Home | Contact Us | Internet & Advertising Services
1.) Turn down the Growing Greener Grant.
2.) Reapply or modify the Growing Greener Grant.
3.) Create a perpetual maintenance fund using the monies appropriated from the grant.
4.) Dredge the backed up silt and maintain a back up water supply and flood control system with modern spillways, for our children and our children's children.
5.) Pursue a continuity of effort with the Perkiomen Trail System and Montgomery County.
6.) Repair and maintain the dam.
Reasons Not to Proceed With Dam Destruction:
· Collegeville Borough Council does not have enough information to make an informed decision at this juncture. No reports or studies besides their engineers report.
· No ecological studies have been commissioned or conducted on the Lower Perkiomen & Collegeville Dam.
· Unknown effects on habitat- resident wildlife potentially lost- Carp, Sunnies, Catfish, Great White Egret, Blue Green Heron, Endangered Bald Eagles and Endangered Pearl Muscles.
· Endangered species that we are aware of and those that have not been identified could be lost due to destruction of the dam.
· Possible loss of wetlands, and the biological microorganisms associated with them.
· Many migratory birds in the Delaware Valley Estuary could be adversely affected by the change in water level; silt & sediment released, as well as increased erosion of stream banks. (Especially since sediment content is unknown).
· Loss of recreational resources above the dam- canoeing, fishing, kayaking, ice skating, swimming, tubing.
· Upstream over development and uncontrolled storm water management have damaged the infrastructure of the dam and could be possibly legally "taxed" for the funding to repair.
· Collegeville Borough's own engineer's reports number one recommendation is repair to the existing structure and to conduct studies. Acceleration of bank erosion. (Cited: Indian Creek Footage & Film)
· No studies have been conducted on the content of the silt and sediment behind the dam, if released it could contaminate downstream drinking water. Possible lawsuits may ensue.
· Possible contamination of Suburban Water Company's drinking Water reserve behind Weatherall's Dam downstream. Potential litigation for Borough.
· Accelerated flow after removal will increase underminement of historical Perkiomen Bridge. Damages and repairs of Bridge plausible.
· Conclusion that dam provides no flood control without presenting or citing studies to the public.
· The dam is a historical landmark built between 1820-1830 and represents a time when gristmills and icehouses dominated the Perkiomen Creek's banks. The dam has historic value that should be preserved along with the scenic views.
· Shad restoration should not be considered. Shad have never been this far up the Perkiomen Creek. (Cited: Literature references to Lenape canoeing to Schuylkill to fish for Shad).
· No studies have been conducted on augmenting the flow of the side stream that bypasses the dam as an alternative and more natural way for fish migration to occur than a obtrusive and expensive fish ladder.
· No documentation has been presented with proof to show that a fish ladder will ever be utilized.
· No studies have been commissioned nor conducted to alter the gate on the existing structure of the dam as an alternative fish ladder. (If fish even migrate)
· Potential liability and State threats are the only reason the dam is under fire. Liability is all around us. No lawsuits have been made public that relate to the dam. (Cited: Independent)
· Dams naturally and effectively hold back toxic elements, heavy metals, and sediment.
· Dams are a natural way to aerate the water and clean it.
· Releasing the sediment behind the dam without conducting appropriate studies and without releasing the information as to the contents to the public would be a violation of the Clean Streams Law. Possible lawsuits may ensue.
· The original purpose of purchasing the dam holds true, a backup source of water if wells go dry and for fire safety. (Remember the drought of 1999).
· The dam keeps the water level at a steady height so fire fighters can utilize the water as a backup water source.
· By removing the dam, two of Collegeville's wells could possibly be adversely affected, due to limited replenishment of aquifer.
· Evansburg Park's deteriorating condition and lack of maintenance makes it a fire hazard during drought conditions. The dam retains an amount of water that can be used to fight fires in an emergency situation.
· Firefighters fill their tankers using the Perkiomen Creek 1-2 times a year.
· Collegeville Borough may not have had the right to apply for the Growing Greener Grant and could already be in violation of Project 70 and Title 32.
· Under Project 70 Collegeville Borough is legally bound to maintain the dam.
· A Growing Greener Grant could be obtained to repair the Collegeville Dam. (Cited: Cloe Lake Dam: reconstruction and installment of a modern spillway using a Growing Greener Grant & the Fish & Boat Commissions help)
· In original application to the State for grant money to purchase the dam under Project 70, references were made to "maintain" the "historic" dam with those funds. By destroying the dam the Borough could be in violation of that act and could incur charges in the sum of the original grant plus 6% interest to the State.
· Under Growing Greener, all liability rests on Collegeville Borough for any violations they may commit, and any negative environmental impacts & resultant litigation.
· Violation of Governor's Executive Order 1999-1 dated 1/7/99. First section article # 4 & #5; private property rights violated due to loss of riparian rights and regional cooperation has not been promulgated.In violation of article #4 under Center for Local Government Services since the center has not encouraged Collegeville Borough to notify effected adjoining communities.
· An injunction could be issued against Collegeville Borough in the event that the Council does decide to accept the existing Growing Greener Grant.
· A budget has not been prepared, verified and released to the public outlining the total additional costs in dam removal that the Growing Greener Grant will not cover, or if Collegeville has the matching funds budgeted.
· The riparian rights of private property owners on both the Skippack, Perkiomen, Lower Providence, and Collegeville sides of the Perkiomen above and below the dam will be violated not only by decreasing the values of the properties, but by increasing erosion of the stream banks. Possible lawsuits may ensue.
· Any loss in property value or adverse effects on private property, well water supply will be the sole legal responsibility of Collegeville Borough.
· Reverse condemnation by loss of riparian rights could be litigious.
· The Collegeville Dam serves as an enhancement to the Central Perkiomen trail, illustrating and encouraging diverse ecological environments along the Perkiomen Creek.
· No estimate of cost have been commissioned or released to the public on the removal of trash, debris, or stream bank restoration. Nor has the Borough evaluated labor, legal, and administration costs involved.
· Potential public sewer line underminement by lowering streambed.
· There will be a major loss of a historic and scenic vistas
· There is no way to restore the Perkiomen to how it was before, mainly because there is no documentation on how it was before. Also, lack of storm water management, over population, impervious surfaces, and pollution has changed the Perkiomen Creek forever and IT CAN NEVER BE THE SAME.