Fax Sent today to Sen. Alexander ... R. Duty
May 12, 2013
Honorable Lamar Alexander
455 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development - May 8, 2013 - USACE
Dear Senator Alexander,
Regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers imposition of 24-7 restrictions to boating access on the Cumberland River, the testimonies submitted by both Assistant Secretary Darcy and Lieutenant General Bostick were disrespectful to the Committee at best; flagrantly deceptive at the worst.
Assistant Secretary Darcy stated that spillage from the dam is a hazard more than 80% of the time. That statement is so far from technical and historical reality, it can only be interpreted as reflecting gross incompetence in light of the Secretary’s capacity; or intentionally deceptive. Further, Ms. Darcy stated, “We have met with constituents... to talk about options.” Nothing could be further from the truth. From the very onset of the USACE plan to barricade the Cumberland, the leadership of the Corps has been evasive, in gross violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, and never discussed alternatives or compromise with any official representative of State or County business. Every meeting held; every relevant communique attributed to the Corps, has been to inform; never to negotiate in good faith.
Lieutenant General Bostick’s testimony is rife with inconsistencies and lacking in candor. He testified that the decision to barricade the river was made by his local Corps Commander [LTC James De Lapp], and endorsed by Secretary Darcy. Yet the decision was based on a DoD Inspector General investigation. Letters on file from LTC De Lapp state that the order to restrict 24-7 came from orders farther up the chain of command. Most appalling, was the General’s comment regarding the turbulence immediately below the dams: “We can’t predict when it’s going to be dangerous.” That statement presupposes spontaneous spillage, independent of human initiative. That is well beyond any conceivable technical misinterpretation by a man of his position, and leaves only the notion that the audience was unknowing and unsophisticated and would accept the statement as genuine and factual. That is contemptuously disrespectful, or intentionally deceptive.
It is my belief, that ASA Darcy and LTG Bostick should be recalled for further testimony, to clarify their previous comments with the candor deserving of the United States Senate. Perhaps a bit more heat is necessary to ferret out the truthful actions, as well as the motives behind the Corps’ intensely stubborn refusal to consider the will of the public.
Sincerely,
Rick Duty
|
