Earlier this year, Governor Larry Hogan revealed a new project to dredge the Susquehanna River behind the Conowingo Dam. Dredging involves cleaning out the bed of a river by scooping out mud, weeds, and rubbish.

      Hogan decided to start this project because the dam had been trapping all this built-up sediment, but it was found recently by the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that it’s now reached capacity and any major scour event, such as a storm, could remove the sediment and flush it into the bay, maybe even causing a flood. This would be very harmful, as well as trapping nitrogen and phosphorous that contribute to poor water quality, so even removing just the 25,000 cubic yards proposed out of the total 2 million could potentially help.

     However, some organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation claim that dredging is not the most cost-effective method, or even the best way to prevent this flooding and pollution. They also claim that stopping pollution at its source- the larger Susquehanna Watershed- would be the best technique, and the sediment targeted by this project doesn’t pose as big of a problem as originally feared.

     Homeowners have concerns as well. At a meeting held in the North Harford High School cafeteria, interested community members had the opportunity to listen to employees of the Maryland Environmental Service, the organization orchestrating the dredging, give information about various concerning aspects of the operation.

     There were many questions asked about the staging area, the location where the water/sediment slurry from the bottom of the river would be piped into through an eight- to twelve-inch pipeline and dewatered. The dewatering could either be mechanical or passive, each with about the same amount of environment impact. After the dewatering, the water would be piped through a separate pipe back to the river and the sediment used for construction material, fertilizer, or landfill cover up, depending on the contractor.

    Since this is such an involved process there is concern over where this staging area will be. There are 40 areas being considered, but it was not revealed at the meeting which one would eventually be chosen. Since it’s a real estate negotiation, MES could not discuss which sites are in consideration. However, one homeowner accused the MES of already having decided on the site being used, saying she “drove by the flags every day.”

     These people are so concerned about the staging area location because there will need to be some forest cleared, pipelines laid down, and a great amount of traffic down normally quiet roads due to the need for sediment and equipment to be transported back and forth.

    Another point of interest was the timeline for this project. The proposals from the contractors were due on November 7, and the finalist determined soon after that. The dredging is projected to be completed by March 1, 2018, but some contractors have concerns over the safety and effectiveness of having to be completed by that time.

    The permit process to get permission from state agencies to start the dredging took about three months, according to MES officials. One man at the community meeting pointed out, “It takes me 6 months to get a permit to build a house; how are you going to get it in 3 months?”

     Many citizens were expressing their frustration, claiming the officials were lax in the way of contacting the affected community members, answering their questions, and transparency. However, MES continued to reiterate the positive environmental effects the dredging will have in the long term, and explained its attempts to minimize the impact on the public.

    Though there is controversy surrounding this project, MES will be continuing with the project for the time being.