Is Rock Run the Next Dark Hollow?

Will the debate over the proposed Rock Run Dam in Lower Makefield Twp., Bucks County, PA. follow the same course as the proposed and now cancelled Dark Hollow Dam? Let’s hope that some valuable lessons were learned from the Dark Hollow debate. Like Dark Hollow, the debate over Rock Run has begun by pitting proponents and opponents of the proposed dam against each other by phrasing the question incorrectly: Do we build a dam or not build a dam? The proper question is: How do we best address flood damages without causing harm to others? In the case of Dark Hollow, that question was finally asked and answered, and the dam was rejected in favor of a more effective and less costly solution.

There is no question that major mistakes have occurred in the past in the Rock Run watershed. Portions of the original stream and flood plain were filled and homes were built on top. Sections of the stream were moved or forced to flow underground in pipes that were not properly designed to handle flood flows. Undersized bridges restrict the flow and cause the stream to back up during high flows. Stormwater facilities in the watershed were not designed to address the additional volume of runoff created as the watershed was developed. And finally, a major educational facility, Charles Boehm Middle School, was built entirely within the 100-year flood plain of Rock Run Creek! Now, will Lower Makefield Township and PA DEP compound the problem by simply building another structure without dealing with the underlying problems that will continue to exist even if a dam is built?

Dark Hollow Dam proponents blasted NRCS for including the costs of the land in that project’s costs, because the county already owned the land (not that it mattered, as the dam minus the land’s cost was still more expensive per protected property). If they think that NRCS follows "tortured Federal logic" (as one newspaper termed it) they should take a look at DEP and this process. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network did take a look at Rock Run Dam and the process, and made some suggestions to DEP

If you think the Federal government tortures logic, what the state does to logic couldn’t be shown in a horror movie. DEP’s response to suggestions that they explore reasonable alternatives to the dam, like those shown to be more effective on the lower Neshaminy, was "we do not evaluate alternatives that are not authorized by these laws…" and "we do not consider ‘buyouts,’ storm water management ‘best practices," flood proofing, raising buildings, etc." When asked to include all associated costs, both state and local, in the required cost benefit/analysis for the dam DEP’s reply is "we simply don’t do it that way." You have to hand it to DEP. When was the last time you read something so straightforward from them? In fact, DEP flat out rejects virtually anything that isn’t a dam, so it should come as no surprise that their only solution is: build a dam. Do you think the Pennsylvania General Assembly wants DEP to spend money on dams when other measures might prove to be more effective? Yes, according to DEP. We are not so sure the General Assembly would agree. Maybe the law authorizes dams, but we doubt that the General Assembly wants DEP to build a dam even if there are more cost-effective alternatives. DEP should consider all the alternatives, no matter what shakes out best.

Lower Makefield’s response to date seems to be if the state is going to give us a million bucks, lets do it, in spite of the fact that the local share costs, like retrofitting the Charles Boehm School’s stormwater system, have not been fully or adequately developed. That will be discussed "at a later date."

It becomes fairly obvious that the construction of detention basins in the Rock Run watershed has not prevented or reduced flooding. In fact, the more developments that are built the worse flooding becomes even though all of the recent developments have included detention basins. Unfortunately, the proposed dam will fail for the same reason that the existing detention basins don’t work. Neither addresses the causes of flooding in the Rock Run watershed: increased stormwater volume due to additional impervious surface combined with flood-prone structures, those built in the flood plain.

The only solutions that will provide long-term relief are those solutions that reduce the total volume of stormwater at its source through infiltration and protection of woodlands and riparian areas along stream corridors. Structures that are situated in the flood plain must be removed, moved, elevated or flood proofed. Dams, bigger pipes and enlarged stream channels are all temporary structural solutions that will fail because they don’t address the cause of flooding and only attempt to deal with the results.

We should hope that the debate over Rock Run ends with a positive solution that addresses the causes of flooding. Come to think of it, lets hope that Rock Run does become the next Dark Hollow because that means that decision makers will be considering real and effective methods to reduce damages due to flooding. That will mean that DEP has to step out of the box that they built for themselves, and actually look at all the alternatives.