Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 5 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor: The Rappahannock League for Environmental Protection Board of Directors voted on July 5 to request that the Virginia Department of Transportation reopen the spring alongside U.S. Route 211 on the east side of Thornton Gap in Shenandoah National Park. This spring, used regularly over many decades by hundreds of residents of Rappahannock County and other jurisdictions, was sealed by VDOT on the basis of a letter to VDH from a single indivdual — who in fact asked only that VDH “do whatever is necessary” to protect those who use the water.
Probably no action was necessary to protect users of the spring. Certainly, RLEP believes that the action taken by VDOT was the wrong action. If anything was “necessary,” it should have been work further to protect the spring from the possibility of temporary minor contamination from surface runoff.
Instead, VDOT and VDH collaborated to destroy a feature that some people believe qualifies for Virginia’s Historic Register. In fact, the Rappahannock Historical Society has asked that the spring be placed in the Virginia Historic Register.
We know of no person who has ever complained about a health problem relating to this spring. We have seen a report of analyses of water taken on May 21, 1990,'from both pipes of this spring which showed no contamination. VDH files apparently contain no data on the quality of this spring — but only vague undocumented allegation that “previous water samples have shown contamination”.
There is material in the file which suggests that the major problem affecting the U.S. 211 spring is doctrinaire bureaucratic myopia. Responding to a VDOT request that VDH provide an “updated sample” of water from the spring, VDH Regional Director Malcolm Tenney Jr., stated on April 25, 1990: “I am writing to clarify any misunderstanding that may exist concerning the Health Department’s stand on the
94.3%