Comments on: PAC Recommends Argo Dam Bypass

By: John Rinne

John Rinne — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:06:48 +0000

The proposed Headrace Reconstruction seems like a good idea, however it’s funded.

Not only will it enhance the watercraft experience for UM boaters, residents and tourists alike, it will add to the long list of “Cool things to do in A2″. Just as import, it will keep a bypass for spawning fish and preserve a resevoir of water to be used for drinking and/or hydroelectric generation in emergencies.

On the same subject, what I’m concerned about is the potential “100 year flood” we hopefully will never have, and how well the dam systems along the Huron River can contain and/or affect spillover into nearby low-level areas.

By: Dennis Ritchie

Dennis Ritchie — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 01:52:56 +0000

I like this plan. It’s just the type of improvement we need for Ann Arbor to remain a cool place to live. The repair vs removal cost issue is a red herring. There is no cost if we leave the headrace closed. The issue is to keep the canoe livery operation. I suppose that a stairway near the damn for people and lift for the canoes lift operated by the livery might be work. The PAC plan is much better. I’m looking forward to using it.

I have contributed to the Huron River Watershed Council in the past. If the question before the community was to build a new damn, I would be opposed. I can not support the removal. I would hope that if the improvement goes forward, HRWC will see users of Argo as potential supporters that will have a greater interest in the health of the watershed.

By: George Hammond

George Hammond — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:57:45 +0000

I’m very unhappy that funding for dams other than Barton is coming out of the drinking water fund. Those funds should be used to support the infrastructure every resident needs, not a recreation feature that only some residents want. I’ll be contacting my council reps about this.

I really hope the VA makes a decision soon. If they move in favor restoring hydroelectric generation from Argo and Geddes, it will really change the debate.

By: David

David — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:31:27 +0000

I agree with John Rubin: I just wish that they would really explore federal funding for dam removal. Federal subsidies have helped dam removal across the US. It may be as expensive with or without federal subsidies, but it’s a permananent solution. If the dam remains, we’ll be having this conversation again in 25 years: the headrace pools (if constructed) will be silted in, the dam will deteriorate further, etc.

At some point, without question, Ann Arbor will have to remove Argo Dam. It is made of concrete and it will decay. Why not do it now? I just don’t understand the resistance to this idea–crew clubs aside.

By: Marco Lannan

Marco Lannan — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:32:40 +0000

The city still has not figured out how to pay for this dam over the long haul. First it raided the drinking water fund. Now it is raiding the ash tree fund. It seems there’s no end to money that can be grabbed to support the dam–except from legitimate sources. This dam is an albatross on the city budget.

What’s even more galling is that no user groups have paid a cent toward helping maintain the dam.

But the skatepark organizers, who have raised thousands of dollars, gotten matching funds, STILL are being told there’s no money for them. I guess magically appearing money only goes to infrastructure beloved by Old Engineers.

By: Jack F.

Jack F. — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:51:16 +0000

“Several people – both commissioners and speakers during public commentary – questioned the appropriateness of using the water fund for this purpose, saying that Argo dam has nothing to do with drinking water.”

The same people, oddly enough, were invisible when the Giant Urinal Water Fountain was approved using…the 1% kick back from…drinking water projects. All of a sudden we get a busload of people concerned about tax dollars. What a hoot!