40 thoughts on “County Won’t Work with City on Water Plan”

  1. Does anyone know if it’s true that Maurice Jones, who has been our acting City Manger through this latest round of the battle has been a county resident the whole time?

  2. I think it’s more that the county likes the agreed upon water plan the way it is. It was agreed to 4 years ago. I think the county doesn’t take the city’s ruminations at face value and, as with the meadowcreek parkway, they fear the city may simply do nothing instead of enacting the agreed upon plan.

    Once you agree to something, the negotiation is over. The city doesn’t act this way, obviously. So why should the county continue to be strung along? In the article, even Dave Norris stated that a meeting with the DEQ is a ‘moot point’.

    I don’t think the county is taking the ball and going home, but saying it won’t play along while the city keeps trying to either change or figure out the rules of the game.

  3. What business would proceed with a plan based on faulty data ? That is the case here. Thanks to the new information paid for by the City of Charlottesville we have the opportunity for a 50 year water plan that provides abundant water supply, at a lower cost, and does less damage to the assets we already have paid for, and should maintain.

    The City plan also provides for flexibility to only build what is needed, and thereby not burden the ratepayers with unnecessary debt.

    Please see cvillewater.info, or click my name above, for the details of the City plan and a time line of the history of this process to date.

    Water use has fallen dramatically in the last 8 years and all indications are that this will continue, even with an increase in population in the county and at the universtiy. By monitoring water use decade by decade, as mandated by the state, the City plan allows for additional supply to be added only if the need is there. Why build and charge rate payers for infrastructure that may never be needed, and destroy existing infrastructure that only needs maintenance to provide water supply for our community.

    Only if the city and county are willing to sit down and consider this new information in an objective, fact based process will we see the best water plan for the rate payers of our community.

    One can only hope that rational minds will prevail and allow the DEQ to facilitate a fact based solution.

  4. The 2006 water withdrawal permit obtained by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was based on inaccurate data about the cost, feasibility, and amount of sedimentation occurring at our most productive reservoir, the South Fork of the Rivanna .

    If you have not seen Jack Brown’s excellent essay about the value of maintaining this valuable resource as part of the water plan proposed by the City it is worth reading.

    ” Dredging the accumulated silt from the reservoir is the only way to grow our water storage capacity quickly. All the preliminary studies are done. Only one step remains: put out a Request for Proposals to dredging companies.
    The City Council has authorized that action, but Albemarle’s Supervisors won’t agree. They balk even at issuing an RFP. They don’t want to know what dredging would cost, fearing that any action on dredging now will divert the community from RWSA’s plans for the big new dam and pipeline.

    Opponents of dredging have offered some stunning arguments. Having failed to maintain the reservoir for 44 years, RWSA has said that it is too expensive to dredge– as much as $223 million. (A study released earlier this year suggested that the figure was vastly overstated.)

    Some civic leaders have argued that “we will only have to do it again” because silt flows into the reservoir with every major rainfall. But dredging is maintenance, pure and simple. We repair our roads and repaint our schools; we don’t simply build new ones and abandon the old. Every kind of civic infrastructure requires maintenance; why expect anything different with the reservoir that’s central to our water supply? ”


  5. It is time for all ratepayers, City and County to come together and insist that our elected officials sit down together, preferably with the permitting agencies, and work out a fact based, objective solution for a cost effective plan that meets future needs, maintains our present infrastructure, and cares for all our rivers and streams.

    This is not a divisive issue between City and County ratepayers. The citizens opposing a rational, data driven solution, are a small group, with special interests, in the rural part of the county that don’t even pay water rates.

  6. it is curious that an appointed board;
    the RWSA and a private organization
    the Nature Conservancy have together
    created a water proposal in which they
    presume to speak and act ex cathedra for
    a larger community of 150,000 people.

    the idea of what constitutes the public
    good has certainly been turned upside down.

    the Charlottesville City council has amended
    the proposal to include dredging and phasing
    any new dam.

    apparently rate payers in the city and county
    will now understand that there is no compromise;
    no amendment to the proposal. Albemarle County
    supervisors the RWSA and the Nature Conservancy.
    have spoken.

    the city of Charlottesville which owns the asset
    of the Ragged Mountain Dam is simply
    to cede control of the asset to the above groups.

    city residents need to remind their elected
    officials of their legal and fiduciary obligations
    to the the public.

    those elected officials in the city and county
    should understand they serve the public.

    what may be seen as private obligations and aims
    have no place in public life.

    there is always that matter of the public trust.

    elected officials should devote themselves
    solely to the public good and understanding that

  7. Chris,

    Can you give a single example of the county not living up to the revenue sharing agreement, please?

  8. I don’t see the connection to the revenue sharing agreement. The City modified the plan based on new information about dredging to create a better plan for the ratepayers, and citizens, of both the city and county.

    The modified plan, supported by the city, saves the most productive reservoir, saves the ecologically important Ragged Mt. Natural Area, costs less, and provides decades of water with the flexibility to provide even more water than the county plan if the need is there.

    Currently water use is 22% below the 2006 plan projections so overbuilding, by committing to the cost of a full height earthen dam, that is useless without a 10 mile uphill pipeline, with no route, and no design, would be foolish.

    The City is representing both city and county ratepayers by proposing a better plan based on accurate data.

    Currently there is no water shortage, nor will there be one in the foreseeable future, based on current water use and population.

    The following was sent in a 2005 letter to elected officials by individuals representing Southern Environmental Law Center, Rick Parrish; Piedmont Environmental Council, Jeff Werner, Friends of the Moorman’s River, John Martin; and League of Woman’s Voter Rep., Liz Palmer and others.

    ” there is no immediate water crisis. Safe yield projections are based on available water during the worst drought-of-record. During periods of normal rainfall, almost 97% of the water in the South Fork Rivanna River flows over the dam. With the addition of the water from Beaver Creek, the safe yield of the existing system can be significantly increased so that this community would feel no shortfall of water supply even during the most severe drought through the year 2018. ”

    If the community is concerned about increasing the water supply quickly and inexpensively, the answer is to dredge.

    Please contact your elected officials and ask them to issue an RFP for dredging South Fork Rivanna Reservoir now.


  9. Betty, with all due respect, this statement is misleading:

    The citizens opposing a rational, data driven solution, are a small group, with special interests, in the rural part of the county that don’t even pay water rates.

    When you can get Leonard Sandridge, Neil Williamson, Charles Hurt, and/or Wendell Wood, to publicly say they support the compromise proposal then you can make that claim.
    Yes, I believe there is a small interest group concerned with the consequences for the Morman’s river, but they really don’t have anywhere near the clout of the growth-area development interests involved. To make it sound as if this is the opposition as a few trout fisherman, or one or two invertebrate biologists, is over-simplifying and avoiding the obvious issues involved. Why is it that no one wants to talk honestly about the real issues? (like the policies that are causing sediment in the first place…)

  10. Factual data? The city just wants to limit the county’s growth and doing so with those who have one Mayor in the pocket with a bunch of maybes. Black and Veatch have only done a basic study that the city has to pay more money to get verifiable conclusions. The data they given the city so far isn’t conclusive. The dam isn’t perfectly safe as many would you have beleive.

    The city never sticks to an agreement and wants to change anything they have already agreed to. When the county offered to pay for higher dam that was not good enough for the city. Betty will get on the radio tell the county to just build Buck Mountain reservoir, knowing that it can’t be built.

    Betty and her tribe of water folks want to close their ears and minds to the largest user of water in their system, UVa. Sandridge vote for the county plan says more for me than anything small band of the water tribe will ever do.

    Sandridge qualifications and accomplishments as UVa’s COO makes his opinion worth a great deal. The way the Mayor dismissed UVa’s opinion is almost all you need to know how inflexible the city is.

    Incomplete data, anti growth undercurrent, and the ability to ignore the largest water user in their system is why the water tribe’s siren call should be greeted with a more skeptical eye.

  11. Thank you Dirt Worshipper I stand corrected. I value your opinion on this topic and would like to know why you think the county wouldn’t allow the DEQ to facilitate a meeting with the elected officials that would help answer questions about the City proposal, as it relates to the DEQ permit ?

    The county agreed to this at the 4 board meeting and has now apparently gone back on that agreement.

  12. Honestly, I don’t know… It’s a topic I’d love to speak with Ann Mallek about to get her perspective. I felt it was a fairly reasonable compromise. The comment that revenue sharing plays a role here is probably not totally off-base. I know the county is struggling to maintain basic services while the City flaunts its budget surplus. While it’s true the County had the oppotunity to maintain the current tax rate and failed to do so, it’s also true that they receive a significant conservation penalty from revenue sharing. I imagine the MCP is a sore point as well.

    What I’d really love to see here is a healing of the rift in the environmental community, and a serious effort on a more comprehensive solution. (TNC and RCS are really not the enemy here…) The water supply doesn’t stop at the shores of the reserviors, and with the looming shadow of the EPA’s new TMDL requirements, we need a regional solution that emphasizes protection of the watershed itself in tandem with water conservation.

  13. Excellent idea DW, could you organize such a meeting ? There are many ways to ” save the Moorman’s ” and destroying 60,000 trees in a designated Natural Area at Ragged Mt. doesn’t have to be the only way. Or tearing up the Albemarle countryside with a huge new electricity fed pipeline that has to push water 10 miles uphill.

  14. DW, this letter by an environmental group, Southern Environmental Law Center, exemplifies what I believe was the right course all along, but got derailed, perhaps, by the very same groups that are trying to prevent dredging now.
    It even suggests then Mayor Brown and Chairman Rooker meet with the DEQ themselves, and not rely on RWSA staff for directions. One can only hope that even though the county refuses to do this that the city will, as they agreed to.

    And the regulators mention in this letter, that they feel they were misrepresented by the reporting in the Daily Progress.

    March 7,2005
    Dear Mayor Brown and Chairman Rooker:
    My colleague, Rick Parrish, and I attended the joint meeting of the Charlottesville City Council, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) that took place at the Albemarle County Office Building last Thursday. We were surprised when RWSA’s legal consultant opined that any water supply alternative that includes either of the South Fork Reservoir options is unlikely to be approved by the necessary regulatory agencies. We both believe that it would be premature to remove the South Fork Reservoir options from consideration. Further, based upon telephone conversations I had on Friday with members of the federal and state regulatory agencies that must approve the project, we also encourage you (and the governing bodies you oversee) similarly to seek information directly from the regulatory agencies themselves.
    The day after the joint meeting, I contacted Jim Brogdon of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and Joe Hassell of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), both of whom are helping to oversee this project on behalf of their respective agencies. Thcse gentlemen made clear that, based upon the information they have seen, none ofthe options currently under consideration can be ruled out at this point. Further, in my conversation with Mr. Brogdon, he informed me that he was genuinely surprised to read the statements about the South Fork Reservoir options that were quoted on the front page of Friday’s Daily Progress. Mr. Brogdon stressed the fact that the Corps has not precluded any option, and that it is still very
    much an open question in his mind which of the options is in the public’s best interest.
    I urge your continued consideration of water-supply alternatives that would incorporate either of the South Fork Reservoir options. For example, Councilor Lynch has pointed out at RWSA’s public meetings on the water supply alternatives that a combination of a 13-foot increase in the Ragged Mountain Reservoir with a 4-foot crest on the South Fork Reservoir gates would provide us with an adequate water supply for a period of approximately thirty-five years. Rather than committing us to a more drastic plan that places a greater amount of trust in inherently speculative predictions of our water usage and population growth, Councilor Lynch’s proposal and variations thereof would offer an incremental approach that would satisfy our needs for the foreseeable future while retaining the flexibility to address the area’s longer-term water supply plan in the manner that future developments point to as the most prudent.
    Significantly, there is no requirement that RWSA incorporate a fifty-year forecast of water needs into its projections in order to obtain regulatory approval of a particular alternative. VDEQ is currently in the process of drafting a set of regulations that would guide localities in adopting water supply plans, but the only provision within these draft regulations that speaks to the duration of forecasting periods would provide that localities estimate water demand within the planning area for thir(v to fzfly years into the future. See Proposed Regulation 9 V AC 25-780 110. Additionally, neither Mr. Hassell nor Mr. Brogdon indicated that they required – or even favored – a fifty-year forecast. To the contrary, Mr. Brogdon voiced his opinion that using a
    shorter forecasting period (such as thirty years) could help a locality avoid the significant costs that are incurred when they adopt water supply plans that are based upon longer-term usage forecasts and cost estimates that the passage of time ultimately undermines. Thus, combinations of medium-term options that include expanding the South Fork Reservoir remain viable and practical alternatives. Similarly, although dredging the South Fork may be too expensive to consider as a primary part of the long-term solution until a purchaser of the dredged material is found, we should not dismiss alternatives that include routine maintenance dredging as a
    complement to other options.
    It has been repeatedly emphasized throughout this process that the regulators’ ultimate responsibility is to weigh the environmental consequences of the various options against their costs, and to use those factors as a basis upon which to decide which alternative is in the public’s best interest. It would be imprudent to prematurely rule out those alternatives that involve the South Fork Reservoir, especially when the public interest may best be served by an economical combination of local options that satisfies our reasonably foreseeable needs, while at the same time reserving to the residents of Charlottesville and Albemarle County the flexibility to subsequently revisit this issue and address it in the manner that fulure advancements in technology and developments in population growth may dictate at that time.

    Morgan Butler Rick Parrish

    Cc: Michael Gaffney, Chairman, RWSA Board of Directors Thomas L. Frederick, Jr., Executive Director, RWSA

    a pdf of the original letter can be obtained by contacting me through our website cvillewater.info

  15. Mr. Parrish and Mr. Butler, in the above 2005 letter, also make the same argument that my group is making now, concerning the time frame for the plan, and it is worth noting, that the regulators agree; that it is more reasonable from a cost perspective not to lock into a 50 year plan as the county 2006 plan does.

    If you build the full height new earthen dam, the new reservoir cannot fill itself without the new 10 mile uphill pipeline, at an estimated cost of 150 -200 million or more. As Mr. Butler and Parrish also note, in their letter, a locked in 50 year plan, does not allow for changes in technology that even they apparently saw in 2005, were on the horizon.

    I have to wonder why Mr. Butler and Mr. Parrish, and other environmental groups, are not speaking out for the City plan ( as the Sierra Club has done) . Which has the potential to accomplish all the goals of the county plan, with far less environmental damage, but allows a flexible approach to only build now what you need for the next 40 years, at a far lower cost to the ratepayers. The beauty of using the dam we have at Ragged Mt. is, that dam can be built in phases, at a far lower cost than a new earthen dam.

    Why would anyone destroy an existing sound dam, that at a far lower cost can be maintained, and if need be added to for future undetermined water supply ?

    “neither Mr. Hassell nor Mr. Brogdon indicated that they required – or even favored – a fifty-year forecast. To the contrary, Mr. Brogdon voiced his opinion that using a
    shorter forecasting period (such as thirty years) could help a locality avoid the significant costs that are incurred when they adopt water supply plans that are based upon longer-term usage forecasts and cost estimates that the passage of time ultimately undermines. Thus, combinations of medium-term options that include expanding the South Fork Reservoir remain viable and practical alternatives.”

  16. Many citizens have asked me what can they do to make sure dredging and using the original dam at Ragged Mt. are adopted for our water plan. There is tremendous pressure to pay no attention to the new information, that clearly shows we do not need a new earthen dam and pipeline, at a far greater cost.

    Please e-mail the elected officials and do not let your voice go unheard, or speak this Monday December 20th at 7pm at City Council or at the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors.


    Mayor Norris and City Council have paid for the new information that makes this a better plan and they need our support.
    Mayor Norris speaking yesterday on the Coy Barefoot show:

  17. “Sandridge qualifications and accomplishments as UVa’s COO makes his opinion worth a great deal.” When and where did Sandridge develop expertise in water supply? I will listen to him on matters involveing finance, but when it comes to issues surrounding water supply, he doesn’t know any more than Bill Crutchfield, who RWSA has ignored. They’ve ignored Oliver Kuttner, too.

  18. 2build the darn road already Also, I’ve that the RWSA was supposed have bought the city-owned water works back in 1983 but reneged on the deal.
    @county mountie why does the city want to limit county growth? What evidence do you have of that since the county has grown from a population of about 30,000 about in the sixties to a population of about 95,000 now without a peep or deed from the city. The city even runs its buses to the county which encourages growth. I know your comment was just conjecture but stop saying stuff that have no foundation just because you are free to say it.

  19. When the county says, stick with the 2006 plan, one needs to remember the project the RWSA is now pursuing is no longer based on the permit they received, that was based on a concrete dam at Ragged Mt.

    That design has been thrown out and a new firm, Schnabel Engineering, has been paid over a million to try to design an earthen dam with a different footprint than the Gannett Fleming designed concrete dam. This is a substantial change in the present permit and will require a modification to proceed from the permitting agencies.

    There has been no final engineering report presented by Schnabel to the RWSA board, to show where the needed earth will be obtained and if it is of adequate quality for such a dam. They “think” it is possible, but there are still many uncertainties surrounding their design. They are being assisted in the problems that have arisen by the ITRT team paid for by RWSA. Is their design being given the same scrutiny that the Black and Veatch proposal is receiving from ITRT ?

    Where is a report to elected officials from Mr. Frederick about the problems and risks with the Schnabel dam design ?

    If the ITRT is assisting Schnabel to overcome the risks that have arisen with their design, why wouldn’t the ITRT be paid to assist with the concerns they have brought up about the Black and Veatch proposal for repairing the City owned Ragged Mt.Dam. which would be a better option for water supply given it’s lower cost than the Schnabel design.


  20. The main problem is that the earthen dam cannot feasibly be phased and is far more expensive than repairing the dam we have. The City Council voted to build a dam to no more than 13 feet and our dam will be less expensive and combined with dredging provide us with 40 years of water at a lower cost. That is what the state wants, and that will be the best solution for the ratepayers and satisfy the stream flows for the DEQ.

    Tell your councilors not to cave in to county pressure
    e-mail them at
    council@charlottesville.org and pass this message on

  21. When the county says, stick with the 2006 plan, one needs to remember the project the RWSA is now pursuing is no longer based on the permit they received, that was based on a concrete dam at Ragged Mt.

    In other words, if we had started the construction of the new big dam by last November as called for by ACSA we would have had a concrete dam instead of the earthen dam that is now being designed? Obviously RWSA feels that the earthen dam is a better idea by considering the new information that was presented since 2006. The city now wants to dredge to augment the water supply after getting new information since 2006. Obviously, RWSA did not do due diligence in seeking sufficient information BEFORE it made a decision. Also, it is obvious that neither Fern nor Mueller, both of whom have expertise in problem-solving was asked to do anything except what their bosses told them. That’s where the mistakes lie: turning this project into a purely political one. The time some of the entities involved spent more time talking to the press than they did discussing what information was needed in order for a reasonable decision based upon the public good rather than their shriveling egos.

  22. Betty you seem to have your doubts about Schnabel but what about Black & Veatch? I read have several stories that talk about the huge power plant they built in Afghanistan that show Black & Veatch to have wasted 10’s of millions of US dollar on a heavy fuel power plant that many call the biggest boondoggle of the Afghan war. Cost overruns, bribes, delays, and a plant that may never make economic sense. Black and Veatch has been sited for mismanagement by the US inspector general- these are not idle charges but facts.

    Many have gone so far as to call Black & Veatch the Haliburton of Afghanistan.

    Schnabel is a fine firm that you have maligned by innuendo and misleading statements. This Virginia based firm has been lauded by it’s peers as the best firm of it’s size to work for and has many Virginia offices. They have a reputation that you have constantly tried to besmirch.

    Black & Veatch isn’t a bad firm but they have made big mistakes. Their only Virgina office is in Arlington, so they can take care of their billion dollar contract to profit from the rebuilding of Afghanistan with US taxpayer dollars.

    Betty you have constantly overstated the case made by Black and Veatch with pronouncements that often are based only on what might happen based on a study that is yet have all it’s questions answered. But for more money B & V will keep studying them . Perhaps they will agree with you in the end or they will convince us to build Afgan power plant.

    It’s not my mission here to say that Black & Veatch is evil or should not be trusted. It’s more to point out how silly and unproductive to pretend that those who oppose you are part of a conspiracy who ruination of this area. Making villains of your opposition has gone on too long in this debate-

  23. @perlogik , “It’s more to point out how silly and unproductive to pretend that those who oppose you are part of a conspiracy who ruination of this area. Making villains of your opposition has gone on too long in this debate-”
    Are you confusing Betty Mooney’s comments with mine. B&V answered the questions they were paid for. You sound as if B&V has been hired to build the dam. What difference does it make where the office? Why would B&V open an office here. When a company oens an office here, it’s usually because they have found local people to contract for that particular project. Why pay them to sit around everyday waiting for a new one? Do you think that the people hired to work around a bunch of bombs abroad will be here to build a dam? Aren’t your comments just a back door attempt to criticize the valuable work that Betty and Mooney and her group has contributed to Charlottesville for FREE? Betty Mooney presents facts, why don’t you argue against them and stop talking about people? Maybe you don’t know enough. If you can’t, go to her website and get the facts.

  24. Perlogik, I admire that you are interested in this important issue, and would be glad to meet you for coffee and have a reasonable discussion about our differences. Please contact me through our web-site if you are interested.

    For the record, I have no doubt that Schnabel is a fine firm, and their lobbying for the earthen dam is what one would expect. They are also in line to earn more money if the City and County go forward with their design, so it is understandable they are doing all they can to assure that is the case. This is business and I have no objections.

    It is up to our officials to decide what is the best plan for the ratepayers that provides a safe, affordable , sustainable supply of water. Both firms have excellent records so I would trust that the information they are providing for their various proposals is accurate.

    I prefer the Black and Veatch proposal not because they are a better firm than Schnabel, but, because it allows us to phase the dam at Ragged Mt, at a lower cost, and only build the dam to an initial 13feet.
    The Schnabel earthen dam does not feasibly allow this option.

  25. Missed the point? The point is in your concluding paragraph “. Making villains of your opposition has gone on too long in this debate-” I didn’t miss your point – you put there.

  26. What SIGAR Recommends
    To help ensure the long-term sustainability of the Kabul Power Plant, SIGAR recommends that the USAID Mission Director in Afghanistan produce a definitive study on the technical feasibility and advisability of using heavy fuel in the Kabul Power Plant and factor this information into plant completion decisions and any decisions regarding post-construction use of
    heavy fuel oil by the GIRoA.

    If B&V’s conduct was so egregious, why didn’t they recommend something about B&V. Therir overrun percentage is far less than the overruns on projects on the downtown Mall. That’s why Gary O’Connell had the nickname of “Overrun” and hired an outside management group to manage the rebricking project which did not come in on schedule. We have overruns here and they most certainly have overruns in a country at war and it will be harder to find workers and bribes will be paid and shipments will get lost or stolen. I don’t see a connection to B&V studying a dam.

  27. The research I have done shows that both Schnabel and Black and Veatch are highly respected in their field. The decision should be based on which dam design allows us to phase construction in the most cost effective manner.

    From Mayor Norris’s statement:

    “Council’s September 20 resolution left unanswered whether the higher Ragged Mountain dam should come in the form of a new earthen dam or a renovation/ expansion of the existing concrete dam. Since that vote, we have learned that it’s impractical, from a cost and engineering perspective, to construct a new earthen dam in phases. Today we learned with authority from Black & Veatch, one of the world’s leading engineering firms, that expanding the existing concrete dam remains not only a viable approach, but also quite a cost-effective one. Keep in mind that 20% of the world’s population that’s on public water relies on a water supply system either designed, constructed or supported by Black & Veatch. This firm has extensive experience and expertise in the field of dam design and construction.”


  28. So, are you you saying, as with the situation at Ragged Mountian, that al of the facts are not being considered in the recommendations?

  29. What I’m saying is that Black & Veatch’s reputation seems to be beyond reproach to those such as Mayor Norris- this is simple not the case. No media outlet locally has done anything other than to report this as fact seemingly not talking the minute or two that it would have taken to find out otherwise. Black & Veatch’s reported and verified conduct in the Afghan power plant is egregious and perhaps borders on the criminal. This one significant doesn’t disqualify them but the mistakes made should make one ponder B&V in a different light then they have been portrayed by those who support their findings.

    I have listen to many who are against the 2006 plan say repeatedly that Schnabel is only reporting what is needed so they can build a dam. They have talked about this Virginia firm, with a fine reputation, in a matter usually reserved for scallywags and ne’er do wells.

    If many intend to base the engineering findings of each firm as it relates to each firms reputation then all those facts should be considered. Personally I don’t think this is a path to the best decision but it appears others seem fine with it.

    That said, I think the facts won’t speak for themselves in this case as they should when such a large project is considered. We have seemingly passed cool rationally discussion long ago. Each side firmly grips to their “facts” as articles of faith, where any doubter is now ruled heretic and conspirator.

    But alas, I was just told today that the city has even removed this item from tonight’s agenda- just to delay the decision once more.

  30. Why are you attributing scurrilous statements to Betty Mooney?
    BTW, what corporations working in Afganistan have great reputations?

  31. I have heard Betty Mooney on the water issues many, many times. I would be happy to meet with her except for one glaring problem- she doesn’t get to vote on any of these proposals. I can’t imagine anything less than a report handed down from on high would change one iota of what she believes to be true.

    I never said she made scurrilous statements, misleading sure. My last comment didn’t mention her at all. But from the RWSA: “She(Betty Mooney) would advise the Board members, particularly the City representatives, to not move forward with Items from the Public Schnabel proposal to conduct such a study. She saw this as a “conflict of interest,” and she did not feel that it was “professional” on Schnabel’s part since they were designing the new dam. Ms. Mooney also did not feel that the public “could trust information coming on this topic,” and a different company was needed to conduct this study. She would particularly urge the Cityrepresentatives to take “into account” this potential “conflict of interest.” ”
    November 24, 2009

    This as you fond of saying Cville Eye took me a minute to find. Betty Mooney has never said anything positive about Schnabel that I can remember till now.

Comments are closed.