LETTER Answers still needed on Marianna dam
I am writing in to response to the Observer Reporter's recent Hits and Misses column, where the editors question why I would host a town hall focusing on Marianna Borough Council’s decision to remove the historic dam on Ten Mile Creek.
Being an elected official means that sometimes my judgment will be questioned, and I am happy to respond. However, that same level of transparency must apply to all levels of government.
Like me, many of the folks who attended our town hall wanted further clarity about this decision and sought the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s most recent dam-safety report, which concluded that while the dam could use some repairs, a dam doomsday scenario is not imminent.
Marianna Borough officials have decided the 109-year-old dam is dilapidated and in imminent danger. As a result, they voted to enter into a contract with the nationally recognized nonprofit group, American Rivers, whose responsibility is to seek public and private funding for the dam-removal project.
In return for allowing American Rivers to remove the dam at little or no cost to the borough or its taxpaying residents, Marianna Borough must enter into a binding conservation easement that greatly restricts the future use of borough property.
Although the O-R labels this project as a “new public park,” the easement prohibits the building of almost all man-made structures, only allowing bird baths, bat boxes and the like. Let’s flash forward to a hypothetical, damless future where in 50 years, some council members may seek to build a pavilion and restrooms at the site. Perhaps they would like to install a handicap accessible ramp to the shoreline to expand fishing opportunities.
Such possibilities are off the table, as the easement states “the Conservation Area shall be preserved and maintained in a natural condition in perpetuity.”
Perhaps Marianna Borough officials are fine with such a binding easement. Maybe they are fully aware that the dam’s condition is not that bad. Possibly, the majority of council members simply find the dam’s appearance to be ugly and want it gone at any expense. Regardless, they need to be completely upfront and transparent about their decision; own it and defend it.
Finally, I question the O-R's accusation that my town hall is “election-year pandering.” In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Clearly, it would have been much easier for me to sit idly by and not question a local government decision that passed by a 6-1 vote – thus allowing the borough’s actions to continue to slide under public radar.
As I stated earlier, facing tough questions is a never-ending responsibility for all our elected officials, myself included. If my decision to shine the light of transparency on issues that may otherwise be left in the dark appears to dam up a local government project, so be it.
State Rep. Bud Cook
49th Legislative District