Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 60 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Message icon:

Verification: Search engine are not allowed to complete captchas

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: Doug K
« on: June 23, 2018, 11:15:58 am »

Maybe the missed point here is even more basic:

Why would any group or any individual shine the light on a Canal Incident that occurred 44 years ago for a COMPLETELY different reason than what the caretakers of the Erie Canal are discussing in 2018?

The only answer that makes sense here is what the STCC group has done right along, they continue to change the subject AWAY from topics they don't agree with or have an adequate answer for. Yes the Bushnell's Basin flood did happen, but that has nothing to do with the matter at hand today, unless you understand that 44 more years of vegetative growth along the Erie Canal has just made the whole issue with unsafe Embankments much worse.

Sadly this group doesn't seem to even review or believe the Rizzo Engineering report requested by the NY Canal Corp. If they took a moment to review the facts, not the facts they want, the ACTUAL facts available, they would maybe start to understand the extent of the problems.

I have attached TWO PICTURES below that summarize the Rizzo findings very well. Take time to review the pictures as well, those show EXACTLY what the issues are at play, but more importantly they show that routine, regular inspections are GREATLY hampered by the current amount of Vegetation on the Embankments. Rizzo Engineering, experts in this field have stated it all has to go, to enable the proper Inspection in the future.

Why does the Stop the Clear Cut Group continually AVOID using the words 'Unsafe', 'Embankment Dam' & 'Inspection'? Those words go hand in hand and are at the ROOT of this whole project, no pun intended.

When they stop talking about the PAST and start focusing on the future, their energy and passion around the Erie Canal may actually help, instead of creating more confusion and animosity towards the NY Canal Corp, who is only trying to "make things right"
Posted by: Michael Caswell
« on: June 23, 2018, 06:57:48 am »

Here they say -
It is scary. But it also had nothing to do with trees, shrubs, or small mammals. It was caused by a sewer project that required tunneling under the Canal -- an error by the engineers or contractors on that project led to the collapse of the bottom of the canal, which eventually blew out the embankment.

Unfortunately, the point has been completely missed here.  There are hundreds of reasons why an embankment dam can fail, and human error during repairs is just one of them.
In this particular situation, the bottom fell out of the canal as they were working in the culvert, resulting in a rush of water which eventually washed out the embankment. If trees had not been there, would the bank have held? Who knows?

This accident does not justify the presence of trees on an embankment. We must do everything to ensure embankments can be inspected regularly, which means (as per FEMA USACE & ASDSO) the only vegetation allowed on an embankment dam is GRASS. By checking the RIZZO report it can be noted that their inspections have been severely compromised by the thick undergrowth and large trees on the embankments.