Friday, March 12, 2010

Reservoir Reservations . . .

The Hinckley Reservoir story, as related by the OD, just seems to get more and more convoluted every day. . . .

"Legislators 'taken aback' by surprise reservoir plans"
Director of Canals Carmella Mantello told the O-D Wednesday that Canal Corp. had applied for $50 million in federal stimulus funds to build the new 6-billion-gallon reservoir in Herkimer County. . . .

Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, D-Rome, said she was “taken aback” that the agency acted without establishing a local consensus as to whether a new reservoir was needed . . . .

“How does someone from the Canal Corp. just come here and say they put an application in and never talk to anybody about it?” Destito said. “Where is the documentation that says this is what is needed, and who came to this conclusion?”
"Local consensus?"After being told for years by Water Authority CEO Pat Becher that a compensating reservoir is NOT needed for local drinking water purposes, why are our local leaders presuming that this reservoir is being built for them?

Canal Corp. is an administrative agency with the responsibility of running the canal system. It knows what ITS needs are. . . . and a "local consensus" has no relevancy in that determination.
State Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, said he had not had time to review the details of the proposal Thursday afternoon, but felt strongly that there should have been communication about such a “substantial initiative.”

“Particularly in light of what has transpired here, one of the most important things was that all the entities have an opportunity to have that dialogue, and that communication and that cooperation to ensure that we don’t have any problems,” Griffo said, referencing the working group that formed after Hinckley experienced record low water levels in 2007. “So for the Canal Corp. to not be talking to somebody is unacceptable.”
It is interesting that Mr. Griffo finds the alleged lack of communication by Canal Corp. "unacceptable." Perhaps if Oneida County had invited Canal Corp. to participate in its little Hinckley "stakeholders' group" discussions, our local officials would have learned of the state's proposal a long time ago.

If the proposed reservoir is not needed, as local officials claim, you have to ask yourself why the local officials are in such a lather about it.

If you are a regular reader of Fault Lines, you can figure out the answer.


onjeesun said...

Now our so called leaders know what it's like to be treated like a peon.....just like they've treated us. Dialogue? Consensus? Communication? I didn't realize these were a part of the process. Sounds like Ro-Jo's getting a taste of their own medicine.

Come on in, the water's fine!

Anonymous said...

Maybe the MHVWA should have asked the Canal Corp to attend the meeting when they decided to demolition the gray dam, it was such a “substantial initiative".

Can we fire, Water Authority CEO Pat Becher, how much has his leadership cost?

Anonymous said...

I hear you, Anonymous 1.
I wasn't in the area yet when the Gray dam removal was decided upon and done, but it's hard to imagine it was done in secrecy. Makes me wonder what's worse -- the Water Authority for 90 years of willfully breaking their agreement, or the Canal Corp and NYS for 90 years of letting them do it.