The EAP is a formal document that describes procedures to minimize the risk of loss of life and property damage when potential emergency conditions threaten a High Hazard Potential Category 1, 2 or 3 dam. PA DEP has identified Broomall’s Dam as a Category 2 High Hazard dam.  The Dam Safety and Waterway Management Act (Subchapter B 105.34)  states that the owner(s) of a high hazard dam must sign the ownership line of the document.  A properly signed and executed EAP is required for the PA DEP to issue a dam construction permit.

The ownership of the dam has been the subject of legal dispute between Broomall’s Lake Country Club, Delaware County, and Media Borough since 2006, following decades of inaction to repair or replace the dam, due to ongoing ownership questions since Broomall’s Dam was declared unsafe by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1980.

The 2011 Stipulation and Order signed by all three parties assigned tasks and responsibilities regarding the construction and maintenance of the proposed replacement dam and roadway on top of the dam. However, the Stipulation and Order did NOT resolve the issue of ownership.

While Media Borough Council has clarified that it will not sign the ownership line of the EAP, there have been no public statements or documents released by Broomall’s Lake Country Club or Delaware County that indicate if one or both of those parties will sign the ownership line of the EAP.

Media Borough Council also authorized the Borough to sign the dam construction permit application at the July 16th meeting, while adding an addendum that stated that signing the permit did not constitute any claim of ownership of Broomall’s Dam by the Borough.

The Friends of Glen Providence Park continues to support dam removal, stream restoration and a local discussion of an environmentally-sensitive bridge between Media Borough and Upper Providence.

The ruling did not address whether there is a requirement for a two-way road, it simply indicated that a decision on BLCC’s Petition for Contempt and/or an interpretation of the Stipulation Agreement regarding road design and use would not be made in Commonwealth Court, but rather in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County.

The Friends of Glen Providence Park continues to support dam removal, stream restoration and a local discussion of an environmentally-sensitive connection.

You can read the complete ruling in this pdf: 12-9-2013 Commonwealth Ruling on 3rd Street litigation

In March, BLCC filed an Appeal of Judge Proud’s ruling in Commonwealth Court.  It is our understanding that the Commonwealth Court will either refuse to hear the Appeal or it will schedule a hearing to consider its merits.  This process is likely to take a minimum of three months.  If the Commonwealth Court denies the BLCC Appeal, the case will be sent back to Judge Proud to decide the long-standing dispute over who owns Broomall’s Lake Dam. While it is impossible to predict the exact timeline for resolving this complex legal contest, it is clear that no final resolution is imminent.

Read the Delaware County Daily Times article about it here.

Read Judge Proud’s Order Revoking the Stipulation.

At this point, all past agreements and Borough Council decisions regarding the Third Street Dam/Bridge project could essentially be nullified or rendered obsolete. The Judge’s decision has created a legal, political, and economic situation that is fluid, complex, and challenging.  The decision could also open the door to new options that are potentially much better for the Park and Park users. The leadership of the Friends of Glen Providence Park is in the process of discussing this dramatic turn of events.  We plan to issue a statement in the near future, and we will be calling the members of the organization together to receive your input.

In the past couple of months, information has come forward that has shifted the possibilities for the 3rd Street Bridge and Dam. It is very clear that something must be done, and soon; the dam was declared unsafe in 1980 by the Army Corps of Engineers, and has been closed to traffic since 1996. For the public and especially those living downstream, it must be dealt with as soon as possible.

Up until recently, it was believed that PennDOT (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) required that the dam be rebuilt and the road be restored and opened to automotive traffic. Recent interactions with PennDOT have revealed that this is not the case, and in fact, Media Borough, the “project sponsor,” may declare whatever goals they see fit, as long as the safety issues with the bridge are resolved.

To the best of our knowledge, there are four possible options that the PennDOT (and local) funding would permit, noting that there are variations and creative options within these four broad categories:

1. Replace the dam, reconstruct an automotive road. This is the current plan on the table, incorporating a two-lane road. It is possibly the most expensive and environmentally damaging plan, but maintains Broomall’s Lake and allows the greatest amount of transportation access between Media and Upper Providence.
2. Replace the dam, create a greenway for pedestrians and bicycles, possibly that is open to emergency vehicles. This would maintain Broomall’s Lake and the parklike atmosphere between the lake and Glen Providence Park, while allowing passage between Media and Upper Providence.
3. Remove the dam, build an automotive bridge. Dam removal and stream restoration tends to be a less expensive option, often 2-3 times less expensive. Environmentally, dam removal can be disruptive in the short term, but will overall cause much less damage to the park and will restore the stream to its natural course. It will improve water quality. All dam maintenance and ownership issues are resolved when there is no dam. There are many factors specific to Broomall’s Dam that can only be addressed by an expert. Building an automotive bridge, however, would be costly and have significant maintenance costs.
4. Remove the dam, create a pedestrian and bicycle bridge, or greenbridge. This would potentially incorporate the cost savings and environmental benefits of removal, while maintaining a transportation connection between Media and Upper Providence.

As far as we understand, PennDOT would fund 80% of any of these four options. The rest of the money would come from local grants like that provided by Senator Pileggi.

Friends of Glen Providence Park wants to minimize damage to the park and create a pedestrian and bicycle greenway, to preserve and enhance the park for those who use it recreationally, and for those who live there — the wildlife. (The park was founded as an arboretum and bird sanctuary, after all.) We are currently working to understand the pros and cons of dam removal vs. replacement of the dam, particular to the 3rd Street Dam and Glen Providence Park.

Media Borough, Delaware County and Broomall’s Lake Country Club have also signed a stipulation agreement that seems to include replacing the dam and rebuilding a “roadway.” We acknowledge that the stipulation is a different challenge than PennDOT funding, and one that can probably only be handled by the signatories and their legal counsels.

That said, the stipulation was signed under false assumptions that PennDOT would only fund dam and bridge reconstruction, and that PennDOT was in charge of the project. It is now clear that Media Borough is in charge of the project, and PennDOT will fund any option that restores the public safety of the Third Street Bridge. Is it time to consider all the options? We think so. 

Check back regularly for updates and information as we do our research.

What are your priorities and concerns for Glen Providence Park and the Bridge/Dam?