Ann Arbor City Council must decide on Argo Dam; we favor 'dam in'
Whatever the solution is to the Argo Dam dilemma, it won’t be arrived at by consensus. Ann Arbor City Council needs to accept that, hitch up its britches and make a hard choice on an issue for which there is no one obvious answer. This week, city staff will present the council with options for dealing with Argo, which the state has declared a “high hazard potential dam.’’ Essentially, the city has two choices.
It can repair the dam’s deteriorating embankment and retain Argo pond, more formally known as the Argo impoundment, as a recreational resource that people in Ann Arbor have treasured for decades. Or it can remove the dam and restore the natural flow of the Huron River, a move that would have ecological benefits, while still preserving the area for recreational use in some new and different ways. We look forward to hearing the options from city staff, and we fully appreciate the difficult decision that council faces on an important and emotional issue. But for heaven’s sake, let’s have a decision. Like many issues in Ann Arbor, this one has been analyzed and argued to death. Meanwhile, the dam embankment has continued to deteriorate year after year, since a state inspection found it in poor condition in 2001. The Huron River Impoundment Management Plan committee studied this issue exhaustively over two years, gathering information and input from every quarter and conducting three well-attended public hearings. But while the committee was able to agree on many other issues involving stewardship of the river, it could not arrive at a recommendation on whether to remove the dam or keep it, declaring either to be a viable choice. (Click here for a link to download a PDF of the final report.)
No community consensus has emerged since then - nor does one seem possible.
What we have here are two very different visions for that stretch of river, one deeply valuing the recreational resource that Argo pond offers the community, and the other valuing the admirable goal of restoring the river to its natural flow. The most salient points we take from the management plan committee’s lengthy report are the observations that the likely costs of preserving the pond or removing the dam are similar and that the decision “comes down to one of community preference.’’ But there is no clear community preference, just two legitimate and persuasive points of view that can’t be reconciled. We respect the views of those who call for the dam to be removed, but we think Argo pond is an asset in its current state, and worth preserving. It’s been in place for decades and is used by outdoor enthusiasts of all sorts. If the city had properly maintained the embankment over the years, there’d be no issue here. The dam itself and the pond are not the problem and could continue to offer recreational enjoyment to the community for years to come. Barring any evidence we haven’t seen yet that repairing the embankment and keeping the dam would be an irresponsible financial decision on the city’s part, we favor “dam in’’ over “dam out.’’ But we acknowledge there’s no wrong decision here, just a tough one that’s going to leave a lot of people unhappy either way. At least the state has forced the city to finally make a decision - so let’s get it made.
(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and reflects the opinion of the AnnArbor.com editorial board.)
Comments
Rork Kuick
Wed, Sep 16, 2009 : 11:13 a.m.
If you think Argo is beautiful, perhaps you need to visit the freeflowing river upstream of where it is disfigured by Barton Dam. Hudson Mills for example. If any council members need to be taken on a canoe trip to see the real thing, let me know. I would think that having some experience with that would make you agree with me that Argo is not just bad, it is ghastly.
1bit
Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 7:30 p.m.
The prepared report and link to it were very welcome. Although the editorial appears to indicate that the cost of repair and removal of the dam are similar, I'm not sure that is quite true. The long term (20 years and out) numbers from the report seem to indicate that maintenance costs will dwarf the one-time removal costs. Moreover, included in the one-time cost for removal appears to be a $440,000 charge to relocate the rowing community of roughly 600 rowers (about $730/rower). I'm puzzled why the A2 taxpayer is being asked to shoulder the entire burden of this relocation. Why isn't the University of Michigan athletic department contributing for the rowers? What ever happened to fundraising to keep your recreation activity or sport? So, I'm perfectly fine with saving the pond. But those ardent supporters should start raising funds to pay for it rather than railing for others to save it.
Top Cat
Tue, Sep 8, 2009 : 8:59 a.m.
My wife and I walked around the pond yesterday. It is a beautiful setting. How do you give up something like this for what is likely to be an eyesore short term and an unknown for the long term. Those that want the dam removed just have not convincingly made their case.
Ann Arbor Paddler
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 5:57 p.m.
Thanks for contributing here Councilman Taylor - As I understand it, Gallup is in the same boat (so to speak) - recreational dam maintained by the water fund. Are we talking about user fees there too (as required by budgetary integrity)? If we _have_ to get rid of a dam I'd vote for Gallup - great place to picnic, run, rollerblade etc, but it just isn't as nice to paddle as Argo and I don't see as many people using the water. Moose - what's this about city owned motor boats and staff?
Moose
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 4:49 p.m.
The rising costs related to the dam, including making and maintaining it as a multi acre recreational site with a river and a pond (think city owned powerboats and staff to operate them) while not known, will easily have a greater potential for higher cost than paying once to remove the dam and allowing the river to find it's own way through the lowered pond. After the dam is removed it will take many years for the river to recover, but the long term savings over keeping the dam in place and shifting the costs to parks and rec by making the area into a "blue park" are obvious. The long term costs of remaking Argo into a pond and river oriented park with an aging dam will not come cheaply.
larry
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 2:53 p.m.
Huron River Paddler, The exposed ground from draining Argo would be very low-lying and would resemble a wetland (similar to that already around the Argo Pond area). Not sure how this would end up nicer and help "revitalize" the area. Keep the dam and pond, it's tranquil and beautiful just the way it is.
Christopher Taylor
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 11:06 a.m.
I write in brief to respond to this editorial, which criticizes City Council for having not yet decided whether to retain or eliminate Argo Dam. In my view the editorial gives insufficient weight to the complexity of the question. It treats the issue as if it were merely an instance of interest group politics rather than a serious, long-term decision about the future of one of the Citys most important environmental and recreational assets the Huron River. There are many open questions that still require exploration, but let me point out just two important issues to show how unwise an immediate vote would be. 1) We have no firm understanding where the river would go if the impoundment were removed. Anyone who has looked at historic maps knows that the river used to follow a different course - over land currently occupied by the Consumers Power staging yard. We have not yet conducted the necessary HEC-RAS study to determine what course the river would take today if we were to take out the dam. It would be deeply irresponsible for me or any of my colleagues to vote to remove the impoundment without this knowledge. 2) We have no firm understanding of the Dams long term budgetary impact on our parks system. Current Argo Dam maintenance costs are paid from the Citys Water Fund. This is an historic artifact that does not make sense in light of Argos purely recreational purpose. Many have suggested that if we were to retain Argo Pond as a recreational space a blue field to compliment our many green fields that budgetary integrity requires us to fund the recreational pond from monies allocated to recreation. Recreational monies are, however, sadly limited. If we were to maintain the Pond for recreational purposes and pay for it from recreational funds, what would the impact of that decision have on our many other parks and recreational facilities? At this point we do not know. It would be deeply irresponsible for me or any of my colleagues to vote to retain the impoundment without this knowledge. City Staff and City Council are working carefully through these and many other issues, questions and public concerns. The resolution of important, complex questions requires careful deliberation, complete data and informed public discussion; to rush to judgment because a few say Enough Already would not serve Ann Arbors future.
Jon Saalberg
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 8:59 a.m.
"Or it can remove the dam and restore the natural flow of the Huron River, a move that would have ecological benefits, while still preserving the area for recreational use in some new and different ways." Thanks for your editorial succinctly stating why the dam should be removed, even though the editorial doesn't support this position.
Huron River Paddler
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 6:22 a.m.
Actually, native landscapes are relatively easy and inexpensive to maintain. Ann Arbor is well-suited to handle the costs of maintaining new parkland, as it equips itself with a highly successful (and one-of-a-kind in Michigan) Natural Area Preservation program (NAP). The projected increases in canoe livery revenue will also help to offset the increase in the budgeted expenses for Ann Arbor's parks. This is a great opportunity! Relocate rowing and remove Argo Dam.
Ken Sharrock
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:45 p.m.
Yes, there are costs to repair and maintain the dam now and in the long run. But there are also many short term repairs (landscaping, junk removal, sidewalks, lawns, new ingress & egress) if the dam is removed, not to mention the long term costs to keep up and maintain the many new acres of park land created by removing the dam. Lets keep the dam thing.
Chris
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:25 p.m.
Lose the damn and let nature, or some version of it, do with the water what was intended...let it flow, let it flow, let it flow.
Huron River Paddler
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 7:21 p.m.
Folks, Dam removals are taking place throughout the country and right here in Michigan. Removing the dam will have a positive aesthetic impact on the urban landscape (just ask residents of Dexter, Nashville, Chesaning, and others). A seed bank exists in the bottom sediments, and through careful management, new non-invasive vegetation will emerge within the first growing season. Restoration efforts and thoughtful design will create greater access and new recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. You only need to drive (or bike!) as far as Dexter to see how dam removal can revitalize the North Main area. The decision to remove the dam will require vision, and I wish the council the very best in arriving at the best choice for Ann Arbor--removal of Argo Dam.
Matt Van Auker
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 2:55 p.m.
Tony, you are so going to get in such trouble for using such foul language with Stephanie, "dam-it."
larry
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 2:27 p.m.
Agree -- keep the dam. The river has many other dams along its path that impede its "natural flow" anyway-- removing them all is unrealistic. We love the beauty and serenity that Argo pond rpovides to the city. Draining the pond by removing the dam will only create ugly wetlands that will impede access to the river. Keep the dam!
Moose
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 1:51 p.m.
I would suppose that hydro technology is better today that it was when Argo was built. I agree that hydro power is an attractive alternative energy source. There's a dam downstream at Dixboro Rd. The sewage treatment plant is already there. Install state of the art hydroelectric technology at that dam. Integrate the treatment and energy operations (workforce, facilities, utilities) to maximize the single site.
Phillip Farber
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 12:39 p.m.
@Kayaker I have no position on the dam but I question your assertion that producing electricity from the dam [is] "never going to happen." First of all, it did happen in the past. While it may not be cost effective at the moment, it is well understood that energy prices are expected to rise, probably drastically. We may very well find electricity production at Argo cost-effective once again. Everything I read and observe tells me that local sources of energy will be sought after in the coming years.
Kayaker
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 12:11 p.m.
Moose has the best advice of all. It's going to come down to who is going to pay for the ongoing maintenance to the dam, and the city shouldn't foot the bill when they're having to close pools and other popular facilities. The rowing is great, but it's a comparatively small group of people and it doesn't bring in any revenue for the city. Plus, there are alternative sites. On the other hand, the canoe liveries are wildly successful and bring in a lot of money for the city. Many keep saying that the dam should be restored so that it can produce electricity again, but from what I've read, that's never going to happen. It's not cost-effective, which is why Edison gave it up in the first place.
Moose
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 10:51 a.m.
If the dam costs more to repair and maintain in the long haul... take it out. Move the rowing to Gallup with the UM paying for the facility. And daylight the Allen Creek along the floodway/greenway while you're at it.
Ann Arbor Resident
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 10:12 a.m.
Without going back through all the arguments for either side, I will state that I am for complete removal of the dam.
amlive
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 10:02 a.m.
Sandra, well said. I would like to see our city council do a better job of balancing necessary infrastructure maintenance with the not-quite-so-necessary improvements and enhancements.
amlive
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:59 a.m.
ArborMom - No, I don't. Speculation on my part, though I think a reasonable one. I could be wrong of course, but it seems more likely to me that dam removal would be eligible for environmental grant funding, as well as stimulus money the state is receiving marked for environmental goals. I don't have hard info or references for any of that of course, just things I recall reading of, so take whatever claims I make with that in mind.That's why I'd be interested to see someone with a more realistic view of the situation come up with a projected cost and funding comparison. I'm sure it would be somewhat speculation, and hard to make objective, but even an article discussing the best/worse case scenarios for the cost and funding of each option would be useful in helping guide our decision here.
Sandra Samons
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:50 a.m.
I completely agree with ArborMom and would like to add my frustration with City Council for having neglected this and other needed projects, while going off on their own favorite grandiose agendas, such as the library lot project. The Stadium bridge situation is an embarassment! It should have been attended to long ago.
ArborMom
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:43 a.m.
amive: Do you have a link to an unbiased analysis of those costs? Or is this a fear-based argument to get people leaning to your opinion without the facts to support it? I have not been able to find an unbiased cost analysis. I do admit to not searching exhaustively. I like the VA and energy use proposal for the dam. Also, remember that we are discussing repairing the toe drains, and that the dam itself is not the current issue for repair.
amlive
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:36 a.m.
Well, though I am on the opposing side of the editors' recommendation, I'm glad to see that you at least chose to take a side. After the unbelievably weak-kneed position of refraining from offering an endorsement in the last presidential election, claiming that neither candidate was suitable (after twice endorsing Bush), it seemed that the AA News had lost any semblance of a spine all together. I disagree here, but am glad to at least see the News willing to take a stance on a controversial local issue. Down with the dam, I say. If they do keep it up though, I hope they make sure it's maintenance comes out of the Parks department budget. to my understanding, it's removal has a much better chance to find funding through grants and federal stimulus money, whereas I believe the repairs and maintenance to keep it up would more likely be a burden on the city's budget. So if we get the maintenance costs taken off of our water bills, and put on the Parks and Recreation budget where it belongs, I wonder how many people would support keeping it if that required passing a new millage, or closing the Leslie Science Center, Mack Pool, and/or the Senior Center to pay for the pond.I do believe the direct cost to residents will be far greater to maintain the dam than to remove it, certainly in the long term, and arguably even in the short term after considering where the removal funding may actually come from. If these end costs were honestly appraised and written along side in the poll (remove dam, 30 year cost to residents =$xxx / maintain dam, 30 year cost to residents =$xxx), I believe the results would have swung the other way to favor removal.
ArborMom
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:28 a.m.
It also agree, the City Council has prolonged this far too long. I am also in favor of keeping the dam for recreational use. I oppose the use of "vocal minority" by the 'dam out' crowd to refer to those of us who want to preserve this popular stretch of water for recreational use of families, students, fishermen and walkers/joggers... There is no need to belittle or minimize those of opposing views. There is a need for our city council to step up and do their job. A decision must be made.
Bob Martel
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:21 a.m.
I agree, City Council, time to show some leadership and make a decision. This has dragged on long enough.