Laserfiche WebLink
concerns into consideration. He said he has conversations, though not in depth, with <br />representatives from Louisa and Fluvanna Counties. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rooker said there appears to be only two options on the table, or some <br />combination of those options, and he is not happy about that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ellis said he thinks that is correct, raising the Ragged Mountain dam or going <br />to the James River, or a combination of the two. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said that the City has a number of priorities with stream protection <br />within its watershed which will have a positive effect on the overall watershed. He said <br />if we put together a scenario for regulators that includes Ragged Mountain and a bladder <br />at South Fork Rivanna Reservoir in the context of a larger package of stream bank <br />restoration elsewhere and EPA phase 2 implementation, it may change the way regulators <br />look at the entire proposal and not just the dam in isolation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ellis said that would not be consistent with how the regulatory agencies work. <br />He said that regardless of whether the effects are offset, the regulators would look at <br />could they be avoided by looking at other projects. <br /> <br /> Mr. Clarence Roberts, a member of the Service Authority, said that he would use <br />the approach that regulatory agencies are there to help us. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question, Mr. Ellis said that maintenance dredging would be <br />permissible, and perhaps some could be done without a permit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rooker noted that we were never able to get a permit to dredge during the last <br />drought. He said we would save money by dredging and putting off the pipeline to the <br />James River. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ellis said he is told by the engineers that the opposite is true and that dredging <br />is very expensive. <br /> <br /> Mr. Dorrier asked if there have been any preliminary discussions with regulators, <br />and Mr. Ellis said there have been a number discussions with them. <br /> <br /> Mr. Parker said we need to confront the question of whether we trust our <br />consultants. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said a better question is how the political representatives can help the <br />consultants get what the community wants, which are the least cost, most common sense <br />solutions. He said it is not a matter of trust, but he does not like the answers he is <br />hearing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Boyd said this brings us back to the decision making process and how to <br />involve elected officials in RWSA. He suggested that in the meantime an ad hoc <br />committee be formed. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said he likes to think we take advice from the consultant the same as <br />we would our attorney. He said he is bothered by the deadline aspect of the decision <br />making which makes it hard to fully explore the impacts. He said if increasing the dam <br />to 13 feet is part of the repair, we could move forward with that and explore other <br />options. <br /> <br />Mr. Ellis said that would not satisfy the need for a 50 year water supply plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frederick said we could do that but he would advise that the decision about <br />the dam should be made in conjunction with the water supply plan as we could run into a <br />snag. He said the substructure of the dam could be built so the height could be increased <br />later. <br /> <br /> <br />