Science denial is not the exclusive realm of global
climate change. A recent proposal
pitched to a neighboring township by a local conservation organization to
remove a 111-year old concrete dam was met with a very vocal outcry from locals
who want things to remain just as they are.
Here is the link to the newspaper story about the township's decision last month. And here is my perspective:
Wehr's dam and Wehr's Covered Bridge, South Whitehall Township, PA
(photo credit: mcall.com)
|
Last year, the Wildlands Conservancy, a local non-profit group proposed
to South Whitehall Township’s Board of Commissioners conducting a feasibility
study on removing Wehr’s dam on the Jordan Creek in South Whitehall. Wehr’s dam was built at the beginning of the
20th century to power Wehr’s grist mill, which had stood nearby but was
demolished decades ago. A covered
bridge, which also bears the Wehr name, is still in use 150 feet downstream
from the dam. The township created a park centered on the aesthetics of the dam
and covered bridge. The Jordan Creek is
a popular trout stream which is stocked by the state. But there is really no
chance for a native population of trout to subsist in this spring-fed creek,
because the dam causes the water in the Jordan to back up, stagnate, and warm
up to summer water temperatures that trout cannot tolerate. The South Whitehall
commissioners approved letting Wildlands carry out the feasibility study. But
even at that preliminary step, a local blogger who thinks he has an axe to
grind with Wildlands Conservancy began crying foul and riling up the opposition
with accusations that Wildlands practices junk science. Interesting how people
who cannot, or refuse to, understand science often resort to claims of junk
science or academic dishonesty. In addition to the blogger, some descendants of
the Mr .Wehr who built the dam began a petition drive seeking to prevent the
dam’s removal.
I heard only one rational voice opposing the dam
removal. My friend Mike Siegel questioned whether the Jordan Creek, in the
absence of the dam, would carry enough water during summer low flows to sustain
a population of fish. That’s because, depending on local groundwater
conditions, it’s not unheard of for steams flowing over limestone bedrock to sometimes
disappear into a sink hole and re-emerge further downstream out of another
sinkhole. When that happens to a steam,
the fish usually just hunker down in deep pools in segments of the creek that have
water in the summer months. I didn’t take the time to drive to the South
Whitehall municipal building to read the feasibility report put together by
Wildlands Conservancy and their engineering consultant. So I’m not sure whether
the bedrock hydrology was even considered in the report. But I don’t think trout would be likely to
get stuck high & dry by a temporarily disappearing stream. That’s because
trout will always seek out the coldest water, which, in an area underlain by
limestone, would be wherever the nearest spring is feeding the creek. Based on
the emotional outcry of people opposing the dam’s removal, it doesn’t sound
like the stream’s hydrology even figured into the decision by the township
Commissioners to turn down Wildlands’ offer to remove the dam at no cost to the
township.
While it's refreshing to see commissioners consider
residents' wishes in a decision, I think four of these five commissioners voted
based on sentiment rather than facts. In this case, a non-profit organization
with proven experience in removing low-head dams was offering to remove this
mass of crumbling concrete at no cost to the township. Turning away
"free" money to remove a financial liability like this deteriorating
dam was an irresponsible vote that will cost the South Whitehall taxpayers
plenty when they are facing with removing the failing structure in the future. With this vote, the commissioners chose to
blatantly disregard science in favor of a nostalgic alternative reality that
the most outspoken people attending the meeting that night wanted to
believe. In doing so, they voted to
commit their taxpayers to fight a losing battle against the natural
deterioration of pile of rocks and concrete blocking a good trout stream that
could be a better trout stream.
The Wildlands Conservancy's study included an
underwater survey of the dam, which is not part of the PA Department of
Environmental Protection’s routine dam inspection program. So with new data
that proved their dam is in poor repair, particularly below the waterline where
it is more difficult to monitor, it seems that the majority of residents who
weighed in still sided with their emotions rather than science. It seems very
much like the climate change stalemate in the U.S. If some people cannot see
something, particularly something abstract, they won't believe it. Not even if scientists
and engineers have verified the risks. Here is my favorite line from the Morning Call
story:
"The rest of the board sided with Commissioner
Glenn Block, who said he wasn’t convinced by the findings that removing the dam
wouldn’t increase flood risk."
Wehr's Dam, with sign warning, "Danger Dam - No Boating, No Swimming, No Wading." (photo credit: Wildlands Conservancy, as published on LehighValleyLive.com) |
I don't know Mr. Block's professional background, but
he appears to be neither a scientist nor an engineer. And he clearly doesn't
want to allow science to interfere with his political popularity. So actually,
South Whitehall's commissioners had the opportunity to do the right thing, although the right thing (IMO) in this case would have been unpopular with the
standing room only crowd. So their commissioners voted 4-1 to keep their heads
in the sand despite having been shown the risks and having been given an
opportunity to avoid the financial burden of maintaining a deteriorating dam indefinitely into the future. I live in neighboring Lower Macungie, so at
least my tax dollars won't have to pay for the extensive
maintenance. Or the potential law suit when someone is injured as a result of
the dam. I wonder if the Wehr family would be so insistent about no removing the dam if they still owned it and were responsible for the
dam’s maintenance costs and liability.