Paul Long (I) Kristin Szakos (D)
In June 2006 the
Challenger Challenger
Okay I am going to hedge on this, I hope that I am not I support most of the plan, and on some of the plan I am
sounding like a politician, I don’t know what the specifics of still - still up in the air. I do support [retiring] the pipeline
City and County
the water supply plan are. But I am going to repeat what I that comes down from Sugar Hollow….It would need such
said before, if I do read over and think of something positive repairs and such a long pipeline for relatively little water at
that I should support, the residents of the Charlottesville and great ecological cost….So that part of the plan I think is
signed off on a 50
Albemarle County want a good, clean water supply then no great.
matter what plan is agreed upon, we have to be going to pay
for it. It’s not going to come at no cost, but I haven’t read the
I think that the idea of having our primary water resource at
year water supply
specifics and I need to do that.
Ragged Mountain is absolutely critical. It’s a natural place
for us to have that. It makes sense. It’s not great. I am not
happy about it. I wish we didn’t have to cut down trees. I
plan that includes a
Dave Norris (D)
wish we didn’t have to store water. I wish that we could just
Incumbent
catch it from the sky and purify it and that would be lovely….
new dam at the
I have said many times I support the general framework of
[I]t’s mostly the County that needs this water supply, I think
this plan, meaning we need to improve our infrastructure,
more than the City does. And so one concern I have about
our water supply infrastructure. We want to keep within our
the water plan, it’s the funding of it, and who pays for that,
Ragged Mountain
watershed. I don’t agree with the idea that we should go
who pays for that increased capacity.
back to exploring piping in water from the James River. I also
I think one reason to have increased capacity is that we
Reservoir and a new
don’t agree with the idea that we should go back and look
want to be able to draw light industry; we want to be able to
at building a massive new reservoir somewhere else when
draw things that - even as we are conserving individually wa-
we have got two reservoirs right now that can be upgraded
ter use, we want to be able to have that access in the City
pipeline connecting it
and should be upgraded rather than building another reser-
for industry. So we may grow some in our need for water.
voir, that’s going to be very costly and have a lot of environ-
But I just want to make sure that at some point it’s not the
mental impact.
City who is bearing the brunt of this project, both in the
to the South Fork
So the general framework of the plan now, I do support
property at Ragged Mountain Reservoir, which is City proper-
which basically envisions keeping within our watershed, link-
ty, and then ratepayers having to pay for the increase.
ing the two reservoirs. We have got the South Fork Rivanna
Rivanna Reservoir.
Reservoir which is a great collection tank for water, has a
huge watershed hundreds of square miles, but it’s a terrible
Andrew Williams (I)
Challenger (Write-in)
Do you support this
holding tank for water - silts in, and there is lot of sedimen-
tation there. Meanwhile you have got the Ragged Mountain
I do support taking action, but as far as a new dam, I think
Reservoir which is a terrible collection tank for water and
that’s a last resort. I think it’s a last resort and we should
plan, why or why not?
has a very small watershed, there is very little in terms of
definitely consider, ultimately just moving forward with our
streams etc that drain into that reservoir, but it’s a wonderful
existing resources and making better our existing resources,
holding tank for water because it doesn't have the siltation
and not spending a lot of money unless it was absolutely
or sedimentation….
necessary which isn’t too far in the horizon, but I would see
I think the framework is good, but the particulars need to be
a new dam only as a last resort because of the cost.
revisited, and I am not convinced we need to max out that
framework. And if we can show that we can reliably use less
Bob Fenwick (I)
water than the current plan envisions, if we can show that
Challenger there is a way to increase the capacity at South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir, cheaper than the current plan envisions
At this point, I do not support the plan. It’s a good concept
by dredging, and perhaps if we can get some flexibility from
but I do not support it because damming has become the
the state on stream flow requirements, perhaps there is a
default position in this situation. We have neglected, as I’ve
way to reduce the size of the Dam at Ragged Mountain and
said many times, the infrastructure maintenance and in this
perhaps even avoid building a new [dam] and simply en-
question, that is dredging. Much of the discussion which
large and repair the existing dam, which will save the
prompts the dam, circles around silting or sediment in the
ratepayers and taxpayers tremendous amount of money and
Rivanna Reservoir. What we should do first, particularly in
will have much smaller environmental impact than the plan
these economic times, is to dredge the Rivanna Reservoir.It
currently envisions.
is very basic, it is something that should be done. It is a ba-
sic, mechanical operation that is done every day in this
country. So my position at this time would be to dredge first.
That will increase the capacity. As the demand for water
goes down, we will see how that shakes out. In a number of
years, not only when the economy improves and we’re not
operating with negative budgets, but we’ll have a lot more in-
formation to then make a really good decision on whether
we need a new dam.
7