March 23, 2008

Diane Mastrull
Philadelphia Inquirer

Dear Ms. Mastrull:

I would like to thank you for your hard work and effort to write an objective account of this complex matter of flooding. You have accurately captured a cross-section of the diverse voices that are truly out there. These are the voices of flood victims who are understandably scared, especially without any sensible answer or resolution as to why the reservoirs continue to be at 100% plus capacity and overflowing; members of the DRBC, who remain intent on defending their subversive alliance to the all powerful NYC, rather than erring on the side of public safety and social responsibility; politicians, the vast majority of which “say” whatever they need to say to get elected, stay elected, or prevent public embarrassment; and alas, those people who love to hate the flood victims and who tout with the certainty of high science (although they lack the credentials) that the river “will flood and needs to flood”— “naturally”, even though a significant source of flooding is man-made and thus “man-preventable”. Among these, are those noble and wise souls who make a habit of advising others (us “swamp dwellers” in particular) how to manage their lives: “to exit or raise their homes”, without ever facing these harrowing decisions themselves. Oh how courageous and wise are they who live on the hill.
Unfortunately, I think the article keeps the matter of flooding in exactly the same place that it has been, for far too long now. And without follow-up and follow-through on some very key questions, the article may unwittingly help maintain the status quo, rather than move these important issues forward under fair and reasonable public scrutiny; which is sorely needed and without which nothing will change. Precisely because the article gives equal footing to voices without equal credibility and credentials, it inadvertently allows each and every ”opinion” to sound as credible and valid as the next, especially to the uninformed listener. And while we may indeed have equal rights to voice our opinions, not all opinions are equally valid and credible. By way of example, shouldn’t the opinion of Dr. Ruggles, a full professor at Lafayette College, with a Ph.D. in hydrology and PE license weigh more heavily than the opinion of the “river keeper”? (If her opinion were valid, major sections of River Road should have been shut down years ago. For that matter, the town of Yardley should “relocate”). Moreover, once a viewpoint gets enough “airtime”, it is often mistaken for the truth. This of course leads to more “muddle” and contributes to increased confusion, disillusionment and (I am afraid) the inevitable fatigue and disinterest that follows, whenever an issue becomes too complicated to decipher. Sadly, what gets lost here, is the necessary support on the part of the “larger community” that might otherwise bring sufficient public scrutiny to the all too private, often secretive and arcane processes by which the DRBC has been allowed to conduct itself. Without adequate support from the general public, the injustices, damage and trauma that these floods perpetrate on the relatively small population of persons living along the Delaware River will continue. We simply do not represent a large enough “constituency” to inspire adequate political muscle to change the way things have been done by the DRBC. It is far easier for politicians to “sound concerned” without ruffling the feathers of their larger constituent bases, political aspirations or affiliates.
Consider this incontrovertible fact: While the DRBC so graciously extended the comment period on the FFMP, only two weeks ago, had Mother Nature rained just a tad bit more than she did, with 2 out of 3 NYC reservoirs over 100% and overflowing, we barely missed a 4th serious flood in less than 5 years. That is: what man could have done to prevent the increased danger of flooding -- without the threat of drought or the killing of wildlife, the DRBC rigidly, arrogantly and in my opinion, inhumanely chose to leave in the hands of Mother Nature, and turn their backs on social responsibility. In this way, the DRBC continues to play Russian Roulette with those who live on the banks of the Delaware. They should be forewarned, we will not tolerate it and will not waver in our challenge to their rationale.
In the words of Reinhold Niebuhr: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference”. The DRBC cannot control the weather, but they can control the reservoir levels and should have the common sense and human decency, to take the loaded gun from the heads of those living along the Delaware and reduce the reservoir levels by 10% if not 20%, by 5% if not 10% -- for the sake of safety, prevention and human welfare. How can government officials reject simple precautionary measures while insisting that there is not adequate scientific data to support the view that voids in the NYC reservoirs are a legitimate step toward flood reduction ? What scientifically convincing data does the DRBC have to refute the significance of the reservoir overflows to flooding ? Why not at least compromise on the void levels until more data is established ? Why is the standard required by the DRBC for “proof”, not required of the DRBC to provide proof the reservoirs do not pose the risk to flooding we all fear ? How does this autocratic, double-standard policy prevail ? This is the United States of America. We are not in Tibet or Moscow. And we can do better than we have done with this matter of flooding. And I for one, believe the Philadelphia Inquirer can do better than it has, to bring more light and less muddle to the facts surrounding the flooding along the Delaware. In addition to the questions just posed, I submit the following questions be addressed by the Inquirer or by a public panel, to get to the bottom of questions that the DRBC has patently not adequately addressed:

1) As some reports have indicated, Is it true that the original legislation regarding the apportionments, rights and control of the Delaware River by New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware collectively have been superseded by New York and facilitated by the DRBC, without Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware taking their rightful legal objections to the contrary ? That is, weren’t the original decrees designed to prevent New York or any one of the other states from having superordinate control over the Delaware River the way New York and the DRBC presently operate ? If so, why has this been allowed to continue ?

2) Also, as certain reports indicate, is it factually correct that the conditions of the NYC water system of tunnels - to and from the reservoirs, as well as the reservoir banks themselves, are in a precarious state of disrepair, that could be exacerbated by erosion from reservoir overflows, and which together pose a threat greater than any single flood the Delaware River has ever seen ? If this is remotely true, is this not worthy of serious examination, coupled with a no-nonsense directive to force New York to correct their water structures before they do more to destroy the homes and properties along the Delaware ? Do we forget the computer modeling that forewarned the disaster in New Orleans ? Should we be afraid or ashamed of our lack of confidence that our government is necessarily looking out for our best interest, in light of the preventable disaster in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina ?

3) As for the “silver bullet theory” put forth by Governor Rendell and the DRBC, let me say the following: The reservoirs do not need to be the single determinant of the
04; 05; and 06 floods to merit every effort to reduce their contribution to flooding. Furthermore, proper flood mitigation, including voids, that are adjusted in accordance with weather forecasts, do not need to take water from the mouths of New Yorkers or Philadelphians, nor pose a threat to fish and wildlife -- if they are managed properly. Flood victims are not asking that others suffer in the service of our interests. We are rather, expecting that everyone involved with the Delaware River functioning, do everything reasonable and possible to prevent man-assisted flooding from occurring – period. Finally, it should be on record that the DRC and RAFT are not in favor of new development in the flood plain. We are merely wanting to rightfully protect those properties that have existed where they presently stand for many years (e.g., my personal property was built in the 1920’s). We have heard enough from the DRBC, that voids “could encourage developers to build more structures in the flood plain”. This is a straw-man argument that is not the interest or intent of any group seeking appropriate and necessary flood mitigation.

We sincerely hope the Philadelphia Inquirer will follow-up on the first article on flooding by asking the tough questions and seeking out truthful answers, holding those accountable for their opinions and positions.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these viewpoints.

Sincerely,


Michael Caccavella
Trustee, Delaware Riverside Conservancy, Inc.
Yardley, Pennsylvania