Community support first step to secure Army Corps of Engineers for Chartiers Creek flood relief
Leaders of communities in the Chartiers Creek watershed area met Nov. 5 to discuss steps to secure the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' help to relieve persistent flooding.
Representatives from Bridgeville, Carnegie, Cecil, Oakdale and North Fayette met with Army Corps representatives and U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair.
Lenna Hawkins, deputy for programs and project management at the Corps' Pittsburgh district, said the first step is showing interest, by signing a letter requesting that the Corps study the problem.
“We take it as a sign we can spend taxpayer money and look at this,” she said.
Any work the Corps does will require a cost share with the municipalities — the Corps will cover 65 percent of the cost and the community is responsible for 35 percent. The total project cannot exceed $7 million, and the Corps' allocation is capped at around $5 million.
Hawkins said communities in the watershed can increase their chances of receiving help from the Corps by demonstrating valuable benefits versus costs — the benefits of flood prevention efforts need to outweigh the cost of the efforts.
She said protecting businesses and industrial properties is considered to be more beneficial than keeping farm or vacant land from flooding occasionally, for example.
More than a dozen communities are expected to sign the letter. Tributaries to Charters Creek affected by flooding are Campbells Run, McLaughlin Run and Robinson Run.
Bridgeville Manager Lori Collins said community leaders intend to reach out to Carnegie, Upper St. Clair and Bethel Park.
Megan Guza is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5810 or email@example.com.
Add Megan Guza to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.