Privately-owned dam is a stumbling block
SALISBURY – October 25, 2016 -- Since a severe storm washed out a section of Barren Creek Road in July, county officials have been reviewing the options to reopen the road, County Executive Bob Culver said this week.
A privately owned dam was destroyed during the historic rain event, and rushing water from the nearby 11,000 acre watershed completely washed out the road. Complicating the situation, the land under and surrounding the road was never owned by the county, but by a private citizen.
Culver said he’s been in discussions with the landowner to see if he’s willing to donate the land in order to get the road repaired.
“We cannot do anything without this property owner’s consent,” he said. “We know that the only other property owner on Barren Creek Road doesn’t want the road reopened. The other, who owns the pond and the dam, doesn’t live in Wicomico County and as of now, his intentions are unclear.”
Environmental concerns are another huge issue, Culver said. “The state of Maryland has a lot of concerns, and we understand they don’t want the dam rebuilt. But if our state legislators are willing to work toward that end, and find the funding necessary to get it rebuilt, I will certainly welcome that approach.”
There are at least three options to consider:
Rebuild the dam to current dam safety standards and rebuild the road. Estimated cost: $4 million
Forgo the dam but install fish passage pipes to allow the water to flow under the road and fish to spawn in the creek. This option wouldn’t restore the pond, but the county could do some wetland restoration. Estimated cost: $500,000 to $750,000
Make permanent cul-de-sacs on each end of the road and let the natural flow occur as it is today. This option could also include building wetlands in the pond bottom. Estimated cost: $50,000 - $100,000
All options, however, will require cooperation from the private landowner.
Barren Creek connects U.S. Route 50 and State Route 54 in the northern part of Wicomico County, and while it only has two residences on it, it is used as a shortcut for some local traffic.
Since the historic storm events in July and August, county road crews have been busy inspecting and shoring up roadways that were impacted by the amount of water that has drenched our area, Culver said.
“As the county executive, it’s my job to weigh all the options, and ensure that upgrades to our infrastructure makes sense to all taxpayers,” Culver said. “We do what we can with our limited road funding resources. We are looking at all possible alternatives for Barren Creek. We welcome public input and hope we can find a resolution.”
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
16 comments:
Best option, buy a swath land for right of way (or take it by eminent domain) about 1/2 way between Norris Twilley Road and Ryan Road on the west side of the gravel company. The stream is very narrow there, minimal environmental impact, and it makes it a convenient shortcut from San Domingo / Sharptown residents coming down Norris Twilley road heading West bound, versus backtracking back to Old Railroad Rd. That also would lessen the traffic at that bad intersection of 50.
Make it a nice straight (on an angle) wide road, versus the winding narrow Barren Creek Rd and leave the pond alone.
This is only common sense though, so i'm sure it's not even being considered of course.
To 9:14 -- it would be a lot cheaper to simply repair the existing road rather than buy land and build a completely new road. The current road only washed out because the county didn't pull the dam's gates. The county has the power to rebuild the road if the executive wants to do it. The executive acting like his hands are tied is just posturing. If he wanted it done, it would get done.
That guy that owns that pond has always been a jerk. Didn't want anyone near his pond, which is his right I suppose.
Just take the land like the state did to me when they widened 313. Nobody I know that lives over there wanted that either.
You sound like RINOs.
I very rarely support the taking of anyone's land, especially by eminent domain. If the man/men that own that land doesn't want a road and/or dam, so be it. A little inconvenience to the few who use that shortcut is acceptable.
And if that is a privately owned dam, how would the county have the authority to open the dam gates, unless the owner and county had an agreement to that effect?
It's kind of funny when I often read so many comments about how we are living in a police state and similar descriptions, and yet some advocate the state taking private property. Or am I the only one who thinks that?
That road has been there as long as I can remember and it is a convenience to local traffic and maybe some farmers. But that's all it is. It is still private property at the end of the day and I would not support the taking of it by force.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Just take the land like the state did to me when they widened 313. Nobody I know that lives over there wanted that either.
October 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM
Were you compensated for it at fair market value? Did you try to fight it in the courts?
If you know how it feels, why would you wish it on another person?
To 10:27 -- the county had the permission to go on the area at any time to raise the gates. It failed to do so, and the road washed out.
I think that if the owner didn't want the road there, as you say, then he lost the right to complain about it when he allowed the road to operate since the 1920s (I think it goes back that long).
As far as eminent domain goes, the road has run on that area for decades. I don't like eminent domain either, but this is a case where the land has already been used for that purpose for years and years. The county could compensate the owner for the narrow roadbed (again, the one where the road has been in place for decades). It would be restoring what existed previously, that's all. The Constitution clearly allows the use of eminent domain for public use. There's no clearer public use than restoring a road that was already there.
The gates were open. They were opened from the previous rain.
Only a land owner should have the choice of what to do with his or her land. No one else. Not another citizen nor the government. Eminent domain is one of the most corrupt tactics ever used.
My question is....Why would the County go to the expense of putting 2 cul de sacs on each side if the property is privately owned? The owners should have to do that and the at the County's expense.
There's no clearer public use than restoring a road that was already there.
October 25, 2016 at 10:46 AM
Without getting into a pissing match or even addressing what you say, right now, if the county had the authority to do as you suggest, why would they state their hands are tied without the owners' cooperation/permission?
I think this is beginning to delve into legal areas I know little about since I am not a lawyer. But I have read/studied some laws during my lifetime and believe me, laws do not always reflect common sense, or in some cases even seem reasonable.
I think this will be interesting to see how this plays out.
What people need to understand is that the county gave up their rights to that land/road in 2011. Pollitt screwed the pooch on this one.
That being said, in order for the state to put up funding to rebuild, the property owner would need to give up an additional SEVENTY FEET of the pond to meed state standards and that is the ONLY way the county could afford to move forward to rebuilding it.
Keep in mind as well, there's only about 200 cars a day that use this shortcut and guess what, that's during the time of year children are going to school. It is NOT worth rebuilding as there are other ways around it.
October 25, 2016 at 3:37 PM
Thanks for adding some clarification to this Joe. And I wouldn't have thought that many cars even used that road in one day. But more people have moved into that area over the years.
I tried to go down that way recently from Delmar ..it's so dark at night it terrible..if someone doesn't know the roads been changed it could lead to real problems. Seen that in Berlin years ago when they changed old oc rd...had cars speeding down and running up on the curbs in the cul de sac..
Please consider other issues.
If they is a major accident or fatality at the traffic light where 54 and 50 intersect, it would cause a major traffic disrumptment. Barren Creek red has been used many times to detour vehicles.
Additionally, many volunteer firemen live off 54, so if the intersection is closed for any reason, response times would be much, much longer. Minutes can be the difference between life and death.
With 54 being closed for bridge replacement only serves to amplify the need for this road to remain open.
For all of those complaining about the government taking land for roadways.......how would you like to get places without the roads and interstates that we have now....all because the government took the land.
Post a Comment