The South Whitehall Commissioners never expected the voters to approve the referendum in November of 2016 to retain Wehr's Dam, especially when they had associated it with a possible tax increase. They thought that they could accommodate the Wildlands Conservancy in demolishing the dam, with no political consequence to themselves.
In July of 2014, the Commissioners gave the Conservancy permission to conduct a study of the dam, which was intended to justify its demolition. The engineering firm for the Conservancy then claimed that the dam was leaking under itself, at one small spot. On February 13, 2015, the DEP wrote the township; "The Wildlands Conservancy has recently brought to our attention that there is some confusion relating to the current condition of the Wehr's Dam..." For the Commissioners to have granted the Wildlands Conservancy permission to interface with the state was improper. The dam is the historic property of the township residents, not an outside party.
A subsequent study of the dam by another engineering firm could not confirm the above referenced leak. It is now necessary for the Commissioners to put aside their agenda of accommodating the Wildlands Conservancy, and honor the results of the referendum. They must change their Park Master Plan, which still calls for the dam's demolition. They must now advocate for the dam with the state DEP, and correct any misconceptions about its condition. The reality is that the dam is a overbuilt massive concrete wedge, sitting on an enormous concrete platform, which would stand for another 100 years with no repair.
Although its been over three years since the referendum, the township hasn't applied one dab of cement to the dam. On the contrary, they have been rebidding the repairs trying to actually get a higher price, to exceed the amount authorized by the voter's referendum. They are trying to undue the will of the voters. The dam sits in a state of benign neglect, waiting for the state to accommodate the Wildlands Conservancy and condemn it.
photo by K Mary Hess
It seems to be a pattern, that if election and referendum results are not approved by those in power, they will not be enforced or accepted. We often hear about threats to democracy, while this may be a small matter it is typical of the times.
ReplyDeleteGood point about it being a pattern.
DeleteAnd it's not confined to this country. Perhaps the worst example of the expressed will of the people being ignored is in the UK, with BrExit.
At least that has a catchy name, and maybe we need one too.
With that in mind, might I suggest...Dam-It.
To me, that name would mean the Dam stays, Wildlands goes, and also sums up how I feel about SWT elected officials.
ray@5:59, the conspiracy against the voters is very deep in South Whitehall. seven years ago the Wildlands Conservancy had a director's son installed as head of the park department. the same person now is Public Works Director for the township, in charge of dam project. Unless there is intervention by higher authorities, the dam is doomed.
ReplyDeleteMM -
DeleteI would think that with each passing year their lies are exposed more.
Despite their dire predictions, the dam hasn't burst. Even if it would, what do they claim is the danger? It isn't really a dam in the sense of holding back a large amount of water that would wipe out villages downstream if it failed.
As you note, what it needs is proper maintenance. Hopefully, with some turnover on the Board of Commissioners, they can be convinced to honor the will of the people and give the dam what it deserves.
unknown@7:21, you are correct about no danger, and the dam is classified as low hazard for that reason. I have a copy of the state inspection from 2012 before the Wildlands Conservancy started their campaign to demolish it.. it was rated "overall in excellent condition" at the time. The dam still is in excellent condition despite the misinformation by the Conservancy. BTW, the Conservancy is implementing a $multi million Dollar "Greenway" project in the same park. What is going on in South Whitehall should be investigated by the Attorney General
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly they were going to spend 100's of thousands to remove the dam. I suspect there is the why? Lots of money to spread around. Also why don't they have a couple of community days and have volunteers come down and do some maintenance? We hear so much about building community why not put the idea in action? Again, no money to spread around.
ReplyDeleteIf the dam is solid for many more years, why get rid of another landmark. Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
ReplyDeleteA major agenda of the Wildlands is demolishing dams. They already spent more on studies than any repair would have cost. They demolished the 10inch high Robin Hood Dam in Lehigh Parkway, and despoiled the stone bridge piers by piling the dam debris around them. They get to keep 15% of all project costs as an administrative fee, which they pay themselves with. Unfortunately, they are a major sacred cow in the valley.
ReplyDeleteWildlands is a corporation, with a V.P of Finance and a variety of Directors comprising its rather large staff. Given the vested interest the Conservancy has in demolishing the dam in favor of a much larger and even more lucrative development project, their war on the dam is particularly distasteful. But having lost the sale, I'll give them some credit for creativity in "back dooring" the voting results. Their affiliation with our new Congressional representative Wild obviously helped their cause.
ReplyDeleteSurrounded by high energy power lines and bounded by an interstate, I can't think of a less "wild" location. The Creek isn't even capable of consistent flow, dam or not. It's not a naturally reproductive stream. The handful of fish get trapped in deep holes during dry spells, which is why it gets stocked. Scary warnings about "water quality", or fish migration on the WC website seem completely unsupported by the facts about Jordan Creek. Historic relevancy too seems lost, as the goal of the WC is return the Valley to a romantic vision of a lost past that hasn't existed for at least 300 years, if it ever did.
But having been associated with the Archimedes screw installed on the Monocacy and the potential of hydropower as an alternative energy source, even the "WC" grudgingly admits not all dams are bad. Just the ones in which they stand to miss revenue revenues opportunities seem to fail their litmus test.
But lets's not have facts, referendums or sentimentality get in the way of the virtuous ... or their bank deposit.