Ragged Mountain Natural Area
Monday, June 22, 2009 at 06:34PM ;)
click 'er for bigger
It's unusual to find water projects such a subject of controversy here in the eastern U.S. But this 980 acre parkland is the site of a county/city reservoir, with a proposed upgrade to the dam, to the tune of some $143 million, has understandably stirred up a lot of emotion. The proposed modifications will increase the lake size substantially in the hopes that it will be adequate for the coming fifty years. BUT it will require pumping the water through a new nine mile pipeline from another lower county reservoir, which will be abandoned instead of being dredged because consultants (for the dam project) have estimated the cost of that remediation at some $200 million. Meanwhile, local business people and dredging experts have proposed the work might only cost $20 - 40 million, still a hefty chunk of change. The increased dam and lake will necessitate the loss of 180 acres of mature hardwoods in the Ragged Mountain reserve - along with the trail visible above, and be spanned by an interstate highway.
The issue seems to be whether conservation and dredging can provide adequate sources of water for years to come. Or whether plans need to be made to increase the storage capacity to meet disputed growth needs. A typical controversy that involves disputed numbers, conflicts of interest, hidden information. At least the details seem to be out in the open now, so that all the trade offs can be considered reasonably. Will the debate continue for another 25 years, as the Meadowcreek Parkway debate has?
click here for bigger
Reader Comments (3)
Wow. Those are some big infrastructure phases that are being proposed. Really love the 2nd image here, too.
The abandoned basin may become a pretty interesting subject. The come back of wilderness has lots of interesting points in the struggle for the occupation of the area. I'm still uncertain which is the best end, for the identity of the place, between a "landscape shaping" recovery and a casual one (as in the case of total abandon).
On the informative side. One of the most under estimated sources for water consumption prevention is the optimization of the actual use. Hope they have added the extra environmental costs deriving form the pipe line and the pumping.An omission made, as an example, by the genial counselors of "Mussolini" in the thirties about the "Agro Pontino" recovery using gigantic diesel pumps :-(
Thanks Joe. These numbers are for a combined city/county population currently of 120K - but not all of them will be on this municipal system. Many of us have our own wells. The water authority is not saying anything about how these "improvements" are going to be paid for.
Mauro, the "abandonment" of the one reservoir doesn't literally mean that it would return to it's natural state, at least any time soon. They are simply proposing that it would be allowed to silt in and not be a storage location. It seems an odd way to do things, because this would still be the origin of the pipeline that would feed the Ragged Mountain reservoir pictured above. But certainly one of the controversial aspects of this entire project is the cost of building and running the massive pumps that would be required to move water uphill from one location to another.
I'll try to get the results of the camera setup pictured above online - soon.