Argo Dam quarrel with DEQ could cost Ann Arbor $38,000
Ann Arbor officials plan to spend up to $38,000 fighting with the state over a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality safety order to address problems with Argo Dam.
The DEQ is asking the city to complete about $300,000 worth of repairs to the dam's toe drains and earthen embankment or completely remove the dam, but the city has been contesting that order.
The Argo Dam is at the center of a debate between the city of Ann Arbor and the Michigan DEQ that could cost the city $38,000 in legal fees.
File photo
The City Council on Thursday night voted unanimously to approve a potentially $38,000 contract with Bodman LLP for legal services related to the DEQ's order.
The law firm estimates that's what it will take to defend the city in hearings before an administrative law judge in Lansing, including the possibility of taking the case to circuit court. The money will come from the city's Water Supply Fund.
Before approving the expenditure, council members debated the appropriateness of using money that comes from water bills paid by city residents and businesses. The Water Supply Fund currently pays for the operations and maintenance of Argo Dam, which some city officials don't believe is appropriate. Some say its costs should be absorbed by the city's parks department, since it serves only recreational purposes at this point in time.
"There's been some discussion about the future funding of the cost and expenses for Argo Dam," City Administrator Roger Fraser acknowledged at Thursday's meeting.
Fraser said Argo Dam was left over from a time when it used to produce hydroelectricity, but that hasn't been the case for years. Now, it mostly serves as a means of making Argo Pond available for canoeists and kayakers.
The Veterans Administration currently is evaluating reintroduction of hydropower at one or more Ann Arbor dams, including Argo, and has commissioned a feasibility study. That could potentially impact the council’s decision on what to do with the dam.
The DEQ issued its safety order on Aug. 6, demanding the city take certain action by certain dates, including the dewatering of the 1,500-foot headrace behind an earthen embankment that extends from the concrete portion of Argo Dam. The order also required the city to make a decision whether to repair or demolish the dam.
City officials point out that the DEQ did not observe or document any change in conditions to necessitate the order. Although city staff has met with the DEQ to seek clarifications and to determine whether the dewatering of the headrace would satisfy its concerns, the DEQ has not revised the order other than to grant a partial 90-day stay.
City officials argue the order does not address the impact of dewatering the headrace or the removal of the purple turtlehead that grows on a portion of the embankment. Whether the city decides to keep or remove Argo Dam, city officials claim the DEQ's order imposes deadlines on the city that are not required by law or regulation and are not based on the dam's actual conditions.
The procedure for challenging the DEQ order required the city to file a contested case within 60 days of the order, which was Oct. 5. The contested case procedure includes an opportunity for negotiations with the DEQ before the case continues in hearings in an administrative law court.
A decision in the near future by the City Council to keep or remove Argo Dam may simplify some of the issues and proceedings, Chief Assistant City Attorney Abigail Elias told council members Thursday. However, such a decision will not eliminate all of the issues or the need to go forward with the contested case.
Elias said Bodman was hired to handle the case based on the firm's environmental experience and expertise, including experience with the DEQ contested case process and, in particular, experience and familiarity with dam environmental issues.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Rork Kuick
Wed, Nov 11, 2009 : 3:24 p.m.
I'm only semi-sympathetic, and may be atypical in that respect. I think rowing should take place in areas suitable for that practice, and if Argo is the only place around here, then this area is not good for rowing. I can't downhill ski to my liking here, and I can't fish Tarpon either, cause it's not good for that here. I miss mountaineering too. Should we salt up the river so we can have tarpon - no. Should we dam our river to have rowing - no, and for the same reason - it's about the environment. (That can be translated into costs in theory, but the calculation is a difficult one.) We should plan for the river to be here another thousand years minimum, so our responsibility is enormous, and our hobbies are trivia. I don't speak for any paddlers other than myself, but will bet that most of them would accept never being able to boat on that reach, as long as we do the right thing and start removing the dam. We aren't primarily asking for a playground to suit our pastimes - you are.
JBlackburn
Wed, Nov 11, 2009 : 2:34 p.m.
Sorry Rowers but the river ecology is more important that your recreation. Look to the experts on this topic, both locally and nationally and you will find that the river ecosystem is better off without the dam.
DD
Mon, Nov 9, 2009 : 3:18 p.m.
Note to Huron River Paddler: I have been reading your postings for weeks now, and I repect your emphasis on documentation. I have gone to the places you've suggested to read the research you reference. Most of it from the HRWC is sincere if incomplete. What no one there or throughout the HRIMP process has been able to document with even a hint of research is their claim from the beginning that there were other places for the active Ann Arbor rowing community to relocate. Please contact the Barton Hills Board and the township board responsible for Bellville Lake and ask them if they have been contacted by anyone from the HRWC or any other group for that matter. Then ask what the chances are of accommodating the extensive rowing facilities that already exist on Argo Pond. Next, please examine the reality of relocating rowing to the Geddes Dam impoundment. What you'll find is that Laura Rubin's claim in her now famous Ann Arbor News Opinion piece that "moving rowing won't be easy or fun" in fact grossly understates the problem. Moving rowing will not be possible. If you had only one paddling venue and that venue was threatened for reasons that this lengthy debate about Argo has proven are far from thoroughly vetted, you would be asking different questions. Once you look into it, you will discover that taking the dam out would mean the end of rowing here in Ann Arbor. I wonder if you would agree to make that sacrifice if it were your paddling sport that was the one that would disappear. As a fellow non-motorized water sport lover, you must see that there is a price to pay for rowers that is much higher than any of the folks who advocate for dam removal are willing to acknowledge.
Huron River Paddler
Mon, Nov 9, 2009 : 11:45 a.m.
"It has been made very clear that there is no federal or state funds for removal of urban dams, especially urban dams that have dams a couple of miles up and down stream, meaning there will only be a few extra minutes of free flow prior to the water hitting Gallup dam." Michael - it's far from clear that this is the case. What information are you using to draw this conclusion? Over 400 dams have been removed in the US since 1999, a feat to restore rivers that can only be accomplished with financial assistance.
Rork Kuick
Mon, Nov 9, 2009 : 9:06 a.m.
"Now, it mostly serves as a means of making Argo Pond available for canoeists and kayakers." That statement in the article was hard to understand, perhaps misleading, and likely false. The dam has negative impact on river trips - that backed up water is ghastly compared to freeflowing reaches. Purple loosestrife lovers may disagree. I hope most other paddlers find, like I do, that the Argo dam is an abomination. The river is a jewel, let's take good care of it.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Nov 8, 2009 : 7:34 a.m.
"The only chance of "outside" funding is if Argo is electrified as mentioned in this article, which will likely cut the maintenance costs down dramatically since the dams will be creating electricity for Vets hospital specifically." Maybe we can run an extension cord to those electric car plugs we have floating around somewhere in a couple parking structures. Or are those an Urban myth?
Michael Psarouthakis
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 5:41 p.m.
The canoe livery made a profit of around $20,000 last year and I have seen nothing specifically presented other than the staff opinion that this number would increase if the dam was removed creating of a non portage paddle down the Huron. Open up the mill race on both ends (repair the toe drains if necessary) and you have the same solution at a much lower expense than taking out the dam. I also don't believe that staff has considered the times when there is little or no flow over Barton and this section of river will have little if any boatable water if Argo dam is removed, meaning no rentals. Open the mill race and keep the dam and this is not an issue. It has been made very clear that there is no federal or state funds for removal of urban dams, especially urban dams that have dams a couple of miles up and down stream, meaning there will only be a few extra minutes of free flow prior to the water hitting Gallup dam. The only chance of "outside" funding is if Argo is electrified as mentioned in this article, which will likely cut the maintenance costs down dramatically since the dams will be creating electricity for Vets hospital specifically. Council should just agree to fix the mill race, the city does not have the money to do anything else now. Contesting the MDEQ order which will cost over 10% of the total estimate of the mill race repair is outrageous.
Bruce Amrine
Sat, Nov 7, 2009 : 5:39 p.m.
Just fix the dam, and put the unspent legal fees toward housing the homeless. Why do we keep procrastinating? It's becoming ridiculous.
Tim R. Land
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 8:31 p.m.
If we do not intend on renaming Ann Arbor, Michigan to NIMBY, Michigan - take the DAM OUT!!! It only provides recreation to an elite group of citizens and we are ALL paying for it. Stop dinking around Council and take the dam out.
Basic Bob
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 5:41 p.m.
While the dam caves in, the city hires dam lawyers. Maybe it's just me, but I think it might be more sensible to hire a dam contractor.
Huron River Paddler
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 4:16 p.m.
This 38K is just the beginning of a long future of expenses related to maintaining Argo Dam and its earthen embankment. To my knowledge, the only revenue that the City generates by maintaining Argo as a "recreational dam," is through canoe rentals at the Argo livery. The livery manager is on record saying these revenues are predicted to INCREASE if the dam is removed and the river opened-up to six miles of free-flowing water. Yes, there is a cost to remove the dam and restore the upstream riverbed. There may be a greater chance, however, that grant funds will be available to assist with removal/restoration. The City may find fewer opportunities, if any, to keep maintaining Argo as is, thus continuing the burden to taxpayers. $38k is just the beginning as long as Argo stands.
treetowncartel
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 3:24 p.m.
I couldn't agree more Top Cat.
Anthony Clark
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 3:10 p.m.
What a waste of money. Just make a decision already. The longer council waits, the more it is going to cost. They've been dragging their feet for eight years! Enough already.
Russ Miller
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 2:47 p.m.
"Fraser said Argo Dam was left over from a time when it used to produce hydroelectricity, but that hasn't been the case for years." Just to clarify, Barton, Argo, Geddes and Superior dams were purchased by the city from DTE in 1963 after they had been decommissioned from hydroelectric generation. All four were maintained for purely for recreation (except Barton which also supplies city water) until the mid 1980's when Barton and Superior were returned to hydroelectric generation. Geddes and Argo have not produced electricity under city ownership.
John Galt
Fri, Nov 6, 2009 : 2:23 p.m.
The city seems to be neglecting the infrastructure throughout town. For years. The roads are a mess. Bridges are ready to collapse. The Dam, etc. Instead of the art, greenbelt and paying high wages to the unions, they should have been attending to these basic infrastructure items first. Only when things get to a crisis level do these things get addressed.