UPSTREAM UPHEAVAL: Neighbors petition dam plan

At the helm of his three-seater aluminum boat, James Gering churned up tiny ripples in the calm waters of the South River this week.

Just a few hundred feet from the Rife-Loth Dam, which is closer than ever to being removed from the river, Gering pointed to the boats, docks, fishing piers, fire pits and rope swings that neighbors have assembled over the years to enjoy the water.

Thanks to the dam, those who live on Valley and River roads and parts of the Tree Streets enjoy particularly deep, slow-moving water by South River standards. And for many like the Gerings, those qualities are why they moved to the riverfront.

“The river actually sealed the deal,” wife Diane Gering said in a letter being distributed by upstream homeowners.

Loss of serenity and recreation are just two of many concerns raised in her letter, a related petition and a door-to-door effort to “save the dam.”

The cause is a long shot, they admit, because the Ram Works Homeowners Association owns the dam and has power to decide its future. The Ram Works board recently proposed a demolition that will happen “in all probability,” according to Chester Campbell, board president.

Among reasons cited for removal are deterioration of the dam, danger for those who venture to it, prohibitive rehabilitation costs, and benefits to river health and trout fishing.

Opponents worry about the loss of a historical structure, disappearance of some wildlife, decreased property values, flooding problems, and an end to the river recreation they’ve known so long.

Divided over the dam plan, the opposing sides have not talked this month.

They agree on little.

‘River buddies’

A pair of letters from upstream homeowners began appearing in mailboxes and reporters’ hands early this month. A petition that followed has collected at least 65 signatures, said Diane Gering.

The printed materials range in tone. They include personal stories of why upstream homeowners chose to live on the South River.

Susan Crumley, a longtime riverfront resident who wrote one of the letters, said she felt she had to spur discussion.

“I’m curious as to why they’re doing things so quietly,” she said of Ram Works leadership and removal proponents, like members of Trout Unlimited.

Crumely said she worries the small board of Ram Works is making a far-reaching decision.

“A lot of people have grown up on the river and the dam,” she said, describing a group of “river buddies” who swim and canoe together and float down to Ridgeview Park to watch annual fireworks shows.

The calm water allows Crumley to don a ballcap and sunglasses, grab a book, and float the river on an inner tube.

It’s a serenity that a dozen neighbors described.

Neighbor Brian Smith, who fishes in his canoe, called the pooled water “therapeutic.”

“Your cares are just gone” out there, he said.

Historical accounts and stories raise the dam to an iconic status in Waynesboro. It has been documented in photographs and postcards and written about at length by local historians. Accounts in The News Virginian recall the work that created it, a fire that destroyed it, teenagers who flocked there in skimpy swimsuits (by standards of the era) and a captured alligator.

“They have great concern now that they’re going to lose that water,” said Ram Works Board President Chester Campbell. “But nobody has volunteered over the years to help us maintain [the dam].”

Campbell took issue with the tactics of neighbors.

“Not one single person has contacted me, or the board of directors, for information,” he said.

Urbie Nash, a leading proponent of dam removal, agreed with Campbell that an amiable discussion must happen to create a long-term river plan.

“My phone number is listed,” he said. “If there’s going to be a popular uprising … I am yet to have anybody call me.”

None of about a dozen upstream neighbors who spoke to The News Virginian have called Nash or Campbell.

Escalating concerns

Of the concerns sprouting upstream, many track back to an anticipated reduction in river depth and its change in flow.

Neighbors worry about boating conditions, the exit of wildlife and exposure of unsightly riverbank pipes and debris. Those who have seen the river drained or flowing in drought conditions say the river will be more like a creek.

That the water will move more briskly is a one point that all sides agree on, but removal proponents rebuke the upstream neighbors’ claim that the river will look like a creek.

“It’ll look very similar to what it looks like upstream, up around the bend at [Ridgeview Park],” said Larry Mohn, regional fisheries manager for the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

He said all dam removals reveal trash and mud, but that the first high-water event after a dam removal in Front Royal left people unable to spot where the century-old dam had been.

“That natural, that quick,” he said.

Unknown is whether a natural waterfall is beneath the dam, or what pools or rapids could develop.

With the water change will be shifts in animal populations. To what degree is contested.

“It’s going to destroy an entire ecosystem of a river,” Valley Road resident Bill Birnley said.

He and others listed muskrats, geese, beaver, bluegill, small-mouth bass and carp among species they think will exit.

“What it’s going to make it better for is what should be there,” he said, referring to the river’s historic conditions.

He said beavers will remain. Muskrats will decline, but he noted that “people usually don’t like muskrats.”

Mink and otter would prefer the river without a dam. Heron will have an easier time fishing for food.

Ducks would exit. River clams would go unchanged.

Mohn said bass, carp, catfish and sunfish prefer “pool” conditions and would likely exit.

“None of which are native there,” he said.

The thought of dramatically altering the river in exchange for improved trout fishing spurred some of the most heated criticisms from upstream neighbors.

They worry trout fishermen will trespass to reach the river.

And because trout fishing can require a permit, they worry casual fishermen and children could be put into a position of violating rules.

“We’re taking the river from the people to those who want to trout fish,” Crumley said.

Nash said river access would be carefully marked, and that improved fishing conditions would be seen over miles of river, which would allow fishermen to get access away from private property.

Property questions

With changes to the river could come decreases in property values, neighbors worry.

The man who moved in six months ago, like the family that has lived on the river more than a decade, share in the concern.

Some argued that declining property values would lead to a decreased tax base for the city that would outpace any influx of tourism dollars attracted to the river after removal of the dam.

Campbell said basic riparian rights do not guarantee a particular water level, and while he said he feels for the neighbors, he described the situation as a “buyer beware.”

Meanwhile, city and state officials who reviewed the opposition letters reacted with the most concern to a theory that suggests a broad coalition of agencies, companies and government officials are working together to remove the dam as part of a larger plan to “take property from rightful owners” to further development of Waynesboro’s greenway trail.

Some officials and removal proponents argued against that claim and descriptions of mercury contamination and flooding issues. One official said that factual errors and suggested conspiracies made it impossible to read the upstream homeowner materials all the way through.

City Manager Mike Hamp denied the greenway suggestion.

“There’s no formal connection or interest,” he said. “With respect to the greenway, I think we developed the master plan completely independently of the dam.”

“Taking property is not part of our plan,” he said.

The current greenway plan, approved years ago by Waynesboro City Council, sends the greenway through the Tree Streets to Ridgeview Park, instead of along the river in the area of the dam.

Crumley recently raised concerns to Vice Mayor Bruce Allen, who represents the ward that includes the dam. Allen said he understands concerns about removal, but that the dam’s fate is in the hands of Ram Works, not city officials.

“I know it will decrease the depth of the river above the dam … and there might be some pros and cons to that, as to how to fill in the banks and make it beautiful,” Allen said.

Crumley said too many uncertainties remain about the river’s future to allow removal of the dam.

A lawsuit against Ram Works by upstream homeowners, “is much more certain,” she said.

“If they want to sue,” Campbell said, “they probably will.”