Michael Psarouthakis

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 2:51 p.m.

The link below is a fairly recent blog entry link by Donald Gray, professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Michigan and a member of Erosion Control's editorial advisory board that actually points out that there is flood control and pollution prevention benefits to Argo dam. http://www.erosioncontrol.com/blogs/donald-gray/the-pros-and-cons-of-dam-removal-62578.aspx Here is the key point of the post: "If the dam is removed, the river will attempt to reoccupy its old channel (Figures 1 and 2). Views of the entrance to the original channel, including a thin sheet-pile wall constructed across the entrance, are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Absent Argo Dam, this wall would either be overtopped, flanked, and/or toppled during a high-water flood event. This would result in flooding and inundation of the MichCon service center (Figure 1) and surrounding areas. A coal gasification plant was formerly located here. This site contains buried toxic chemicals and is one of the most hazardous sites in Ann Arbor. The Huron River cannot be allowed to occupy its old channel and flow through this site!"

4mytown

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 1:27 p.m.

glad to see the facts coming out. As an environmentalist AND someone interested in utilizing our natural resource in a responsible way, including public recreation, I hope the discussion can become more honest and practical, and less based on strict principles.

Native to A2

Thu, Dec 24, 2009 : midnight

I rented canoes and used the portage back when it was With's Canoe Livery. Every fall I walk the path multiple times to take photos of canoes and kayaks gliding though the reflected fall colors... The best fall colors photos and reflections I have ever taken were taken there! cI hike all the paths in the area and take many photos of the scullers praticing, too! As a person who appreciatres and uses this beautiful area throughout the year, bah humbug to all of you who wish to destroy it! If you want dams out of the way, remove ones like the Dixboro dam and others that are really not creating areas of high use! An lay offf Argo, one of the best park areas in Ann Arbor and the qholwe Huron River catchment area! tT WAS HERE LONG BEFORE YOU AND SHOULD EXIST LONG AFTER YOU ARE GONE! A native Ann Arborite!

Joseph Edwards

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 8:46 a.m.

I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Kuick once again. Im not sure if you made up your statistics, but I believe Argo Pond serves more recreational users now than it would if the dam was removed. The potential for hydro electrical power would more than make up for the cost of maintenance. Your logic may fly in Dexter, but as a tax paying resident of Ann Arbor, I say Save Argo Pond!

Rork Kuick

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 8:20 a.m.

Even if the dam seems OK, for now, it should go, and sooner is better than later. It is better for the environment, will serve more people for recreation, and will save money in the long term. Department of fisheries recommended removal since at least 1995. A river that works like a river, and provides the services of a river, is a real treasure.

clan

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 2:36 a.m.

Good job Wystan!

logo

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 1:31 a.m.

The city should get kudo's for this. They stuck to their guns against the DEQ order and went for the study. Why spend $400 to fix something that isn't broke?

Anthony Clark

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:38 p.m.

"Why can't the 'dam out' folks just be honest and say that no matter the condition of the dam, they want it removed?" Okay. No matter the condition of the dam, I would like to see it removed. Actually, that has been my position from the beginning. Dams that no longer serve their original purpose should be removed.

Wystan Stevens

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 7:32 p.m.

ARGO POND: LET'S TAKE THE LONG VIEW 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 177 years.

sbbuilder

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 6:33 p.m.

Why can't the 'dam out' folks just be honest and say that no matter the condition of the dam, they want it removed?

Ryan J. Stanton

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 3:37 p.m.

Just want to note that I have received updated information on the cost. There now is a paragraph in the story that reads: Sue McCormick, the city's public service administrator, said the study ended up costing the city about $19,300. The City Council also voted to set aside an additional $38,000 for legal fees in its fight against the DEQ.

Tee

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 2:33 p.m.

Thank you Ryan for contining to cover this important local issue. I applaud our government officials for not bowing to the pressure of special interest groups by making quick decisions to remove the dam without carefully weighing all the facts and wasting taxpayer dollars. The dam is not failing and will not be removed anytime soon. Argo Pond is a treasure to many and this is terrific news, finally!

Rork Kuick

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 2:17 p.m.

I may need an engineer to help me read that report - maybe it is not disagree with previous DEQ opinions that much. Help with these: 1) "SME has not evaluated the degree of effectiveness of the current drainage system. Therefore, SME recommends that Ann Arbor take steps to evaluate the drainage system...." Is that effectiveness what DEQ questions? Does this mean more studies? Thanks to the reporter Stanton for trying to figure out the costs of this and any new evaluations, and how much cheaper it would have been to just do something. 2) "If the drainage system is allowed to deteriorate beyond the condition at the time this report was prepared, the factors of safety for the headrace embankment could decrease further below accepted values.....". I figure it is not improving on its own, but don't know when they'd recommend action, and what. Also, I wondered if "decrease further below accepted values" was because for Case I (normal water height and current drainage system) Section A of the embankment only got a safety factor of 1.4, which is already below "accepted values" of 1.5, and if that is safe. 3) "However, the 2004 Dam Safety Inspection Report states water seepage was also evident emanating from the embankment around and above at least one of the toe drains. SME has not performed analysis to determine the degree of effectiveness of the existing drainage system." That disclaimer is getting used rather often. It's not clear this goes against DEQ's demands. Note: their report says "no emergency or imminent threat".

81wolverine

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 2:11 p.m.

This is just further factual evidence debunking the Huron Watershed Council's claim that the dam is "failing" and in poor condition. Like the old vacuum cleaner salesman trick, they used this argument to "get their foot in the door" down at City Hall to get Argo dam removed. Instead, what's happened is that thousands of man-hours and who knows how many consulting $$'s have been wasted arguing over whether to repair the dam or remove it, worrying that a collapse was imminent. What should have been a relatively simple decision about dam maintenance (that first came up in 2001 believe it or not) has been bogged down from the beginning by the dam removal vs. dam preservation debate. The latter is a COMPLETELY separate argument based on factors like long-term Huron River planning, future potential hydro-electric power capability, and recreational uses. The City should NOT have fallen into this HWC trap and separated the discussion/debate long ago. Maybe in that event, they could have made a decision on repairing the dam long ago saving the public a ton of money.

a2mutant

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 1:57 p.m.

i hope that, as you continue to investigate this story, you will also be pursuing i) the important unresolved issue of why we have heard endlessly from certain quarters that the dam was failing despite opposing evidence, ii) whether those who have long made such claims are now (FINALLY!) willing to concede that their claim is false, iii) that the only real reason for now removing the dam is the idealogical belief that flowing water is better than still water, and iv) how was it that city appointed committee (HRIMP) consumed 3+ years of staff time ($$$$$) while "pursuing all angles" on now to respond to the MDEQ without generating a shred of real data for or against the integrity of the dam and the berm? I would argue that these are critical questions whose answers will be of interest to all city tax payers.

Gary Schmidt

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 1:32 p.m.

This is good news. The last study of the embankment, by the DEQ's dam safety office, concluded that "Seepage water was discharging around and above these [toe] drains, indicating that the toe drain system is failing, and thus weakening the embankment." If the toe drains fail, the bank can be saturated with water, which eventually leads to collapse. This seems to indicate that we've got some time to fix it. This takes the dam-in or out debate off the front burner, but it doesn't really resolve it. If the dam stays in, the toe drains will still need to be repaired, and other maintenance costs keep coming. And it's still better for the river to remove the dam. But this takes some of the pressure off.

Ryan J. Stanton

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 1:19 p.m.

Thanks, a2grateful. I'm still trying to track down the costs for this study. The City Council on Oct. 19 approved a resolution to hire a company called Stantec, which you can see supplied the data used in the SME report. The professional service agreement between the city and Stantec was not to exceed $250,000. I have requested that the city provide me with exact amounts paid to SME and Stantec and will share that information here when I receive it.

a2grateful

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:28 p.m.

Good article, Ryan. Thanks!

Paul Steen

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:15 a.m.

Isn't this report kind of like Exxon or Mobile contracting with a consulting firm that finds there is no such thing as global warming? The City has a monetary interest in finding that there is nothing wrong with the headrace. How convenient that they get exactly what they were hoping for.

Arboriginal

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:27 a.m.

That's great! Now tear it down!