PEC supports maintaining the health of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR), and recognizes that dredging will need to be performed. However, dredging as a component of the Water Supply Plan is not a less expensive alternative. Roughly two thirds of the costs in the current $142-million plan are to repair or replace existing infrastructure that must be addressed regardless of how we expand storage capacity. Dredging versus raising the Ragged Mountain (RM) dam does not change these costs. The new 9 mile pipeline from the SFRR to Ragged Mountain reservoir is to replace the deteriorating 13 mile pipeline Sugar Hollow to Ragged Mtn.

In the development of the adopted Water Supply Plan, the projected Safe Yield deficit for 2055 was determined to be 9.9 MGD. The big question for the PEC and other environmental organizations was how to find that additional storage within the local watershed; and not the James River. But we did find a way, and on June 5, 2006, the City Council unanimously endorsed that plan.

The recently cited dredging estimates do not provide the complete story. Regardless of any flaws in the Gannett Fleming estimates, they were correct that maintaining the original capacity of the South Fork will require the removal of approximately 5-million cubic yards of sediment over the next 50 years. Recent proposals address only an initial dredge to remove the current sediment--estimated at around 2.5 million cubic yards. Sediment will continue to enter the reservoir and once dredged, that storage capacity must be maintained with additional, periodic dredging; costs that seem curiously absent from the recent proposals.  

The adopted Water Supply Plan addresses an entire system. There are numerous components that require improvements regardless of any dredging options. Even if completely dredged, the South Fork provides a gain of only 5.5 MGD. The remaining 4.4 MGD deficit would be met through a raised Ragged Mt Dam. Repairing the Ragged Mountain dam—versus raising it—creates no additional storage. Per the RWSA, a lower Ragged Mountain dam does not sufficiently reduce the cost of the overall plan so as to make water-supply-related dredging a less expensive option. The PEC would have embraced dredging as a component of the Water Supply Plan and we have never suggested that South Fork reservoir not be maintained.

What happens next in the South Fork reservoir is a question this community as a whole must address together. We have endorsed such a discussion and urge that the City, the County, and the University pursue a plan which addresses all of the concerns raised about the future of the reservoir. By decoupling dredging from the Water Supply Plan, we’d have more options, not fewer. Dredging consultants Gahagan & Bryant said the community must first decide the purpose for any dredging, then develop a plan to address how that work would be done, and at what cost. Restoring the South Fork reservoir for recreational, aesthetic and ecological purposes might be different—and cheaper—than what would be required to dredge and maintain the SFRR as a component of the Water Supply Plan. As a program that would benefit the entire community, the costs could be more fairly allocated than simply added to the monthly bills of ratepayers.

Regarding the overall argument to revisit the Water Supply Plan, we have yet to see an alternative plan that meets the projected 9.9 MGD and restores stream flow to the Moormans. Without a proposal to review or respond to—possibly even endorse--we have no analysis of whether or not that alternative might achieve the ecological objectives, the budget constraints, and the water storage capacity of the adopted plan.

Additional Background
Drinklocalwater March 1, 2005 Letter (PDF)
Drinklocalwater May 27, 2005 Letter (PDF)
City Council Minutes, June 5, 2005 (PDF)