Author Topic: Is the STCC hiding CRITICAL project information from it's Members?  (Read 210 times)

Doug K

  • ECNA Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 674
  • Location: Brockport
    • ECNA US
Expert Witness? That term doesn't apply here.

Not once in Mr. Rosgen's reply does he use the term Embankment Dam when describing the "better" solution he's proposing...  he uses the term stream bank. So now the Erie Canal is back to being a natural stream that some person, who owns a business in Hydrology located in COLORADO, can somehow become an EXPERT on with a letter? It's unbelievable how far these folks will REACH to try and find a "truth" that fits their agenda.. and rhetoric. Seriously, is there no one in this STCC that uses the "Voice of Reason" when proof-reading?

Here's Mr. Agte writes: "A state agency recently classified the canal as a DAM, and is using guidance from the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Army Corps of Engineers and Association of State Dam Safety Engineers related to this reclassification as justification for their actions. The consensus among these experts is that trees have no place on embankments, as their root systems can cause seepage and potentially lead to erosion and potential embankment failure."

Then he goes on to add: "There are others who believe that the trees that have been there for decades, provide support and stability to the embankment and provide important habitat to fish, wildlife and pollinators."

By his own statement he is placing the Experts & Science behind Dam Engineering directly against "simple beliefs" of a handful of "others".

No supporting data, no science, just a belief.

So in order to stick with this simple belief doesn't a person need to hold that all the science supporting Dams is just a lie? To simply dismiss the possibility of a catastrophe "because a flood hasn't happened yet" really does an injustice to all the science that went into Embankment Remediation, what is done to PREVENT the POSSIBILITY.

But that has been the rally cry of the STCC since this whole Embankment SAFETY Project started.. "If it's Not broke Don't Fix It"

People.. the EXPERTS ARE SAYING the Erie Canal is BROKEN and needs to be FIXED. Hence the Dam REMEDIATION Project.. look it up.

And from the Engineer and SCIENCE perspective... statistically the LONGER the time is BETWEEN events the MORE likely the event will reoccur in the NEAR TERM. So once again.. how does one justify choosing "feelings & beliefs" when the science says those beliefs are "unfounded & unsupported" in so many ways?

Trees ARE killing the Erie Canal!!!
 
Later in this letter it appears Mr. Agte has somehow miss-typed the word DAM and has a "double and" instead... which TOTALLY changes the sentence meaning. And this is when he could have asked the Mr. Rosgen DIRECTLY.. Do you know anyone with experience KEEPING TREES on Embankment Dams? That would have shown ALL of us what kind of expert he is.

Here's what was written in the letter:
Mr. Agte Original Sentence: "I know we are talking about a man made waterway and and embankment but I am curious what your thoughts are on this clear cut approach or if there is someone you can direct me to who has experience with this issue?"

Maybe what Mr. Agte meant to type? "I know we are talking about a man made waterway and DAM embankment but I am curious what your thoughts are on this clear cut approach or if there is someone you can direct me to who has experience with this issue?"

Like I've said ALL along on this ECNA Forum... Words Matter... especially the "omitted" ones.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 06:37:27 pm by Doug K »