 RWSA director Tom Frederick rejected the characterization that he withheld an independent review of the Ragged Mountain Dam (pictured) from the city, and told C-VILLE that review panels “are not required to publish a [public] report…before they’ve had an opportunity to have face-to-face dialogue.”
|
“If the purpose of opening up these meetings to the public is to provide transparency, I think you need to offer all sides of the issue,” said Frederick. (Two members of CSWP drove Norris to his DEQ meeting but denied they acted on behalf of the group). Krueger said that a decision to make the meeting public must be made by the RWSA board, rather than “e-mails outside of the purview of the public.” When Norris asked where, in previous meeting minutes, the RWSA board agreed to make the workshop private, Albemarle County Supervisor Ken Boyd responded that the board never agreed to make it public, and decried the “character assassination” of Frederick.
If subsequent meetings of the RWSA board will receive a bit more scrutiny, then so will a proposed plan for the Lower Ragged Mountain Dam, designed by Black & Veatch engineering company. During an indisputably public November 23 meeting, a member of a three-person independent technical review team (ITRT) told the RWSA board that a number of deficiencies in the existing dam could elevate initial cost estimates proposed by Black & Veatch.
Following Schnabel Engineering’s May proposal of an earthen dam design with an estimated cost of $28 to $36 million, the City of Charlottesville hired Black & Veatch to study the feasibility of building on top of the century-old Lower Ragged Mountain Dam.
In September, City Council approved an amended water supply plan that proposed phased construction of the dam. Phased construction would begin with an initial 13′ jump at a price of $8.8 to $12 million, if built upon the old dam. Subsequent buildups could bring the reservoir level to 45′ and a high-dive cost estimated at $21.4 million, according to Black & Veatch. Council’s plan also includes hydraulic maintenance dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to remove sediment.
Daniel Johnson, vice president of a Colorado-based water consulting firm and one of three members of the ITRT, remarked that the existing Ragged Mountain Dam has cracks and weaknesses in its structure, and merited a closer look.
“We think they need to study the valley more carefully,” said Johnson, who said the “variably weathered bedrock” of the site could “create a very unusual foundation that needs to be developed carefully.” Tasks like excavation and grout work, not included in the Black & Veatch report, would increase the cost of building upon the old dam.
Following Johnson’s presentation, Black & Veatch engineer Greg Zamensky explained that the initial report prepared by his firm “was not intended to go through as rigorous a review as has been had.”
“There were a lot of gaps in areas that the ITRT pointed out,” said Zamensky, who added that his firm did not have a chance to discuss such issues prior to the panel discussion. “We need a chance to go back and look at the extent of their comments.” When asked by Norris how much time a response could take, Zamensky said he’d like to examine the questions and “take a few weeks.”
After the meeting, Norris told C-VILLE that the ITRT raised “good questions.”
“Now Black & Veatch has a chance to answer them,” said Norris.
And plenty of time to do it: The RWSA board agreed to cancel its December 21 meeting. Time for a dam break, it seems.