News Water Doc Thomas

From: Sally Thomas Subject: Sierra Club seeks reconsideration of dredging Dear Sierra Club members, Thanks for all the work that you do to bring the environment to the forefront of public policy decisions -- at least that's how I see the Sierra Club and its role in our community. So, it was with some surprise that I find you in the role of opposing the permitted and adopted water supply plan. For example, I've assumed that the Sierra Club is in favor of restoring and protecting in-stream flows in our rivers. The main proponents of dredging-as-a-solution have proposed changing the Safe Yield determinations by continuing to take drinking water directly from the Moormans (at Sugar Hollow) and to begin to take drinking water from the Mechums and to close off the SFRR dam to flow in times of drought. That last move, if it had been our community's policy, would have left the Rivanna River dry below the SFRR dam for 130 days in the 2002 drought. In contrast, the Ragged Mtn Reservoir and SFRR pipeline proposal is based on the firm determination to keep or get the water flowing in our rivers. If we continue with what has so far been a good instream-flow policy, then dredging the SFRR of all its accumulated silt and continuing to dredge the

next 50 years' silt (i.e. removing 5 million cubic yards of sediment) would reduce the need to raise the Ragged Mtn dam somewhat. It would need to be raised 30 feet instead of 45 feet to add storage capacity to our system to meet needed Safe Yield in times of drought. That would reduce the pool and would save some trees (88 new acres would be flooded instead of 139 acres). It would reduce the cost somewhat, but not dramatically since the main cost is in the dam and pipeline projects and making each of them somewhat smaller is not a dramatic cost savings, as you can imagine. But if the impact of dredging is to postpone the Ragged Mtn plan, it also postpones the day when the Moorman's River can be saved. It doesn't postpone the dam rebuilding project since we are under DCR Dam Safety Division edict to get the Ragged Mtn dam replaced. It might require rebuilding the Sugar Hollow pipeline, which is in very bad condition, and that would be wasted money if it's not our intention to continue to divert water from the Moormans forever. It would also require a new pipeline from the Mechums, a so-far unlisted expense and bad investment unless the plan is to give up on the health of both those rivers. Speaking for myself, I've been a proponent of dredging for many years. It seems like such an easy solution to a reservoir that is filling in, and I was part of a group that warned about the SFRR's condition back in 1970. There was an unsolicited

bid in 2004 to dredge a small portion of the reservoir. It is that bid that is being used as evidence that the job can be done for far less than consultants claim. It proposed to take the most easily reached silt and put it to dry in the reservoir's flood plain (which doesn't sound like a good idea to me) but leaves a couple of interesting expenses unaccounted for. 1. It's based on diesel fuel being no more than $1.39/gallon (which is now over $4). 2. It requires RWSA to get all the necessary permits, simply assuming they can be obtained. 3. It requires RWSA to take all the financial and environmental risks if the sediment doesn't prove to be saleable. 4. Since it takes what I believe to be the easiest-to-access sediment, its bid amount can't simply be multiplied by the 5 million cubic yard figure in order to get the total cost. It would create a concrete pad, pumping equipment, pipes, truck traffic, etc. at the confluence of the reservoir with a pretty, rural road. It's one of those "be careful what you wish for" scenarios. To my knowledge, we haven't found a responsible way to dredge, despite citizens and officials looking at this option, in some cases for many years. I'm open to any more bids, if all the costs, fiscal and environmental, are included, or if we as a community want some form of dredging for clearly-defined reasons other than stopping the present plan. The present plan does not insist that dredging

cannot be done, but it does create an amazing, environmentally responsible, local long-range water supply plan for our community. It even manages an almost unique feature -- a reservoir that won't silt in. Since the pipeline from SFRR will bring nearly silt-free water into Ragged Mtn., that reservoir won't experience the silting-in which is the fate of run-of-the-river reservoirs, the world around. That reservoir is a very old lake by Virginia standards. To enlarge it is a positive addition to our region's ecology, in my opinion, though I always bemoan the loss of any trees. Due to generosity of individuals and organizations, however, the total preserved woodlands are going to increase by hundreds of acres when the Plan has been completed, and miles of stream banks are going to be restored to good health in the permit's mitigation stipulations. To my mind, the positive good that will be done by the proposed plan has, for reasons that I don't understand, been subsumed in recent arguments and publicity. Since I personally count on the Sierra Club to be the defender of the environment, please study this issue with great care and do not assume that the loss of particular trees and an apples-to-oranges cost comparison are reasons to drop or delay the present plan. Thank you, again, for your careful consideration. Sally Thomas