|
|
||
Date published: 6/12/2006
My wife was reading aloud from a recent article ["Riverboat captain accused of dredging," June 2], and I asked her to check the paper's date, as the story sounded like an April Fools' joke. Bruce F. Williams, chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Northern Virginia Regulatory Section, was quoted as saying he was concerned with the sediment stirred up by the riverboat's propeller. Mr. Williams said this sediment would affect migratory fish. What about all the sediment raining down from upriver? The corps should be more concerned with the sediment they released from behind Embrey Dam. The corps is very good at identifying offenders, but it needs to clean its own house. The amount of sediment stirred up by the riverboat pales in comparison to the corps' premature removal of Embrey Dam. The "toy dredge" the corps provided for the silt removal, prior to the dam's breaching, could've worked for years to fill the "big hole" purchased by the citizens of Fredericksburg. I'd like to see a cost accounting for the funds appropriated for the Embrey Dam removal. I also would like to know why the dam had to be breached in February 2004. Why not 2006? If the breaching had been delayed to remove more silt, the river wouldn't have lost miles of deep holes where anadromous fish had previously spawned. Folks who were part of this process have said, "The river should repair itself naturally." This leaves the corps off the hook for being responsible for the irreparable damage they've caused to the river. Capt. Pearson is trying to navigate a river that has been damaged by the corps. His business was in place before the dam's removal. He is the aggrieved party and should receive a letter of apology from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The corps should fess up and send a dredge to Fredericksburg to deepen the river's channel to pre-Embrey depth. It's the right thing to do. Vince Staley Spotsylvania
1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
|
|
|||||||||||||
