Dredge Bull Creek |

Dredge Bull Creek

Allegheny County and Tarentum officials need to be on the same page.

Tarentum officials and residents were puzzled last week by a presentation for Bull Creek’s restoration.

The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $1 million grant to restore the creek.

But a project engineer with AWK Consulting Engineers presented a plan to prevent the kind of damage from flooding that resulted from Hurricane Ivan in 2004. It involves adding rocks and a gabion wall to shore up the creek banks.

The plan, however, didn’t include dredging Bull Creek from the West Seventh Avenue bridge to the mouth of the Allegheny River, as Tarentum officials expected.

These smaller bank projects, estimated to cost $170,000, could simply be the prelude to dredging.

One of the project consultants said concerns over endangered species could make it difficult to get permission to dredge.

But a section of Bull Creek further upstream was dredged in 2006. So we find it difficult to believe the EPA and the Army Corps wouldn’t approve dredging this section, too.

Debris caught under several bridges in this area, including a stone railroad bridge, caused much of the flooding during Hurricane Ivan. Widening these bridges would be very expensive, so lowering the creek bed by dredging is the best fix.

To its credit, the county agreed to take over this project because Tarentum could not come up with a required match of $400,000.

But we need to agree on the best way to use this grant. And everyone agrees the key is dredging the creek.

Let’s make sure the grant covers that purpose.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.