Talk:Meadowcreek Interceptor

e-mail references

I understand why you've deleted the reference, but an e-mail to a public official is a public record anyone could FOIA, and captures a fact directly from the source in response to a direct question. As a good chunk of my reference comes from e-mails, I need a way to place this information that I capture. --629579396 17:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad you get the point; it's in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think if you simply publish the emails, then we're good to go. More complicated would be to write the info into a CT or DP article. -- B.S. Lawrence 21:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll come up with something. the information can usually be verified independently somewhere else. Since working for the DP, my reporting style has changed to ask more direct questions, but not everything makes it into print. Want to think about this some more. --629579396 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

November 2021 update

There's a lot of dead links and I'm trying to update this to see when it was completed and at what cost, and what the cost-share allocation was. So, that's why there's activity today. --Seantubbs (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2021 (EST)

I updated all the old Charlottesville Tomorrow links and flagged a lot of the RWSA studies as dead. Their online archives do not contain that information anymore. I am also on the hunt for the consent decree between DEQ and the RWSA. I've also reached out to people to get the cost-allocation. But I have to move on with my day for now! --Seantubbs (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2021 (EST)