Lee Creek Pine Moutain Dam Article

[dinan]

Jerry William is in the paper again. Seems to be a mostly a one-sided article almost makes it sound like a done deal. I wonder why they didn't ask Jerry how come they can't get water from one of the largest river in North America or get water from all of their other cheaper options. Only environmentalist oppose the Dam? How about the EPA, ADEQ or the people that could lose their land. They even catch Jerry lying about Fort Smith telling them how much water they can have.

I remember at several of the public comment sessions their was a University professor who was an expert in filtration that explained how much cheaper it would be for them the get the water out of the Arkansas River. I wish they would interview him. Can anyone remember his name?

PINE MOUNTAIN
Dam Work Continues
WATER PROJECT PROCEEDING

By Rusty Garrett
TIMES RECORD RGARRETT@SWTIMES.COM
FORT SMITH — The proj­ect rarely makes headlines these days, but work contin­ues on the Pine Mountain Dam proposal, said Jerry Williams, chairman of the board of the River Valley Regional Water District.
The district is the orga­nization leading the push for the long-sought water supply.
Customers of the eight water associations that belong to the district are receiving inserts in their monthly bills in an effort to gauge and generate support for the project among those who associations say will ultimately benefit from the project.
The postcards addressed to Arkansas congress­men and senators thanked them for their past efforts to secure money for the Pine Mountain project and asked them to continue their support as Congress considers its 2009 spend­ing bills.
Last year, Congress pumped some financial life in the project with a $461,000 appropriation to go toward planning stud­ies.
Gary Smith, director of the Van Buren Utili­ties Department, said the city included about 8,000 cards addressed to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., in this month’s bills. Others addressed to Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers, are planned.
Smith said customers are encour­a ged to sign the cards and return them with their payments.
The district will forward the cards to the lawmak­ers.
Also last year, the Arkan­sas Department of Envi­ronmental Quality secured approval of a regulation change that removed an obstacle to the project.
The state’s Pollution Control and Ecology Commission in October 2007 established a proce­dure for petitioning for allowing the alteration of a protected body of water.
That change could allow the damming of Lee Creek to create a water-supply lake to benefit water users in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma.
The proposed dam loca­tion, Williams said, would be visible looking east from the bridge that crosses Lee Creek on Arkansas 59.
A 2001 water feasibility study by Garver Engineers of Little Rock priced the construction of the lake at $39.5 million.
Depending on the height of the dam, a lake could encompass from 3,740 to 5,700 acres, the Garver study indicated.
A water-supply feasibil­ity study by Garver showed that the proposed area that the dam’s water supply would serve would include Crawford County, small parts of Sequoyah County in eastern Oklahoma and Barling.
In the report, Garver Engineers estimated the probable construction cost of the Pine Mountain Dam project to be $39.5 million.
Williams said a contract is being finalized for a cultural resources impact survey of the proposed lake site.
Weston Solutions of Oklahoma City has been hired to do the archeo­logical work, which is projected to take 275 days to complete.
A comprehensive Envi­ronmental Impact Study, an undertaking that could cost around $3 million, must also be performed.
Williams said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be responsible for subcontracting the envi­ronmental work.
The controversial project was first proposed in 1965 and has stalled and been restarted several times since then.
Williams said comple­tion of a lake near Pine Mountain may be years off, but he believes it is inevi­table. He said despite the recent expansion, the Fort Smith water supply is finite.
A brochure distributed by the district said the Fort Smith water supply would meet the area’s needs until 2040.
Fort Smith Acting City Administrator Ray Gosack said Friday that projection has been updated to at least 2060. He said a change in the project’s design, coupled with a leveling off of water usage has resulted in the extension.
He said studies, as far back as the 1960s, have shown a dam at Pine Mountain would produce a reliable and clean source of water at a reasonable cost.
Environmentalists have long opposed the dam because they believe it will take away the natural beauty of Lee Creek.
A former county judge of Crawford County, Williams also defends the decision by the district members against relying on the city of Fort Smith for water, although several of them are now buying water from Fort Smith.
He said historically Fort Smith “has been harsh, and hard to deal with, tell­ing us how much water we can have and at what price.”
Under current condi­tions, an industry plan­ning to locate in Crawford County or a builder plan­ning a subdivision have to have the OK of Fort Smith before being assured of a water supply, Williams said.
Gosack said there is no such requirement.
“That’s never been the case,” he said Friday.
Large water users only need approval from their water utility providers, he said.
Gosack also said the only dissatisfaction he is aware of from Fort Smith’s whole­sale customers has been the cost of water.
“We’ve supplied them as much water as they have needed,” he said.
Fort Smith “has been harsh, and hard to deal with, telling us how much water we can have and at what price.”
JERRY WILLIAMS
Chairman of the board of the River Valley Regional Water District on the need for the Pine Mountain Dam project

[DeBo]

The scientist who commented about filtration is Dr Robert Cross and I think that getting him on the record again is a good idea. It is time we confront River Valley Water District with reality.

[prophet]

looks like we might need to counter their mail in cards with one of our own also.