Raymond Proffitt Foundation
Pollution UpDate
19 May 98

"Pollution UpDate" is a publication dedicated to the reporting of timely environmental news. Environmental activists with story ideas or comments can e-mail gateway@rayproffitt.org. I'd like to thank the readers of Pollution UpDate for their comments and suggestions, and DEP for giving us plenty to write about. Joe Turner, Editor

IS DARK HOLLOW DAM A DONE DEAL?

Is the Dark Hollow Dam a "done deal" in the minds of the folks at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Bucks Conservation District (BCD)? Or is the study, which is being guided by the Neshaminy Creek Storm Water Study Committee, the unbiased assessment of solutions to reduce flood damage along the Neshaminy that was promised in December of 1996 by the Bucks County Commissioners? To date, the process looks more like the former than the latter.

Preliminary resurvey work has already begun at the proposed Dark Hollow Dam site. Meanwhile, the technical committee scrambles to find the money and personnel to finish doing basic cross section and low opening surveys of the Neshaminy which need to be completed before the flooding problem(s) and solution(s) can even be properly defined. Is the dam being designed while the study is manipulated to select it, the only solution that has been promoted by the NRCS and the BCD?

Is the process flawed? The technical review committee is composed almost entirely of employees of the NRCS and BCD. The committee is in charge of doing the work and proposing the recommended solution. Both agencies are sponsors of the Neshaminy Creek Work Plan which included construction of the proposed Dark Hollow Dam. Both agencies are also enthusiastic boosters for the dam project.

When the Delaware River Keeper Network wrote a guest opinion in the Bucks County Courier Times which questioned the wisdom of building a dam at Dark Hollow, comment from the publicist hired to "inform" the public about the study process was not only swift but also mean-spirited. For example, he wrote, "It is unfortunate that Maya K. van Rossum of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network chose to misinform your readers..." On the other hand, guest columns written by supporters of the proposed dam project are neither scrutinized for accuracy nor commented upon. Is there a double standard applied depending upon how one feels about the proposed Dark Hollow Dam?

If a decision has not yet been made, why does Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary James Seif state in a letter to Rep. Matt Wright (party, district) on January 22, 1997, "We have recently reviewed the project and have concluded that it would result in substantial reduction of flood damages."? How can Secretary Seif or the DEP conclude anything before the study is even completed, and in the case of the January 22, 1997, letter, before the study was even started?

As far as options other than the dam, the technical review committee has only spent time deciding which options other than the dam should not be considered. As early as November 1997, the committee had already decided that certain alternatives would probably be "...impractical for monetary or other reasons..." and included: other dam sites, diverting flood ways, storm water management and numerous small storm water basins. While they indicated "These will be revisited at a later time," it is clear that the committee has already begun the process of rejecting options long before the technical assessment of data has even begun.

Because it appears that the technical review committee is working hard only to justify the dam, the task of suggesting and researching alternatives seems to be falling to environmental groups. It is those groups, along with certain individuals, who are talking about and researching responsible solutions that will benefit all residents not just a selected few who have made a conscious decision to remain in harms way.

While elected officials in flood-prone downstream communities like Hulmeville continue to allow building in the flood plain, responsible elected officials like those in Northampton Township are telling developers "don't come to us with plans that include building within the 100-year flood plain". Buckingham Township has changed their zoning ordinance so that developers are encouraged to use "Best management Practices" for storm water control. Why aren't these approaches being used in the very communities that see the dam as their only solution to storm water problems?

The choice should be simple. Build the dam with taxpayers money to benefit a small group of people some of the time. Or implement solutions that control storm water at the source and are paid for by the developers when new construction takes place. Besides, if the dam is built both the developers, and the officials that have let them develop irresponsibly, get off scot free. The developers will say "we've got the dam, that's our storm water control." The elected officials will be able to point to the dam and say "look we did something." Even if it doesn't solve the real problems and doesn't provide long term solutions.

The Dark Hollow Dam is an outdated concept that won't work in the long term and will forever damage a priceless piece of Bucks County, the Dark Hollow. This open space need not be sacrificed if effective control of storm water and restoration of the natural flood plains along the Neshaminy is mandated. For those structures that are located in the flood plain and suffer repeated damage, the only real solution is removal.

There is no flood damage if there is nothing in the flood plain to damage. It is a flood damage reduction technique that everyone but the promoters of the proposed Dark Hollow Dam have come to understand. Only here in Bucks County do some still continue to promote dam building as a solution to flooding. It is time to move from the thinking of the 1950's and accept the realities of current flood management technology: control problems at the source; don't treat the symptoms without addressing the problems.

<<<<END>>>>