caused you to write the following:

"You and Cville eye are saying that while O’Connell was city manager of Charlottesville, he actively worked against the city’s interest and elected official who knew this just let it happen? That Schilling, Hamilton, and Lynch were all duped by the city manager and did nothing about while in office?"

Not Betty,

"you and others here have a lovely time guessing my motivation and various personal details."

Not really. I just judge you by your remarks and attitude here, and you have spent a lot of time making unsubstantiated accusations and ad hominem attacks. Y

This is normally to be found with those with a deep personal agenda. Your agenda might be property, or just your ego, but it is personal, and it has little to do with rational thought.

I heard from a County individual much familiar with the subject material that a few county folks are so livid over the revenue sharing agreement they want to destroy city assets and this is one way to do it.

No one should be allowed to have any say in the process if that is their attitude, because a bunch of ratepayers shouldn't be expected to pay for such an emotionally challenged individual.

I stopped trusting O'Connell when he published his e-mail address and said that all city employees were free to contact him with any concerns they may have. That didn't last long, the address was closed rather quickly. I suspect he was hearing more than he wanted to know, and more than he wanted to look into.

billmarshall- you play the 'right' thinking smoke blowing dance very well. Lots of completely irrelevant information dealing with the very real spillover costs to the community off which someone profits.

FICA, State Income taxes all sound very sweet but they do not suggest why the locals of an area should have to pick up a portion of a developers cost, especially a group of people who already have the infrastructure they need AND pay a higher tax rate than those who need the water and don't seem to want to pay taxes for it.

However, I will answer the failures in your economical argument from a municipal standpoint.

1)FICA, State Income taxes, etc, are all with held from the employee's paycheque as part of the employee's over all tax burden. That money goes -theoretically- to funds for SS, Medicare, etc, and has no bearing on the cost of infrastructure. Monies that enter the general funds of the government entities might or might not come back in the form of grants for dams, waterlines, roads, etc, or get siphoned off into, fruitless projects...say...things like bridges to nowhere in places like Alaska. Or stupid lawsuits by our AG instead of investigating incompetent contractors handling our DMV systems.

In other words, there is no promise that the money will remain or come back to the local community, though the local community will bear the cost of increased water rates and possibly taxes.

2) The Property Tax issue doesn't work either, because those employed folks were already paying their tax bill via where they already live. It is paid through their property or their rent, and they will only pay more in property taxes if there is a rate increase, or they move into a more valuable property.(1500 in property taxes? Sounds like County living; Expect low property taxes but expect big infrastructure.)

I don't have kids at this time so parents don't find much sympathy on that with me, but that really only supports my argument. When you wrap the costs for the schools, sewers, etc into the cost of the home, then those things won't be placed on the rest of society.

See, I am one of those folks who gets no tax breaks unless I borrow money for a home, and raising my water rates on top of what they have already been raised is just me picking up the tab for one more operation that has little benefit to me.

3) The people the company hires must be currently unemployed/under-employed people in the community to have any possibility of a direct net benefit, with the majority of the income from outside the area. If you bring in people from outside, you are just increasing the demand on the infrastructure, most likely with a net loss if those folks have children and now need more schools OR, you are where you are now - the County needs LOTS more capital investment to sustain it's growth pattern.

4)Redevelopment ( Urban Renewal) and Development are not the same. Redevelopment is what has gone on in the downtown Charlottesville area. For example Inova and Optronics, companies that provide solid jobs. They are using infrastructure already in place, and are far better positioned to help lower the individual costs for the infrastructure.( It is worth noting that though these companies have higher tax demands, they are in the City, and providing jobs for County folks, that apparently, the County, for all it's 'development' can't provide.) Additionally, if the surrounding area come back, such as you have seen in Woolen Mills, and Belmont, you find you get more property taxes for the same chunk of real estate, without necessarily increasing demand on your school system. Charlottesville's population is quite stable, and were it nor for the County growth, the water supply in question would probably suffice for far longer than the next 50 years.

Slash and Burn Development is what the County does with places like Forest Lakes, and the giant business park across from it, clogging up the State highway system, and NOT providing jobs like Optronics. They provide Box retailers that tend to pay low wages, bring congestion, and sprawl. I have to take 231 out of Charlottesville now to get around that dump.

Frankly, would the County really look at doing the half acre widget maker with your salary ranges, in tight little business parks I would be far more positive, but they don't.It's almost an accident when they do get some good employers because I know a few. They are against the County water plan, by the way. Instead we usually see things like the finally now defunct Biscuit Run bailout that was going to bring NOT business, but hundreds and hundreds of homes needing more schools, more sewers and more water demands. We see Carriage Hill, we see Mill Creek, etc.

The way you deal with that? You capture the costs in the price of the house via making the developer pay. If the houses can sell at the higher prices, then by the rules of orthodox economics, the demand is there and the economy really can support it. Otherwise, it's just one more subsidy that the entire rate payer has to pick up.

As for my houses- or the houses I lived in, well, County or City, they have all predated the water supply except one. In the County the property was well driven anyways, so I did pick up my costs. In fact, that's pretty much true for wherever I have lived globally. At some point the owners agreed to pay the costs to get a sewer water system up in running.

IN any case, just because someone was done in the past doesn't mean it's OK to keep doing it. There was a time when it was OK for us to take land from the Native Indians or to enslave black folk, or deny them service. We don't do that anymore because at some point, we decided it wasn't the 'right' thing to do. Society has benefited as a result.

Municipalities face the same choice now with sprawl development.

Sorry, my keyboard doesn't work well on weekends. I'm glad the county-owned property in the city. Your take on what the county can do with property it doesn't own is strange. We were wondering if you think the city can take over county-owned land in the city.

As always you use words that don't tell the whole truth "they now believe", why don't they actually know? What information leads them their belief and who was responsible? Is it too much for you to back up your charges with fact not whispered maybes.

Also you never engage in direct debate or refutation, no answer for lower safe yields, no answer for why the county can't pay for the higher dam, no answer for many other questions. Anyone reading this will find you less then forthcoming and wonder if their is some "mysterious " reason you refuse to answer the simplest of my questions.

For far too long you have gone unquestioned but you have made yourself the face of this "new information" that doesn't fully address the 2006 city/county approved aplication

How quickly you abandon your accusation of what happen in 2002.

You can't just say the city is on a prudent path and not prove it. How is it prudent for the city to deny the county the ability to build a higher dam that city rate payers don't have to pay for?

You have never proven that the "new information" is by "unbiased engineers" in a study that is far from final. You accusation makes the case that all others studies are biased- not something you have proven either (GF notwithstanding). You make noble a city study that main attribute is that the city paid for it. Are the city dollars magical and do they imbue whatever they pay for with 100% scientific accuracy. The study is preliminary and isn't final, isn't that true as well? You have gone after study's for exactly the same things you are now praising just because it's done by the city

Come on Betty, you supposedly know these issues backward and forward. Put down your city issued pom poms and actually answer some questions. This issue deserves vigorous debate not you repeating platitudes and half truths.

Not Betty,

You know you rally do like to make excuses for your behavior and point fingers instead of taking responsibility for your own inability to make a rational argument. Someone highlights you making personal attacks, and you point your finger at Norris as an excuse. Another mention is made of your adding ââ?¬Ë?Not’ to someone’s name and you point to Not Larry Sabato. Someone else did it so that makes it OK, and somehow not juvenile.

I don’t care what someone did with Larry Sabato’s name. We are talking about a serious debate on millions for the County and City, and the best thing you can do is say ââ?¬Å?Not betty Mooney’? Sorry, that’s about as close to ” Yes you are, no I’m not,” of a juvenile debate as you can get.

ââ?¬Å?It’s was unclear to me from what you had written that you didn’t want the Norris plan,”

More excuses from you. As I never said anything supporting the Norris plan, that does not mean you should assume I am favor the Norris plan because you are unclear. I’m sure you heard of the ditty about Assume”Š.? If something is unclear to you, you ask, you don’t just make up something and claim that’s what I said or support.

ââ?¬Å?You don’t spend a second wondering where I might be on the issue of water.”

I don’t? Making up more assumptions about me again? You don’t know what I am wondering. However, since this issue is important to you, and you want to be taken seriously, maybe you should consider clearly stating what your position is, and why, without all the ââ?¬Ë?Not’ silliness, and presumptions. Just be cool and calm and factual about it. Then no one need wonder.

But let me help you on my position. I am not at all about doing nothing. What I am not willing to do however, is sign onto any plan that basically is about subsidizing more explosive development in Albemarle County for services that reflect City living, and bring up my tax rates and/or utility rates. Whats more, I am not interested in anything until I see a serious commitment by the County to deal with the current infrastructure we have. As I have said on MANY MANY posts here and other articles”ŠIf you want to live in the County, expect County living, not City living.Suburbia with sewer hookups is not County living.

Finally, the County plan pushed by the RWSA stinks. It looks like a classic special interest plan designed to preserve resources for a few select folks, while dumping a bunch of uneccessary expense and filth on the majority. The Mormann’s folks seem to be very interested in keeping the pure Sugar Hollow water to themselves, and thrusting the sediment dirty water onto the City, and any County resident using the City water resources. Add to that the economic foolishness of running a 9 mile pipeline uphill against the laws of nature. And foolishness is far too kind of a word for it. Eve if we used current demand level projected out over the 100k more users, we would still be fine in 50 years, provided we care for current infrastructure. Chris Green Lake isn’t vanish, nor Beaver Creek, in case of a crisis. Especially if we stop the stupid sprawl development.

I smell a rotten egg, and it isn’t at the City’s doorstep on this one. Either give me a better rational argument, or learn deal with being called on your nonsense.

Not Betty,

You know you rally do like to make excuses for your behavior and point fingers instead of taking responsibility for your own inability to make a rational argument. Someone highlights you making personal attacks, and you point your finger at Norris as an excuse. Another mention is made of your adding 'Not' to someone's name and you point to Not Larry Sabato. Someone else did it so that makes it OK, and somehow not juvenile.

I don't care what someone did with Larry Sabato's name. We are talking about a serious debate on millions for the County and City, and the best thing you can do is say "Not betty Mooney'? Sorry, that's about as close to " Yes you are, no I'm not," of a juvenile debate as you can get.

"It’s was unclear to me from what you had written that you didn’t want the Norris plan,"

More excuses from you. As I never said anything supporting the Norris plan, that does not mean you should assume I am favor the Norris plan because you are unclear. I'm sure you heard of the ditty about Ass-ume....? If something is unclear to you, you ask, you don't just make up something and claim that's what I said or support.

"You don’t spend a second wondering where I might be on the issue of water."

I don't? Making up more assumptions about me again? You don't know what I am wondering. However, since this issue is important to you, and you want to be taken seriously, maybe you should consider clearly stating what your position is, and why, without all the 'Not' silliness, and presumptions. Just be cool and calm and factual about it. Then no one need wonder.

But let me help you on my position. I am not at all about doing nothing. What I am not willing to do however, is sign onto any plan that basically is about subsidizing more explosive development in Albemarle County for services that reflect City living, and bring up my tax rates and/or utility rates. Whats more, I am not interested in anything until I see a serious commitment by the County to deal with the current infrastructure we have. As I have said on MANY MANY posts here and other articles...If you want to live in the County, expect County living, not City living.Suburbia with sewer hookups is not County living.

Finally, the County plan pushed by the RWSA stinks. It looks like a classic special interest plan designed to preserve resources for a few select folks, while dumping a bunch of uneccessary expense and filth on the majority. The Mormann's folks seem to be very interested in keeping the pure Sugar Hollow water to themselves, and thrusting the sediment dirty water onto the City, and any County resident using the City water resources. Add to that the economic foolishness of running a 9 mile pipeline uphill against the laws of nature. And foolishness is far too kind of a word for it. Eve if we used current demand level projected out over the 100k more users, we would still be fine in 50 years, provided we care for current infrastructure. Chris Green Lake isn't vanish, nor Beaver Creek, in case of a crisis. Especially if we stop the stupid sprawl development.

I smell a rotten egg, and it isn't at the City's doorstep on this one. Either give me a better rational argument, or learn deal with being called on your nonsense.

deleted by moderator

Ah, if only it were just a handful of sand.

The public hearing last night was awesome theater -- and a great display of democracy in action.

Props to the speakers on all sides of the issue for thinking about our community's long-term future (I wish there were more issues about which we could think 50 years into the future).

Props also to Mayor Norris: whether you agree or disagree with his position (and I realize that many (the silent majority?) do not), you've got to respect his tremendous commitment to studying the water issue and his marshalling a community-wide discussion/analysis about how best to proceed. Even if you disagree with the Mayor's ultimate conclusion, this is how leadership is supposed to work.

More here: http://walkerquestions.blogspot.com/2010/09/city-council-adopts-amended-...

Do goats need a lot of water? What will the affect be on our water supply when everyone in the city gets a goat?

A goat? Are we city folks limited to one goat?

http://billemory.com/blog/2010/09/21/full-house/

Some pictures from Council Chambers...

I couldn't get to the meeting last night. Thanks for the photos Bill! It's a little shocking to see that they are still considering options based on Gannett Fleming's cost estimates though, considering how wildly off they were on the cost of dredging.

Yes, Thanks for the photos Bill!

This is a little off topic, because there is no e-mail or private message option available here. I notice Finkel is wearing a black mourning band around his badge. This usually means somebody associated with local law enforcement has just passed away. Any idea who it was?

Too bad Dave gave away the farm at the 4 board meeting! Finally, a little sage reasoning.

My comment won't post and says duplicate comment when I repost. What's up with that? Comment entitled "Hate, not hate speech".

Sally Thomas-
"I never heard such hateful statements about the city as I’ve heard here tonight made about county.”

Depending on your perspective, you can see it. She didn't say name-calling, she said hate. If you come from out of town you can see things that are often invisible to those in the middle of it. The more bad things city does to county, the more city demonizes the victim to justify the bad behavior.

Examples of the hate: Not respecting sovereignty of neighbors (annexations), extorting $18 million from county in "revenue sharing," not treating city and county equally in state school funding, not applying rules equally, not wanting county residents to swim in our pools even while charging higher admission, complaining that county residents play ball at city parks, not wanting neighbors to have water security.

Separate but equal? When the city does these things to blacks, we see it as racism and bigotry. But when it's done to regional neighbors, the hatred is invisible to those who perpetrate the hate and those who share the hateful feeling. From the county's perspective and outside observers, the hate is plain to see.

that would have been better in all caps

So, in other words, the city is acting like a city?

Dave Norris got pounded today at the 4 Board Meeting, but stood up to the pressure and the Council starred them down and didn't retreat. Great Job Council. We elected you to protect our City owned assets, and not give them away for county growth, Nature Conservancy models, or to any other special interest groups.

We're watching to see if you continue to represent city residents and to protect the ratepayers from wasteful spending by the Water Authority. Dredging is cheap, should have been done years ago, no more stalling. We need the water and we need to protect South Fork Rivanna from silting in.

Mr. Spencer called it as he saw it - live report from the meeting today

http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4929030

http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4929030

Jim Nix, Chair of the City Democratic Party, has spoken at the last several city council meetings against the Norris Plan and for the Nature Conservancy Plan. He did this again last night at the public hearing. I would like to do know if there is any precedent for this type of behavior, taking sides, on such a major issue in his position. Sure does leave a bad taste in my mouth about the leadership of the City Democrats. What do others think?

Wondering how Brown might have voted if he weren't employed by Mr. Kuttner. If I were a betting man, my money would be on him bowing to Nix.

Anyone who doesn't have a bad taste in his/her mouth about the leadership of the city Democrats hasn't been watching very closely for the past decade or so.

Another try - Um, the COunty seems to have a history of not respecting the sovereignty of the City. Knife cuts both ways Bub. The County loves to do all sorts of projects around the City that places all sorts of pressure on the City, and it usually expects the City to pony up for the benfit of the County. For example, the Meadowcreek Parkway. Cities annexing counties is hardly unique to Charlottesville, and when Counties begin to look like Cities with City services and City responsibilities, it begins to make sense.

The revenue sharing agreement is hardly a justification for the City giving the County it's assets. Unless, of course, the County wants to give the City some of it's assets.

Jim Nix is a good guy, even though I disagree with him 100% on the water plan. He has a right to his opinion, and isn't representing himself as Dem chair when he speaks.

Norris is doing a stellar job as mayor and showed a lot of guts today. After an optimistic ending to last night's meeting, I now worry that some of the other councilors don't have the fortitude that he does. There's no reason why Norris and Edwards should have to go this solo. If Brown, Huja or Szakos start caving to county scare tactics, despite the fact that so many citizens are supporting them 100%, then maybe we need to show them the door.

St Halsey- I tell you what, why don't you just pay for the pipeline while you are at it too. The city can dredge. Just be sure RWSA doesn't raise anyone's rates.

Always willing to discuss this with those who disagree but, I just want to dredge now. The delay tactic is to try once again to prevent dredging our main water supply, that has not been dredged for 40 years. Not me, what are you so scared of, why not start dredging now ?

I didn't say Nix wasn't a good guy. I'm asking if taking sides on such a major issue as Democratic Chair is appropriate. I'd like to know what past chairs think ? I am interested in governing. In my book this breeds divisiveness in the party and is unseemly. I would like to know if there are party rules that speak to this.

In terms of governing in the interest of the people Coy Barefoot gave an excellent speech Monday night on WINA before Council that is one of the best I've ever heard

http://www.wina.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4927529

The City is also completely outnumbered on the Four Boards that met today to try to turn back the City. More than twice as many people gave them a pummeling and they stood up to it. City residents should be proud and listen to the abuse they took if there is a tape of the meeting made available.

The Four Boards have 6 members from the Albemarle County Service Authority, 6 members from the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; that has 3 City representatives: Dave Norris, Judy Mueller, and Maurice Jones, and 3 County representatives Ken Boyd, Gary O’Connell, and Bob Tucker. The chair Mike Gaffney is clearly aligned with county interests. Tom Frederick the director of the water authority, who was asked many questions for guidance, is also aligned with county interests against the city. And presents all information in that light.

So there were 15 people representing the County’s attempt to stop dredging for the water supply and to try to force the City to build a new 30 or higher ft. dam at Ragged Mt. and 7 people representing the City’s attempt to include dredging as part of the total water needed for the future of the community.

It is also unclear if Judy Mueller, ( City Public Works Director), and Maurice Jones,( Acting City Manager) support the Norris Plan or are in favor of the county plan, not to dredge for water supply.

The Four Boards is not a place to make a factually based decision that is in the best interest of water ratepayers.

Voter was is your point? the bigger dam won't cost the city any more money, what is the issue with money already spent? If the county is wrong about water supply why will it cost the city more money? Why have you ignored the fact that the city can not take away the county's sovereignty so easily.

Betty, you just want to delay and talk awhile more - you haven't addressed any of the myriad of question of I have asked of you- do they embarrass you? Is it true that you were interrupting councilors during the meeting with your notes or have I been missed informed.

If Norris withheld the DEQ letter and allowed a plan he knew won't pass DEQ muster to arrive DOA then he has commit a travesty. That's a story the Hook should look into

@not dede, Nothing changed at the 4 Board Meeting. All modifications, including dredging for the water supply. are still part of the City Plan. The next step is a meeting with the DEQ to review the adequacy of water which will include water obtained thru dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir for water supply. The Norris Plan provides 40 years of abundant water supply, enough for streamflows, and safe yield in times of drought. This is by far the least expensive most economical plan for our community

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ââ?¬â?? At their regular meeting last night, Charlottesville City Council conducted a public hearing on the community’s 50-year water supply plan following the results of additional studies conducted by the City and the RWSA. After hearing views from dozens of concerned citizens, City Council, in a 5-0 vote, reaffirmed their support of the 50-year water plan with several modifications. These include:

* A commitment to aggressive conservation measures that could limit the expansion of our water needs.
* A commitment to build on the existing Ragged Mountain Dam or to build a new dam at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir of up to 42 feet, if needed, in phases. The first phase would include an expansion of 13 feet to the current dam or the building of a new dam up to 13 feet
* To address the role of dredging of the South Fork Reservoir following the results of a Request for Proposal to be issued in the near future.
* A commitment to providing adequate water flows to the Mormons and Rivanna Rivers.
* A reevaluation of the supply plan in 10 year increments, using updated data on water usage and population growth.
* A new 36 inch transmission pipeline would be built in the future but the existing pipe line would be kept in place to serve as a redundancy if there was a catastrophic failure in service to the new line.
* That all components of the plan be subject to the approval of a cost allocation agreement between the City, the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority

I welcome this exchange of ideas with" not me" and" not Dede ". We have asked many times to appear on the radio side by side with the not's and have always been turned down. We should all sit in a room together and debate the merits of the Nature Conservancy Plan and the Norris Plan. Any takers ? Please let us know at cvillewater.info

What business, that was successful, would ignore new information ?

"The city is trying to exert it’s will over people they haven’t been elected to serve"

That is one of the most hilariously absurd comments I have read in ages! Politicians are supposed to do exactly that

...for the people who do elect them!

@city democrat: "I didn’t say Nix wasn’t a good guy. I’m asking if taking sides on such a major issue as Democratic Chair is appropriate. I’d like to know what past chairs think ? I am interested in governing. In my book this breeds divisiveness in the party and is unseemly. I would like to know if there are party rules that speak to this."

I am not aware of any City Dems bylaws that prevent a chair or co-chair from taking a position on such an issue. The city Democratic Committee has not taken sides on the water issue. That being the case, I see no problem with Jim speaking his mind on the subject - same as any other Democrat in the city. To further address your (implied) point... the notion that there is some sort of "Democratic" orthodoxy with respect to every single issue to which every "Democrat" must unwaveringly adhere is anathema to a Party that prides itself on having a big tent.

@confused: "Wondering how Brown might have voted if he weren’t employed by Mr. Kuttner. If I were a betting man, my money would be on him bowing to Nix.

Anyone who doesn’t have a bad taste in his/her mouth about the leadership of the city Democrats hasn’t been watching very closely for the past decade or so."

Your screen name is appropriate. Conspiracy theorists like yourself give the local Party leadership more credit than thay deserve. If you are a Democrat and do not like the direction taken by the local Party, I suggest you become more active and work to effect the change that you seek. Perhaps take on a leadership position (they are volunteer, after all).

well, the longer post Ive tried have been eaten by this site. But Betty the Norris plan is a farce.

1. The city says if they allow us to build a bigger dam people won't save water, anymore. That is provably false and counters everything that history has revealed. During the drought people cut back 30% of usage and have done a great job to keep demand lower by many different means. to believe the city's logic if a new dam is built the area residents will suddenly become callous and stupid. It's the city belief that only by their enlightened governance can the future be saved.

2. The city is doing it to save trees! Wow this may be the silliest and most insincere reason yet. The 150 acres of trees will be replaced with over 200 acres of new trees. And what will these trees be replaced with ? Not buildings or roads but a bigger reservoir. So trees are good and more water is evil?? Oh and all those trees the city wants to save are where- yeah that's right in the county where they are not the duly elected representatives of that area. The city takes our tax dollars and thinks they should control of what is in the county's best as well.

The city has been revealed been as a complete fraud during the meeting yesterday. It's all there on the audio. The city doesn't want the county to have any more water the they (the city council) wants them to. The city mere ownership of the reservoir shouldn't give them the right to put the people of Albemarle at risk for NO reason at all. The city wants to tell the who is really in charge of the water supply. No compromise from the city will be arrived at, as usual it's their way or no way. It's time for the county to stand up and just say no more.

The cost to build a bigger damn is almost no more than to build a smaller dam. And the city wouldn't have to pay for a bigger dam. The county has offered to pay the higher cost and not have it cost the city ratepayers a dime. The city council is LYING if they say they won't build a bigger dam to save city ratepayers a dime. The reason that are left not to build a bigger dam are weak and very tenuous.

1. The city says if they allow us to build a bigger dam people won't save water, anymore. That is provably false and counters everything that history has revealed. During the drought people cut back 30% of usage and have done a great job to keep demand lower by many different means. to believe the city's logic if a new dam is built the area residents will suddenly become callous and stupid. It's the city belief that only by their enlightened governance can the future be saved.

2. The city is doing it to save trees! Wow this may be the silliest and most insincere reason yet. The 150 acres of trees will be replaced with over 200 acres of new trees. And what will these trees be replaced with ? Not buildings or roads but a bigger reservoir. So trees are good and more water is evil?? Oh and all those trees the city wants to save are where- yeah that's right in the county where they are not the duly elected representatives of that area. The city takes our tax dollars and thinks they should control of what is in the county's best as well.

Betty Mooney and her ilk would have you believe that the city paid for very new and reviewed preliminary study shows a cheaper dam, it is just another smoke screen of delay and FUD. The water gang are masters of Fear, Uncertainly and Doubt to delay this project and wear everyone down. They aren't here to save ratepayers, they only want to strangle the water supply so the city can control any possible growth in the county.

This four board hearing was a shameful exercise and the city callous and false concern shows they have been hijacked by folks that say they want to save rate payers but are just using water as a weapon to strangle the county and impose city council agenda on a parcel of land that is in the county to begin with.

Why would any democrat in Charlottesville be against the Norris Plan, which protects city interests, and provides an assurance of continued conservation efforts, and affordable water for the citizens ?

1. The city says if they allow us to build a bigger dam people won't save water, anymore. That is provably false and counters everything that history has revealed. During the drought people cut back 30% of usage and have done a great job to keep demand lower by many different means. to believe the city's logic if a new dam is built the area residents will suddenly become callous and stupid. It's the city belief that only by their enlightened governance can the future be saved.

2. The city is doing it to save trees! Wow this may be the silliest and most insincere reason yet. The 150 acres of trees will be replaced with over 200 acres of new trees. And what will these trees be replaced with ? Not buildings or roads but a bigger reservoir. So trees are good and more water is evil?? Oh and all those trees the city wants to save are where- yeah that's right in the county where they are not the duly elected representatives of that area. The city takes our tax dollars and thinks they should control of what is in the county's best as well.

part2

For that matter why would any Republican or Independent be against the Norris Plan, which is the most fiscally conservative, and the least environmentally damaging of City owned resources ?

The Norris plan saves no one money since the county will pay for a larger dam. It is not the most fiscal conservative plan as it won't build the best deal for the money and won't save the city any money. It does assert the city's will on the sovereignty of the county's land.

Least environmentally damaging? The trees lost will be replaced by more trees than lost. The lost trees will be replaced by water and not more road or homes.

Yesterdays meeting laid bare the city craven desire to control the county's future. It's not noble but self serving to curry favor with the virulent anti growth crowd.

The reason the tags expired on the City's infrastructure is from the horrible and under discussed tenure of Rich Collins and Jack Marshall on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. They spent nothing on infrastructure and are proud of it.

The City's plan is actually better for county ratepayers than the county plan. My group has said; according to falling water usage data for the last ten years, just dredging alone would provide, at a very low cost, all the water we need for 30 -40 years, and probably beyond.

Oliver Kuttner said, at the Council hearing, it is wasteful to build to peak use, and I agree, and apparently the City Council does as well. This is all about storing water for an extreme drought not daily water use. New water saving technologies from the Oliver Kuttner'of the world are on the way.

The Norris Plan is a reasonable one, that is a compromise for all sides. It provides plenty of water for 40 years, adequate streamflows to meet permit requirements, and maintains our valuable asset, by dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir at a very reasonable price. It also protects the very valuable city asset: the Natural area at Ragged Mt., and saves tens of thousands of mature hickory and oak trees in a mature 1.000 acre forest, and all the wildlife that live therein from destruction.

The Norris Plan gives us flexibility to only build what we need beyond a 40 year supply of water, if the demand is shown to be there.

This is a smart, fiscally responsible, sustainable plan which we all, city and county should embrace

Times have changed and so must we

I meant to say that the Norris Plan gives us plenty of water for everyone in the community, for 40 years, using RWSA benchmarks.

It requires us to monitor decade by decade, to analyze if we need more, before there is any danger of a shortage. This is a smart plan from a brave visionay mayor who should be rewarded for his efforts to create a better plan given the NEW INFORMATION we now have.

New information paid for by the city and yet to be peer reviewed, Betty? My, My you gone after studies for much less on this very blog. That study is just a big bucket of maybe and is in no way as complete as the earthen dam proposal that is already completed.

If anything supports your narrow view it's comes from a place of bravery and nobility. If it disagrees with you those studies are full of conspiracy and self interest. You could care less about the county needs and now that the county will pay for a larger dam, you want to deny them the ability to govern their county as duly elected officials.

It's anti democratic, plain and simple

Not Betty Mooney,

"It’s not noble but self serving to curry favor with the virulent anti growth crowd."

As versus what? The virulent ultra growth crowd? Look bub, I live in the County, because I want to live in a county. Growth means higher taxes for me to accommodate the growth people, their water, and their children. Why shouldn't I be opposed to it?

When the developers start incorporating the cost of ALL the necessary infrastructure into the homes, and those homes sell, then I will consdier it. But until then, I think being anti-growth is just fine.

Being anti-growth means you are anti-free riders. As a Libertarian, I expect everyone to pick up the full cost of their product. Developers are doing it to make money and realize profits. They aren't doing it on my nickle.

I sure as Hades don't think City residents should be compelled to pay for any of it.

Man up County. Man Up.

Not Betty, you seem to think that there is no cost to adding 45 feet to the dam, i.e., that it is prudent to overestimate water use. But if per capita demand continues to drop as it has, there will be huge cost--an infrastructure that we can't cover with current water rates. This is exactly what happened in Santa Barbara. After a drought in the 1980s they build a large water desalination plant for millions of dollars. It was finished in 1992 and guess what: It has never been used because the demand estimates were too high. SB is now selling off the parts to recoup some of the cost. With mandatory new technology we are going to see a similar big drop in per capita water use over the next few decades in our community. Fact: Current water use is 25% less than the estimate on which the 45-foot dam was based. It will continue to drop. But if I'm wrong and water demand suddenly goes up, so what? The Norris Plan says we raise the dam. So what are you whining about?

Water conservation to preserve flows instead of actual water from a higher damn. Also where is the cost savings the plan calls for ? Building a higher dam will save money for future generations and give us 500% more water for just a small amount of money. That' fiscally prudent.

The Sierra Club other position paper also uses a lot of Gannet Fleming information to justify it's position. GF as we all know here has been thoroughly discredited by Betty Mooney and her group. You can see the Sierra Club's reasons for yourself here: http://virginia.sierraclub.org/piedmont/water_plan_issues_summary_090720...

They found the other plan acceptable at one time til the politics of growth got them to change their mind.

@ "Not Betty Mooney", you've obviously not read the Norris Plan. That was your first mistake. Your second mistake is taking anything the County says at face value.

@"dawg", agreed. I've also lived in both county and city and there was a VAST difference in how I was treated by the governments, and how they view the citizens. If you're not a Wendell Wood, Farmington resident, or a business owner in one of their cruddy strip malls, then you're out of luck.

I heard the dismissive snickering and snotty comments from the suit-wearing county fat cats in the audience at the Council meeting the other night. Their attitude is that they and their Chamber of Commerce cronies rule the area. They foaming at the mouth over the fact that they're not going to get a 45ft dam immediately. Boo freakin' hoo. They'll have adequate water under the Norris Plan, but they don't want ENOUGH water, they want much more than that. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

Dave Norris is the best mayor we've had in many years. It was also nice to see former Mayor Francis Fife stand up for the Norris Plan as well.

Here it is. Not a single negative thing in it. Water for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville that the Council hereby readopts and reaffirms its prior June 2, 2008 approval of the local Water Supply Plan, with the following components and modifications:

* To aggressively promote conservation of water and reduction in leakage in the next 20-40 year period;
* To conduct [restorative] hydraulic dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as identified in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Dredging Feasibility Study and to conduct continuous maintenance hydraulic dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir�RWSA shall seek a separate state permit for these activities;
* Commit to adequate water flow to the Moormans River and South Fork Rivanna River as expressed in the joint permit application for the water supply plan;
* Maintain the pipeline from Sugar Hollow Reservoir to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir in the event of a failure in the water transmission system;
* Permit a dam with a height of up to 42 feet by adding additional feet to the existing dam or by constructing a new dam up to a height of 42 feet. In case the existing dam is built upon, improvements, repairs, and modifications to the existing spillway structure will be constructed to bring the dam into compliance with all applicable dam safety laws and regulations. The construction is to be done in phases with the first phase being constructed to 13 feet in height and construction to an additional 29 feet as needed to meet adequate water supply needs. The filling of the dam will be done in phases as water is needed.
* A new 36 inch transmission pipeline from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to the expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir, which pipeline will replace the 18 inch pipeline from the Sugar Hollow Reservoir, constructed in 1927;
* The complete replacement of the piping and pumping transmission system between the Ragged Mountain Reservoir and the Observatory Water Treatment Plant, which will replace the two cast iron pipelines constructed in 1908 and 1949 and the very aged Royal Pump Station;
* A major overhaul of the Observatory Water Treatment Plant to advance public health by providing state-of-the-art facilities that will increase the Plant’s rating to 8 million gallons per day;
* The expansion of the capacity of the South Fork Rivanna Water Treatment Plant to 16 million gallons per day; and,
* The expansion of the capacity of the Observatory Water Treatment Plant to 10 million gallons per day; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the construction of the improvements contemplated by this water supply plan is contingent on the approval by City Council of a cost allocation agreement for each component of the plan between the City, the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and City Council’s approval of any agreement required for the use and / or conveyance of City-owned assets.

The City of Charlottesville will be credited with the sale price of trees cut and sold due to development of dam and additional water impoundment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all prior resolutions and actions taken by City Council approving the components of the local water supply plan that are inconsistent with this resolution are hereby superseded by and replaced with the provisions of this resolution.

the negative part of the Norris plan is the building of the dam to 13 feet- listen to the tape from yesterday's meeting and you will hear why the county objects to it.

It doesn't save much money , It's not going to satisfy DEQ, and it's against the 50 year water plan.

Agreeing to permit something to it's full height and only building it to 20% capacity when 100% cost pennies on the dollar doesn't make sense.

Add to that the county agreement to pay for the cost of building the other 80% capacity and you have got to ask yourself why is the the city really doing this???

C'ville Voter I never said nor intended anyone to think that building the dam to it's full height wasn't going to cost more money. Just that it will cost very little given the overall cost and given current economic conditions and construction cost is fiscally prudent.

Desalination was (and still is ) a very expensive technology and isn't germane to this discussion. Santa Barbara is a red herring. We aren't talking about a large difference between that and the Norris plan dam height of 13 feet. It may be as little as 1% of the total projects cost. That is the issue.

Again what's the harm- to the city- of allowing the county to pay for building the dam to it's full approved height?

1) It seems to me that 100% of the water flows from the county into the city resivoir so who REALLY owns the water?

2) People that own undeveloped land have the RIGHT to develop it and have as much right to public water as the next guy. Both properties have been paying taxes the exact same lenght of time. The fact that yours was developed first only means that they have been providing YOU with services that the undeveloped land has not consumed. The Government has an obligation to provide adequate infrastucture.

3) I like the idea of dredging and arguing about the rest. Gannett flemming should be sued for fraud and the whole setup should be revamped to take politics out of it.

Look at Bill Emory's picture. The democratic leadership has aligned themselves with the county water plan against the Norris Plan. Hope Nix stays thru the next election, time for some diversity on Council, time for a Republican . Even the Indpedent/Republican John Pfaltz is against the county/Nature Conservancy plan, let's recruit him.

Betty, we could agree that a monitor would be a tool to better calculate stream flows but that doesn't answer my question at all does it?. Can we also agree that the Norris plan reduces the previously approved safe yield by 10%? Come on you can say it because that's what the state and DEQ have already proven. If we can't agree to such a simple truth then that is troubling

Could we also agree that you have yet to answer almost every question I've put to you here. A smile and a kind word are certainly polite but do little to back your claim of wanting to have a real debate. Changing the subject or is not an acceptable tactic in a debate about public policy.

JennSilv, no one is making you read a thing. You concern for my free time and emotional state seemed condescending and an effort to diminish what I've written. My one day to Betty's 100's perhaps 1000's of post on this site are just a drop in the bucket. Thanks for your concern but I'll be just fine

(As I understand it) with this vote the previous water plan is now rescinded because the City backed out/or changed it. If Albemarle & RWSA agree to this plan then this is the approved plan. If Albemarle & RWSA don't agree to it (in total with no changes) then all three groups would have to meet and come up with a compromise and then all three would vote on that again. (is this basically correct?)

Sam, the 4 Boards have no decision making authority. Under state law only elected officials can make this decision, and decide how any water plan will be paid for. The City is totally outnumbered on the 4 Boards, and it is not a process that could lead to a data based decision that would adequately represent the citizens of Charlottesville.

The Water Authority Board can offer guidance, but the final decision on any new infrastructure of this magnitude requires a cost share agreement between the elected bodies involved.

In 2002 both the County and City agreed on a water plan and signed a cost share agreement to implement it. That water plan included dredging and placing a bladder on the South Fork Reservoir to increase water supply. Water rates were doubled to pay for this plan but nothing ever came or it. 25% of every dollar that you pay in your water bill is put into a reserve fund. That money belongs to both city and county ratepayers. Now the director of RWSA has said that money will be used to build a new dam at Ragged Mt.

There are still many unanswered questions about how this will be paid for but the 4 boards have no authority as a deliberative body in this matter.

The memo which states that dredging provides more water than a dam without a pipeline is in this memo. Since this memo was written, we know from the new dredging study by HDR, that dredging provides even more water capacity than previously thought.

from the Hook:

"According to engineering firm Gannett Fleming, dredging the existing Rivanna Reservoirââ?¬â? an officially dismissed but increasingly popular alternativeââ?¬â? would supply five million gallons per day. A pipeline-less reservoir, by contrast, bolsters today’s water capacity of 12.8 million gallons per day by just 1.1 million to just 13.9 million gallons per day, according to a memo by Amanda Hess of the same firm.

ââ?¬Å?I know that, at first glance, that might not seem correct,” writes Hess. ââ?¬Å?Without the pipeline to fill the reservoir and with the treatment capacity issues prior to the pipeline,” she writes, ââ?¬Å?the volume is simply not as ââ?¬Ë?efficient’ as it will be in 2055.”

http://www.readthehook.com/blog/?p=5977/

Why doesn't the County use Beaver Creek? Not Betty Mooney is very good a dodging questions.

The 4 boards is a joke. It was set up as a way to bully the City into doing what the County wants. Any smart City Councilor would refuse to ever attend another meeting, they are under no obligation to do so.

I hope my city councilors have better ways to spend their time representing the citizens.

I've read on here somewhere that RWSA can be dissoved in two years (2012) - let's work on doing that. It is clear that the people we are dealing with in the county can't be trusted along with Frederick and Gary OP'Connell. Never do business with people you can't trust.

Not Betty Mooney, you have a very bad habit of intentionally misstating the positions of those who argue against you. Nice try, but I'm not falling for that.

not Betty, I guess I'll just have to re-post what I wrote earlier since you seem not to have read it.

confused September 24th, 2010 | 12:44 pm
Former City Councilors Hamilton, Lynch, and Schilling, have certainly painted a portrait of Gary O’Connell as someone who can’t be trusted to work in the City’s best interest on this issue.

@ getoverit Show me any dredging company in the United States that agrees with your dredging costs.

Gannett Fleming was a dam building/pipeline company that did no dredging and won the contract to design the dam( 3.1 million ), then they were fired.

The leading company of dredging equipment in the US, a 125 year old company, Ellicott Dredging, called in to do dredging cost estimate " sanity checks" has said, that the cost estimates coming out of Charlottesville are the laughing stock of the dredging industry.

Why don't you call a few companies and ask yourself if you don't beleive me.

The City's plan actually accommodates for a much HIGHER safe yield than the 2006 plan. The City plan says the Ragged Mountain Dam will be built to its full 42' height if it proves to be necessary. That, plus dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, would produce a greater safe yield than building the 42' foot dam alone. How ironic that some in the County are fighting so hard against a plan that provides for the possibility of a much larger water supply than their own plan.

@Tinfoil-- You're correct that the Norris Plan has the potential to yield MORE water than the previous plan. Despite that fact, I believe that the reason that some of the county folks are against it is because 1) their fear-mongering developer overlords seem to be doing their thinking for them, and 2) I honestly think that there's some weird kneejerk personal reaction against the City going on.
,
It's as though they've thought all along that they own the City and everyone in it. Now that the City is "acting up" (in their minds), they are livid. I've never heard so much indignant huffing and harumphing in my entire life. They literally can't believe that someone would tell them no. The Norris Plan is a win for all, but they've come unhinged over it and are repeating the same fallacies over and over, on autopilot. It's pretty sad, actually.

And bravo to Cville Eye's post at 4:56pm

"The Norris plan crowd have used the concerns of a sovereign government (which the city is only in the city limits) to justify concerns the city had about the reservoir."

This was answered before. The Virginia Constitution has become far more rigorous regarding the rights of individual property owners when dealing with imminent domain. The County will have a hard fight trying to seize the City's assets in the County to use for eminent domain, which is what you are talking about doing.

The City is not blocking the COunty from the water. The City is saying that the County cannot force the City to subsidize their water needs. The County has the option of building it's own system to provide water for those citizens who wish to operate in an urban environment.

I think Old Timer's point that too many County residents have opted for City style urban living and yet are somehow blaming the City for their water problems is relevant.

The County doesn't have any water problems. They are talking about water they think they will need 50 years from now. That's why John Martin kept talking about providing water for our great grandchildren without leaving them the debt.

Not Betty,

Why do you associate me with the Norris plan? because I don't want to make a massive capital investment into a project I don't really think serves the County's interests? It certainly doesn't serve the City's interests. Even if I did think it served the interests of both municipalities I wouldn't trust most of the people involved to manage it. I mean, we are talking about a BOS and City Manager that couldn't deal with a couple of feet of snow for over a week this last winter. Do you seriously want to hand them the keys to a multi-million dollar project requiring serious financing?

My point has been absolutely clear on this, but obviously, you haven't been reading, you've been too busy being angry at Norris and Mooney to really focus on the reality that there might be some County residents who have some other very serious objections to the whole shooting match.

"The majority of personal attacks without facts are almost entirely by the Norris crowd."

I question that, but I have no way of proving it one way or the other. What I can prove is your own attitude on this forum, and your decision to use " Not Betty Mooney' as your handle is about as personal as it gets. Every post you make with a name like that is you making an ad hominem attack, before you ever get to the rational material you might want to present. I cannot imagine a more juvenile and weak position to come at a mature discussion.

You've gone over and over about a 10% safe yield, but unless I missed it, I haven't seen actual references explaining what this means, how it is important in this discussion, and so forth. Maybe you can point out your posts that demonstrate otherwise.

"The Norris plan crowd is now saying that County folks are opposing the city’s idea because we want to destroy city assets,"

No, I said some County folks. And this is what was said to my face, so it isn't tin foil action. I don't think that's every person in the County for the plan, just like not everyone opposed is in the Norris plan camp. When people say things like that, yes, it concerns me.

What also concerns me is who stands to profit by this. For example, should we start to look at the land bought up around where this future pipeline is supposed to go? Who has tried to develop areas say, South of Charlottesville but can't because they don't have enough water?

What I do know is that the issues for me are at a much lower level than arguing over a 10% safe yield. The entire premise and why it is needed to begin with is a degree of growth that need not ever materialize. I don't particularly care for what has gone on around Fredricksburg and I really do not want to see it go on here. People need to get a reality check on their own expectations about what it mans to live in the County, and if they want to have lower property taxes.

Caesonia the comment about destroying city assets was just mentioned, I commented but whether or not old timer is or isn't in favor of the Norris plan isn't central to the case I'm making but is indicative to the attacks from others. If OT says their not in favor of the Norris plan then OK.

I'm not saying the county should seize any city assets. My point is more simply that the city shouldn't act like they have been elected to determine what happens to land they don't govern other than to protect their property rights. What happens to land adjoining their land is not part of their governance. Ownership of the land however doesn't trump the compelling interest of Albemarle and it's ability to govern and protect the needs of their citizens. If Albemarle got no water from the reservoir you might have a point. It is the shared aspect of the water supply that is the crux of all the problems.

The Norris plan, reduced to it's essences says "Albemarle, we decided that this is all the dam height we think you should have, and there is nothing you can do about it. We know the city made an agreement in 2006 but we decided that we don't want to do what we have previously agreed to. Deal with it"

The city has yet to make a compelling or even any argument on why the county can't use it's own money to build the bigger dam. Nor has Betty and her gang or you.

I think most people have agreed that the right-of-way for the pipeline has not yet been determined, as I understand it. VDOT has not yet abandoned the Western Bypass, and, even if it does, that does not mean the State will deed that easement ($40M I think; don't want to look it up)to local government.

Glad you still are. I have heard say, that the Not Betty Mooney vs Betty Mooney debate has become a popular past time. I have some thoughts about a few of the issues you have posed, and will try my best to answer them tomorrow.

In the meantime have you read our web-site . You may find many of the answers to your questions there.

cvillewater.info

ââ?¬Å?Albemarle, we decided that this is all the dam height we think you should have, and there is nothing you can do about it. We know the city made an agreement in 2006 but we decided that we don’t want to do what we have previously agreed to. Deal with it” Council has agreed to build a dam in the future "up to 42 feet," just not now. It plans to phase the dam in, if and when needed. What's wrong with that, especially in a recession? Also, the County approved Tropea's plan for dredging and building a 3-foot bladder but didn't hesitate to drop that plan and start all over again from scratch and came up with the 2006 plan. What is the city doing differently? It seems to me it is merely following the county's example. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why do you feel that the county can recind an agreement but the city can't? If the County needs more water than that which will arrive with a 13-foot addition in height to the current dam and the amount that will be recovered by dredging it can build as big a dam at Beaver Creek as it wishes. But that would be on the County's dime since the city doesn't any ownership in that project.

And if only you could prove the Norris plan was as well crafted and environmentally sound and as much of compromise as 2006 plan you might have something.

But really Betty nobody but a few die hard are still reading this.

I would like to amend my framing of the modification of the 2006 plan to applaud the crafting by all 5 City Couniclors of a compromise, that is fiscally and environmentally responsible.

Their modifications take into account the new information, and will protect the water ratepayers form unneccessary future debt and interest payments.

Please e-mail Counicl and support their resolution to make dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir a reality, and to preserve and protect our water infrastructure, and only build anew what we actually need.

Council@Charlottesville.org

If you missed the public hearing go to :

http://charlottesville.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=577

I wonder if Not Betty Mooney would ask John Martin if he still agrees with this quote taken directly from the Oct. 28,2002 RWSA Board Minutes:

comment from John Martin:

"he stated that he had been attending Board meetings for the last 3-4 years and has attended all public meetings. He stated that in the future he would like to see water in the Moormans River and have the river protected. He felt confident that we are moving in the right direction. He added that some people might think that everything possible should be done to avoid periods of water conservation and water restrictions. Mr. Martin commented that he felt it could not be done as it would be very expensive to build such a system. He pointed out that the drought we are experiencing is relatively rare and occurs once every thirty years, and he felt current planning takes the drought cycle into proper consideration."

If he does, he and Oliver Kuttner are on the same page. At the public hearing Mr. Kuttner spoke of how it is wasteful to plan and build for peak use; when peak use may never occur.

For the true " Water Geeks " who read the Hook . Here was the plan approved in 2002 and then mysteriously discarded - does anyone know the true story of why they threw this plan in the trash bin, after 100's of thousands of dollars had been spent on it. ? No wonder people are fed up with inaction. Something is wrong in Camelot.

Oct. 28,2002 Board Minutes:

Tropea : RWSA's strategic game plan is to fast track the Board-approved future water supply plan, especially the four foot crest controls. He further stated that RWSA would also like to move forward with the "opportunity dredging" and in the future seek new incremental water supply additions. He added that RWSA also needs to be ready to implement the "Doomsday" water supply plan in the future .

The League:
In regard to the future water supply the League was very pleased on August 26th when the RWSA Board approved the Water Supply Strategy ,produced several official reports which included numerous public meetings to discuss and debate the Future Water Supply Alternatives available to our community.
The problem we see is that in spite of widespread media coverage many people in the community still don't seem to be aware of either the existence or the substance of the whole, integrated strategy. Rumors and speculation should be put to rest, and people should be made to understand what to expect or not expect in the future. Then let's hope the community can move on, confident that water supply planning is under control for the next several years.

2002 Oct 28th RWSA Minutes con't

( O'Brien and Gere Presentation on the "Doomsday Water Supply Plan",-----this was worked out between RWSA and the consultants when the drought looked really dire in August and forecast to last for many months-----)

the Four-Foot Crest Control and the Cost of the future Water Supply Strategy
Mr. Tropea reported that he had invited Mr. George Rest, Senior Vice President, and Mr. Thomas Dumm, Project Manager, from O'Brien and Gere to discuss the study work they have undertaken for RWSA. Mr. Rest stated that he and Mr. Dumm would be presenting an overview of the "Doomsday" Water Supply Plan and would also be displaying slides on the potential to expedite the four-foot crest control project.
Mr. Rest stated that their primary study objectives, as defined by RWSA, were to provide the quantity of water needed for the basic needs of the community, focus on supply augmentation, enhance or preserve the remaining storage and minimize expenditures---(-guess that directive has changed)----

Mr. Rest commented that O&G began its work by reviewing RWSA's " Doomsday" Water Supply Plan and participating in work sessions with RWSA staff. He stated that visits were mad to all RWSA facilities. He further stated that preliminary discussions were also held with regulatory agencies concerning water supply alternatives.

Mr. Rest stated there were 4 preferred alternatives in the "D" water supply scenario.

1. Chris Greene Lake water treated at NF treatment plant (CG has 330 million gallons of storage when full. Problem NF limited treatment capacity.
Repairs being done bring it to full capacity

2. Beaver Creek drawing .3mgd for Crozet potential to supply Crozet with 2MGD and still allow us to access 200 mgd deliver into the SugarHollow/Ragged Mt. system
Beaver Creek capacity 520 million. During drought there were 350million gallons.
He stated if you left enough water in reservoir to supply Crozetls needs for a full year would still remain 200million gallons could be transferred on short term basis.
Dam built higher than the pool elevation to handle floods allows for additional 600million gallons of storage. Stated normal pool level could be raised by enhancing the emergency spillway. O&G suggested RWSA include this as interim option as might be more economical than other options.

3. Lake Albemarle owned by the Virginia Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries storage volume of 150 million gallons. Said there have been discussions with the state concerning use of LA as emergency water supply. dam is very close to the pipeline from Sugar Hollow to Ragged Mt. Reservoir to Observatory plant.

4. SFRR has an outlet structure with a series of outlet ports to draw water from various levels. After removing water from the lowest outlet, you would still leave what is called a "heel" of water. O&G determined that this water could be accessed by using portable barge-mounted pumps and portable power supplies.

5. Indirect wastewater reuse. treated effluent from Moores Creek pumped to headwaters of Mechums treated at SFRR water treatment plant. Option costly but advantage clear guaranteed amount of water

RWSA's objective to preserve the water supply as far into the future as possible. One strategy that could be implemented immediately was CG Lake. Next step either Lake Albemarle or Beaver Creek option in Jan 2003 . LA 150million gallons and BC 200million gallons available after allowing for Crozet. These water supplies could be drawn into the pipeline that goes from Sugar Hollow Reservoir to Ragged Mt. Reservoir, to Observatory plant. Would extend the water supply 3 months

Mr. Collins stated that we could treat the "Doomsday" elements as part of our safe yield rather than as an emergency provision . Mr. Rest stated that accessing some of the safe yield from CGL and BCR on ongoing basis was viable option

Mr. Tucker brought up the problem of flooding at BC if dam's water level raised to flood the spillway . Mr. Rest responded that could be worked out and BCResrvoir alternative could potentially provide a significant enhancement of safe yield to urban water system

Mr. Brent brought up problem of recreational value of CGL . Mr Rest said if plan is to only optimize the existing facilities by withdrawing 2mgd as opposed to 5mgd or greater would only be 2foot draw down

Mr. Drumm commented CGL option implemented after recreational season had ended
other water sources thru late summer

Summary: CGL =330 million gallons
LA= 150mg
BC= 520mg and potential 600mg

Mr. Rest reported that these 4 options could be used to prolong water supply for 3-4 months cost of $265,000 -$850,000 Higher cost based potential need pipeline BCReservoir to RMReservoir raw water pipeline.

Mr.Rest reviewed the costs

COMPONENT COST (millions)
4-Foot Crest 7.5
Mechums River Pump Station 0.5
Dredging(2002) 1.0
Other Measures 0.9

Subtotal 9.9

Related Non-supply Measures 3.3

Total $13.3

non-supply measures--improvements Observatory and North Fork Rivanna water treatment plants and related facilities to make system more effective and flexible

Plan to provide enough water to 2030

"accelerated implementation plan" for 4-foot crest control

negotiation time reduced by payment into wetlands bank rather than on-site mitigation

baseline schedule for permitting, design, and construction 16months
budget did allow for higher cost of wetland bank .
$760,000 budgeted for 5 acre potential wetlands impact at a two to one replacement level

Dr. Collins asked about issues of in-stream flows and Mr. Rest stated that a lot of discussion had already taken place with the regulators and he felt these matters could be worked out

Mr. Harland , local resident , asked how plan increases current reservoir supply.
Mr. Tropea said 4-foot crest adds 600mg and at 10MGD adds 60 days
crest controls would add 7MGD of safe yield to system

Mr. Rest said what is outlined above has been the recommended strategy for over a year

Mr. Tropea said that a great deal of study had gone into the design of the water supply system and the predicted future water demand.

MEETINGS WITH REGULATORY AGENCIES

DEQ , Head of Va. Marine Resources, and Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries
Meeting with Tropea, ACSA, City of Charlottesville, and Mr Stepenen Bowler
Tropea reported meeting was positive and agreement on need to expedite improvements to address drought

Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries would allow RWSA to use 10-12 feet of water in Lake Albemarle that would still be enough water to keep fish alive. Tropea stated an agreement letter would be drafted and RWSA should receive permission to access Lake Albemarle on an emergency basis in the near future

Mechums River Pump Station there was agreement between the Corps of Engineers and DEQ that a Nationwide 3 permit issued to allow RWSA to rebuild pump station

He stated good news on dredging project COE and DEQ agreement that a Nationwide 18 (an expedited permit public hearings limited) could be issued. Mr. Tropea said Va Marine Resources Commission not require a permit as long as RWSA did not alter historical streambed

discussions of 4 foot crest control
needed aerial photography and wetland impacts both were discussed with DEQ and they were told if could submit permit application by Dec. 31,2002 DEQ felt they could issue permit by late fall 2003

Tropea stated that state officials were very impressed with the strategies that have been implemented locally and with decrease in water consumption which he felt set the stage for cooperative efforts on the future water supply plan

Ms. Rochester asked about keeping water demand at the current 7 MGD and RWSA said they had incorporated water conservation into the water supply plan

comment from John Martin:

he stated that he had been attending Board meetings for the last 3-4 years and has attended all public meetings. He stated that in the future he would like to see water in the Moormans River and have the river protected. He felt confident that we are moving in the right direction. He added that some people might think that everything possible should be done to avoid periods of water conservation and water restrictions. Mr. Martin commented that he felt it could not be done as it would be very expensive to build such a system. He pointed out that the drought we are experiencing is relatively rare and occurs once every thirty years, and he felt current planning takes the drought cycle into proper consideration.

Upon a motion by Mr. O'Connell and seconded by Mr. Tucker the Board of Directors voted to approve the concurrent project strategy for the 4 foot crest by a 4 to 1 vote with Dr. Collins voting against the motion was approved

Betty if you don't know why the plan was changed say you don't know. The word "mysterious" is just your way of making it appear that someone did something wrong. It's kind of shameless

And you have the used the canard of all that money wasted and yet have worked night and day to do the exact same thing with the approved 2006 City/County approved plan. Can't you keep your story straight

Your fed up with inaction and yet the Norris plan may stop any action for years. Something may be wrong in Camelot and methinks it might be your ability to bear fair witness, my lady.

Betty did you just change the subject AGAIN? Why do yo flutter from place to place so, never for a moment deeming anything you wrote before worthy of explanation or defense.

What will help us with our differences if you will engage in a debate about facts and not platitudes that you can cut and paste. Jefferson also came to the conclusion that England would never treat America fairly and the only rational course was to throw off the yoke of oppression and break free.

Like Kuttner, which Jefferson are we really talking about?

Mr. Martin was quoted at an Albemarle Service Authority meeting saying:

ââ?¬Å?It would be irresponsible,” added Martin, ââ?¬Å?to plan a water supply on assumptions that the public will conserve. If you’re going to err, you’re going to err on over-supply. It’s gonna be painful,” Martin concluded, ââ?¬Å?but there’s nothing we can do about it.”

This is where Mr. Martin and I disagree - there is something we can do about it, dredge now and support the Norris Plan, as the most affordable way to supply abundant water for decades

http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2009/06/18/4x-club-rewarding-t...