East Lexington's Dam

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.

Should the East Lexington low-head dam be removed within 5 years?

Total votes: 40

Lexington Taxpayer

Postby Lexington Taxpayer » 2007 Sep 13 13:35

Mr Volpe,
You have a long way to go here to prove the City is liable, you seem to blame just about every part of our governmental process. At some point you have to look in the mirror and take some responsiblity. You didn't aswer my question, what did you do to warn your son above swimming in rushing water? Diving diplomas are not relative to entering a rushing stream at a time when water temps were totally unfit for swimming., It sounds like your son felt invinceable to any water dangers. The water temperature I'm sure played a big part in this. I know you are playing on sentiment here but most people I know question the parental process in your letting your son enter such a dangerous situation. Like I said the use by residents of our city resources will never be the same. Every piece of city property will be on the screen for potential litigation and yes you can probably find a lawyer who will find the City culpaple to track down every little flaw we have.

Posts: 35
Joined: 2007 Aug 20 11:01

Postby needler » 2007 Sep 13 14:17

Let's see...the city is NOT liable for allowing a dangerous situation at the dam to exist. The city knew it owned the dam, the city knew that water levels rise and fall incredibly fast behind the dam, the city knew that high water made the area around the dam dangerous (and if the council did NOT, it damned well should have!), the city felt it unnecessary to mark the area as dangerous, the city felt it unnecessary to maintain what little integrity was left in the structure, the city provided a BOAT RAMP, implying the area was safe, the city never considered closing the park until it was made safe, the city ignored the situation completely.......kind of like "if we don't look at the wasps and pretend they aren't there, maybe they'll go away" YUP, that always works!

And Taxpayer, you say "most people I know question the parental process in your letting your son enter such a dangerous situation". Fair enough. DO YOU ALWAYS KNOW WHERE YOUR KIDS ARE? DID YOU ALWAYS KNOW WHERE YOUR KIDS WERE WHEN THEY WERE 16? I certainly didn't, and I guarantee you that my mother didn't know where I was, either. As an aside, I would bet your parents did not know where YOU were all the time, either. You imply all parents should say before their kid(s) leave the house "don't do anything dangerous while you're out of my sight." RIGHT! Simply stepping onto a sidewalk is dangerous these days.

If the city invites people in to Jordan's Point to park, have lunch, boat, swim or even wade, the city is telling you that the place is safe, and most kids (most everyone, actually), while feeling immortal anyway, think that because a park is open to visitors, it must be safe. Get over it, Taxpayer. The mere existence of the damn dam, maintained not at all, dangerous by definition, and just sitting there looking safe by providing a quiet pool in which to swim or fish, was a lawsuit waiting to happen. Well, now it has. If the city council had ONCE said a kind word to Chuck and his family, if the council had ONCE said how sorry it was, if the council had ONCE said they felt badly for the Volpe family's pain, I would bet this would have turned out far differently. Instead, the council found every way but backwards to pretend that nothing had happened and, IF anything had really happened it wasn't their fault ANYWAY; in so doing, the council stunned all of us with its' collective callousness. They are getting what they asked for, in spades. I would be doing the EXACT same thing in these circustances.

I think we should agree to disagree on this one....and we probably disagree on everything else, as well.

and harleygirl, have you noticed how many more devils I'm adding with each post??? Must mean SOMETHING........

:evil: :evil: :evil: needler :evil: :evil: :evil:

Posts: 35
Joined: 2007 Aug 20 11:01

Postby needler » 2007 Sep 13 14:58

Thanks for the kind words, beckonwood. You made the point perfectly. When something like this happens, you look for revenge. I do, you did, we all feel the need for revenge even if we don't act directly on the feelings of helpless rage. And whether or not some will admit it, revenge is a natural feeling, experienced by all at one time or another. This is one of those times, and you're also right, beckonwood: NO amount of money will make this any better......I'll say that again.......NO amount of money will make this any better. The point of revenge is to make a responsible party feel, even a little bit, the pain the injured party feels. Sometimes, the only way you can hurt some of these individuals is to hit 'em in the pocketbook. Sometimes the only discernible heartbeat is found IN the pocketbook, and that's where we can strike the closest to home. The pocketbook certainly seems to be the location of the city council's heart these days.

:evil: :evil: :evil: needler :evil: :evil: :evil:

Posts: 35
Joined: 2007 Aug 20 11:01

Postby needler » 2007 Sep 13 15:27

Then something good came out of something bad, beckonwood. We're glad you're here and welcome, if belatedly.

needler, no devils this time ONLY!


Postby Resident » 2007 Sep 13 16:15

Who is going to build "the safe" water park?
You can drown in the toilet bowl if you stick your head in there.
The white water in Goshen Pass and the lives it has taken because of what Chuck? Ain't no dam up there. Your kid made a poor choice in jumping in for a swim. He drown. The city didn't have signage up because most people have enough COMMON sense not to do a dangerous act. If they do they may die.
COMMON sense is why we don't have instructions on how to be careful.
Go beat the dam up with your fists and take your buddies with you. Play Bob Marley and eat your picnic lunch. Sue the city and have a big party for all your buddies and then ...........
Also if you are threatening my brother, nonova, we aren't scared.

User avatar
Posts: 710
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Postby Juggler » 2007 Sep 13 16:20

:neutral: Give Nonova his due -- it just doesn't get more COMMON than that. :neutral:
Last edited by Juggler on 2007 Sep 13 16:22, edited 1 time in total.


Postby harleygrl35 » 2007 Sep 13 16:21

OMG, there's more than one? :surprised:

User avatar
Posts: 710
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Postby Juggler » 2007 Sep 13 16:23

Did you miss nonovas list of pseudonyms?


Postby harleygrl35 » 2007 Sep 13 16:25

Juggler wrote:Did you miss nonovas list of pseudonyms?

No honey, but didn't he just say he was nonova's brother? Oh, wait, is that what multiple personalities call one another? :wink2:

User avatar
Posts: 710
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Postby Juggler » 2007 Sep 13 16:27

I DID miss that ... thanks. Wonder if it's true?

Posts: 35
Joined: 2007 Aug 20 11:01

Postby needler » 2007 Sep 13 16:29

Nah, I don't miss the list of pseudonyms at all; nonova and his ilk are like the proverbial bad penny.....they'll just keep turning up under different names to make normal people think they outnumber the rest. Now THAT'S a scary thought.........

back to the devils now!

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: needler :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

User avatar
Amy Probenski
Posts: 457
Joined: 2007 Aug 28 17:06

Postby Amy Probenski » 2007 Sep 13 16:41

I will try to be kind to my fellow Forum members.
Perhaps a certain user is only about 20, in which case we should cut some slack. Ignorance can be a temporary condition.
Now if that user is 40, well, that's more serious. Stupid is forever.

Or as my mother used to say, "Beauty is temporary. Stupid is forever. Go to college and work very hard."



Postby ChuckVolpe » 2007 Sep 13 20:31

First of all to the three of you, or the one of you, or how many of you are there. Well I ain't scerd neither.
So, these aren't threats, so don't be foolish. Is the moderator of this forum accurate in determining that there are three of you eminating from one computer?
"Resident", it's he drowned, not drown.
Mr. "Taxpayer", there wasn't any visable current above the dam. No rushing water as you implied (where you there), and he wasn't the only one swimming. A bunch of kids were in and out of the water. In fact if you do a little research, it is simple to find plenty of engineering data on the effects of hydraulics on the currents and surface water above a dam. Here's the reality of all of this. The City was warned while they were developing the Park by members of the JPP Committee. They chose to ignore the warnings because it would have cost the City $5,000 to put up the warning signs, the buoys, etc. Because they chose to ignore this danger, which was clearly pointed out to them, a person has died. Never blame any of these kids for swimming there. They are invited into the water 95 feet from that dam. The high school football coach took the team down there after practice to swim on more than one occassion. Adults swim there as well. Is there a meter there measuring how many knots the current is above the dam? NO! Does it say on a sign, don't enter the water if the current is above 7 knots, or 8 knots? You pick the number. There is no such warning. You can't tell how fast the water is moving by looking at it. It wasn't even abnormally high. And you want to blame Charles for swimming there. He and all these other kids didn't know. And guess what. Now the kids know and they still swim there. So what does that tell you. Take it out. No rocket science here. Take it out before another kid dies. Or don't you care? But you know what I bet; I bet you'd rather take it out, than pay to fix it. And if you think it's expensive to pay for a whitewater park, or the defense of one or two lawsuits, try maintaining that dam to State standards over the next ten years.
All of these questions have been answered earlier in the post. Have a look.


Postby harleygrl35 » 2007 Sep 14 09:45

Why am I getting this feeling that nonova, resident, whoever he is, and Taxpayer are thought to be well standing citizens of the community? I hope you all can see where I'm going with this...

I think in all of my 35 years on this earth, I've never read such disregard for human life than the posts of the aforementioned. On a personal level this makes me very, very sad. As I posted personally to Chuck at the beginning of this thread, I cannot imagine the heartbreak and anguish that comes with losing your child, and I hope and pray I never have to.

I do know one thing though, my grandmother raised me to be respectful, and I could never speak to someone the way these 2 or 3 or however many have spoken to Chuck.

Oh and nonova, Taxpayer? :

"It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt." ~Abraham Lincoln

"Never miss a good chance to shut up." ~Will Rogers


Postby nonova » 2007 Sep 14 14:21

I guess the truth really hurts about this accident. Could it have been prevented ? Sure. It wasn't the dam. It was the water. Water needs to be involved in a drowning. If the water hadn't been there .......
I don't agree with you guys in blaming all this on the dam and you don't like me telling it the way I see it. I am not alone but I guess mouthy enough to speak out. I will go away now, with my comments, but will come back to listen. Sorry for the MOUTH.

I wonder who is going to be first to fireback or can we just call a truce and let it be ? I'm done. Sorry for the MOUTH.

Lexington Taxpayer

Postby Lexington Taxpayer » 2007 Sep 14 15:38

The truth is very hard to take in this circumstance. Blaming others is always the easiest route. Never in my many decades here in Lexington have I seen an individual bash our hard working people who serve on City Council in such a vicious manner. That part has gone beyond all reasonable bounds when Mr. Volpe attacks these members in a public venue and character has started to show. Bolding type is the same as yelling. The court case will bring out the 2 sides to the story, I know this forum is loaded top heavy to place all of the blame on the City but a I think most reasonable types would wait and se both sides here.
I will be curious how much monitoring and mentoring all of you guys will do if you get your water park, the fact remains that any water can kill. As stated before the water temperatures played a large part in this tragedy.April 23 on the Maury still has water temps in the 50's, throw in a higher cfs flow and you have a situation that can kill. My grandmother taught me not to swim at times like this in response to the other posting.The fact that the water users that day had used those waters before before surely gave them a sense of danger when being around it. It was not the dam that killed these fine young man.

Posts: 2
Joined: 2007 Sep 14 15:05

Postby livelearn101 » 2007 Sep 14 17:14

As I sit here and read through all of the debates going on and all of the insults thrown at one another, I wonder how you all can consider yourselves to be mature adults. I feel as though I am reading a conversation between high schoolers.

Nonova, you believe that Charles had to have been on drugs to get in the water, you believe that Charles is in Heaven (which I disagree with, due to my knowledge that Charles did not believe in the imaginary, which is what he believed Heaven to be), you state repeatedly that the other boy did not drown.

The fact of the matter is that Charles did drown. Charles was not on drugs that day, I know that for a fact. You may believe in your God, but I believe in luck, I believe in chance. I believe that both Bryc Talley and Charles Volpe had very slim chances of surviving what Bryc survived. The fact that Bryc survived and Charles did not is irrelevant to the fact that the dam was a major factor in the death of Charles. It does not matter what your religious beliefs are on why one died and not the other. It does not matter what you think your God had planned for the two boys.

You state over and over again that Chuck Volpe should have warned Charles about the dangers of the dam. I'm sure that, had Chuck known about the low head dam at Jordan's Point, he would have. I also know that if there were signs, buoys, warnings about the dam at Jordan's Point, the boys most certainly would not have gotten into the water by the dam.

Honestly, the dam is not just a danger to people, it is an environmental hazard as well. Do you know what condition the dam is in, sir? Do you know what damage it could cause downriver if it were to blow out?

I'm not saying the dam needs to be completely removed. I'm saying that something needs to be put in, something needs to be done so that the area down there is safe.

I dare say that have no respect for the Volpes. I believe that you do not want this dam to go because you feel it was a bad decision on Charles' part to be swimming that day. I agree with you, swimming that day, evidentally, was a bad idea in the end. However, that dam is a major factor in why it became a bad idea. The river being up is also a major factor.

I think you need to do more research on low-head dams. I also think that your brother(?) also needs to do the same amount of research, if not more.

Others have posted saying that Chuck Volpe has attacked the City Council members. The only reason that he would outlash at the members of City Council is because they have not accomplished anymore than the bare minimum. The bare minimum was accomplished due to citizens pushing for the buoy systems or signs being put up.

Both sides are responsible for what happened that day. Charles and Bryc were responsible for getting into the water, but the city is responsible for not having proper warnings about the dam. The dam shares the blame for Charles drowning.

As for Lexington Taxpayer: Yes, Charles had been in the water before. Many times. However, do you not remember the temperature in late April? The warm spring weather? I know for a fact that Charles and Bryc were not the only to get into the water that day. Many other people were down there, I'm positive others had gotten into the water. There's always a sense of danger when you're swimming, there's always a chance you can drown, but the more you're in the water, the more comfortable you feel in it. Don't use temperature as an excuse for them to not have gone swimming. Weather from the day before, the river being up, could be factors, but definitely not the temperature. Not all of us have Grandmothers to tell us when we should go into the water.

"The city didn't have signage up because most people have enough COMMON sense not to do a dangerous act. If they do they may die. COMMON sense is why we don't have instructions on how to be careful." I'm sorry, but the city did not have signage because it was too expensive for their budget. I believe that if they were able to go back to when they chose to not put signs up with the information they have now, their decision would be different.

If anyone wishes to discuss this with me, personally, feel free to contact me through email, which will be below my name. I do not feel I have insulted anyone by what I have said and I have the gall to sign my name to the bottom of this post.

Info ? Feedback ?

-Cassie Benton cassiebenton@gmail.com

Lexington Taxpayer

Postby Lexington Taxpayer » 2007 Sep 14 19:12

Well that is interesting, cold H2O temperatures do not affect one's stamina and endurance when swimming in rushing it according to the last post. Okay.



Postby ChuckVolpe » 2007 Sep 14 22:42

Listen to me - there are witnesses. They were in the water for two minutes or less before they were swept over the dam. They were knocked out and pinned to the bottom by the hydraulics. http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/lowhead.htm - READ IT!
One of them got spit out and pulled out by a bystander, one didn't. Do you understand that the damn water could have been 80 degrees and it wouldn't have made a difference!
Stamina and endurance meant nothing - 2 minutes - dam - get it...google fox river drownings - one was in a kayak, two were on foot, all wearing pfd's. The kayak went over the dam, the two on foot tried to save him, they all had their pfd's ripped off by the hydraulics and they all drowned including a swift water rescuer. google them and read them. One story after another. Many in boats where temperatures don't matter. They are sucked over the dam and down to the bottom. Rescuers are injured and killed on a regular basis. You are so hell bent on placing the blame on the kids that you are missing the big picture. I can show you a hundred cases, all the same, all at these dams, which serve no purpose. They kill people, and they stop fish migration...can you give me one good reason to keep it, or any of them?

Virgil Chambers who is an expert on these dams says, "From downstream, you may not realize the danger until it's too late. From upstream, low-head dams are difficult to detect. In most instances, a low-head dam does not look dangerous, yet can create a life-threatening situation. You should always pay attention to warning signs, markers or buoys and keep well clear of low-head dams." We ofcourse had no warning signs, markers or buoys.

He further says,
"However, the distinction is not so clear with the dangers associated with the river's most perilous obstruction, the low-head dam. It is a man-made structure, typically built to back up water in a reservoir for a variety of reasons. This wall-like structure pools the water as it flows over the crest and drops to the lower level.

This drop creates a hydraulic, which is a backwash that traps and recirculates anything that floats. Boats and people have been caught in this backwash. A person caught in the backwash of a low-head dam will be carried to the face of the dam, where the water pouring over it will wash him down under to a point downstream called the boil. The boil is that position where the water from below surfaces and moves either downstream or back toward the dam. A person who is caught in a low head dam struggles to the surface, where the backwash once again carries him to the face of the dam, thus continuing the cycle."

So even if a person doesn't get knocked out, survival is almost impossible.

So let's keep the dam and blame the cold water -



Postby ChuckVolpe » 2007 Sep 14 22:47

I think Cassie is referring to the chatter from the guys, or guy, or...well however many of them there actually are :?: