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.