ATTENTION: May 21, 2023 - Main ECNA Forum Boards are now open to MEMBERS ONLY until further notice!

Author Topic: Facebook Group fighting Canal Safety & Improvement still mired in their Rhetoric  (Read 59 times)

Michael Caswell

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
  • Location: Fairport NY
At the risk of becoming a little boring, I'm going to  go over Mr Boroweic's previous comments, because - well - they're confusing and wrong.

Michel, you seem quite intent to keep escalating this. Is there anything in my statement about Rizzo that suggests they may be crooks? Simply stated, they made money, as did the company they recommended. Do YOU believe that Rizzo are crooks? Why did you weave both words into the same sentence?

Your statement implies there is something wrong with making money."Rizzo made a boatload of dough recommending another company make a boatload of dough to clear embankments " Boatloads of money sounds pretty illegal or immoral to me.


You say -
I do not believe there to be a safety issue. I do believe there is a potential risk in having homes below water.

Despite all the documents we thrust under the noses of the members of the STCC (that includes you Brian), they all refuse to acknowledge there is a safety issue.  Yet, you state there is a potential risk of having homes being under water. If there is a risk of having homes below water (did you mean flooded, or that they are on the downside of a dam?), then surely that is a SAFETY ISSUE? Say yes Brian!

Now that we have established there is a safety issue, lets progress through your 'recommendations'.

 In the case of the embanked sections of the Erie Canal I believe those risks to be very low, evidenced by time and historical record.
So what do you base these beliefs on Brian? You're not a dam Engineer, hydrologist, arborist or have any skills, (See Linked-in) in the specialised field of water management, and design or maintenance of dams. All the real experts in these fields disagree with you.

It is my opinion that the underbrush should be removed,


trees that have a canopy that extend towards the water side over the midpoint of the embankment be removed.

Agreed! (I'll take any amount of trees off these dams - we'll deal with the rest later) So now we have all the brush gone and trees probably 1/4 to 1/3rd of the way down the slope.

Now you will have removed a large number of trees, which would make the 'edge' of the woodland much more susceptible to a blow-down, this would in turn make their root balls heave, leaving gaping holes in the embankment. Furthermore, how would the machinery needed to remove the roots of the felled trees access the area? How would the toe of slope be extended. How would all the gaping furrows in the Fairport dam be repaired?
From 31F to Ayrault Rd there are at least 6 grooves 8-10 feet deep and 10-15' wide, all dramatically weakening the embankment. Many of these have 150 tall Cottonwoods growing right in the middle of the groove.

(as those trees would likely have root structures that may extend towards the water beyond the midpoint), and the wooded embankments be maintained to minimize annual encroachment of undergrowth, then carry on human inspections that would have their effectiveness and thoroughness enhanced by unobstructed vision of the embankment.

The problem I find with this is that you are proposing a task which would be extremely difficult to implement,  operating machinery while balancing on a very steep slope, and having to work around obstacles, putting workers at risk and making OSHA wince.  I doubt it would last as a continuing task for long.

 I have long maintained that the root driver of this project is to facilitate drone inspection of the embankments. A drone can fly the length of the canal in a day or two, and cost far less than 20 part time workers walking the embankment.

"root driver" This is the main reason the Canal Corporation wants to remove all the vegetation?

A grass covered embankment can be mowed is a fraction of the time that it would take to maintain a wooded embankment's ground surface, so another cost reduction.


This wasn't a slap to the forehead realization that folks were in peril and the embankments needed overhaul. This was a budget move that was initiated after the control of the canal changed hands.

You're saying the canal system did not need overhauling and repair? Obviously, you have not been there and looked at the state of  our canal system. I'll gladly meet with you and take you on a tour.

You should really read this  ---
« Last Edit: January 29, 2020, 07:43:40 pm by Doug K »