UPPER MONONGAHELA
COMMITTEE FOR BETTER BOATING
DONALD C. STRIMBECK
P. O. Box 519
Granville WV 26534-0519
12 May 2000
Representative Alan B. Mollohan
2346 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515-4801
RE: LOCK HOURS
Dear Congressman Mollohan:
Wally Venable and I wrote to you on 16 and 17 March concerning the lock hours matter. And, on 25 March, I forwarded to you the first response to my internet postings (and Letters to the Editor) with various boating magazines. That first response was from Jay Martin re the Chickamauga lock, Chattanooga, TN.
I now forward to you four more responses concerning lock hours. These responses reinforce Wally Venable's point that inadequate lock hours (and lock closures due to lack of sufficient commercial river traffic) inhibit recreational boating. And, this is a nationwide problem, in addition to being a problem for the Upper Mon in your congressional district.
As for the four enclosures, Bill Frotscher's letter certainly reinforces what Wally Venable wrote in his letter to you. And, Bill offers several excellent suggestions re the lock hours problem. Note also Bill's praise for a lock operator at either Hildebrand or Opekiska locks! Wayne Flittner's email points out the corps claim that recreation is not a corps charter! Yet, Wayne's research discovered that recreation indeed was apparently a corps charter for the Tom Big Bee project! Dewey Bennett's email proves that Wally Venable correctly nailed the situation on the Muskingum River in Ohio. Bob Annenberg reports on how the closing of the one lock in the state of California has affected his boating, and, how he (Bob) had appealed to the Colonel commanding the corps district, and, to his congressman, to no effect. Bob now boats in British Columbia!!
I must also tell you that Tom Flynn, Operations Manager for the Monongahela River, COE, Pittsburgh, has just this week suggested that he and other COE Pittsburgh folks meet with us here at Morgantown re the Upper Mon lock hours issue. Setting up such a meeting is just in the beginning stages. If such a meeting is held, however, I suspect the agenda will have to include the hot local issue of floating trash being flushed through our Upper Mon dams. County Commissioner Bob Bell has highlighted the trash issue. And, such riverborne trash is highly visible to the public, due to the heavy use of the new rail trail. Anyway, if we do set up a meeting, I hope that you and/or appropriate members of your staff might attend.
Currently, the Hildebrand and Opekiska locks are open dayshift (8-4) only, as has been the practice since circa 1985. On rare occasions, however, these two locks are open for two or three shifts during part of the boating season, when COE needs them open to facilitate passage of vessels doing repair work on Upper Mon facilities.
However, to facilitate boating recreation during the boating season (roughly 1 March through 30 November), it'd be nice if these locks were open all day, or, at least for two shifts. However, given that such hours are unlikely in the near term, it has been suggested that it might be better to change the one shift from 8-4 to 10-6 or 11-7. Anyway, this suggestion, and others, would be the major topic for a meeting with the Pittsburgh COE folks.
Again, we hope that you will champion legislation that will permit the US Army Corps of Engineers to operate their river facilities (eg, locks) in a manner that facilitates boating recreation and development of river communities. And, those of us comprising the UPPER MONONGAHELA COMMITTEE FOR BETTER BOATING (more informally known as the UPPER MONONGAHELA RIVER RAT DENIZENS) stand ready to assist you.
Sincerely,
Donald Strimbeck, Secretary
Upper Monongahela Committee for Better Boating
Enclosures:
1.0 Bill Frotscher
2.0 Wayne Flittner
3.0 Dewey Bennett
4.0 Bob Annenberg
1.0 From William F. Frotscher, 36 Pine Tree Lane, Newburg, PA 17240, 717-423-6161, 9 May 2000.
Dear Don:
I have been reading your letters in various boating magazines concerning your interest in giving recreational boating a higher priority when considering the operation of our inland navigable waters. I too would like to see the waters remain open, which therefore means keeping the locks operational. Last Spring I made a trip on the upper Monongahela and ran into a problem with an early lock closing. I believe the scheduled time for closing was 4:00PM. I arrived at the lock about 3:50 in the midst of a lockage going the same way I was headed. Naturally, it took time to refill the lock in order to lock me through. I had given up and decided to look for a marina to tie up to for the night when I noticed the lockmaster standing at the end of the lock wall waving for me to come in. I really appreciated his helpfulness, and pleasant attitude in going the extra mile.
Later in the year my friend and I planned a two day trip up the Allegheny. Our first days travel took us to the point of being below a lock which did not open until 12:30 pm. Unfortunately we had no plans to sit around half of the day waiting for the lock to open. We were told that if we called the lock and asked real nice they probably would lock us through. We declined to ask for the special consideration and turned around and went back to Pittsburgh.
The point of my stories are: apparently the locks are manned even though they are not supposed to open them up during the closed hours. But, why not? What is the additional expense? I believe the capital expense of construction, maintenance and labor are all fairly fixed expenses. Surely, a few more openings and closings in a days time would not be significant.
The main point of the controversy still remains. Is it economical (beneficial to the national economy) to maintain navigable waters for recreational boating? I believe it certainly is. Possibly the upriver locks which are no longer handling commercial traffic could be turned over to the National Park Service.
A safe trip on our inland waterways, tracing past historical routes of our country is just as important as a trip to the Great Smoky Mountains, or a ride down Skyline Drive. The television series "On the Waterways" clearly pointed out that a much different perspective to our national heritage can be obtained by traveling by boat. Besides when a visitor arrives by boat, he is greeted by the local populace, entirely differently than when arriving by automobile.
Possibly, locks which are no longer feasible to operate commercially could be run on a schedule other than whenever a boat arrived. Maybe once every hour a full cycle could be executed to pass all accumulated boats up and down stream. Only operation during daylight hours would be another modification probably acceptable for recreational purposes. Special winter schedules could also be arranged.
The National Park Service uses volunteers to help with the operation of their programs. I am a volunteer in the US Coast Guard Auxiliary. I am sure if the call went out for help, volunteers would be available to help with operation.
Most of the dams are designed to provide 9 feet of navigable water in the pools as a minimum. Maybe this could be dropped to 5 feet, which would accommodate most recreational boats. This should assist in the magnitude of water needed for each lock through. Possibly a temporary mini-lock system could be developed to pass smaller recreational boats through.
Recreational user fees are acceptable in most cases by those who receive special privileges for use of public facilities. I suppose a toll program could be developed for an updated waterway system. Personally I despise paying tolls and user fees for facilities which we pay taxes to support, but it is part of the system currently in effect, so why not the waterways too.
I suspect Bud Schuster might be helpful in getting some of these things turned around. Waterways are a means of transportation. Whether they are used for commercial purposes or for recreation is really not important. Recreation is a major business. Boating recreation is an important part of that business.
Let's do what it takes to keep our waterways open!
Sincerely, /s/ William F. Frotscher
2.0 Email from Wayne Flittner, 9 May 2000.
Hello, Don -- saw your letter in BOAT/US May issue so here is what I have encountered. The "Corps" here manages the Illinois which is the heaviest barge/volume/tonnage strip of river in the US. They say they have absolutely no responsibility for "recreation" issues. Yet when we looked up the Corps documents and literature on the Tom big bee River/Lock System, recreation and economic development were major plan elements.
Each district has its own set of rules, generals and all!! Here in Peoria there are two major lake basins that are filling with silt and all the Corps does is dredge the barge channel and accelerate the lake siltation problem.
When Chicago gets 2-6 inches of rain in a few days our level shoots up 10 to 15 feet above pool, creating a "lake" some 90 miles long with varying width!!
There are no problems as the floodplain/pool area has been cleared of all development. However the Corps in its current pitch to enlarge our lock and dam to hold 15 barges -- 3 wide by 5 long -- tows they can't raise the dam 3-5 feet to extend the pool life while the silt problems are resolved -- again "recreation" is not our charter!!
Currently they are being fried in Washington for "cooking the books" to justify the lock expansion, so maybe things will change.
The Washington Post has carried a ton of stories in recent weeks. Hope this helps -- feel free to email.
3.0 Dewey Bennett, mbennett@morganco.net, 9075 N. St. Rt. 60 N.W., McConnelsville OH 43756.
D:\Bennett7MayY2K3
From - Sun May 07 15:01:27 2000
To: "Bennett, Marie" <mbennett@morganco.net>, bwiley2@wvu.edu,
bpallay@aol.com, bjavins@westco.net, wvenable@wvu.edu,
Betwiley@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Your article "Locked
Out"
MARIE & DEWEY: If you'll email me your snailmail address, I'll send you a package of information re what we are trying to get Congress to do.
We also are aware of the Muskingum situation, as you'll see when I snailmail the package to you, and, you read Wally Venable's letter to our Congressman Mollohan. Also, I spent quite a bit of time in Zanesville when I was doing engineering consulting for the Carlow Group Companies (they owned Midwest Portland Cement in Zanesville). So, I know your situation. Also, I will place you on my email list re this lock hours situation. AND!! Thanks for contacting "moi"!!!
Bennett, Marie wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mbennett
> To: dcsoinks@westco.netSent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 4:44 PMSubject:
Your article "Locked Out"
A member of the Port O'Morgan Boat Club passed on a copy of your article "Locked Out" that appeared in the member forum of Boat US magazine. We, here on the Muskingum River, face similar ploblems of inoperative locks(frequently), channels that need dredging and a very apathetic attitude regarding our river by the controlling body. Additionally, when the locks are operational, the service leaves something to be desired and the hours of operation are not adequate. I would appreciate your keeping us abreast of any activities on your part in regard to this subject and if you have any suggestions for improvement on the river problems. We have 193 members in our boat club and are dedicated to affecting improvements. We hosted a cruise on the sternwheeler, Elizabeth Anne, last year for a group of civic leaders and a smattering of politicians. We came away with positive feelings in regard to our endeavor, however, time will tell. You may reach me at mbennett@morganco.net. Dewey BennettCommodorePort O'Morgan Boat Club
4.0 Bob Annenberg, email
"rannenberg@earthlink.net", voice/fax 916-489-0865, 5
May 2000.
D:\Annenberg5MayY2K2
From - Fri May 05 09:24:53 2000
To: dcsoinks@westco.net
Subject: Lock Operation Reductions
Donald - I just read your letter in the BOAT/US Member Forum regarding lock hour reductions on the Upper Monongahela River. Good luck to you. Frankly, and unfortunately, your have at least been given some operational hours. We have not been that lucky!
The Sacramento River has the only lock in the state of California, the William Stone Lock. The only thing is that it hasn't been operational AT ALL for probably around ten years.
In its infinite wisdom, the Corps of Engineers, charged with the operation of locks in the United States, due to a lack of funds had decided that since these various locks were originally developed for commercial traffic, and since that traffic (barge traffic) was now nonexistent on the Sacramento River, recreational boaters be damned, the lock should be shut down. This lock saved over eight miles of transit by connecting the Sacramento River with the deep and straight Deep Water channel leading from downstream directly to the ship harbor of Sacramento, located in West Sacramento.
I, personally, appeared and testified at the public hearing conducted by the Corps of Engineers. When I was pleading my case, the Colonel conducting the hearing asked if I had contacted our congressman. I replied that I had, only to have a total non-response (typical of this individual). Testimony went to the heart of boating safety to individuals downstream in the main Sacramento River from fast moving boat traffic, to environmental issues best served by an operational lock. To make a long story short, the matter went nowhere. The cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento tried for one year to operate the lock on a time limited basis. This limited schedule didn't serve much purpose and it was decided the expense could not be justified. Likewise, any boat toll would have been too high to be practical.
It has been highly suspected that the big push came from developers who were able to build a bridge over the channel between the lock and the ship harbor. Now, even though the lock is in maintenance mode, it can never be practically operated for most boaters in the future due to the fixed bridge not allowing passage beyond its location.
I feel for your grievance and wish you well. But, before this gets out of hand and you face the same dilemma as we, contact your congressman and U.S. Senators and make sure they force your interests with the Corp of Engineers. And, make sure your boater friends and acquaintances do the same.
Best wishes.............Bob Annenberg
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 07:32:11 -0700
From: Bob Annenberg <rannenberg@earthlink.net>
To: dcsoinks@westco.net
Subject: Re: Lock hours
Don - Glad you received my email. At least it wasn't a "Love" letter! (EDITURDIAL NOTE BY GRINCH, aka Strimbeck!! Bob refers to the previous day's I LOVE YOU email virus!).
Appreciate your willingness to send me the letters to your congressmen, et al, but for us unfortunately, it's too late. Our William Stone Lock is a done deal having been closed for probably close to 7-10 years now. However, believe me, I wish you well. As you are well aware from past doings with the feds, recreational boating comes in close to last. If it weren't for a couple of staunch supporters (and not too many mmore than than Breaux and some friends) recreational boating would be last on the list. It's a shame, but then we're all the wealthy ones, aren't we?
I responded strictly to tell you how it worked out here, per your request in BOAT/US Reports. Matter of fact, I no longer boat here in California. I save that for up in British Columbia waters (inside passage) and on rare occassions now in Portland where we have traded down to a trailer boat which we own jointly with our daughter and her family. It's this boat that we now trailer to the north end of Vancouver Island after having chartered in those waters about five times.
This will be our fifth year trailering the boat up there and staying in two different places and we love it. Beats the boating down here, but we only get to enjoy it around three weeks each year where we were down in the California Delta virtually every weekend except when away from home.
Good luck. Fight them and WIN!!!!!