In the summer of 2000, the Natural Resources Conservation Service released their report on the various flood control alternatives for the lower Neshaminy Creek. One alternative was to do nothing. Building Dark Hollow Dam was an alternative, another was buy-outs of certain properties and flood-proofing of others (termed the "non-structural" alternative), and the fourth was a combination of Dark Hollow Dam and non-structural measures. RPF was opposed to building Dark Hollow Dam because of the various environmental impacts. After the report was released, both the Bucks County Commissioners and the Bucks County Conservation District had to choose an alternative.

The NRCS report showed that the non-structural alternative was the best one. Dam proponents and certain newspapers touted the dam as the best alternative, and blasted NRCS for including the cost of the land in the dam alternative, as required by Federal regulations. The dam advocates stated that the cost of the land shouldn’t be included as it was already owned by the county (bought for flood control but currently used as park land).

RPF analyzed the NRCS report and demonstrated that the non-structural alternative afforded protection at less cost per property, so the money was better spent on measures included in the non-structural alternative. This was true even if the cost of the land was ignored and not included in the costs for the dam. And implementing non-structural measures and building the dam didn’t add much–most of the protection came from the non-structural measures.