Green kit: Is a $1.2 million reservoir in the bag?

David Tanner, Peggy Moore, and Ginger Quillen– and their water-saving devices.
PHOTO BY HAWES SPENCER

While Charlottesville leaders continue to bicker over whether to dredge their reservoir or build a new one, a Waynesboro non-profit has unveiled a new idea in water conservation. In a late-December press conference, officials with Vector Industries unveiled a set of kitchen and bathroom devices they claim will reduce household water use by 34 percent–- a savings that some see as a sort of reservoir-in-a-bag.

"It's just the right thing to do," said Vector's Peggy Moore. "It's just common sense."

Dubbed the "Green Kit," the $25 bag includes a low-flow showerhead plus three sink aerators, two kinds of toilet water reducers, a pair of leak detectors, and a roll of teflon tape for installation.

Vector operations manager David Tanner noted that thanks to the kit, long showers by his teenage daughter no longer deplete his home's 30-gallon hot water heater. And Vector's development manager Ginger Quillen–- who, like many of Vector's workers/clients, is confined to a wheelchair–- said she had no trouble installing all the components. "There's nothing to it," said Quillen.

More to the conservation point, Quillen noted that despite the presence of houseguests, the Kit gave her home a 31 percent drop in water usage. That was particularly helpful financial news because, on the same day the Green Kit was unveiled, Waynesboro City Council unveiled some news of its own: a 35.2 percent spike in water rates.

Meanwhile, back in Charlottesville, officials with the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority have done a lot of rate spiking of their own. Average rates climbed over five percent in fiscal 2008, with future increases on the way.

"It might make sense for the RWSA to buy thousands of these and give them away free," said Rich Collins, a press conference attendee and an elected Soil & Water official from Charlottesville who has been critical of RWSA's insistence on reservoir-building.

Indeed, when asked this same day, at the conclusion of his monthly board meeting if such a conservation strategy might make sense, RWSA chair Mike Gaffney dismissed the idea.

"I don't think it's the Authority's responsibility to get into the retail end of the business," said Gaffney. "We have two customers, and they don't want us to mess with their customers."

Yet the numbers, if Vector is correct, might entice the City–- one of the two customers of which Gaffney speaks–- to get involved. Vector says the kits, which its disabled clients assemble from components purchased from Niagara Conservation, will pay for themselves in less than three months.

That last factor could also help explain why the RWSA might not rush to embrace such devices. At its December board meeting, the Authority board received the final financial report from 2008 fiscal year that ended in June. Despite–- or perhaps because of–- the rate hikes, water revenue was up only 2.9 percent. In fact, total metered water flows declined by 8.2 percent.

For every gallon conserved, RWSA makes less money. But that's more money in the pockets of consumers, and that's one of the reasons Vector got involved.

"With the economy the way it is," said Vector's Moore, "a few dollars makes a big difference."

Over the course of a year under Waynesboro's rates, Moore says, the kits could save a typical homeowner 35,000 gallons and $380 in cash. And that's a shot that's been heard over the mountain.

"If they can do it for $25 a pop, that says to me that we're not going far enough," says Charlottesville mayor Dave Norris, who has recently stood up to his county counterparts by demanding a new look at conservation. His actions have included halting construction work on the proposed new dam. Already, the new dam has cost water users about $5 million and appears headed toward an ultimate cost of over $200 million.

By contrast, even without any volume discount, it would cost just $1.2 million to buy a Green Kit for all 47,000 Charlottesville/Albemarle households on public water, and Norris admits he's intrigued.

"If it's true that with a $25 kit we can all reduce our water usage 34 percent," says Norris, "it begs the questions a) Have we tried hard enough and b) Why is that not reflected in our water supply plan?"

Since early 2008, the water supply plan has been roiled in debate, most recently December 18 when the RWSA's other customer, the Albemarle County Service Authority, fretted over the City's stance. Service Authority Board member John Martin, who has been trying to block or delay dredging the existing reservoir, blasted City leaders in general and Norris in particular for their November 3 "unilaterial decision" to block the dam.

"That declaration was the most discourteous thing I've ever seen a governmental body do," said Martin. "He doesn't completely understand what water supply planning is all about," said fellow board member Liz Palmer. "There is a certain Pollyanna character to it," agreed Martin, as the board, as heard in a podcast, erupted in laughter.

Mayor Norris, however, is undeterred by the insults. He points out that the 50-year water plan's goal for conservation is just 5 percent, about one-seventh of the 34 percent claimed by just one little bag of gizmos.

"If Waynesboro can figure out, at 25 dollars a pop, how to be seven times smarter," says Norris, "that's pretty sad."

113 comments

I believe the whole plan is just a plan by The Nature Conservancy to enact their Freshwater Inniative here in our community. Not so bad if it were not a massive experiment to be paid for by the water rate payers.

They say we are running out of water but this plan abandons our principal reservoirs. They are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and are valuable features of our community. With no reservoirs then of course we need a new one, even though it cost $200,000,000.00+++ additional dollars.

And the demand analysis does not consider that we have removed the golf courses from the RWSA system. And the conservation plan does not include grey water ordinances. In 50 years our usage will change entirely as society changes. Let’s engage a truly capable organization like the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to help do a legitimate demand analysis.

While we are at it, perhaps the U.S. Army C.O.E. would review the safe yield computations with their modeling. Asking The Nature Conservancy to model the system and then design the solution to their liking is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Little is known of their modeling techniques and we are the first experiment with a municipal watershed.

There is plenty of evidence that we can dredge the existing reservoirs and have plenty of water for a thriving community. But then The Nature Conservancy will lose their experiment in their own backyard at our expense. A lot of work has gone into setting this experiment up. The Nature Conservancy actually went to Richmond and convinced the legislature to create a Rivanna River Basin Commission. Then they provided $450,000 of funds to this Governmental organization to study sedimentation in the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. 4 members of the RRBC, including the chair, sit on the Task Force voting on the recommendation yet to be submitted. That's all good if you favor spending $200,000,000.00 of the rate payer’s money while letting the existing reservoir fill in. And of course no payments from The Nature Conservancy have been made in 2 years and they hold all the funds.

I guess we need to ask, WHY ARE THEY RESISTING ANALYSIS OF THE DEREDGING ALTERNATIVE SO AGRESSIVELY?

Observer: will you provide anything to substantiate any of your claims, please? Any further reading, specific legislative items, documentation, names of people...anything would be great. (I'll note that my tone in this is not intended to imply that you're wrong, it's a sincere request for more information). This is the first I recall reading about the Nature Conservancy being involved in this. While they'd clearly have an interest in this sort of thing generally, I wasn't aware that they are working specifically on this.

"I guess we need to ask, WHY ARE THEY RESISTING ANALYSIS OF THE DEREDGING ALTERNATIVE SO AGRESSIVELY?"

Exactly. The answer to that question would be mighty illuminating, to say the least.

Chris, I understand because initially I was baffled by the lack of information.

If you use the RWSA website you won’t find anything on The Nature Conservancy. First you may simply ask RWSA for copies of the communications from 2005 forward between RWSA and The Nature Conservancy. There is a letter from Brian Richter of TNC and Tom Frederick of RWSA which addresses the overall relationship and plan.

Then you may want to read "Rivers of Life" by Brian Richter which will outline the steps that are to be followed in the process from assessing the communities potential funding and political receptivity through the establishment of a River Basin Commission and writing what TNC calls a "Prescription" for the watershed. By the way this prescription will be changed as the results come in. It is an experiment. The book is difficult to obtain but available from the publisher Island Press.

Then you may wish to go on The Nature Conservancy web site and search for "Rivanna" and "Moorman's". There is quite a lot on our watershed. Additionally there is a section of the TNC website that requires you to create an account. Again there is a lot more there but you will have to sign a disclosure that the information will not be used against TNC.

All the above is just the starting place.

The Rivanna River Basin Commission does not have a website and information on their membership, intentions, findings and finances is difficult to obtain. They do not maintain a treasury but you may want to call Alyson Sappington, District Manager, Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. All the funds that may be given to RRBC are to be routed through her treasury first. Evidentially the donors to RRBC have given instructions to TNC that no funds will be provided unless certain unknown restrictions are met first. The TJSWCD is to be the gate on this.

There is a lot more and I believe new questions will arise along the way. The community should have been made aware long ago and I truly do not understand the way this has been communicated to the Rate Payers.

Someone offered the following which was attributed to Supervisor Slutzky.

(paraphased)

If we ever allow a dredge into the South Fork Reservoir, then we will loose our new pumped storage.

$1.2 million to save $200 million sounds like a nobrainer

Based on this article, it's a good thing the Rivanna River Basin Commission was established. I for one appreciate TNC's efforts, despite the above comments.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/article/rivanna_river_waters...

The baseless claims of Mr. Observer are pretty funny.

Jim will you be one of the ratepayers forking over $200 million to pay for the TNC water plan?

Jim,
Which claims are you finding baseless? Want the backup?

JIm,

Did you really need an article in the Daily Progress or the Nature Conservancy to know that local streams were unhealthy? It is pretty obvious if you look. $50,000 to find that out seems like a huge waste of money to me.

If that is all the information you have to go on, I'm wondering how you could possibly find fault with what observer wrote.

Thanks for the suggestions about websites to check, Observer. Turns out, I moved back to Charlottesville just after the series of articles in the Hook that noted TNC's involvement in at least some of the basis for the thinking about water supply issues here. (I moved back to town from San Francisco in June of this year.) I've been poking through the archives here and looking around TNC's website as well. I don't have any conclusions in my own mind yet, but I greatly appreciate the heads up and knowing where to look for more information.

Chris,

I forgot to mention thisw website The Hook. They have provided excellent coverage of this loval issue. Search their website.

"I don’t think it’s the Authority’s responsibility to get into the retail end of the business,” said Gaffney. ââ?¬Å?We have two customers, and they don’t want us to mess with their customers."

Will somebody please fire this guy?

Thanks to the Charlottesville City Council we just missed our chance

It amazes me that anyone questions The Nature Conservancy's involvement and investment in the current water supply plan. Read the minutes of the RWSA September 13, 2007 meeting. Bottom of page 5, Tom Frederick is reported to say about tying improved stream flow to the project,
ââ?¬Å?The Authority as an organization worked extensively on this issue, and it has been the top issue recently in terms of staff time, energy and resources. It has been a collaborative approach with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) who has also invested tremendous resources on this project. From TNC’s perspective, he felt it was an attempt to develop a new way to provide stream flows associated with dams and water supplies that could be used throughout the country.”

TNC is clearly using our water supply planning process to experiment with what they want to use as a national model. The problem is that's it is OUTRAGEOUSLY

(continued) it is outrageously EXPENSIVE. So the question becomes, why should the water rate payers have to fund what has become more a river restoration project than a water supply plan.

Paying for this massive project on the backs of those least able to pay (rate payers include all city residents, 25% of whom live below federal poverty levels, and less than half of county residents) has to be the most regressive way possible to fund this experiment.

and why is the City Council, the financial guardians of city resources including the Ragged Mt. Natural Area (980 acres of mature forest) and all the reservoirs, not looking to first maintain their resources and consider the cost to THEIR RATEPAYERS and sustainability of city assets. Instead they seem to be putting the interests of the Nature Conservancy and private property owners in the western part of Albemarle County first.

Please can someone explain their support of this crazy and expensive plan ?

If you want to see a lobbyist in action come to the next Dredging Task Force meeting on Tuesday, Jan 13th, 6pm in the basement conference room of City Hall and watch Ridge Schuyler,from the Nature Conservancy, and architect of the pump water uphill scheme, pull out all the stops to prevent dredging the Rivanna Reservoir for part of the water supply plan

$1.2 MILLION RESERVOIR! We did that already. Remember? I guess not.

Big Boy, you mean the $5 million + we spent getting concepts that wouldn't work ( pipeline in the route of 29 bypass) and assumptions that don't hold water ( dredging estimate of $223 million) from Gannett Fleming ?

Re the following:

ââ?¬Å?That declaration was the most discourteous thing I’ve ever seen a governmental body do,” said Martin. ââ?¬Å?He doesn’t completely understand what water supply planning is all about,” said fellow board member Liz Palmer. ââ?¬Å?There is a certain Pollyanna character to it,” agreed Martin, as the board, as heard in a podcast, erupted in laughter.

Mayor Norris, however, is undeterred by the insults. He points out that the 50-year water plan’s goal for conservation is just 5 percent, about one-seventh of the 34 percent claimed by just one little bag of gizmos.

ââ?¬Å?If Waynesboro can figure out, at 25 dollars a pop, how to be seven times smarter,” says Norris, ââ?¬Å?that’s pretty sad.”

--
John Martin and Liz Palmer's statements are incredibly rude and condescending. Mayor Norris has proven himself time and time again to be a REAL leader. He has the brains to keep looking for solutions to this mess, and the guts to stand up to pressure from the RWSA and TNC. A marked contrast to the lazy and greedy BOS who will rubberstamp anything the RWSA throws at them, just so long as they aren't forced to actually think about something for any length of time.

Yes, The majority,City council are in the business of protecting Albemarle County "interests first". Remember folks, most,Council also support the damaging Meadowcreek Parkway. They sit and smile and have no regret for the destruction that will take place in center city Charlottesville. Wake up citizens, duhhhhh!

plop, I agree with you, but not everyone on council feels that way. We, as citizens, need to throw our loud support behind the councilors who ARE pro-citizen, and aren't lapdogs of the wealthy county. Norris has stuck his neck out on Meadowcreek and the dam, but he's only one vote on council. For that, he deserves a hell of a lot more respect than Martin and Palmer are showing. They need to apologize publicly.

If a councilor does something you like, let council know. If they do something you don't like, let them know. There are times when they are on the fence about an issue and need us to back them up, preferably in person.

That said, some of them will always do whatever their masters tell them to, and can't be reached by any of us regular folks.

Reality Check, As I noted, the city council is tilted in a sad direction. I agree Norris is a friendly guy here, BUT it is high time he raises his voice in a more vocal manner. As an effective LEADER he CAN take some creative and more outward steps. The educated pubic knows why several on council hang with the "convincing members" on the BOS.
HINT HINT: Follow the money and influences involved. Look into the properties with easements in the Western section of Albemarle. Question why PEC is very aligned with the BOS. And, before it is too late, have the expectation for Norris to rally in defense of his city.
A suggestion, Norris could organize a protest to prevent the destruction of historic McIntire Park. He is entitled to rally in in the city's best interest, but will he, if not, Why?
It is one thing for the Mayor to look and act as a nice guy. The important piece is for him to publicly demand the best for his city.

I will add, it is appropriate to express thanks to Norris and any others for their votes in support of city interests. In fact, I'm sure Norris knows his vote is usually appreciated by most in the city. The problem, there is no public appeal by Norris to question the damaging and offensive votes often made by other members of council. Norris is in the lead as Mayor. I believe the public expects him to challenge the council more effectively.

We're in complete agreement, plop.

Will also add that to be fully effective, council needs more "outsiders" on it, citizen-activists like Peter Kleeman for instance. We could do with fewer politically tied-in people like Taliaferro and Brown.

Reality Check, you are so right. Someone please explain to me why Brown was ever put on Council. Who did that benefit and who might have pulled strings to make it happen? I can't remember a more unnecessary councilor in the 25 years I've lived here. Was he some sort of behind the scenes fundraiser or something? It is pretty clear that there is some sort of Democratic party machine working here. Why him?

Mayor Norris deserves, and seems to be receiving, wide public support! What a brave man who is well above the petty "Enlightened Self Interest" crowd. He acts like he is truly committed to doing the "right" thing.

One problem with "Enlightened Self Interest " is that they will negotiate for their interest and once the are appeased their interest stops, far short of the "right" solution. You just cannot trust their integrity.

But Mayor Norris has the people’s interest close to his heart, or that is what I believe. The BOS, well I wouldn't vote for any of them for any governmental position. Mysterious sellouts to special interest.

We will know that Council has done the right thing if we see the dredging surveys done as a comparison to the cost of the RWSA dam/pipeline plan for the water supply. And if we see a realistic study of the amount of water needed over 50 years using more accurate conservation data than we have now.

I do believe that Council will get this done before allowing any construction on a new dam and I hope I'm right, if not I believe we will see a very different council in the coming years than the one we have now and let's hope that the ratepayers in the county demand the same.

Toilets account for approx. 30% of water used indoors. By installing a Dual Flush toilet you can save between 40% and 70% of drinking water being flushed down the toilet, depending how old the toilet is you are going to replace.
If you are serious about saving water, want a toilet that really works and is affordable, I would highly recommend a Caroma Dual Flush toilet. Caroma toilets offer a patented dual flush technology consisting of a 0.8 Gal flush for liquid waste and a 1.6 Gal flush for solids. On an average of 5 uses a day (4 liquid/ 1 solid) a Caroma Dual Flush toilet uses an average of 0.96 gallons per flush. The new Sydney Smart uses only 1.28 and 0.8 gpf, that is an average of 0.89 gallons per flush. This is the lowest water consumption of any toilet available in the US. Caroma, an Australian company set the standard by giving the world its first successful two button dual flush system in the nineteen eighties and has since perfected the technology. Also, with a full 3.5”³ trapway, these toilets virtually never clog. All of Caroma’s toilets are on the list of WaterSense labeled HET’s http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pp/find_het.htm and also qualify for several toilet rebate programs available in the US. Please visit my blog http://pottygirl.wordpress.com/ to learn more or go to http://www.caromausa.com to learn where you can find Caroma toilets locally. Visit http://www.ecotransitions.com/howto.asp to see how we flush potatoes with 0.8 gallons of water, meant for liquids only. Best regards, Andrea Paulinelli, owner ecoTransitions Inc.

Betty, I agree 1000%%% with you on this issue! I do believe we of the same mind should hold firm and expect Council to also do the right thing with the Parkway issue. Time is running out fast. It is significant that our Mayor is unconvinced the Meadowcreek Parkway is appropriate and right for Charlottesville. As Norris believes moving forward here is problematic, he could call for a a rally on the mall (to protect the Park). I'm sure citizens would be willing to participate and even donate at this crucial time. Several weeks ago the Charlottesville Planning Commission voted Not to provide money for the road. This is a perfect time for Norris to call folks together in a public manner. If the destruction takes place, Brown and Taliaferro will be viewed in a very bad light. In fact, I wouldn't want to be seen on the street if I were responsible for advocating for rape of the best Parkland in the city. I hope and pray Hugia will now do the right thing. I truly believe he may do so. That is all it will take to leave Brown and Taliaferro in the wind. They have been a huge disappointment in advocating for the people they represent.

Interesting article in today's Daily Progress titled Dam Dispute
two views by Rich Collins and Neil Williamson. Does anyone know anything about the Free Enterprise forum or where they get their funding from?

plop, why are you waiting for the mayor to call a rally? I would would be glad to see you get it going so all he has to do is join in and offer a few words of support.

Are there actually people who don't see Brown in a bad light. What kind of light are they viewing with I wonder?

Let’s remember too”Š.

The city OWNS South Fork Rivanna Reservoir ââ?¬â?? that will be allowed to deteriorate under the water plan

The city OWNS Ragged Mountain Natural Area ââ?¬â?? where 180 acres and 50,000 trees will be lost to the water plan

The city OWNS Sugar Hollow Reservoir ââ?¬â?? the cleanest water that will be lost to city residents under the water plan

These city-owned resources are the sacrificial lambs to the current water plan. To add insult to injury, city residents will be required to pay for it.

Some councilors call this COOPERATION. And what exactly does the city get in return?
Higher bills for inferior water”Š”Š

Lost, In answer to your question, yes, it appears some of those who are truly "out of touch or in denial" glaze over and ignore Brown's ineffective and damaging role. Wasn't he elected twice? My point, I think his days are numbered in politics, even in Charlottesville. He is turning the mainstream public off! People are finally catching on.
I think leaders should do what it takes to win a battle. Norris would be the more effective organizer of a rally. Many believe it is time he takes some firm action to stop the Parkway. He is nice, but far too quiet and accepting of failure at a point in time when the bulldozers are set to roll through the town.

is to elect a third person to council who opposes the parkway.

Or raise money to hire a darn good lawyer to fight it out in the courts

The only way,
Yes sir! I say go for it. I believe a well-organized fund raising campaign for legal support woud be well received in this locality. In the meantime, I would like to see more public debate in Council and "before the public". Norris and Edwards have a great opportunity to pin the others down at this point. I have never heard Brown or Taliaferro give any smart comment on the matter. Hugia could be the hero here, in the long run. I think he is intelligent and always open to changing his mind.

Lorax, I agree we need to make sure we elect councilors that are strong advocates for City residents and who have as their first priority the interests of their citizens. This applies both to the parkway and the cost and environmental resources of the water plan.

Agreed with all, but put yourself in Norris's shoes. He's standing up for something and voting his conscience, yet we don't have anything even close to consensus among Councilors on some of these issues. He sticks his neck out, alone, and the other councilors are staring at the ceiling or twiddling their thumbs. What's he supposed to do? This has been going on a long time. On a personal level, how much of this could any of us stand? It takes a tremendous amount of guts and energy to repeatedly be odd-man-out (aka the voice of reason) for this long.

Huja has been a disappointment. The guy is incredibly smart and a very interesting person. He often asks the most perceptive questions. But I fear that he's too much of a "company man" sometimes. I think that if Brown and Taliaferro were out of the picture, Huja and his ideas could really shine, and there'd be less political pressure on him.

Imagine a Council with people like Peter Kleeman, Betty Mooney, Colette Hall etc sitting up there with Norris, Edwards, and Huja.

We need to elect leaders who can rally others when the interests of their citizens are at stake and convince at least 2 other councilors of the rightness of their view. I am hopeful that the Alliance of Neighborhoods will be a new voice for the Citizens both city and county of our community. I encourage all neighborhoods to participate by signing up at this web-site you don't need an organized assoc. to join.

http://www.allianceofneighborhoods.org/

You all forget that Huja said building the meadowcreek parkway was his number one priority if he got elected to council.

I documented much of what OBSERVER has written a while back, providing links to the various media, City Council minutes, Ivy Creek Foundation, Charlottesville Tomorrow, DP, and the Hook being my primary sources. I did not save any of my posts and I don't want to take the time to seek that information again. For three days I have been trying to find the source of something I've read recently that says that John Martin says the public can not be trusted to conserve, implying that the 5% conservation rate estimated in the proposal's future (there's nothing about this that resembles a "plan") conservation estimates. Of course, he doesn't take into account the 15% water leakage rate that will change when the lines are fixed. And, if Andrea is correct that flusing averages about 30% of a household's total water consumption, there can be an additional 12% of total usage conserved in those houlseholds this or a similar product.
It seems the biggest proponents of this proposal

Ridge Schuyler, John Martin (the bully) and Liz Palmer (all non-elected)are recognizing their dwindling support.
About the $1.2M, after the water rates go up to pay for this $200M+ white elephant, how much will the city have to put up to subsidized its residents' water and sewer bills? This dam project is only a part of future expenditures to improve the water and sewer service to Charlottesville.
If you want to show your support for Norris, go to a Council meeting and publicly state it at the microphone for Overrun O'Connell, Marionette Brown (let's cooperate with the county) and Taliaferro to hear. Perhpas you can convince others to do so, too.

Cville Eye, do you know anything about the Free Enterprise Forum and did you read the article by their president, Neil Williamson, in today's Daily Progress titled Dam Dispute. I can't find it online

Interesting... Thanks for setting the record straight. I didn't realize Huga was dead set to push the parkway through. I hoped for better. I agree, the election of Peter, Colette, and Betty would be the city's salvation. Here we have the best minds, common sense and real guts combined. No one will buy them off! Sorry, I still think Norris can do more to take the lead on these crucial issues. Come on, he is a grownup and he is the leader of the city. He is entitled to do what it takes to get the job done. That includes being more vocal in opposing County interests. As I read the Progress today, I saw where Norris thinks it is OK to name the parkway after Warner. Why would the Mayor think it is appropriate to name the road for someone who santioned the destruction of the city's historic McIntire park? I'm scratching my head on this one.

Interesting commentary here. In response to the last posting -- "plop," just to correct the record, I did not say I would be OK naming the Parkway after Warner. I said that I didn't care either way because I don't support the road. They could name it after my own mother and I would still oppose the thing. Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify.

Anyone who attended the 4 board meeting on Nov 25th will realize that Dave Norris is providing firm leadership for the elected officials in calling for better cost estimates and dredging surveys before any construction begins on the dam.
http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2008/11/30/water-panic-in-gian...

If you want to understand what he's up against just listen to the ACSA meeting responding to the City's firm demand to get better cost estimates.
http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2008/12/acsa...

I agree with Cville Eye the more citizens come to speak up at Council and support the Mayor's lead on getting the detailed cost estimates on the dam, pipeline, dredging, and better conservation data, and the parkway the better. Next chance to speak Monday Jan 5th at 7pm Council Chambers--that's tomorrow hope to see you there !

Dave, Thanks for commenting. We realize you have said you don't support the road. Thank you for your vote here, BUT please stand strong in firm opposition to "naming a road" you/most others oppose for a guy who pretty much "cooked the deal" for widespread environmental destruction through our town. As you don't care whether or not the road is named for Warner, aren't you offering positive reward for Warner's questionable/objectionable contribution? Politicians like Warner love to have sites named for themselves. As you know, all of the area Republicans are chomping at the bit to honor Warner here. Please reconsider and realize that (your not caring whether or not the road is named for Warner), causes legitimate concern. Thanks again for your vote. Now is the time to do whatever it takes to stop this road fueled by County interests.

"Plop",
The Meadowcreek Parkway will use part of McIntire Park, the side where the golf course is. The park is not being destroyed and besides, isn't land going to added to replace that which will be lost? If it is going to be destroyed how will the YMCA build their megaplex there? Excess hyperoble doesn't help your credibility. Or are you afraid of an accurate description of the impact of the road? I think the construction of the road could dramatically relieve the intense traffic on Park/Rio and other streets in that neighborhood.
You may believe that everyone is against the parkway but I believe that there are many people living in the city, including me, who want to see that road built.
As for the name, I'd like to see it named McIntire Road so that the road doesn't change names like so many local roads do.
By the way just why is the park historic? Because McIntire gave the land to the city? He gave the land the 250 Bypass was built on. Maybe it's historic because it was restricted to white people at one time. Does segregation make it historic? Is that what you mean? Lots of things were segregated during that shameful time. Preserving a golf course isn't going to help people remember segregation, something that certainly should happen.
Every time somebody wants to stop a project they yell, "Stop! It's historic!" Just because the land was donated a little while ago doesn't make it historic.
Cordially,
Kevin Cox

One more thought, I would prefer to have read such comment/Today's Progress: Norris: "No way would I ever consider putting a vote forth to honor Warner by naming the road for him. It is Warner who has paved the way for the desecration of our city's historic parkland."

"Desecration"? So now it's a religious site as well as an historic site? Plop, are you a devout golfer?
Cordially,
Kevin Cox

Kevin, the way many see it, the golf course land that will be destroyed is some of the most unique green space in the city. Thank God the land has remained free of clutter unlike the other areas of McIntire Park. I'm also concerned about added traffic on the bypass that will most certainly occur as traffic is funneled in from 29N via the new Meadowcreek Parkway. The Covenant School area will be very negatively impacted.
Kevin, what is all of this yelling about segregation? Have you attended the recent first tee events, McIntire Golf course? You're dwelling too much in the past in this case. Sorry, but many of your arguments don't hold water. Remember Kevin, You have a right to your opinion and "so do the others." Kevin, didn't you once work for Forrest Marshall's county political campaign? If so, no wonder you are pro parkway. Oh well, each to his own...

Kevin, Now calm down son. I think it is time for you to take a deep breath or a stiff drink. :-)))))))))))))

You fellas are reading implications that I ain't makin'. Who's yelling? Not me. I don't need a drink either. Gave that poison up years ago, and Plop you sure aren't my dad!

There isn't going to be any huge increase in traffic. For one thing there's already plenty, it's on Park Street and Rio Road. A new route adjacent to an existing one isn't going to cause a bunch of new jobs or homes. The traffic will move but people aren't going to move here just to drive on the parkway, whatever it gets named.

Personally I am sorry that the road is necessary but it is. Lots of people have moved here and a lot of them are driving into and through town and they're going to keep on coming and they're going to keep on driving. We need the Eastern Connector too.

Plop, instead of snide insults why don't you try a reasonable discussion? What's historic about McIntire Park? I'm just askin'.
Cordially,
Kevin Cox

Kevin-

The parkway is going to go straight through the first Vietnam Veterans Memorial in the United States. Something Warner would support?

Here's one link. If you Google, you'll find others.
http://kleemanblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/coalition-to-preserve-mcintire-p...

"The construction of the 250 interchange and parts of the parkway (McIntire Road Extended) will adversely affect historic sites in the immediate area. These include McIntire Park itself, the Rock Hill Estate Gardens, the first in the nation Vietnam Veterans Memorial, historic houses on Park Hill, the McIntire (Covenant) School built by Paul Goodloe McIntire, and the 1930s McIntire Golf Course. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that impacts on properties eligible for the national register be avoided and when avoidance is impossible, all efforts to mitigate these effects be taken."

Kevin, First of all, you have appeared to have your feathers ruffled from the start. Come on, can't you take some ribbing? You certainly make an effort to dish out your own jabs. In fact you have a reputation here, don't you? Anyway, since you have asked, here goes. I'm not going to go into detail, but as far as Charlottesville is concerned, most citizens are aware that Paul G. McIntire is a very important and historic character. Read your local history and you will learn of his contributions. We all know the 250 bypass took part of his gift. When will the chopping off of the park stop? Not until residents say ENOUGH and demand accountability. The County does not want to build connectors. Get it? The county doesn't want to destroy its own land to channel the traffic it generates. Nothing will change until the city government and residents finally say No to bypasses through the city. Why enable the floundering County officials here?
Any dummy knows this road will pull in many more vehicles a day into the city. I say now is the time to "hold out" and make the county build some highways around the city.
Kevin, I am also curious as city kid brought up the subject. Did you work for Forrest Marshall's county campaign? If so, this would be very telling. Come on, fess up.

The impact on the Vietnam Memorial is very unfortunate but the memorial can be shifted to a nearby site with only a small impact.
Other than the Rock Hill gardens I don't think the road is going to require the demolition of any of the other sites that Peter Kleeman mentions. The road may be near them, as is the 250 Bypass right now but I don't think any of the buildings mentioned will be destroyed. Do you know if the buildings mentioned and the gardens will be demolished? I realize that Peter only said "adversely affect" but I want to clarify what that means. It does not mean that they will be demolished. How much more can McIntire School be affected than it already is? As for the golf course, I realize that it's become popular to label anything that's old as historic but age alone does not make something historical.
Cordially,
Kevin Cox

Kevin, did you work for Forest Marshall's county campaign? Yes or No? My guess, a no answer means YES.

Plop,
Your assumptions are incorrect on several counts. My support for the road has zilch to do with Forrest. He's my friend but we disagree about a number of issues. He also is a strong supporter for Land Use taxation. I think it's a terrible program that doesn't work and forces non-eligible tazpayers to support eligible landowners. Believe what you want to if it makes you feel good. Try using your name, you may feel even better.

Thank goodness the land for the 250 Bypass was used and that road was built!

Please tell me why the road will pull more traffic into the city other than "any dummy" knows it. I disagree with you plop, that doesn't make me a dummy.
Cordially,
Kevin Cox

If I lived in the county when Forrest ran I would have supported him. I don't think though, that I did much but so what? I am not supporting the road because of Forrest. This is kind of comical actually.

GUILTY! I wrote a letter endorsing Forrest Marshall to The Daily Progress (I think I did anyway, it's been awhile)!
Cordially,
Kevin Cox

Kevin, Now we know, this is a "birds of a feather" issue, hanging with Marshall. Longtimers in the region know of your politics. You expect others to cough it up, but you are reluctant to be straight with us. You clearly aided Marshall and his campaign. Why not just say so? You're the only guy being laughed at here. Hey, we use our real names when we want to. Who are you to criticize someone for using a tag name?
You appear to be a county hugger in the parkway case. I'm sure your friend Forrest is proud of you.

Thanks Andrea for the interesting information. Someone wrote at Dave's blog that in 50 years the whole technology of how we use water will change and once again Dave is in the forefront of our elected officials in calling for greater conservation efforts that have already happened and will continue to happen to be factored into our water plan. This data is required for our community to qualify for a state approved water plan due in 2011 and which we currently do not have.

http://cvilledave.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-waynesboro-really-7-times-smar...

Kevin, the parkway will absolutely pull in more traffic into/through central Cville. Isn't that the purpose of the project?

Baloney City Guy and plop. I don't care if you know I supported Forrest. It has nothing to do with my feelings about the road. Huja supports it and it would be a cold day in hell before I ever supported him in any election. And I don't give a hoot who knows what about my politics. I'm not trying to hide anything.

I have posted under an alias but I stopped a long time ago. I never do now and I never will. It's not for me. If I can't put my name on what I write I don't want to post it.

As for the actual topic of this thread I have to say that I bought my own low flush toilets and front loading washer and low flow shower heads. It's made a huge difference and the kits may help others realize the same benefits. But conservation alone isn't going to solve the problem. Dredge the reservoir ! I hope that the crazy plans for the dam and the pipeline are stopped.

Cordially,
Kevin Cox

Kevin, Cool off, Go ahead and use your own name if you choose to. No one really cares. You also have the right to support Forrest. Forrest has not been a true and consistent friend to the environment though. As we know the history of his rocky reign, those who aligned with him politically are certainly called into question. Glad to know you now make up your own mind in many ways. I agree, stop the plans for the pipeline and dredge! It is the County that will once again be the hangup in this case. Let's hope council has the guts to finally stand up to the county. The county has a history of successfully manipulating the city. That is exactly why folks are raising eyebrows with regard to the Parkway.

I watch as many of you beat up Kevin Cox and still haven't answered what is being lost by parkland that is basically unused. I have driven by it a thousand times and have yet to see it ever be busy. I would argue that the park might actually get more use. It could have better trails and bike paths. It will make bike traffic on Rio/Park safer. And Cox is right that the traffic is already there, let's put it somewhere it belongs- on a road designed to handle it.

Plop,
In verbal communication, emotions are frequently communicated through inflection, tone and gestures along with language. We have only written language in these posts and so it is difficult to determine what the emotional state of a writer may be. Still, some may want to think they've affected people on an emotional level. Plop you are making assumptions about me that are just not true. I can't cool off cuz' I'm not hot. I do think that your assumptions about me reflect your desires to be annoying. You aren't succeeding in bugging me. Your pathetic attempts are transparent because you have yet to really address any of the points I've raised. You focus on insults more than anything else. For example you say that the road will increase traffic because any dummy knows that and because you say so and that's that!

The road is going to be built. I just hope the city builds it's portion promptly so that the county's part doesn't dump traffic onto Melbourne at CHS. I also hope it's named McIntire Road or maybe The McIntire Parkway.

That's it for me. I'm through hijacking this thread.
Thank you Betty for all you've done.
Cordially,
Kevin Cox

One more highjack, if I may. It's a dumb idea to beat up on Kevin Cox, because he's a great community activist. We can agree or disagree about the parkway without slinging pejoratives at Kevin. He disagrees on the parkway, and agrees on the dam. That's good enough for me.

Diagoliv-- because it's not a sound engineering idea when you loot at it through the lens of a big picture. If you build the road it will soon fill up with bumper-to-bumper traffic. Once you get to McIntire in the city, there's no place for the cars to then go efficiently. We need a more workable solution. This road is all about accommodating increasing fast growth in the county, and has little benefit for the city. Frankly, I don't care if I get to Lowe's 3 minutes faster. It's not worth what we would lose.

I'm sad you feel so cavalier about parkland. Unused? It doesn't have to actually DO something in order to be valuable, i.e. provide YOU with amusement and activities. The primary benefit of parkland and green space is in simply existing. It's nature and provides us oxygen, and is a home to plants and animals. It's a pollution filter as well.

Parkland is much more beneficial when it's large, rather than chopped up into bits. It's a comfort to the eyes, which get a break from looking at big box stores. It's a quiet place to sit, wander, and contemplate. And you can actually walk directly on the ground. You don't need a path, or even a well-defined destination!

I agree, as always, thank you Betty.
Kevin, sorry but as you can read, several view your posts/opinions the same as I do. You appear bothered by other opinions..but we really don't care enough,so I agree let's drop it. Honestly, it appears to many, your "approach" encourages "challenges" from others. It seems you would be used to it by now!
I have a suggestion as far as the golf course goes. Make it more accessible to the general public and pedestrians. Put in bike paths, gardens. Build a bird sanctuary, but keep the beautiful eastern end of the park green and uncluttered. Compromise/Change the Use away from a golf course "in order to save the park". Kevin, one more thing. You may be correct that it is a done deal. But I think there could be a legal challenge. We'll see what happens, but isn't it dumb for the county to begin before legal aspects are hashed out? Why spend $ on the county portion that goes nowhere????

This piece isn't about Kevin. I would suggest that he also threw out some insults of his own. I don't think it is all one-sided, in that he is being beaten up. I agree, let's move forward now.

Re bird sanctuary/gardens idea, brilliant! We are a nature and garden loving town, that's for sure. It would be great to have a park that would accommodate significantly-sized versions of both of each of these. And I mean significant-- not the puny thow-away sites one usually gets in a proffered deal.

It would be great to have a large area devoted to native species.

Reality check, I love your summation concerning green space! You truly have hit the nail on the head. What is wrong with people as they have a need to be constantly entertained by "stuff"? You don't need trampolines to jump. You don't need paved surfaces to walk. You don't need a manicured ball field to run. You don't need shelters for picnics. Our society is out of touch and spoiled. At least the makeup of the golf course has prevented the city from junking that area.

Tonight some of our group will talk at Council about cost and conservation. I agree one of the most important city assets is its parks and green spaces, once that is gone it's gone forever. I thought we were a green city. I'm happy to see the City Planning Commission actually doing some planning and one of their priorities is the tree canopy, so I don't get, if you could potentially give out green kits to all water users saving 34%, and gain 15%more water by repairing leaks. Why wouldn't you do that first before building any new infrastructure and then plan for the future with better data?

Remember your voice at Council does make a difference , maybe this could be the year of speaking out for the environment and frugality.

I really think all the "green issues" in the city tie together here. Kevin, as you asked for/wanted to acquire more info (traffic concerns-Parkway), I suggest you ask for clarifications from Reality Check. He speaks of the "bumper to bumper" traffic it will bring, along with entanglement in other locations,city. Perhaps he can fill you in on our concerns.
Betty, thanks as always for filling us in. Hope to see you at tonight's meeting.

Building a $200MM reservoir to increase the water supply is about one thing only. MONEY! With an increase in the water supply, you can increase the number of customers consuming the water. More customers equals more MONEY. Rates will also increase to repay the cost of building the reservoir. Higher rates equals more MONEY.

Dredging on the other hand means less MONEY. Dredging does not allow a large increase in consumers. There's no one to feel sorry for you because you didn't spend $200MM. Dredging means that you cannot justify HUGE rate increases.

Conserving too means more MONEY. When demand goes down, rates go up. However, a stop in conservation does not mean rates go down. Rates never go down. Therefore, conservation is not in the best interest of the consumer.

So, if you owned the only water supply and had a choice. You would choose a reservoir to make lots of MONEY. You would also back conservation. This would give you both a larger consumer base and higher rates. Making you LOTS of MONEY.

It all about MONEY people. Nothing else!

Steve, who keeps the money?

involving the army coe in any project would be a terrible and long lasting poor decision. Water wars are not new, just to the east. Read Cadillac Desert and see the destruction wrought by the army coe and Bureau of Reclamation. A more recent and news ready example? The channeling of the mississippi delta and elimination of marshland that set up New Orleans for Katrina.

Steve, in 2002 our water authority doubled our water rates to pay for the approved plan which cost $30 million. The water authority spent 5 million plus dollars on consultants and provided no increase in the water supply. The water authority has the rest of the money in the bank probably 18+ million. The new dam estimate has tripled in price and the money for this increase is not in the budget therefore the project has been put on hold .The City has called for a re-evaluation of the pipeline that must be built to fill the expanded Ragged Mt Reservoir, which is currently a concept that has no route, design or cost estimate. There is no reason to capitalize the whole 50 year project at once and dredging looks to be a logical place to begin for much less money and at the same time repair the dam at Ragged Mt, and that will give us plenty of time to provide for the future with better cost, population and conservation data.

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

Chris,
This article also explains who is keeping the money and for numbers nerds lots of fascinating documents

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2008/04/17/NEWS-water-revealingDocume...

April 17, 2008 - NEWS- Revealing docs: Dredging foes run up the tab
2001 report - VHB: engineers summarize gamut of existing local water knowledge [PDF]
2002 report - RWSA director Tropea enthuses about post-drought plan [powerpoint]
2002 memo - RWSA: finalizes dredge-friendly water supply plan in wake of drought [RTF]
2002 contract - RWSA: original water supply plan Gannett Fleming hired to implement for 798K [PDF]
2003 memo - Gannett Fleming: unveils new dam idea as better than dredging [PDF]
2004 memo - Gannett Fleming: slams prior data, dredging too expensive at $42 million [PDF]
2004 memo - Gannett Fleming: rewrites its mission or ââ?¬Å?Scope of Services” [PDF]
2005 memo - Gannett Fleming: downplays dredging despite airport & contractor interest [PDF]

http://freeenterpriseforum.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/community-water-supp... It seems Fred Williamson has the "cheating husband" syndrome and is guilty of what he's accussing his wife, Citizens for a Sustainable Water Supply, of doing. The community of 28 "vetters" may have supported restoring water flows to the Moorman's perhaps they are the only ones who know where it is. Why was the current proposal the only one permitted. Perhaps because it is the only one that the locality be requested to permit. Your daughter gets your permit to charege a $2,000 to your account. Does that preclude your not allowing her to buy a $500 one? I guess the Moorman's River restoration project is the reason why the bladder-dredge proposal of Trop(p?)a's?

God bless us all. We are in a big mess.

It's time like this, especially, that I wish The Hook had a significantly more objective news department and kept their commentary to commentary pieces rather than having it interwoven with the "news." I find it difficult to sort out quite what's going on despite careful reading of the articles and cited documents. I don't have my mind made up about any particular parts of this whole issue, so it's not that I'm trying to read things one way or another. I also wish that people who have some real knowledge and information to offer would stop trying to be cute about it and just offer it. Trying to figure out the various metaphors and get past the name calling really makes it almost impossible to glean anything useful. This is serious stuff, it'd be great if everyone would treat it as such.

Chris, I think you should look DEEP into the "set-up",local politics. Some current appointees-Council, in the view of many, are either old, bought out,or disturbed. Did you view the City Council meeting tonight? Ole Forrest Marshall was a big hit there...Council was buying his begging....Don't you sense a problem? Council tends to go with the direction of the wind. NOT the fault of THE HOOK here!

If the resivoir is not empty does it matter how much water we use? None of it is wasted. If it goes down the drain, gets treated and put back in the resivoir or the river. If we water our lawn it makes the grass and trees grow. What is wrong with that? Also, the cost to treat water in not by the gallon. If you have 10 gallons of long shower water mixed in with one gallon of horrific sewage then you have 11 gallons of not so bad stuff to treat. It will take the same amount of chemicals as if it were 1 gsllon of each. Simple chemistry.

Also.. when they conserved water in Orange county (voluntarily) they DOUBLED the water rate to compensate for the lost revenue. So people ended up spending the same amount but were not flushing toilets, leaving dirty dishes lying around and not washing clothes until absolutely nessasary. So much for being patriotic.

Chris, this may be just my opinion here and not shared by others, but here goes... This is a very very small town. We're all separated by 2 degrees, max. Unfortunately this means that sometimes people can have strong opinions on an issue, but aren't at liberty to explain publicly all of the background information that led up to those opinions (for instance: who owes who what, and why? It's politics!).

I'd wager that Betty Mooney and Kevin Lynch have read, absorbed, and know more in-depth about this topic than anyone else in Charlottesville. They have all the FOIAed documents, correspondence, etc and it tells quite a tale. They are both very approachable, nice people. If you want background, you should contact them. Honestly, that's probably the best way to go. Because I don't think anyone on here is going to start accusing their neighbors of graft, deception, or moral weakness, even using an alias. I'm personally very fond of some of the public figures who are on the other side of this issue from me. I may disagree strongly with some of the bad choices they've made- and some of them are really bad!- but I'm not going to call them out publicly in a personal manner.

Sorry, that probably wasn't very helpful. But I'd suggest you just start reading the actual documents themselves.

"This is serious stuff, it’d be great if everyone would treat it as such." Yes, and this also very political stuff. Obviously, the people who were charged with making this decision for the community didn't take it seriously enough to do enough background fact-gathering to discover that $223M is about 8 times off the mark for dredging, and, after basing their choice on this grossly over-inflated priced, continued on full speed ahead. After finding out that using Ragged Mountain as a bath tub will be far more expensive because of structural flaws needing to be repaired, full steam ahead. Having no price tag for easements from SFRR to build a 9.5 mile pipeline, it's full steam ahead to build the 112 foot reservoir at Ragged Mtn and worry about the pipeline later. It was said that the endangered Spinymussel was seen in Buck Mountain, they still do not have anything better than verbal verification, nothing in writing. In other words, they have agreed on a proposal based upon misinformation, lack of information, we've-already-made-up-our-minds-so-stop-bugging-us information,and the politics of the Moorman's River. There is no estimated price tag, just build it and pass on the cost to the rate payers. They never answered the public's question as to why the once accepted bladder-dredging proposal by the previous director was discarded. It was a twenty million dollar alternative. Politics: Rch Collins, conservatist among other things, was removed from the board in favor of Gaffney, a developer. The city re-appointed Gaffney (anti-dredger), not Collins (pro-dredging. Do you think HP, IBM, or CitiGroup would adopt a proposal of this relative scale without having some idea of the ballpark of the cost? Would they not put a cap on the cost to establish when a proposal should be thrown out? Unfornately, here we make decisions based upon title, not knowledge and expertise. Go the the Citizens website, cvillewater.info I think and look at all of the documentation that they had to FOIA in order to get, read the documents that Fred Williamson apparently believes are being flung about as untruths, and decide for yourself. It is unbelievable that this kind of decision-making process has been allowed to live in any college town. For name calling take that up with Fred Williamson.
Liz Palmer, anti-dreger, spoke at the council meeting toning with providing incomplete information to declare that it MAY be (they never seem to know much and rather spend their time trying to bully people into agreeing with them rather than finding out) cheaper to acquire the easements from the SFRR to RMR than the easements from Sugar Hollow because there are fewer properties involved. She didn't say whether the Authority already owns suffiecient easements from Sugar Hollow for the existing pipeline while it owns none from SFRR. Nobody asked. She then went on to say that one reason for having to build the SFRR pipeline was because the Sugar Hollow pipeline needs to be replaced (why not repaired I don't know... do they replace the Alaskan pipeline every time it needs to be repaired?) and you can't replace it and use it at the same time. Did anyone ask what will we do when the SFRR need to be repaired or replace in let's say 30 years. How will we get water into the RMR then since Sugar Hollow would have been take offline by then? Sounds to me we're just creating a problem for the future rather than solving it now.
Oh, and BTW, part of the proposal is to build a bowl under I-64 to catch any spillage from the reservoir-straddling highway. How much will it really cost to build this bowl which can not be allowed to affect the foundation and structure of the highway. How expensive is the technology to be employed to keep that water from eventually eroding away the foundation during a hurricane or repeated snow melts? Are the feds willing to even allow 125,000 people to try this engineering feat? I find it so strange to have so many seemingly intelligent people willing to build a $200M dam without knowing if they're going t be able to fill it up. Amazing local politics.

Chris, I agree that name calling will get us nowhere. And I think we can all agree that we need better cost data. Please contact us any time through the web-site if you would like more information or would like to meet with any of us. I agree it is complicated and has taken us over a year to read and attempt to comprehend the information to grasp the issues, and there are still many unanswered questions.

The folks in charge of the decisions have pulled the wool over the eyes, public. Some actions, by accident, too many on purpose. In my view, someone must get "more in the face" or the wool will be pulled over again. Many speak of corruption too. Maybe time to go the legal route? You have read the FOIAs. Now is the time to demand better.

Cville Eye, thanks for taking the time to write up that response. It was very helpful. There are so many unanswered questions, it's just mind-blowing. No one, in good conscience, could greenlight a project of this magnitude now. This has all been a very cruel lesson for City residents and Council in how not to do things.

One of the questions that remains unanswered is WHAT'S THE BLOODY RUSH? Has someone on the BOS received word from a mega developer that they'd come here and create a huge development, but only if there's enough water to support it? (That's pure speculation on my part, I haven't heard anything.) There's definitely a piece to this puzzle that hasn't been revealed yet.

Up until now, most of the protesting and letter writing has been directed by city residents towards city officials. Perhaps it's time to focus on the county? The BOS can't snooker everyone in the county.

Reality Check, Sure,the county is the big player with this issue and the Parkway piece. But sadly, it is Council who allows them to stay on top. We really need to elect someone like Colette Hall to council. In fact, if we had someone on board with her guts, the public would not have need to debate such issues. She would put the BOS in their place and keep them there! For now, we must demand accountability from the councilors we have.

This statement was made in 2005 in a letter sent by Jeff Werner from the Piedmont Environmental Council to then Mayor Brown and Chair of the BOS Dennis Rooker and signed by major environmental groups and activists.

Don't let an artificial deadline or artificial crisis drive decision-making. The RWSA's July deadline is driven by the Dept. of Conservation and Recreation's (DCR) request for renovation of the Ragged Mountain Dam spillway. It is not in the public's best interest to rush through comprehensive community water supply planning based on this single issue. An extension must be requested. With the community proceeding diligently and in good faith, there is every reason to believe that a request would be granted. Take the necessary time to make a well-informed decision.

In addition, there is no immediate ââ?¬Å?water crisis.” Safe yield projections are based on available water during the worst drought-of-record. During periods of normal rainfall, almost 97% of the water in the South Fork Rivanna River flows over the dam. With the addition of the water from Beaver Creek, the safe yield of the existing system can be significantly increased so that this community would feel no shortfall of water supply even during the most severe drought through the year 2018.

Betty, is Werner helping the cause now? As far as I know, PEC is not on board with most of the sensible ideas you propose. I can't understand how an environmentalist like Werner could be OK with ignoring your group's challenge. Sadly, PEC is also OK with the County's push for the Parkway. Many are very disappointed that Werner consistently sides with the BOS, especially Rooker+Thomas. Werner is the puppet of the wealthy individuals on the PEC board. Rooker and Thomas use PEC to sugarcoat their agendas. The wealthy use Rooker and Thomas to protect their interests.

Does anyone know how or if PEC+Werner are responding to various concerns? I hope to hear positive news but I'm not counting on it.

Although several environmental groups have called for a re-evaluation of the plan based on the misinformation about dredging the PEC has not joined in. In the Hook Water News Archive there are articles about the Sierra Club (April 24th).
Advocates for a Sustainable Population (Sept. 2nd), and the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation Board (Nov. 14th)
all giving their reasons for getting the dredging surveys done first before proceeding with any work on a new dam.

http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/11/pec-opens-new-front...

http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2008/11/01/story-archive-hook-...

Betty, thanks again. The Sierra Club has been golden in responding to the cause. I hope they acquire more members as a result. I'm beginning to believe PEC should change its name. They have no business portraying themselves as the environmental protector, as they pass off on legitimate local concerns. People are starting to take notice. PEC is certainly treading on shakey ground.

Where is Kevin Cox? I must ask because he has dropped, as he has a tendency to do when the heat is on.

Plop,
There's no heat driving me away. The yammering on this thread about the Meadowcreek Parkway,including mine, is pointless. Nobody who has any real role in the fate of that road cares what you or I write here about it. I said before I was through hijacking the thread.
Nightey night,
Kevin

Ridge Schuyler, as representative of the Nature Conservancy, on the dredging task force, has opposed getting the dredging surveys done before any work on the new dam. He has also opposed re-evaluating the costs and environmental damage of the current plan as compared to dredging as part of the 50 year the water supply plan, even after new information has arisen. Today's Daily Progress reports he will be leaving the NC to take a job with our new US Congress Representative Tom Perriello and began the new job Tuesday. It will be interesting at the task force meeting next week if he continues to lobby for the Nature Conservancy or if he joins the reasonable request of the Sierra Club,Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation Board ( an elected body), Albemarle Citizens for a Sustainable Population, and 6 city Neighborhood Associations, along with 481 city and county petition signatories and hundreds of other who are calling for dredging to be studied for the 50 year water supply and the surveys to be commenced immediately.

This may be Perriello's first local test

http://www.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/local_govtpolitics/article/s... "Before joining the Nature Conservancy, Schuyler worked on Capitol Hill for around a decade. He was legislative director for former U.S. Sen. Chuck Robb and was chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher." This is how he gained his expertise in designing water supplies.

why dont we get the army core of engineers to protect us from floods while theyre at it (like they did for new orleans).

Why would I as a rate payer not want the current adopted, approved water supply plan, which is clearly the least expensive plan on the table? I don't get it.

Simply dredging the SFRR (for the rowers and surrounding property owners) would not provide enough water supply for this entire community, so why would i want to foot the bill for their "amenities."

Jim, I don't think you have been following this closely. The adopted plan is over $200 million and dredging is probably $30 million combined with reasonable conservation and better population data that will give us plenty of water for decades and in 30 years we'll have a better idea where we're headed (conservation trends and population data that will be far more realistic) and can build a dam if needed but no need for that expense for the current ratepayers now

Jim, There is some confusion. The community does not have a state approved water supply plan. All that has been approved is a water release permit that can be implemented or not in the next 15 years and can also be modified or not used at all. The Water Authority must meet certain requirements for a state plan which they have not done but must be completed by 2011. The following article has more details and may be of interest

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2008/05/29/NEWS-CitizensFindNoWaterPl...

Currently given the scarcity of accurate information Jim no one knows if dredging will or will not meet the 50 year demand for sure. It would be foolish for our officials to proceed with such inaccurate cost, conservation and population data all of which is required for the state approved plan. Since we published our alternative plan the cost of the new dam has gone from $37 million to over $100 million and that doesn't include the new pipeline which could easily top $100 million.

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2008/05/22/NEWS-waterPlanCitizensPlan...

Just heard on NPR that cost is out and thrift is in. Hope our elected officials were listening and that they hand out these green kits to their citizens sooner rather than later. No need to spend $200 million.

I don't think it's fair to hold city councilors to any position on the water supply or parkway etc. They were elected because of the D after their name. That's all.

Much of this confusion could have been avoided if RWSA or anyone had maintained a blog or timeline of water related events over the years. I've done my part but I'm only one person. RWSA was negotiated in secret in 1972. Rich Collins continued the secrecy in 2002 drought and now says his agenda was not hidden. And the current administration has continued the same secrecy despite the unusually open process that led to unanymous city-county approval of plan summer 2006. The Hook only began covering this issue early 2008. Hence all the FOIA's for documents. If the docs were online, you wouldn't have to request them.

It's sort of like a baseball game where the New Dammers lead 10-1 in the 9th inning over the Dredgers. But a gang of thugs arrive late and start throwing snowballs and personal attacks and demanding the Referees prove that the score is 10-1. Prove there was a grand slam in 2008 when federal regulators fully approved dam expansion, prove there was a lengthy community process. I have no problem if the Dredgers score in the 9th inning enough points to win. But changing the rules seems unfair. But thugs don't care about rules or fairness. It's not really black and white. The New Dammers cheated on 1 or 2 runs. But that's not enough for Dredgers to win this late. So Dredgers' fans threaten a riot.

I've commented in these forums many times and with substance. Search my blog and The Hook blog. Or throw more snowballs and personal attacks. I don't think there's anyone in this community who's been more demonized than me. So my skin is pretty thick and leathery. I say the Dredgers can win if they follow the rules of the game. It's a long shot. But it's a shame they have so little respect for the process they agreed to in the 1st inning.

Blair, I've been reading you for a long time, and have always respected and appreciated your voice and your views... but you're calling the Dredgers thugs? Betty Mooney has been unfailingly gracious in her discourse, and Kevin Lynch has been tireless in his research. I'd think that you, of all people, could understand and appreciate the amount of hard work it's taken to even reach this point.

Are people tired of being ignored by their elected officials? Of course they are. But I honestly don't understand where you're going with this.

I'd say Blair has pretty accurate description. The amount of mud slinging, misinformation, and personal attacks has been totally unnecessary.

Also, from everything I've read there IS an approved water supply plan. It's time to move on with it and dispense with the lies.

Citizens for A Sustainable Water Plan has through our web-site and public involvement tried to bring about fact based decision making to our water planning process. The current cost estimates for the dam, pipeline and dredging are woefully inadequate for sound decision making.

The only approved plan for our water supply including a signed cost sharing agreement between the city and the county was in 2002. At that time our water rates were doubled to pay for that plan. The signed agreement was to put a bladder on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and begin dredging the Reservoir.

We have also included a detailed time-line of decision making and meetings at our web-site.

Please let us know if anything at the web-site is inaccurate.
http://www.cvillewater.info/home.html

Thank you to everyone in the community who have joined us in calling for better cost information before proceeding with what currently could cost over $200 million dollars and the loss of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to siltation and 54,000 trees in a pristine natural area at Ragged Mt.

Betty Mooney, isn't it clear by now, that the same 5 people using different names who support PEC and TNC are saying we have an approved plan? Haven't you noticed that they document nothing, add no clarifying information, nor are specific as to who has said critical statements about the participants (I admit I've said plenty to knock them off of the arrogant positions)? There is not one occasion where I can recall that you are anyone in your organization have done as I have done. I don't waste my time any longer responding to them. It is clearly a personal thing with them and not one of good government practice. Obviously, they know that the decision makers have no expertise in providing water supplies, otherwise they would provide that documentation. I hope Ridge Schuyler gets so busy trying to hold the 5th District's support for Perriello that he will not have time to spend pushing this water supply proposal and buy support with millions of dollars of "river restoration" money and hundreds of acres for a new natural area.

Reality Check,

I'd say Betty is one of the baseball players on the team called Dredgers. She's been around a long time, gets emotional sometimes, but has tried to keep a level head and to be rational lately. Remember the gang of thugs (Dredger' fans) arrived late to the ball game, in the 9th inning. Betty knows (or should know) what happened in the first 8 innings. My analogy was probably too complex for the come-lately fans. In their minds everything equals everything. It's a common debate tactic to equate one part to the whole, or one equals the many, or if some people are thugs, everybody is a thug, then argue against a claim that was never made.

Re: Kevin Lnch. I have watched him since the first city council forum in 2000. I don't like the way he (and Waldo Jaquith) smeared climatologist Patrick Michaels and called for his firing, saying he should be singled out as dishonest because he (Michaels) is paid to do his research. Lynch is paid in his job but I've never said that funding influences Lynch to lie to his customers, vendors, coworkers, public, etc. Despite knowledge of his dishonesty, I've never called for Lynch to be fired.

Sometimes people have a public image as a great person. But behind the scenes you see with your own eyes a different view. I don't know why Kevin would tell me at a 2008 council meeting he would have corrected the "2002 worst drought on record" myth when I've exposed him to the "1977 worst drought" view several times over the years in writing such as on CvilleNews during his McCarthy campaign and in council speeches. Then at the next council meeting, no correction. Then on the June 2008 Schilling show, Lynch still did not correct the misinformation he has repeated since 2002. Some people only believe a fact if it comes from an authority figure. That's why he needed to set the record straight.

When someone lies to my face, then that person, in my mind, lacks integrity. Lynch is not a bad person and is probably honest in other situations and to other people. But the only tool I've ever had to influence policy is to record the history of what's been going on from my observations and my research, and to share that history with the entire world, present and future.

The lesson for politicians is not to under-estimate the little, invisible people and viewpoints you consider to be trivial and contrary. Or take Kendra Hamilton's advice: actually "follow your professed ideals."

Okay, Blair Hawkins, it does seem you have a personal beef with Collins and Lynch; they didn't correct a historical fact that has to do with this $200M+ proposal. How does that relate to the information that has been posted on cvillewater.info? How does it add or subtract to the conversation that we are having here. At some point I'm sure they disappointed their mothers, but they all moved on.
I would like to know what is being said on their web site that isn't true that is pertinent to the water supply proposal.