Just to clarify for some folks, since there are some fairly cavalier references to moving rowing elsewhere, not all water on the Huron is the same for rowing, nor are all the rowing programs’ needs for water identical. So it’s not just a matter of moving us to Barton or Geddes, and all will be the same for all of us.

Collegiate crews race 2000m in the spring (our major season); high school crews race 1500m for most of their races, but there are also some that are 2000m. Masters rowers (the majority of the Ann Arbor Rowing Club) race 1000m in their summer season. Each distance can require slightly different variations of a standard training regime. I have coached high school programs on as little as 1000m of water (though it was quite a challenge), but can’t imagine trying to (successfully) coach a college program on anything shorter than the 3.2km of water we have on Argo Pond. (Geddes is shorter than that; Barton may or may not have that much water, depending on how shallow the water gets at some times of the year).

If Argo Dam were removed, U-M at least, would probably have to move rowing out of Ann Arbor altogether (most likely, if an agreement could be reached, would be on Ford Lake in Ypsilanti), greatly increasing both the greenhouse effect, and the time and expense for our athletes. (As a club-varsity sport, we are not supported financially by the University in any significant way; this cost would be borne entirely by the athletes).

There is only enough space at Barton for one small boathouse, that could probably house a single program at best, so only a part of the rowing community could move there.

Argo is already at capacity as far as rowing goes. The two high schools stagger their practices to allow everyone to have enough space on the water; any time the U-M team can fit it into our schedule, we row at times other than the high school practices. Ann Arbor Rowing Club tends to practice either before U-M in the morning, or after U-M in the afternoons. All three school programs are off the water during the AARC’s primary season, the summer. In the fall, when all of us are rowing a longer “head” race season (about 2.5-3 mile races, as opposed to the 2000m (1.25 mile) spring races), the amount of traffic on the water is quite heavy.

So, we many need to move some programs to other water anyway.

To those who have supported taking out the dam without knowing the ins and outs of rowing and our needs, I suggest you take the time to learn about them. I remain available to anyone who would like a thorough explanation of our needs.

Linda, I appreciate your love of the river, and the river as a whole. I spend a lot of time on a particular stretch, that I also love. I’ve read the same materials (I assume) that you have, and I do have to say, that other than “a free-flowing river is healthier than a dammed river,” there’s not really much there. And taking this dam out will not make the river free-flowing, by any stretch of the imagination.

Jonathan: The river already is a destination for all the recreational uses you list; taking the dam out or leaving it in doesn’t change that.

Thank you for your service.

Bob’s wording was clearly an “all or nothing” analysis, which is a true straw man (though I suspect it was unintentional):

“There is no realistic hope of ever returning the entire river to it’s pristine natural habitat unless the auto companies go totally kaput or we have some other “Day After” type of event, so we need to be realistic about what we can and should do. While keeping Argo Pond may not be the environmental nirvana, neither would taking it down solve all the River’s problems.”

His conclusion (“I believe…”) is based on neither the above (how could it be?) nor on any other comparison of data points. It’s a belief. (Similar beliefs brought us mountaintop removal for coal extraction, fisheries collapse in the oceans, accelerated species extinctions worldwide, global warming, etc., etc.) Congratulations, he’s been convinced. Maybe it’ll work on council members too.

Here’s a question for proponents of keeping the dam (or anyone), in the spirit of Dave Askins’ concept of Journalist Citizen: How will we improve the ecology of the river (within Ann Arbor city limits) to a similar extent possible through dam removal, if Argo Dam remains? I’m asking because I don’t know how.

Linda – As a voter, property owner, and taxpayer in Ann Arbor, the question BETTER BE ABOUT THE MONEY or my elected representives on city council have failed me miserably.

I understand the unelected environmental activists on the Environmental Commission are more concerned about their credibility in the activists community than good public policy, but I expect much more from city council.

The scientific evidence I’ve seen, the environmental experts I respect, all point strongly towards removal. That coincides with my direct experience of the river and my personal (if fairly limited) understanding of river ecology. I support removal of the dam.

In addition to what I stated during the meeting, my vote in favor of recommending removal of the dam was in part based on my agreement with the portion of the vision statement of the HRIMP committee that states that “Our approach to management creates a model that other communities upstream and downstream emulate.”

Here’s some of my thinking on that point (which I don’t remember having been brought up by others besides David Stead, the committee chair): Given that we are the only community that draws its drinking water from the Huron, I think that we have a unique interest in how the river is used and impacted, particularly by those communities upstream from Ann Arbor. If we say that we need not only two power generation dams and a drinking water reservoir, but also two recreational dams, do we seriously expect other communities to potentially remove or at least better manage their impoundments in order to protect our drinking water source for us? Or to protect the spawning grounds of fish we want to catch and the aquatic organisms they feed on? Or reduce runoff upstream to prevent flooding and maintain good water quality in the stretch of the river that passes through our community?

Miller also indicated that council’s formal public hearing on the Argo dam issue is currently planned for July 6, 2009.