Get flood protection started in the lower Neshaminy

Now that the Neshaminy Creek Watershed Steering Committee has voted 4-2 to recommend the "nonstructural alternative," those that backed the losing horse, Dark Hollow Dam, are becoming more and more insistent on a recount. Sure enough, the vote is only a recommendation, as the Bucks County Commissioners and also the Bucks County Conservation District have to take separate votes that will be the "official" word from the county. It's just that the dam apologists are now pointing out all kinds of things that the commissioners should consider before voting. As you might expect, these things are selected on their ability to discount the nonstructural alternative or diminish the considerable problems of the dam.

For example, the Bucks County Courier-Times (editorial, Feb 4, 2001) wants to know if elected officials can do something to speed up the estimated 10-year time frame to construct the dam. Apparently, if the politicos pledge to help cut through the bureaucratic red tape (in other words, grease this thing so that any environmental or other review doesn't hold it up), then it can be built faster and dam backers will live happily ever after much sooner. The paper also questions the amount of participation in the nonstructural alternative. In a more recent editorial (Feb 7, 2001), the Courier-Times singles out Congressman Jim Greenwood as a "missing" voice and wants him to help provide "answers." Maybe it wouldn’t take 10 years, the paper surmises, if Greenwood was "smoothing the way" because he is an "insider," and a "mover and shaker."

Much has been made about the estimated cost of the dam–estimated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service at $19 million. Dam proponents want to knock $10 million right off the top of the cost because the county already owns the land, now being used as a park. Oh. If park land is used for a dam, that’s OK. Yeh, I know that it was supposedly purchased with the dam in mind. But it’s being used for a park now, and is worth something. If you use up 45 acres for a dam, it can’t be used as a park, and the couple hundred acres behind the dam are less usable than before.

Including the $10 million in the cost for Dark Hollow really rankles the dam supporters because it means that the nonstructural alternative becomes the most cost-effective alternative, according to NRCS. The Courier-Times says that must be "due to some sort of tortured federal logic" and "maybe Greenwood could talk some sense into whoever came up with that inexplicable rule."

Well, God save the Republic if we substitute the logic that dam proponents use. Why? Because no one can simply decree that Dark Hollow Dam protect the public from floods better than it actually can. And it doesn’t do a good job. No one -- the vocal dam supporters, the Courier- Times, or Rep. Greenwood (if he chooses), or any of the King’s horses or men for that matter can argue with physics. Actually, on second thought, they can. They will just lose.

Confused? Don’t worry, it’s all pretty simple. Let’s ignore cost for a minute. A recent NRCS report assessed the performance of all the alternatives in preventing flood damage. Dark Hollow Dam, in a 100 year flood, would protect 122 properties (homes and businesses). The nonstructural alternative protects 276 properties. Do both? That protects 309, 33 additional properties more than the nonstructural. It’s clear that the nonstructural alternative easily protects more properties than does Dark Hollow Dam, and implementing both doesn’t add that much more flood protection than the nonstructural alternative does alone.

So dam advocates can say what they will, but it won’t help. The dam doesn’t do the job. Now lets bring cost back into it. The nonstructural approach protects 276 properties (homes and businesses) for $14 million, Dark Hollow Dam protects 122 properties for $19 million. You don’t have to spend much time doing that math. It works out to $50,700/property for the nonstructural alternative and $155,700/property for Dark Hollow Dam, over three times as much.

But wait! The land! It shouldn’t be factored in because the county already owns it! OK, for the sake of argument, let’s knock $10 million off the top. The Dam still costs $73,700/protected property. In other words, build the dam instead of the nonstructural alternative and 154 properties get no protection, and for the 122 lucky winners, it costs almost 50% more. Is this how you spend money in your household?

OK then, here comes the next dam advocate argument: Let’s do both! NRCS’s report says that in this alternative, 205 properties are expected to be protected with nonstructural components costing $8.8 million, with the remaining properties, 104, apparently protected by Dark Hollow. Figure it out and discount the $10 million again. The protection afforded by the dam costs $86,500/property, twice as much money per property protected by the nonstructural components, $42,900.

We see the math a little differently, and the numbers are even more shocking. Why spend $9 million upstream when it buys you twice as much flood protection downstream? Yes, doing both protects 309 properties. But 276 properties would be protected from the nonstructural alternative alone ($14 million) so it only seems logical to charge the protection of the additional 33 properties in the "build both" scenario, strictly to the dam. Even discounting the $10 million in land costs that the dam’s proponents are excited over, that means the $9 million (it costs the same to build the dam no matter what you do downstream) divided by 33 properties works out to $272,700/additional property protected. Ouch. Allowing the land some value increases that cost more; the 45 acres of park land should be worth something. At market value, you are over $550,000 per protected property.

Either way you cut it, however, is why the "build both" scenario doesn’t work. Dollar for dollar, you are better off with flood proofing and buyouts. So even if Rep. Greenwood finds out why NRCS included the $10 million for land costs, so what? So what if he can somehow make Dark Hollow Dam cheaper for the county or have it built quicker ? It still doesn’t work. It’s an insurance policy whose premium is more than the payoff amount.

If nothing else, the NRCS report shows the best way to reduce flood damages in the lower Neshaminy. It’s not by building Dark Hollow Dam. Instead of badgering Rep. Greenwood with pointless questions about permits, let’s ask him for additional dollars to ensure that participation in the nonstructural alternative–the best alternative--is as high as possible, and get flood protection started in the lower Neshaminy.

<<<<END>>>>

return