Pine Mountain Dam opponents fear rule changes during study

Jim Wood is concerned the U.S. Corps of Engineers and officials with the River Valley Regional Water District will “reformulate” the ongoing study of a long-term water supply option so that construction of Pine Mountain Dam will be justified.

Wood, who lives in Dardanelle, is an executive board member of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation, represents Arkansas on the National Wildlife Federation board and also represents Arkansas on the board of the National Corps of Engineers Reform Network (CRN).

The AWF and the CRN are on record opposing the construction of Pine Mountain Dam on upper Lee Creek in northern Crawford County.

The River Valley Regional Water District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 8 announced an agreement to study a future water supply source in western Arkansas. One of the possibilities included in the study for a long-term water supply is Pine Mountain Dam.

Opposition to the dam has mounted, and RVRWD officials admit a dam on upper Lee Creek faces serious obstacles — including opposition from Oklahoma officials and the cumbersome and politically sensitive requirement to remove the Extraordinary Resource Water designation from upper Lee Creek before it can be used as a water supply.

‘LIVING DOCUMENT’
In a letter to The City Wire, Wood said the Corps will “often formulate and/or reformulate ‘purpose and need’ alternatives to limit mandated Environmental Impact Statement benefit cost analysis to favor dredging rivers, building dikes, dams or other structural solutions.”

Wood said the Corps and associated water districts who are proponents of a particular outcome, uses vague terms in a project management plan (PMP) to allow future wiggle room. Wood cites language from the May 2009 agreement between the Corps and RVRWD: “The PMP should be considered a living document. Because planning is an iterative process without a predetermined outcome, changes may be associated with reformulation and evaluations of the alternatives. With clear descriptions of the scopes and assumptions outlined in the PMP, deviations are easier to identify. The impacts to time or funding would be assessed and decisions would be made on how to proceed. The PMP provides the basis for any changes.”

Furthermore, Wood said, the Corps and RVRWD say they seek an honest look at a future long-term water supply, but noted that all supporting documents focus on the study of Pine Mountain Dam — including the guiding “Project Management Plan” entitled, “Pine Mountain Dam General Reevaluation Study.”

“Many still consider the Corps to be somewhat less than trustworthy, and often will cook up a new study that drops off whatever they don’t like about past Pine Mtn. studies/documentation and add benefits that favor the proposed action,” Wood noted in an e-mail interview.

CORPS INTENTIONS
For its part, the Corps maintains that the study will objectively look at all potential water-supply sources. In early June, Corps spokesman P.J. Spaul said the evaluation process is open to all groups and citizens, and will include a thorough review of all options. The Corps and RVRWD will hold public and agency “scoping meetings” this fall to begin the process of gathering public input.

“We are neither proponents or opponents of Pine Mountain Dam. We are engaged in studies to determine the best long-term water supply solution for River Valley Water District from both environmental and economic standpoints,” Spaul said in an early June interview. 

NO PLAN CHANGES
Mark Yardley, project manager for RVRWD, and David Manns, a lobbyist hired by RVRWD to guide them through the study process, say the only objective of the study is to find the most practical and cost-efficient long-term water supply. They say the RVRWD will oppose any move by the Corps to change the scope of the study, including, as alleged by Wood, adding flood control and ecosystem restoration as a justification to build Pine Mountain Dam.

“(T)he Corps will only look at the range of options that would provide a long-term water supply for our region. The sole mission of the River Valley Regional Water District is to, well, supply water. The water district has no plans, desire or authority to address flooding in Crawford County or elsewhere,” Yardley said.

The RVRWD issued this statement: “River Valley Regional Water District, as the current non-federal sponsor, agrees with the Corps’ stated position in the Project Management Plan that flood control and ecosystem restoration should be excluded as project purposes for this study. Any effort to add those purposes at a later date would be strongly opposed by the water district, whose sole mission is to provide a long-term water supply for western Arkansas.”

Also, Manns said he was hired by the RVRWD to ensure the concerns expressed by Wood do not become reality.

“RVRWD hired me to assist the board in preparing funding submissions for a study of water-supply options for western Arkansas, not to promote building Pine Mountain Dam,” Manns said in a statement. “In fact, my written agreement with RVRWD states that I will assist the board in securing funding for the Environmental Impact Statement. This document must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires that all reasonable options be evaluated rigorously. If the final document fails this standard, it will be found to lack legal sufficiency.”