Pine Mountain Dam project gathers more opposition

Add the Corps Reform Network to the list of organizations ready to oppose the construction of a Pine Mountain Dam on 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 long-term water supply source in western Arkansas. The Army was appropriated $478,000 to conduct the study.
 
The RVRWD was formed in June 2000 for the purpose of building a long-term water
supply for western Arkansas. While initial engineering studies have identified Lee Creek (Pine Mountain Dam) as a suitable location, NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) requires a thorough analysis of all “reasonable alternatives,” the RVRWD noted in its May 8 press release.

Construction of such a dam faces two major obstacles. The upper portion of Lee Creek that would be controlled is designated an Extraordinary Resource Waters, which prevents mining, construction, dams and other activities that would alter the quality or nature of the water. Second, Oklahoma officials — portions of the Lee Creek watershed are in Oklahoma — are on record opposing construction of a dam on Lee Creek.

READY TO FIGHT
George Sorvalis, with the Washington, D.C.-based Corps Reform Network (CRN), recently told The City Wire that the group (affiliated with the National Wildlife Federation) will support local and Arkansas organizations that oppose a Pine Mountain Dam. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, The Nature Conservancy, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arkansas Heritage Commission and the Sierra Club are on record opposing Pine Mountain.

Sorvalis also said “the premise of the (study) is flawed,” with the Corps and the RVRWD looking to justify building Pine Mountain Dam instead of objectively seeking to research structural and “non-structural” alternatives in the pursuit of securing a long-term water supply.

“Looking at this, the question seems to be ‘How are we going to build this dam?’ But that’s not the question that should be asked?” Sorvalis said.

Indeed, a May 7, 2009 memo from Brigadier General Kendall Cox, U.S. Army Engineer Division Southwestern based in Dallas, to the Corps commander in Little Rock provides “Review Plan Approval for Pine Mountain Lake, Van Buren County, Arkansas, General Evaluation Report.” (Obviously a general mistake on the county.)

And an Aug. 11, 2008 memo from Steven Stockton, director of civil works for the U.S. Army Corps office in Washington, appears to authorize studies for “Pine Mountain Dam on Lee Creek, Arkansas & Oklahoma.”

Sorvalis said this approach is “symptomatic of the Corps of Engineers,” in which they often seek to justify projects instead of conducting broad and objective research to address water supply issues. Sorvalis also noted that the lack of funding for the Pine Mountain research in President Barack Obama’s budget indicates that the executive branch of the government does not see the dam as a funding priority. (Funding for the study was appropriated by Congress.)

OPEN PROCESS
The Corps rejects Sorvalis’ claims, saying its role is to create a forum in which all groups and citizens — including the CRN — can participate “equally in trying to develop the right solution,” P.J. Spaul, a Corps spokesman said in a note to The City Wire.

Spaul said 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.  

Mark Yardley, project manager for RVRWD, was more spirited in his response to the CRN allegations.

“I would call the CRN activists elitists from Washington, D.C. but they obviously lack basic knowledge of how Corps-led water-supply projects are funded in the federal budget,” Yardley noted in an e-mail response. “The truth is that it has been a long-standing policy of the Corps of Engineers (under President’s Bush and Obama) not to fund water-supply only projects. It wouldn’t matter if everyone in the River Valley universally agreed that we needed water next year and that we should take it from the Arkansas River. Funding to study it or build such a project would not be included for the Corps in the President’s budget.”

HEADED FOR COURT?
Although neither aforementioned memos from the Army Corps specifically outline measures to study other water-supply alternatives, Yardley and Spaul say such alternatives are critical components of the process.
 
“All of the assumptions, analysis and conclusions that form the basis of the Environmental Impact Statement are required by law to go through independent external peer review,” Yardley said in continuing his response to the CRN comments. “The National Environmental Policy Act requires that all reasonable options (structural and non-structural) be given substantial evaluation and consideration. If CRN or anyone else believes that the study is not being conducted in strict compliance with the law, then they should immediately contact the Inspector General for the Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Attorney General.”
 
Yardley also noted: “It is unfortunate that this organization is resorting to deceit and maligning character instead of participating in a constructive and civil debate.”

There will be a debate, but even the Army Corps acknowledges such debate may not be altogether civil.

“Project risks are assumed to be high since there is a large amount of public controversy in Arkansas and Oklahoma,” Brig. Gen. Cox noted in his May 7 memo. “In Arkansas the project must meet stringent standards set forth in Regulation 2.310 before it would be approved by the state Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. Oklahoma maintains that no dam is permissible in the State of Arkansas on Lee Creek regardless of its design features. The River Valley Regional Water District disputes this claim. Regardless, this project is highly controversial and will likely end up in court.”