Ann Arbor officials considering $1 million redesign of Argo Dam headrace and embankment

Posted on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 6:03 a.m.

Ann Arbor officials considering $1 million redesign of Argo Dam headrace and embankment

By Ryan J. Stanton

Ann Arbor officials are considering a $1 million proposal to redesign and reconstruct the Argo Dam headrace and earthen embankment, shown here in this photo taken Wednesday afternoon. The project would alleviate the state's concerns about the dam's safety and improve conditions for kayakers and canoeists, city officials say.

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

Ann Arbor city staff will present a plan to the Park Advisory Commission on Tuesday, recommending reconstruction of the Argo Dam headrace and earthen embankment.

The nearly $1 million project would alleviate the state's concerns about the dam's safety and improve conditions for kayakers and canoeists, city officials say.

A second option on the table is to spend a lesser amount — about $700,000 — to fix the dam's toe drains, said Sue McCormick, the city's public services area administrator.

"I think there's still lots of opportunity for discussion about what we do at this location, and ultimately that will be council's decision," McCormick said.

In an attempt to carry out steps outlined earlier this year in a consent agreement with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, the city recently sought bids to repair the toe drains along the dam's earthen embankment.

The lowest bid was $707,300 from ABC Paving, which beat two other bids that came in at $798,590 and $829,150. At the very least, the city must do those repairs under state orders.

The city issued a separate request for proposals for the redesign and reconstruction of the headrace and embankment. The city received two responses, but only one — the team of TSP, Beckett and Raeder, and Recreation Engineering and Planning — met requirements.

The cost for the team's proposal, which is being recommended by city staff, came in at $988,170. It is being presented to PAC at 4 p.m. Tuesday in the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. The meeting is open to the public.

Click here to view the conceptual design.

McCormick said the redesign of the headrace offers an added amenity for kayakers and canoeists that merely fixing the toe drains wouldn't. She said the redesign would get rid of a portage at the end of the headrace, which means river users no longer would have to lift their canoes and kayaks out of the water and carry them down to another launching point.

McCormick said that might increase kayak and canoe rentals, which would be a revenue boost for the city. She also said the redesign could eliminate the need for a portion of the toe drains and reduce some of the dam's maintenance costs over the long run.

Some City Council members already are expressing hesitations about the costs, which they say appear likely to come out of the city's drinking water fund — the same fund that historically has paid for Argo Dam's maintenance costs.

"I'm concerned that the cost for toe drain repair appears to be more than twice as much as we estimated," said Council Member Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward. "That's a lot to ask from taxpayers and the drinking water fund in a difficult economic climate."

Water passes through Argo Dam on Wednesday on the Huron River.

Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com

The city originally estimated it would cost about $300,000 to repair the toe drains, but McCormick said the DNRE is requiring the city to take additional measures to address concerns with the dam, including removing trees from the embankment.

The City Council must decide what to do with the dam by Nov. 15 under a deadline imposed by the state. The city also must award a contract for the work by Dec. 6. Construction has to start no later than June 1, 2011, and be completed by Nov. 1, 2011.

The DNRE has given the city the other option of removing Argo Dam entirely — all concrete portions included — but that's not an option the city has sought bids on.

The Huron River Watershed Council, which has been lobbying for the dam-out option, said this week it's time for the city to seriously consider removing Argo Dam. The environmental group believes it would cost a little more than $1 million, about equal to the headrace redesign.

"For the past few months, the city's been avoiding this tough decision called Argo," said John Langs, chairman of the HRWC's board. "They've deliberately avoided getting information they need to understand the real costs … and now they are facing a $1 million renovation project with no real plan to pay for it or any input from the public.

"Instead of the city looking at options of taking the dam out," Langs said, "they only looked at repairs, and now the cost of those repairs are coming in at double."

One of the biggest concerns with removing Argo Dam, in addition to the cost, has been that it would mean the end of Argo Pond, which is used heavily by area rowing teams.

"These are championship teams. Where do they move to?" said City Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, one of the leading dam-in proponents.

The HRWC points out Skyline High School's rowing team now uses Geddes Pond and is in talks with Concordia University about developing a rowing center out there.

"We're looking at alternative rowing opportunities and we've studied Geddes Pond, which is almost a mirror image," Langs said, adding he's confident there are viable alternatives to Argo Pond.

Briere said she's concerned removing the dam could redirect the river into the environmentally contaminated MichCon site, where coal tar is left over from a former coal gasification plant.

"That's a serious environmental hazard," she said. "We can't let that be released into the river. One way or another, that would require significant cleanup."

The HRWC argues concerns about the MichCon site are a non-issue because Barr Engineering, a firm experienced in dam removals, has conducted a study of the river channel and concluded the channel wouldn't move if the dam was taken out.

Briere also said she doesn't think taking out the dam would be a one-time cost. She said the city would have to pay for reclamation of a large area of riverside land currently covered by Argo Pond. She said it would require the planting of non-invasive species and added maintenance costs, and then there's the cost of relocating the rowers.

She also thinks the city would have to pay for the cost of "whatever needs to be done to keep the river from resuming its original route" and going though the MichCon site.

Briere said the fact that the bids came in higher than expected for the repair work means it's time to start asking hard questions.

"What's in these bids that makes them so expensive?" she said. "What's needed to fix the embankment, and what is additional? That's what I'd want to see."

The HRWC wants to remove the dam for the environmental benefits.

"This is a science-based organization that prides itself in science, and basically it's a water quality issue," Langs said. "Dams impair a river's ability to clean itself, they add heat, and heat's bad because it can't hold as much oxygen, which is beneficial to a variety of species."

The HRWC has drawings on its website showing what the river restoration could look like with Argo Dam removed. One of the drawings shows the Argo impoundment changing from a pond-like condition to a faster-flowing river with a thinner channel.

"Obviously it's a vote of council that will make these decisions," Langs said. "We just want them to be fully informed. They've delayed the decision again and again, and they've tasked staff to only look at one side of the coin and not the other. And they're misappropriating taxpayer money to maintain this structure that has nothing to do with clean water."

Briere said she still hasn't seen enough scientific evidence to convince her the dam needs to be removed at this point.

The Ann Arbor VA hospital expressed interest last year in looking at putting hydropower in at Geddes and Argo dams. A new report reveals the long-awaited results of the VA's hydropower study, showing Geddes may be a better option than Argo.

Under the city's consent agreement with the state, the city will reinstall a "stop log" near Argo Dam on Friday, closing and gradually draining the headrace for the season. As a result, canoe and kayak passage through the headrace will no longer be possible until next season.

Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.

Comments

Michael Psarouthakis

Thu, Oct 21, 2010 : 3:04 p.m.

Hospadaruk, I am confused by your post. The link you give in your comment shows the same result as the poll for this article. Now compare those results to the poll that is not a dam in or dam out poll but rather a poll to show support for the PAC supported plan or take the dam out ( http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-park-advisory-commission-recommends-117-million-reconstruction-of-argo-dam-headrace/ ) and the results are stunning in support of the PAC supported plan versus taking the dam out. Both have similar response numbers and are very close in time so think this is a relevant result, at least for those that follow this topic. I think the PAC is on the right track, they are supporting a proposal that appeals to many with a strong interest or opinion regarding this issue from both sides.

Hospadaruk

Thu, Oct 21, 2010 : 10:20 a.m.

Funny thing about polls, the last one, taken just days ago, does not show such a clear mandate: http://www.twiigs.com/poll/News/63169

foobar417

Mon, Oct 18, 2010 : 3:48 p.m.

One additional point: The "additional features" include ADA compliance on the path (not there now as a it is a dirt trail), improved ADA compliance for canoers and kayakers (portage is eliminated), reduced cost for ongoing maintainance, and increased net revenue ($25,000 to $30,000 per year) from Argo operations. This is what the additional $270,000 gets. The city report doesn't state what the reduced costs for ongoing maintenance would be. If it did, it would be possible to calculate in how many years that plus the net revenue increase would pay for the additional improvements.

foobar417

Mon, Oct 18, 2010 : 3:34 p.m.

From braggslaw posting (I'm assuming correctly reposted from an HRWC communication): "That was a bad decision, because now that the repair bids have come in, the repair costs are two to three times higher than expected. The city had assumed that the costs would be $300,000. But when the real figures came in, the toe drain repairs alone were more than $700,000, and the city staff actually recommended an even more expensive option that will cost almost one million dollarsmore than 300% of what was budgeted. The city has not allocated enough money to pay these costs. Worse, the money that is budgeted comes from the drinking water fundeven though Argo Pond provides no drinking water for the city. In other words, money that should fund essential drinking water infrastructure is being funneled, without public input, to pay for a recreation facility. That's probably illegal and certainly short-sighted. " While there is certainly merit to the HWRC's concerns, they also seem to be overstating their case, as some of the claims don't square with the city staff's explanation, found here: http://www.a2gov.org/government/communityservices/ParksandRecreation/parks/PAC/Documents/10-19-10%20Packet.pdf The letter in the PDF is unfortunately not searchable (looks like a picture, not text), but it's the October 19 memorandum to the PAC, about midway through the PDF. Specifically, the report contradicts the following claims: "The city has not allocated enough money to pay these costs." According to the city staff, there is about $1,178,000 available, which is enough to pay for the project (they are recommending the $978,000 option). $683,000 from the Parks and Recreation Millage (money budgeted but not needed to combat the Emerald Ash Borer). $195,000 budgeted to improve river parks. $300,000 budgeted to repair the toe drains. There's also the possibility of $50,000 more from the county to pay for the B2B trail upgrade. "Worse, the money that is budgeted comes from the drinking water fundeven though Argo Pond provides no drinking water for the city." According to the city staff, of that only $300,000, not the full $978,000 is planned to come from the drinking water fund and that was in the budget for that fund. (The HWRC letter implies the whole thing is.) "But when the real figures came in, the toe drain repairs alone were more than $700,000" According to the city staff, the difference is due to addition of the vegetation management requirements of the consent agreement. In other words, the toe drain repair cost didn't double, new work was added. "That was a bad decision, because now that the repair bids have come in, the repair costs are two to three times higher than expected." The report goes on to say that the recommended plan ($978,000) vs. the consent agreement ($707,000) has many additional merits for the difference in price. These differences are not "additional repairs" but changing how the area is used recreationally. I think there are pros and cons to dam in and dam out. I think there are pros and cons to a minimal repair (i.e. complying with consent opinion) vs. increasing recreational opportunities. But I do think it's unfair to characterize it as "That was a bad decision, because now that the repair bids have come in, the repair costs are two to three times higher than expected."

hiker1546

Sun, Oct 17, 2010 : 7:17 p.m.

Why are so many people vilifying an organization that is trying to stay true to its mission in your comments? To me the key thing is that the cost is ONE MILLION DOLLARS! One million dollars is alot to expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for any specific recreational opportunity. On the one hand certain factions of the City Council are trying to sell off our Huron Hills Golf Course (one of the few walkable golf courses anywhere near the city) because even though the golfer fees cover the annual costs of maintaining the golf course, it doesn't make a profit for the city. But where the rowers are concerned, they don't pay a penny for any annual maintenance of the dam. And now they are crying and moaning because they expect the city (meaning "the taxpayers" which include you and I) to pay $1 million so they can keep rowing in a particular area. In the "dam out" option, there is federal money available to cover a significant portion of the removal costs. So can someone please explain to me why I as a taxpayer should ante up $1 million (plus on-going annual maintenance) for the tiny portion of the Ann Arbor population who are rowers?

David Cahill

Sun, Oct 17, 2010 : 3:41 p.m.

Thanks to braggslaw for posting the material the HRWC is circulating.

m macke

Sat, Oct 16, 2010 : 8:04 a.m.

The park system in Ann Arbor has always done a great job of offering a variety of park options to its constituents and Bandemere Park is a fine example of this goal. There are woodland parks, neighborhood playground parks, and parks with sport fields for soccer and softball, all within a 3 mile radius of Bandemere. Bandemere fills a unique niche in the park system for that side of town. As people have pointed out, the location of the beautiful pond at one of the gateways to our city only adds to the allure of the park and Argo pond. I am not a rower. I am a walker that enjoys walking around the pond loop. I am a canoer that is excited about the proposed changes to the headrace. In the summer, areas of the Huron around Ann Arbor get so shallow that I have to get out of my canoe and pull it over the rocks. I don't think we need to add any more shallow areas to the river system in our area. I went to many of the planning meetings for the dam and was disappointed that people tried to turn this into an environmentalist vs rowers issue. I have seen the rowing community taking care of the park(as they should). Everyone who uses that park appreciates the environment there and wants to protect it. To act like the rowing community is the devil here is immature and makes the HRWC, who obviously love the park too, look bad. The city examined this for 5 years and its time to move forward with the repairs.

braggslaw

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.

From the HRWC ************** Argo Followers, For the past few months, city officials have been skirting a tough decision on Argo Dam. They have failed to pursue information about the real costs of keeping the dam, and the true options for removing it. They have not allowed for a public process. And now the city faces a massive, million-dollar renovation to the dammore than three times the budgeted cost. The state DNRE gave the city a November deadline to decide whether to remove Argo Dam or repair its failing toe drains. But instead of seeking information about both options, city staff were told only to solicit proposals for repairs. The city did not even ask basic questions about removal and what it would cost. That was a bad decision, because now that the repair bids have come in, the repair costs are two to three times higher than expected. The city had assumed that the costs would be $300,000. But when the real figures came in, the toe drain repairs alone were more than $700,000, and the city staff actually recommended an even more expensive option that will cost almost one million dollarsmore than 300% of what was budgeted. The city has not allocated enough money to pay these costs. Worse, the money that is budgeted comes from the drinking water fundeven though Argo Pond provides no drinking water for the city. In other words, money that should fund essential drinking water infrastructure is being funneled, without public input, to pay for a recreation facility. That's probably illegal and certainly short-sighted. For example, the city committed to a "source water protection plan" to ensure safe and clean drinking water for the future. That's exactly what the drinking water fund should be paying foryet the city has put no money toward the plan. Before the city devotes drinking water funds toward Argo, it should protect our drinking water. Those costs are high, and Argo will need even more major maintenance within two years. The estimated cost: another $250,000. Argo now faces between one and 1.2 million dollars in repairs over the next two yearsabove and beyond its normal costsand no one has explained how the city will afford it. How much would dam removal cost? The engineering firm used by the city for its dam work estimated $1.2 million for the entire project, from studies that ensure removal would be safe and effective to post-removal land restoration. Removing the dama one-time expensecosts the same as it would cost to keep the dam just for the next two years. And grant funding could slash the city's share of that burden. This year, local governments In Michigan on the Clinton and Rouge Rivers received federal funds to pay for dam removal. At the same time that we're learning the truth about Argo Dam's enormous costs, time has exposed several dam-in arguments for what they are: myths. Myth: Rowing won't work anywhere else: Skyline High is rowing right now on Geddes Pond. Eastern Michigan has invited UM to share a boathouse on Ford Lake. Myth: If Argo is removed, the Huron will flow into the contaminated DTE site: Barr Engineering, one of the state's most respected engineering firms, with extensive experience in dam removals, conducted an engineering study of the area and concluded that the channel would not move, and added that the site can be shielded for extra protection. Myth: Argo Dam can provide hydropower: Not unless you want to throw money away. A new cost-benefit study for the Army Corps of Engineers shows that hydro at Argo will cost $5-10 million dollars just to get started; the study basically concluded it's not worth the cost. The Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) is meeting next Tuesday, October 19th at 4:00 to decide on the reconstruction and repair costs and make a recommendation to Council. Please attend and make comments at the beginning of the meeting. PACs recommendation will go to City Council at a November meeting. Call or email city council. Tell PAC and City Council members that you are concerned about the costs, that the drinking water fund should be used only for its intended purposeto keep our drinking water safe and clean, and that they need to seriously consider the cost of dam removal. It is time for council, which has final say on the disposition of the dam and these costs, to figure out what the real choice is here.

SillyTree

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.

I'm not going to tell you how to vote twice, but it's not hard and it is almost certain that it is being done.

SillyTree

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 2:36 p.m.

As long as what? What was that last part. Come on.

David Cahill

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 2:24 p.m.

The poll results may also have changed because further comments here led later-voting folks to the conclusion that dam-in people were making better arguments. Also, there is nothing wrong with a "get out the vote" drive for this poll, as long as people only vote once. Such a poll is an excellent measure of the opinion of the more politically active types.

Hexagenia

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 1:57 p.m.

here is the reason: the huge swing happened in the evening, when school age kids were told by their rowing coaches to vote. Not that it really matters; the kids should be allowed to vote too. But it does reflect on the strange phenomenon that the dam-in supporters are able to rally their supporters pretty effectively while the dam-out supporters tend to be quieter.

SillyTree

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 11:05 a.m.

I messed that paragraph up pretty well. Here is is with typos fixed. I hope. The first 260 votes showed 70 votes for other choices. These are apparently the unbiased voters. They don't care or can't decide. Suddenly there numbers are reduced. The last (up to now) 320 votes show only 18 votes for other choices.

SillyTree

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.

Oops! I found another typo. In problem 1, it should have said that in the last 320 votes there were only 18 votes for other choices.

SillyTree

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 10:57 a.m.

That should have read: "does not use a proper sample."

SillyTree

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 10:55 a.m.

Internet polling is weak to start with. It does use a proper sample and now it appears that someone has made a great effort to get the vote out in favor of the dam. I don't know if a single person did this, or if a call went out to change the poll, but the fact that the opinions pretty much traded places between about 260 votes and 580 indicates something severe happened. Let's take a look at the math: I can't remember for sure, but I will be conservative. At 260 votes it was about 35% for dam in and 45% for dam out with the other 20% going to the other choices. Break down.35 x 260 = 91 people for dam in.45 x 260 = 117 people for dam out.20 x 260 = 52 people for other choices Now with 580 votes.51 x 580 = 296 people for dam in.36 x 580= 209 people for dam out.12 x 580 = 70 people for other choices (note: the poll does not show places beyond the decimal so the poll does not add to 100%.) There were 320 new votes. Of those last 320 votes there were 296 - 91 = 205 votes for dam in 209 - 117 = 92 votes for dam out 70 - 52 = 18 votes for other choices Let's look at the percentages of the last 320 votes. 205/320 = 64% for dam in 92/320 = 28 % for dam out 18/320 = 5% for other choices Even with the 3% missing due to rounding errors, there is something going on here that is strange. Problem 1. The first 260 votes showed 18 votes for other choices. These are apparently the unbiased voters. They don't care or can't decide. Suddenly there numbers are reduced. The last (up to now) 320 votes show only 180 votes for other choices. Problem 2. The vote became skewed toward "dam in" after the poll had been out for some time. It can be fairly safely assumed that the first people that voted in the poll were close to random. Once the poll had been out people had a chance to solicit votes or to tamper by placing multiple votes. Of course, there is a very, very small statistical probability that this was just a random swing.

SillyTree

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 10:54 a.m.

Killroy

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 9:45 a.m.

@ braggslaw, well said. Dam out!

Hexagenia

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 9:11 a.m.

Frank: "Will City Council be dilegent and responsible to research and review all of the actual TRUE facts and costs of this issue?" Frank, I disagree with keeping the dam in, but I certainly agree with you on this. We need the true facts and costs. That includes costs for taking the dam out as well as the different repair scenarios. As far as I know, the city hasn't gotten an estimate for dam out. How can we make an informed decision without that? We certainly can't rely on the wild guesses posed in these comments. The range of dam out costs is all over the board so how can we believe any of them? The city council needs to ask for bids for taking the dam out. Oh, and another issue that has come up: fixing the bridge on Stadium. Yes, it should be fixed, but failing to do so will not result in massive floods, millions of dollars in property damage, and ecological disaster. The dam must remain a priority.

Frank

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 8:50 a.m.

Dam IN. Will City Council be dilegent and responsible to research and review all of the actual TRUE facts and costs of this issue? Every seemingly well argued point or scientific fact for dam out can be countered with an equally stronger argument for dam in. In addition, this article states, "The HRWC points out Skyline High School's rowing team now uses Geddes Pond and is in talks with Concordia University about developing a rowing center out there." The Skyline Rowing coach then states, "Geddes Pond cannot support the entire rowing community, hence Skyline's move there. I am also intrigued about this rowing center 'we' are building with Concordia. That is the first I have heard of it." So where is the credibility with either HRWC or this article? How can we be assured City Council has all of the TRUE facts. Argo Pond and Bandemere is a park and an important part of our park system as well as a signature gateway into our city. It should be enhanced an improved and not converted to an unimpressive grassland and marsh similar to the Dexter former impoundment area. What will be the next controversey? Buhr Park, Gallop Park, Vets Park, (all gateways to the city) must be converted to condos due to lack of funds in the park system. Argo Pond and Bandemere are utilized and enjoyed by more than just rowers. It is a wonderful park area that includes a very diverse circuit trail around the pond. I wonder how many "dam out" advocates have ever hiked this trail. Also, the city spent substantial dollars constructing the wood framed section along the northeast segment of the pond. If the dam is removed, and the pond is gone, I assume this section becomes a wood framed trail surrounded by the new invasive species, with no river in site. We can call it our own "bridge" to no where. I support the proposal to re-design the headrace and eliminate the canoe portage. As the article states, this improves the canoe experience and could bring in more revenue. The scope of the work and how it is funded is for the council to decide. The fact that the cost has increased from what was estimated is partially due to the neglect of the city to properly maintain the area as required by the state. It's now time to face this and make a decision to protect a valuable gateway to Ann Arbor. I would like to see the views on this issue from all of the candidates currently seeking office.

Bob W

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.

So, when did the discussion of removal vs repair end? Did I miss something? Our great mayor, finding lots of folks on both sides of this not long ago, took the easy way out and tabled a decision "until later." I guess later slipped up on us, eh? I'm on the side of the dam should be removed. As for any "land grab" associated with that which is currently under water, would not intelligent folks consider that a flood zone?

Davidian

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 7:28 a.m.

@81Woverline: Let's assume your really high estimates are factual: Dam removal is still a permanent solution with tons of benefits and very few negatives, unless you are on priveleged kid that's on a rowing team.

Davidian

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 7:25 a.m.

@Braggslaw: 100% correct. Thank you.

braggslaw

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 6:03 a.m.

The pond "historical"? A free-flowing river restored to its natural state is more historical, healthier, and in the long more financially efficient. People keep beating around the bush thinking of reason to take the dam out or keep it. BUT when you pierce all the rhetoric it comes down to rowers versus everyone else.

DonBee

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 10:36 p.m.

@Epengar - In the last 5 years most low head dams have started to re-fit with tubular turbines. It would take work to put them in, but they are much higher efficiency than the old axial types. Also the interest rates on the DOE loans are about 1/4 of what they would have been in a study "a few years ago". Without all the numbers (daily flow rates, head, etc) I can not tell you what the payback is. But I have a model that with the numbers I can give you a payback time period (including regular maintenance and assuming power prices do not change). If you like I can include carbon avoidance in the payback calculation. @Hexagenia - 184,000 Cubic Yards of silt - assuming a 10% hazardous rate would end up being in the 1.8 to 3.6 million dollar range to remove, treat and dispose of. The limited sampling that has been done, does not mean that there are no issues. It has been 40 years since the pond was drained and dredged. In that time PCBs came and went, dioxane sources came and went and other plants on the river did too. Add people who did not want to pay to dispose of waste correctly and you have an almost 100% chance that at least some of the silt will end up being hazardous waste. In general leaving the silt in place results in property owners filing suit against the dam owner, so don't expect that the silt could be left in place and planted. State and Federal permits will be required to remove the dam, sample the site and re-hab the water course. Expect that the city will spend between $200,000 and $1,000,000 before any deconstruction starts. Sculpting a new river bed will probably required bringing in a reasonable amount of gravel, rock and sand. For a 15 foot wide water course, figure about 5 cubic yards per linear foot of water course. For 30 feet figure 18 cubic yards. (Without the GIS maps or topographical maps I am a loss to give you a stream plan) I doubt people would want a straight river, so figure 130 to 170 percent of the linear distance from the start of reclamation to the dam for a length. margin areas (shallow spawning areas and "frog flats" add to the amount of material and care that has to be taken. Depending on the care you want to take with the reconstruction it can take between $800 and $5,000 a linear foot to build a new stream bed, after the silt is removed. Want deep holes for trout fishing? That is extra (and normally opens a new can of worms for hazardous waste). There is not a lot of natural drop in the run of the pond (the total drop is equal to the height of the dam, so in most days you will get more of a lazy river than a white water area. Creating an artificial white water area required additional permits and in many case requires pumps to recirculate the water and raise the water level up stream, adding to the material required to build the stream banks. I am sorry I cannot give you exact numbers.

SalineDad

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:06 p.m.

The bridge is toast, the roads are in disrepair. The underground is far behind schedule, and all of a sudden a dam that had great inspections until recent is now a major concern. The dam is a historical treasure of architecture, plus the beautiful pond, and a place to meet and relax. Go to dexter and check out their wonderful steam, no wait its not worth it. River restoration people should try volunteer work to help humans in these hard times. oh yeah, clean energy.

Hospadaruk

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:05 p.m.

Time for my 2 cents? 1) Improving "conditions for kayakers and canoeists" would be best served by just taking out the dam. 2) Neither the $1 million or $700K option for fixing the dam includes the untold costs of maintaining it for the years to come! How otherwise are going to pay for Goldsmith's bridge? 3) Ms. Sabra Briere has evidently not looked at any of the information regarding the other venues that could just as easily support rowing. Like the Skyline rowing team already rowing out of Concordia. 4) None of the other sports teams in Ann Arbor high schools, expect the city to pay for their stadiums, courts, fields or other practice facilities. The city's drinking water fund needs to stop paying for high school rowing. 5) Just because a pond has been there since white folks came, doesn't make it a good thing. 6) It's always been about the rowing hasn't it?

Oscar Lavista

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:49 p.m.

I'm with Wystan.

Steve Bean

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:48 p.m.

The hydropower study for Argo and Geddes dams commissioned by the VA hospital was completed in September. According to the city's environmental coordinator, Matt Naud, the cost-benefit analysis had a similar result to the city's study from several years ago. From the report: "The analysis indicates that none of the alternatives have a benefit cost ratio greater than one and that hydropower development at Geddes Dam has the highest benefit cost ratio." Hexagenia, it's the drinking water fund, not a clean water fund, which is being tapped (sorry) to cover costs of Argo's maintenance. From p. 17 of the HRIMP report: "IM2- Maintenance Costs for Recreational Dams The Committee recommends that the City Council should: - Apportion recreation dam maintenance costs to more appropriate funds. - Implement the Drinking Water Sourcewater protection plan using funds made available from apportioning recreation dam maintenance costs. - Develop a long-term recreational maintenance fund for recreational impoundments. - Develop a cost sharing agreement with recreational user groups for maintenance of recreational dams and impoundments." City council has yet to act on ending the use of drinking water funds for dam maintenance more than a year after the committee's report and the commission's specific recommendation: "Resolved the Ann Arbor Environmental Commission recommends to the City Council that the funding for the repair and maintenance of the recreational dams (Argo and Geddes) not be funded from the Drinking Water Enterprise Fund". My thanks to Linda Diane Feldt for her constructive comment. To those who ask, 'Will all the other dams be removed?', my guess is that many of them will, both large and small, over the next few decades.

W.A.P. John

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:38 p.m.

I was there last Sunday...I saw marshy wetlands and a sliver of water...if I were a frog, I'd suppose I'd be happy...

Elaine F. Owsley

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 6:17 p.m.

Sorry, WAP John, but the mill pond in Dexter is no more. When the dam went, so did the pond. Come on out and take a look.

81wolverine

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 5:37 p.m.

Davidian, Gabriel, Hexagenia: Anyone who thinks removal of the dam will cost a few hundred thousand dollars is like an Ostrich sticking their head in the sand. Here is where I come up with $4 to $4.5 million for dam removal - and again I am being conservative as I believe there are other hidden costs that no one has identified yet: * $1 million to remove the physical dam, headrace, earthen berm, and restore just these areas alone. * $1 million to build a new pedestrian bridge spanning the river where the Argo Dam used to be. The original study indicated around $550K, but like the toe drain estimate of $300K, I believe this estimate to be severely understated. * $1 to $1.5 million to remove toxic sediment from the bottom of Argo Pond, the MichCon site, and other areas PLUS restore reclaimed land with native plants. This is in line with the low-ball estimates provided by the parks planning group. * $500,000 for land and building a new boat house for the rowing community which will be displaced by removing the dam. * $500,000 for restoring access points and infrastructure along the path of the river abutting Argo (docks, paths, RR crossing, signage, etc.) And this does not even address the extra planning, engineering, and public employee labor costs all this will involve. Again, I'd say my estimates are conservative given the high costs of environmental-related construction work today.

David Cahill

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 5:27 p.m.

I think folks should consider an Argo Pond Historic District, since the pond stretches back almost two centuries. The APHD would principally include the pond itself, the dam (i.e., the concrete structure that everyone except the HRWC thinks of as "the dam"), the millrace, and the embankment. It would not include any of the private residences abutting the pond, or the commercial property near Broadway. By establishing the APHD, the City would be recognizing that the pond is a feature with history that should not be tampered with. Sabra says that she doesn't approve this idea. However, it's still a good one. Dam in.

lefty48197

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 5:22 p.m.

Why don't you fix that bridge near the football stadium instead?

David Cahill

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 4:28 p.m.

I hadn't realized that Argo Pond itself is of historic significance. Definite food for thought.

Epengar

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 4:23 p.m.

Don Bee, retention area by itself is not a good basis for comparison with other projects. By "EPA issues" I assume you mean sediments, especially sediments contaminated with chemical pollution. They city had a study done in 2002, by Barr Engineering. They concluded: "There are roughly 184,000 CY of sediment deposited in the pond. There appears to be no major contamination of the sediments. The sediments may be acceptable as vegetated soils at the surface if Argo Pond were to be drained. However, as this project moves forward, more detailed sampling may be required by the MDEQ." The report is available from the city website: http://www.a2gov.org/GOVERNMENT/PUBLICSERVICES/SYSTEMS_PLANNING/ENVIRONMENT/HRIMP/Pages/PublicMeetingsandBackgroundDocuments.aspx As a general reminder, the City's Environmental Commission had a "Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan" prepared for it in 2009. There were public meetings and lots of background documents prepared for that project. Lots of information available at the link above.

Hexagenia

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 3:08 p.m.

@DonBee - since you are checking into this, could you give us something more exact than "millions of dollars"? I think that would help frame the discussion a little more precisely.

braggslaw

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 3:03 p.m.

The Dexter Dam removal was an enormous success. The removal of Argo will be an even bigger success. Gravel bottom, high gradient water with gamefish. etc. Dam out

DonBee

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 2:44 p.m.

@Davidian - I just checked on 3 other dam removals that my firm has been involved in. By the time the EPA issues were solved, each of them required millions of dollars in remediation. Two were about the retention area of Argo. Removing just the dam will easily eat your budget, and that assumes the rubble will be used in the local area to line the stream banks.

Hexagenia

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 2:10 p.m.

Speechless: "In that previous post, I was exclusively referencing HRWC's insistence on removing the (otherwise sound) Argo dam immediately not the pending Michigan DNRE requirement that the city must finally respond to the issue of embankment maintenance." It has been clear for quite a while now that the dam/embankment needed some type of repair. This was stated initially in a report done by the DEQ. Follow up reports found that the problem rested specifically on the embankment and toe drains rather than the dam itself. So, it was clear from the start of this issue that a major repair was going to be needed, and needed soon. The opinion of what needed to be fixed has changed as more information was gathered, but certainly the city was going to have to spend a lot of money. HRWC's position is that since the city is spending all of this money anyway, we should do what is right for the health of the river and take the dam out entirely, removing liability and future repair costs. My point is, this whole debate has always been urgent from the very start. It is disingenuous to say that HRWC has been rushing an issue that doesn't need to be rushed. This issue DOES need to be rushed. If I lived downstream of the failing embankment, I would want this issue taken care of immediately! The new reported costs of the repair, coming in twice as much as was anticipated, makes the dam-out option all the more appealing in my opinion.

Davidian

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 2 p.m.

These oulandish speculations about dam removal costs...last estimate I read was $250-500,000 for a permanent solution. The artificial white water in the upper race? It will silt in within 10 years, given the hydrology of the pond. The argument that it's a fixture of Ann Arbor industry and recreation? There is no industry left and little recreation on the actual pond because it is devoid of meaningful gamefish, filthy to swim in, and hard to share with the crew team. It is obsolete and only a select few get to actually enjoy it. The Dexter Dam comparison, where a trickle runs through a field of weeds? That's a creek. This is a large river. There will be a few years where the river will "re-adjust." But it's not a valid comparison. It's a money pit. Roads and bridges in town need desperate attention. I understand sentimentality, but I understand economic realities better. On top of that, it will be much cleaner and healthier. Those who truly want a green environment should walk the walk. Dam out.

Kit Bennett

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 1:57 p.m.

I should probably correct myself...Argo cannot support the entire rowing community, hence Skyline's move to Geddes. Geddes also cannot support the entire community either. Therefore UM's, Huron's, Pioneer's and Ann Arbor Rowing Clubs options are very limited if the dam were to be removed.

Kit Bennett

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 1:27 p.m.

Geddes Pond cannot support the entire rowing community, hence Skyline's move there. I am also intrigued about this rowing center 'we' are building with Concordia. That is the first I have heard of it. Kit Bennett Head Coach Skyline Crew Team

Speechless

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 1:24 p.m.

"... Speechless, the urgency comes from the requirement that the dam be maintained now, not decades from now...." Sorry for any confusion. In that previous post, I was exclusively referencing HRWC's insistence on removing the (otherwise sound) Argo dam immediately &mdash; not the pending Michigan DNRE requirement that the city must finally respond to the issue of embankment maintencance.

SonnyDog09

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 1:06 p.m.

So, Plan A costs $1million, while Plan B costs $700K. Does the city ever choose the less expensive option?

Mick52

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 12:45 p.m.

Wystan, thanks for the post, very informative. I agree with the historic aspect and I would hate to see what I have come to consider an asset disappear.

Hexagenia

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 12:41 p.m.

There are a lot of numbers thrown around here about the cost of removing the dam. 1 million? 2.3? 4? 10? See, no one knows. Everyone is guessing. And how can we make an informed decision without the city requesting an estimate for the removal??? If we want to make the right decision, that is what we need now. Also, the history of Argo Dam is interesting but irrelevant. A lot of environmental mistakes were made 180 years ago. Just because something was done a long time ago doesn't mean it is too late to make the right decision this time.

Killroy

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 12:23 p.m.

81wolverine, 4-5 million to remove the dam? Are you serious? How about 2.3 million and using the rubble to create a course for kayaking and great places for fish to spawn? Sell dam doors for scrap and we're all set!

blahblahblah

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 12:19 p.m.

The redesigned headrace looks like it might contain a little bit of a whitewater element with the elevation change involved. If so, then the redesign should include a spot for tubers and kayakers to get out at the bottom of the headrace (perhaps under the footbridge) so they can walk back down the newly "paved" footpath for another go through the rapids.

Epengar

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 12:05 p.m.

Speechless, the urgency comes from the requirement that the dam be maintained now, not decades from now, and that costs serious money, as would the additional maintenance each decade from now. Don Bee, a few years ago the city paid an engineering firm to determine the feasibility of restoring hydroelectric generation at Argo and Geddes Dams (we already generate power at Barton Dam, and I think at Superior Dam). The study found that it would take at decades (I think the number was about 45 years) for the revenue from generation to match the costs. I've been ambiguous about dam removal with respect to recreation and ecological health, but one thing I am adamant about. The city SHOULD NOT be using drinking water funds to pay for any dam work on the river except Barton (where the water intakes are). Water and sewer infrastructure is far more important than Argo Dam, present or absent.

Speechless

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 11:30 a.m.

Back to some basics: The Argo Dam's concrete structure, by all reports, remains in excellent shape. That is not at issue. The current structural problem, which has been known fo a while, only involves drain and soil conditions along the embankment, which lies immediately east of the dam itself. Here, the city has dragged its feet for a number of years, allowing this relatively modest problem to fester through deferred maintenance. Barring a fabulous proposal to generate hydro-energy (one that makes it worth the trouble), the Argo Dam will one day come down. But a question often raised by the skeptics is this: Why such great urgency right now? What's so wrong with waiting another decade or three? There has been a dam at this spot for over 150 years, and the river will easily survive for another 10-20-30 years, if need be, with the dam still in. While I assume the health of the river will improve after dam removal sometime in the future, the higher cost is not any kind of priority at this time, during a Great Recession. There's been public concern that removal is partially driven by commercial interests. Given how very much the city has cut back on park maintenance in general, the only way to finance dam removal and land reclamation, other than a possible city income tax, will be through selling or leasing sizeable pieces of Argo's newly-expanded park space after the dam is gone.

DonBee

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.

If Ann Arbor wants to be greener, then if they fix the dam, they should also install higher efficiency turbines. They will pay for the repairs and the turbines in a few years. There is a Department of Energy loan program for this kind of an upgrade. If they take the dam out, there are 18 other dams in the main water course and another 70 in the various parts of the watershed that the Council would then have to attack. Removing the silt from the pond area would probably take at least a full summer and anyone in the area would probably want to leave during the removal. Homes immediately downstream would probably want to think about flood walls along the river front if they are close to water level. I would not be surprised if between the state and federal inspectors, that we end up with a $10 or 12 million dollar bill by the time the dam is completely out and the land reclaimed. In total it would make a few miles of the river more "natural" but because of the downstream dams, it would not improve the ability for the river to support trout spawning from the Great Lakes. I would be happy to see the dam come out, if all the downstream dams were also coming out and something like Hines park was done for the water front all along the river. Unless someone can do that, I think taking the dam out solves very little and creates larger problems and costs.

Bcar

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 11:16 a.m.

I think the city should look into making an urban whitewater park. its been done in several locations, helps to control river flow, brings in $$$ to the city as well... Its possible to 'remove' the dam, but over several smaller 1-2ft drops that equal the large drop the dam creates. no more costly dam to maintain, keeps the rowers happy, and also creates a new sport for our city that will only bring more people/$$$ to play! www.boaterparks.com

Wystan Stevens

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 11:12 a.m.

The pond now called Argo has been a fixture of the local landscape since 1832, when Anson Brown erected a grist mill beside an early wooden version of the Broadway Bridge, and built the first dam to hold water back to power the mill. (Born a New Yorker, Brown started the settlement known as Lower Town Ann Arbor, calling Broadway and Wall Street after thoroughfares in New York City. Brown owned the mill, but was not the miller, and he died in the cholera epidemic of 1834.) An internet search wont find early 19th-century references to Argo, because the pond didnt have that name until 1892, when a group of Ann Arbor businessmen, investors in the Michigan Milling Company, took over the operation (then known as the Sinclair Mills) and rebuilt the structure that they named the Argo Flouring Mills. The dam and pond took their name from the mills, but no one knows where that name came from. Did the mills golden grain suggest a comparison to the brave ship Argo of Greek myth, which bore Jason and his men in search of the Golden Fleece? (The Michigan Milling Company had its offices at the Central Mills on First Street, where the Blind Pig is now and where, Im told, a certain golden liquid flows a beverage made from grain.) Through the decades, the dam was rebuilt a few times (and probably made a little higher, after the Eastern Michigan Edison Company acquired the water rights). But in a freak calamity that drew a crowd of spectators, the Argo mill exploded and burned on January 4, 1904. Firemen came, and the water that doused the flames left a white pall of icicles on the tall buildings ruined skeleton, a scene captured in dramatic photographs. The companys plutocrat investors decided not to rebuild, and a picturesque milling era we might call it the Flouring of Ann Arbor came to an end. From Argos ashes rose the Phoenix of a new era of power generation. Within a few years, the company later known as Detroit Edison had erected a power generating station on the mill site, running its turbines and generators with water from the millrace. Three weeks after the mill disaster, on January 27, 1904, the Ann Arbor Railroads trestle collapsed, dropping a heavy freight train and its cargo onto the ice of Argo Pond. In the days that followed, parties of gawkers turned out for that spectacle too, including small boys like the late Ray Spokes, who went out onto the ice and looted water-soaked crates of Beemans Pepsin Gum. The inadequate early trestle which stood close to the dam got replaced months later with another of thick steel, on massive concrete piers, a landmark still in place. (That year, 1904, was a bad one at both ends: on the last day of December, the Ann Arbor High School burned to the ground.) Throughout the 19th century, and early decades of the 20th, winter ice was harvested on Argo Pond, and stored in great blocks in straw-lined ice houses on the Main Street riverbank. Some of the ice buildings were owned by downtown caterers like Jacob Hangsterfer, whose big emporium depended on a steady supply of ice to preserve meats and other perishables, and to refresh thirsty customers at his ballroom, year round. Another enterprising German immigrant was Paul G. Tessmer, who in 1898 sold his grocery business and opened a boat livery the U. of M. Boat House on the ponds Main Street side. By 1906, Tessmer had a stock of 160 canoes and 40 rowboats, all built by himself. He and his big family lived in a house on Sunset hill, overlooking the pond a building that became the Elks Pratt Lodge. Tessmers docks and boathouse later were moved across the pond, to the foot of Longshore Drive, and became William J. Saunders canoe livery, then Jack Wirths, until 1969, when the Ann Arbor parks department took over. On moonlit evenings in June, the pond was jammed with U-M students in canoes, boys in blazers treating their sweethearts to a mandolin serenade. Around 1900, these romantics began calling the path along the headrace embankment Lovers Lane. (In the 1930s and 40s, the embankment became part of Ann Arbors hobo jungle.) One of the citys public works projects during the Depression years was the building of a public bathing beach at the foot of Longshore Drive, where the canoe livery is now. Tons and tons of Lake Michigan white sand were hauled in and spread around, to make the beach comfortable and pretty. Repeated summer polio scares in the 1940s eventually led to its closing. The pond was drained in 1930, when Edison built a new dam, and again in the early 1970s, when Joe ONeals construction company built the present dam for the city a project completed in 1972. Treasure hunters prowled the muck for artifacts, and collectors found old Ann Arbor bottles for their collections. Construction workers pulled a particularly heavy souvenir out of the mud: a set of ribbed steel wheels, from one of the boxcars that fell off the old railroad trestle in 1904! Argo Pond is an essential element of the history of Ann Arbor; it helps define our citys character. In historical terms, Ann Arbor has always had that pond, has grown up around it, and would not be the same without it. Some folks have called it stagnant, but of course that is absurd. It is a dynamic body, as dynamic as the city itself. The waters of the Huron have flowed since time began, and they have been flowing through the pond and over the dam, ever since Ann Arbor was a tiny village in the wilderness west of Detroit. By all means let us maintain momentum, improve the ponds surroundings, clear out shabby factory buildings on North Main Street, and replace them with an attractive multi-use facility, one which includes cafes and a dining terrace that overlooks trees and water. It is a view to be enjoyed in every season. But let us not rashly sacrifice our beloved Argo Pond, Ann Arbors urban waterfront. Argo is an asset, an amenity of the type that other communities long for. We should consider every means of enhancing access to it, and keeping its shining surface intact. Dont pull the plug on Argo dont let it go down the drain. My enjoyment of the river has been passive. I havent been out in a boat, havent stopped to watch the oarsmen, never even dipped a toe in Argo Pond but I appreciate Argos contribution to the quality of life in this place, and I like to see it now and then, and know that it is there. I hope that it will forever remain in the heart of our city, where it has been bubbling and rippling for 178 years.

Hexagenia

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 11:06 a.m.

looks like the poll was removed. was it too risqu or did it just not address the issue properly?

David Cahill

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 10:50 a.m.

Sorry, I don't see the poll. Has it been removed?

Mick52

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 10:19 a.m.

I think it would be silly to remove the dam. The Argo pond area is beautiful and like blahbalh said its a great sight for people coming into A2. Taking the dam out might eliminate canoeing/kayaking and fishing, all long time recreational uses that people enjoy. I like the plan, go for it. Its better than the toe drain idea and less expensive than the removal. Also, we know how the area acts now. If the dam is removed and something bad happens such as noted by Ms. Briere, what then? Any unintended consequences will fall squarely on the shoulders of the decision makers here so the best way to go is the safest and the one that enhances the sight and use of the river.

SillyTree

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 10:03 a.m.

Why did the vote not include choices for toe drain repair and new headrace design? That is what the headline indicated to be the article's topic.

Eep

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:59 a.m.

All of these people with special interests are placing the city in a position where they are dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't.

Top Cat

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:59 a.m.

Anyone who really thinks that there will be catastrophic results from removing this dam needs to go to Dexter and have a look. The only question is when, not if, this dam comes out and how much is spent in the interim to patch a lost cause.

foobar417

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:43 a.m.

Dam in / dam out. I just want them to put in a paved bike trail linking Bandemere Park to Riverside Park along the millrace. The dirt path that's there now is bad, made much, much worse by the recent work (which I realize isn't done). There's now a section so sandy and sloped you have to walk your bike over it.

SillyTree

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.

@Linda Diane Feldt You have the best post yet.

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:32 a.m.

Argo Pond is an unattractive, stagnant relic of the past. It serves no purpose beyond rowing, and that can be done elsewhere. Why spend money repairing a purposeless dam? Don't forget the additional regular cost of removing the built up silt and cutting the overgrown weeds that fill Argo. If the dam were not there would anyone really say that we should build one? No. Get rid of it, save lots of money in the long run and enjoy the free running river.

Linda Diane Feldt

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:22 a.m.

@Bob Florka wrote: "there are 97 dams on the Huron River. 97. Removing Argo would be a pointless gesture." This is a misleading statement that needs to be corrected. There are 19 dams along the river (that wikipedia report matches my memory). I've portaged them all. All relatively easy, except for Flat Rock which is nearly impossible. The ninety some dams mentioned are primarily creeks and tributaries, lakes and other streams that make up the watershed. Some are just a few feet high, some are more substantial. The very large dams like Argo, Barton, Flat Rock, Superior, Penninsular, substantially change the natural flow of the river. Removing any one of them would have a huge impact. I am in favor of Dam out, but more importantly want the discussion returned to a reasonable fair and open process. With great information, public input, an accurate investigation of costs and options, using science and also weighing the uses and intrinsic values. We can make this a good decision process, rather than a shouting match. It is important to make a good informed decision,for the overall health of the Huron River and the watershed, as well as for the enjoyment of those of us who are in on or near the river regularly, and for our neighbors up and downstream.

Hexagenia

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:10 a.m.

Speechless "Meanwhile, the HRWC's total "predicted" costs for removing the Argo Dam appears wildly underestimated. Just more self-serving propaganda." I'm sorry, I have to keep on calling out these bad, unfair internet arguments. HRWC does not have a self-serving propaganda. The group is a non-profit. They are not pulling in money off this debate, nor will they ever. Their interest is in the health of the river. They represent a large group of people interested in removing the dam. In no way is this self-serving. Please stop slipping in these little phrases attempting to undermine the reputation of this organization! It is fine with me if you think that dam should stay in, but use logic and science in your arguments rather than ad hominem attacks.

blahblahblah

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.

This stretch of open water is a beautiful land mark within our city. In addition to providing a wide variety of recreational uses (not just rowing) it also serves as a welcoming vista to all the motorists entering and leaving the city from North Main (a beautiful gateway as others have called it). Although politically incorrect to say within our city, the "future" development potential of the North Main corridor is huge. Long Shore Dr. is the only street level (cars and peds) rail road crossing within the entire city for the rail line that parallel's the river. As the only legal access point from the south side of the river, that immediate area should eventually be a prime candidate for rezoning to allow for mixed retail and residential development. Other cities embrace their open water with a mix of parks, boardwalks and some retail opportunities to "dine on the water". I imagine North Main as a potential "Depot Town", a destination location for park users and diners, not just a long extended on-ramp to US -23.

Davidian

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.

Zags is 100% dead on.

Davidian

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 8:54 a.m.

Dam needs to go. And in another 25-30 years, this will start all over again. In the mean time, there could be a flood that wipes all of this out; what then? These happen every 40 years or so, and we are due. Other than rowing, recreational activities (i.e. fishing/canoeing/kayaking) would be greatly enhanced if the dam was removed. It would improve the look (and smell) of the area. Think Delhi over and over again. I'm sorry folks, the needs of the priveleged few (i.e. rowing teams) do not outweigh the extreme cost and high risk of this project in context with the economic climate. It has to go. There is simply no justification for continuously dumping (literally) millions of dollars into this albatross when there is nothing to gain!

zags

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 8:50 a.m.

I love how some of you try to paint an idyllic picture of quiet rowers slipping through the water. Have you ever tried to fish or canoe Argo pond when it's being used by the crew teams? How about the kids in the crew motor boats zipping up and down the pond with their loud motors and their wakes rocking your boat. Plus their bull horns shouting between boats. Not so much fun. I guess no one notices the 20 motor boats tied up at the crew dock. In reality, Argo pond exists for the crew teams and their vocal minority. Let them pay for it.

Speechless

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 8:45 a.m.

The estimated cost for fixing the toe drains sounds artificially inflated. I'll bet that these contractor bids allow for some pretty hefty profit margins. Meanwhile, the HRWC's total "predicted" costs for removing the Argo Dam appears wildly underestimated. Just more self-serving propaganda. Do we now witness a final, rear-guard attempt to approve dam removal and commence a land grab for areas currently under water? When costs for removing the dam (were it to be done) turn out to be multiple times higher than HRWC's numbers, will city council then turn around and tell us that we must sell or lease large chunks of the "recovered" park land to commercial interests in order to balance the municipal budget? Yes, the dam will one day be removed, but at least not until the actual steel and concrete structure itself requires complete replacement. The currently controversial embankment area off to one side is a separate, smaller matter. Lastly, it's entirely inappropriate to bring up the Stadium bridge in this context. The enormous cost for replacing that particular item is in another league altogether. Argo embankment repair cannot even begin to compare.

Hexagenia

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 8:45 a.m.

AlphaAlpha "Once again the radical HRWC is way out of touch with the wishes of the majority; their views are over-represented in these discussions." I have to disagree with this; so far, the dam-in proponents are very much pushing the comments in this section. And it is an unfair argument to brand an organization as "radical". What is radical about HRWC? They believe in clean water, they are well respected throughout the state, recognized as one of the leaders in water issues in Michigan, receiving numerous grants from federal and state sources, actually lead a state run program in teaching other people how to monitor their waters, etc. Characterizing a group as "radical" just because you don't agree with them is such a typical internet thing to do and really degrades the discussion. We don't know exact numbers of who is dam-in and dam-out, but there is obviously pretty big numbers on all sides. "Radical" implies that HRWC is the only group wanting the dam out, and that is just not true. Alan Goldsmith: "HRWC has been less that 'complete' in the 'facts' they've presented about the Argo Dam in the past." This simply is not true. This statement leads one to believe that HRWC has outright lied about the issue. HRWC has read and used state reports about the condition of the dam. If other reports have surfaced contradicting those original reports, it does not mean that HRWC has been maliciously lying. It means there are conflicting reports released by engineering and state agencies. HRWC is not connected to creating the material in these reports. Many people on these comments have commented about the "beauty" of the river. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I suppose. I would prefer running water to stagnant, a rocky stream bed to a mucky one, and smallmouth bass instead of carp. And just because the dam is taken out does not mean people can't still enjoy their property or their walks around the area. I think they will enjoy it even more, and maybe even be able to get into the water themselves and experience the joy of running water instead of muck and weeds. Finally, why is the money for these repairs coming out of the clean water fund? How is the dam promoting clean water? From what I can see, the dam in promoting a recreational activity. That should NOT come from tax money devoted to clean water.

Dennis

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.

There are other dams on the Huron River, are we to take them all out and "return the river to it's natural state"??? Argo Dam Pond is used and appreciated by many more people than "high school crew teams and thier militant supporters" We humans have changed the landscape of the Earth, it cannot be "returned to its natural state" (are we to remove all expressways and buildings??). Therefore let us at least have this small area (Argo Pond) to enjoy and appreciate. Fix the Dam, Save the Pond!! And also, the Stadium Bridges need to be fixed too, BOTH need to be fixed, NOT one or the other!!

Bob Florka

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.

HRWC has no credibility because they are misleading the public. Argo Pond is the best practical site for rowing in Ann Arbor. Skyline does not row there out of choice; Skyline had to go elsewhere, even though there is less rowable water, because Argo Pond could not support another team. As it is, even though Argo is the best site, it is barely adequate. Imagine what it would be like for someone training to run the mile being forced to stop after every half mile, pause, turn around, and then start again. That's what the rowers are forced to do on Argo, and all other proposed venues are even shorter and have a multitude of other issues (no room for a boathouse, no parking, etc.) According to HRWC, there are 97 dams on the Huron River. 97. Removing Argo would be a pointless gesture. And besides, the truth is that ship has sailed. The Dam is staying. The head race will be repaired to benefit paddlers. And all users of Argo -- fishermen, paddlers, rowers, hikers and others will continue to enjoy its benefits.

SillyTree

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 8:23 a.m.

Without an intact headrace, I don't see how "green" energy can come from Argo. Aren't the turbines in the DTE building? My soul is soothed by both open water and marshland as well as other things. Is the AMTRAK the "Soul Train?" I hope that someday fishing peoples and kayakers can live in peace. Some people actually kayak and fish at the same time. So they don't have a "sole" purpose in their use of the river. Berlin wall? Really? O dear, we can't be having that now. The dam looks a little more like the Berlin wall than marshland, but I still wouldn't compare the two.

wendyo

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:39 a.m.

I'm with W.A.P. on the open water and how wonderful it is to have such a jewel of a park (Bandemere) near our downtown. Not all those who support the pond are crew teams and their "militant" supporters, by the way...though I do love to watch them practice when I'm walking my dog. Keep the dam!

JSA

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:35 a.m.

Let's see. 1 million grant for transportion center, 1 million for Argo Dam and these jokers still can't fix the Stadium Blvd. bridges. There is definitely something wrong with the council and their priorities.

loran

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:29 a.m.

It seems to me that the long term cost of maintening the dam (and the tow drains) should be taken into consideration. The numbers shown here are only short term costs. I could imagine that removing the dam could be more cost effective on the long run. Another thing to take into consideration : I am sure the owners of the "rather nice" houses on the north side of the pond are not too excited by the idea to lose their access to the pond. I can't imagine that these people are not trying to influence the decision. Maybe it has been done already, since the city has not even bother to ask for a quote for the dam removal.

Raggety Andy

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:18 a.m.

Take out the dam. Please do not allow a small minority (the high school crew teams and their militant supporters) set the agenda and make decisions that affect the health of the ecosystem and citizenry of the this town. if the michcon site is an issue CLEAN IT UP, which should be done anyway. Oh yeah, and when garner the guts to resist this small but loud minority, take down the dam and clean up the michcon site with UNION LABOR. good paying jobs, with good benefits and job security create more demand in the our consumption based economy. Which then by extension creates more and more demand, helping to lift this state out of our current depression. Support Union Labor!

W.A.P. John

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:17 a.m.

Rowers provide beauty and grace to park walkers and motorists most every day of decent weather...6am or 6pm, they're out there...Those stuck in traffic find momentary calm in the solitary rowers as they slip through the dark and often foggy water...The DDA can put a fancy "signature welcoming sign" as one comes into town, but so can Plymouth and Farmington Hills...but viewing a pair of 8s, crewed by earnest rowers, puts us in the company of the great civilized cities of the world...something no sign can do...

81wolverine

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:17 a.m.

The hugely higher costs to fix the toe drains supports what I've been saying in the discussions on this site for the last year. The total cost to remove the dam is WAY higher than what the dam-out proponents have led everyone to believe. $1 million to remove the dam is not even close. Try more like $4 to $4.5 million total cost (at least) which will include the cost of taking the dam out, clean up of sediments and pollution in the pond area/Michcon, building a whole new pedestrian bridge across the river, restoring plant life in the reclaimed land, restoring infrastructure along the river, and moving the rowing community. And I'm probably missing some costs too. I think the plan to re-do the headrace and berm looks good. It solves the problems for the kayakers and canoers, and improves the aesthetics of the area. I think the Argo Pond area is beautiful, offers a wonderful recreation area close to downtown, and gives our successful high school/adult rowing teams a convenient place to row. Decide to keep Argo Dam and be done with it.

W.A.P. John

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7:10 a.m.

Open water soothes all souls...Argo has an aesthetic beauty unmatched by marshy wetlands. The calm vistas, and cool breezes attract hundreds of runners, walkers and dog owners on nice days...To replace the serenity of an open water view with a Berlin Wall of marsh grass would be a mistake. The view of mill pond in Dexter can't compare to the view from Bandimeir.

Kim

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 7 a.m.

What about the amenity for people who fish? as well as for the kayakers and canoeists. If one I am a little tired of the attitudes of the people who uses kayak and canoes, as I had them cut right across my lines when fishing.

DagnyJ

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 6:57 a.m.

Forget the dam, and fix the Stadium bridge.

zags

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 6:55 a.m.

Get rid of the dam. Restore the river. The pond will be a footnote to history.

AlphaAlpha

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 5:55 a.m.

We're keeping the dam; let's fix it right, the first time. Once again the radical HRWC is way out of touch with the wishes of the majority; their views are over-represented in these discussions. And let's get some green energy generated with it. A huge resource awaits...

InsideTheHall

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 : 5:30 a.m.

Did the bidding process allow for non-union labor?