Comments on: EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project

By: abc

abc — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:42:24 +0000

I recently met a man who told me how his grandfather was adamant that steam engines were the best kind of engine. The grandfather hated gasoline engines and only used them reluctantly. But used them he did, well into a time period where it was obvious that the steam engine was a much less useful tool.

I am reminded of that as I consider some of the above comments. In the 60’s and 70’s hydropower was being sold to schoolkids as ‘clean’ energy without any negative impact. Dams were also being pitched as a great ‘flood control’ method. Once again, there was no downside. Fast forwarding a few decades finds us hearing engineers and environmentalists lamenting dams for all the reasons any reader of this thread already knows.

But what you may not know is that all of the negative impacts of dams were well known, and being discussed, back in the 60’s and 70’s when big engineering companies were also busy marketing and building dams all around the world. An engineer I know, who worked on some of the monster dams at the time, will go on and on about how they all knew just how devastating a dam is in the environment.

What does this have to do with steam engines? I was just thinking that some people think, and learn new things, and adapt. Others learn one thing, and never question it again. They go to their graves believing that the sun goes around the earth, despite the evidence to the contrary.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:26:03 +0000

What’s to apologize for? Even if you disagree, dam removal isn’t some kind of fringe position; It’s one that hundred of communities and agencies have pursued in the last couple decades. Dams have a negative environmental impact that *may* be outweighed by their positive economic and cultural impact, but this isn’t a given, and in the case of Argo Dam, there were strong arguments on both sides. Dams have a limited lifetime before silting renders them unusable anyway. All we’ve done by de facto deciding to keep the dam is to kick the can further down the road. At some point, and sooner rather than later, either expensive dredging and repairs or removal are going to be our only options. I don’t understand why why you’re trying to portray HWRC, which has had an enormous positive impact on the river, as some kind of villain here.

By: Dave Cahill

Dave Cahill — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:19:15 +0000

Nothing to apologize about. Of course, HWRC could apologize for trying to get Argo Dam removed, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

By: Rork Kuick

Rork Kuick — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:59:34 +0000

Nice nopology there, Cahill.

By: Dave Cahill

Dave Cahill — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:03:07 +0000

Yes, I did just talk with Laura Rubin over the phone. I suggested that she post a correction here. She said she would not do so because she did not want to engage in a “back and forth”.

Apparently she changed her mind.

The Chronicle should be flattered that she went to the trouble of calling me up and posting a comment.

By: Laura Rubin

Laura Rubin — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:05:45 +0000

In the spirit of open communication, I just spoke on the phone with David Cahill about his comments. HRWC, in fact, has not seen a drop off in membership and the trend is going up. HRWC’s membership and operating budget has increased over the past dozen years. And HRWC is NOT working to restore the river to a “pre-european state”. David had heard this from a “member”. HRWC works to protect and restore the river and not go back to some idyllic state. The reality is the river and watershed have changed dramatically over the time. We have a beautiful natural resource and clean drinking water. The Huron River Watershed Council’s mission is to inspire attitudes, behaviors, and economies to protect, rehabilitate, and sustain the Huron River System.

By: scott newell

scott newell — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:53:00 +0000

It is of my opinion that we should keep the argo dam structure, eliminate argo pond at current size and open/alter the dam sluices permanently by removing and regrading them to accommodate flow needs of the river and wildlife. Canoes and wildlife could float up or down past the dam structure naturally, while keeping a beautiful part of our industrial and engineering cultural heritage. I think this would be a great and economical solution. Although I don’t know how the new waterway would fit into all this.

By: RS

RS — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:24:08 +0000

The trouble with user comments on stories like this is that people who have no inherent background or knowledge (on matters regarding rivers and waterparks such as this project) are free to add their uninformed knee-jerk reactions. Concern was expressed about canoists no longer being able to portage. HA! The people who would use the whitewater park have to portage their boats upstream to run and play the features over and over . . . those in canoes heading downstream who do not wish to run the stretch would carry the same place these folks carry upstream! Another user-comment expressed concerns about increased flow velocity causing scouring. There is a PROFESSIONAL team of people designing the course. They would be very aware of the concerns of flow and scouring, and would account for that with their design. Failure to do so would otherwise very quickly destroy the very course they built.

By: David Cahill

David Cahill — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:06:51 +0000

The HRWC suffered a serious decline in membership because of its position on Argo Dam removal. Is that organization’s view that the Huron River ought to be restored to its “pre-European state”, or is it not?

The Huron as it passes through Ann Arbor plays an important role in our lives. We citizens are not going to disappear, much as some groups apparently want us to. I hope that the objections to this new project will be overcome.

By: K Henry

K Henry — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:06:04 +0000

It seems to me that the collaborative effort between the various concerns needs to continue. Take agreed upon concerns into consideration during the design process of the water park to minimize its environmental impact and to help deflect water from the containment cap. With so many knowledgable people involved, the water park has the potential to do more than just provide recreation.