Kittanning Borough Officials Oppose Hydroelectric Plans
Kittanning Borough Council members (L-R) David Croyle, Betsy Wilt and Gerald Shuster share their concerns over a proposed hydroelectric plant that would be built on the banks of the Allegheny River near Maple Street. Council unanimously voted to send a letter opposing the proposed construction.
by Jonathan Weaver
A proposed hydroelectric power plant that would be built on the opposite of Allegheny River Lock 7 would “deeply impact the community in a wholly-negative way,” according to Kittanning Borough Council.
First Ward Council members Betsy Wilt and David Croyle attended last week’s public meeting regarding the proposed plant, and addressed their concerns to the collective body last night.
Wilt said she was opposed to the plans for two reasons – the possible removal of several trees from Kittanning Riverfront Park and the plant’s construction in a residential neighborhood near the Maple Street intersection.
“(Developers from Rye Development) would completely ruin our park,” Wilt said. “We have to stop (the plans) before (they) go any further.”
Council President Kim Fox also opposed.
“There were no pros to us – (Kittanning) gets nothing out of this,” Fox said.
Kittanning Borough Councilwoman Betsy Wilt attended last week’s public meeting and explained why she is opposed to the construction.
Second Ward Councilman Gerald Shuster was also concerned the power plant would not offer an influx of economic development - only creating possibly-three jobs for the community while selling electricity to thousands in New York state – and make recreation worse.
“It’ll be an eyesore for the community, holy hell for the park – which is one of our biggest selling points. They could care less about the yokels north of Pittsburgh, Shuster said.
“It’s going to be highly-detrimental and negative to the community in almost every way. There is nothing positive that they gave us that lends itself to Kittanning finding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.”
Croyle also said he would like to see an agreement between Rye and the borough to provide funding that would make it advantageous for the community to support the project.
Borough Solicitor Ty Heller wasn’t such an agreement could be instituted, but encouraged council members to also consult with the nonprofit-Arts on the Allegheny and Allegheny River Development Corporation
“Anybody and everyone with a stake on the river involved,” Heller said. “It seems to me, one of the main functions of a Borough in a situation like this is to get the word out.”
Councilman Ange Turco made the motion to send the “strong letter.”
“Our park is priceless,” Turco said. “Once you eliminate it, it’s gone forever.”
Borough Fire Marshal Earl “Buzz” Kline also warned the new hydroelectric plant would also ice jams.
A resolution opposing the construction is also to be voted on next month.
Kittanning Borough Solicitor Ty Heller gives advice to Borough council members.
Last week, Rye Development Vice-President Erik Steimle and Environmental Vice-Present Kelli Doherty explained the proposal includes a 16.5 mega-watt power house that could potentially provide electricity for as many as 8,000 residents. The power “house” would be located on the opposite side of Lock 7.
Steimle said that although Rye is applying to build plants all over the United States, they do not actually have any of them up and running yet.
“Right now, we are beginning the feasibility and permitting process for a new hydro power project here. The earliest the project construction could begin would be sometime in 2020,” Steimle told the Kittanning Paper.
Steimle said homeowners have not yet been contacted as the project is still in the preliminary stages.
Comments can be made to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by writing to them at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 and reference docket P-14522. Comments may be filed electronically by visiting: www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Kittanning Borough | jweaver October 4, 2016
4 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Loading ...
By jorn jensen, October 4, 2016 @ 7:26 AM
For the reasons stated in the article, this might also be why the Kittanning dam never got a hydroelectric plant back when the other dams got them.
I agree with Kittanning council - we don’t need this, there’s nothing to gain from it. Let’s concentrate on bringing real, long-lasting jobs to our area.
By Flamingo1, October 4, 2016 @ 9:28 AM
Rye Development by its own admission has never built a hydropower dam. Its estimate of jobs is between 50 and 300, quite a range. It also did not have access to the land, which might have used eminent domain to acquire.
However, it is probably using federal clean energy programs to supplement construction costs. In the end the power generated is very small for a project of this scope. Good idea to walk away from this one. Too many unknowns and too few specifics.
By jd718, October 4, 2016 @ 9:34 AM
Let’s concentrate on bringing real, long-lasting jobs to our area. Yes, Vote Blue 2016
By jerry6, October 4, 2016 @ 1:52 PM
Just heard that when Trump built two his towers that he used steel from China. Funny how Trumps going to bring the steel mills back.
If he brings back the jobs from the 14 countries that all of his things are made in, that might give jobs to people in this country.
Just read a big article from a lot of people who worked on the Donald’s tv show. He puts Bill Clinton in the sainthood category when you read about all of the disgusting things he said about the women on that show. Trump is a poor excuse for a man.