David Stead, right, reads a resolution he proposed at Thursday night's Environmental Commission meeting. The resolution, which was approved, recommends removing Argo Dam. At left is Margie Teall, a city councilmember who also sits on the Environmental Commission.

At its Thursday night meeting, the Ann Arbor Environmental Commission approved a resolution recommending that the city initiate removal of Argo Dam. It is the opposite advice given by the city’s Park Advisory Commission, which last week on a 5-4 vote recommended keeping the dam. City council will make the final decision, which is expected within the next two months.

At last week’s Park Advisory Commission meeting, 15 people spoke during the public comment period. Supporters of keeping the dam – many of them from local rowing clubs – outnumbered those in favor of removing it. The same number of people spoke at Thursday’s Environmental Commission meeting, but only six of the 15 speakers were in favor of keeping the dam. One of them, Sarah Rampton, explained that most rowers were out of town at a rowing competition in Canada. She said she had stayed behind, missing her daughter’s last regatta, because she felt she needed to advocate for keeping the dam.

But after an hour of public comment and more than two hours of debate, commissioners voted 8-4 to recommend removal of the dam, primarily citing environmental benefits of a free-flowing Huron River.

Public Comment

Much of the public comment mirrored themes and opinions presented at last week’s PAC meeting and several people spoke at both meetings. We won’t repeat that commentary here, except to note that one speaker on Thursday, Brenda Bentley, was a familiar face to The Chronicle, having just been interviewed about her new book, “Riverwalks Ann Arbor.” She cited her book at Thursday’s meeting, which describes walking paths that all lead to the river. Bentley urged the commission not to dismantle the dam, which would eliminate Argo Pond. She called the pond one of the city’s special assets with a long history in this community. “We humans love to look at a big body of water…It’s fun, it’s inspiring – don’t destroy that.”

Several speakers were affiliated with the Huron River Watershed Council, which has advocated removal of the dam. Laura Rubin, the group’s executive director, said that because of issues raised in the debate, they’ve called on scientists at the state and national levels to revisit the data: “Our reputation is at risk here.” She said she had sent their findings to commission members, and that they’ll be looking for more local data as well. [Opponents have argued that the situation at Argo is unique, and that data collected from dams located elsewhere aren't valid comparisons.] Rubin said that many other organizations support dam removal, including the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, the Washtenaw Audubon Society, the Huron River Flyfishing Club and the Huron River Paddlers.

Commission Deliberations

David Stead, an environmental commissioner who also chaired the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) committee, started the discussion by thanking committee members who spent two and a half years drafting the plan. He said it represents a great step forward for the city in managing the Huron River, and  emphasized that while the Argo Dam piece of the plan has received the most attention, it includes 30 other recommendations – many of them with significant impacts and cost implications. [The HRIMP committee made two recommendations regarding Argo Dam – one stating that the city should remove the dam, one stating that the dam should remain in place. In other words, on that point the committee could not come to consensus. Here's a link to the full report.]

Stead then read aloud a proposed resolution that recommended accepting the 30 HRIMP recommendations as well as a recommendation to remove Argo Dam. [Link to the .pdf file of the final resolution adopted by the commission, which includes only minor revisions from Stead's original draft.]

Carsten Hohnke, a city councilmember who sits on the Environmental Commission, thanked the committee for their detailed recommendations. He said that he and fellow councilmember Margie Teall, who also is on the Environmental Commission, wear multiple hats, but on that night their role – and the role of the commission – was to look at the environmental benefits of removing the damn versus leaving it in place. There are financial and recreational factors to consider, but for this discussion he said he was only looking at environmental factors. Many respected environmental groups have looked at the issue and recommend removal of the dam, Hohnke said, and he’s come to believe there are significant environmental benefits to taking that action. He proposed asking this question: If no dam were in place, would we build one? The answer is clearly no, he said.

Commissioner Kirk Westphal said the possibility of hydroelectric power was intriguing. [During public comment, Ron Woodman had spoken about how the Ann Arbor VA Healthcare System is looking into the possibility of building a low head hydroelectric system on the Huron River. "Head" refers to the pressure of falling water, which is linked to the distance that the water falls. "Low head" refers to a relatively short drop in elevation, usually less than 10 feet – i.e. not Niagara Falls.]

Westphal asked Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, for more information on the hydropower option. Naud said the VA had approached the city several months ago asking if the city would be interested in introducing hydropower at Argo Dam. The VA is moving ahead by doing a feasibility study with the Army Corps of Engineers, Naud said. He said the VA has funding for the project and isn’t concerned about getting a timely return on their investment, as the city would be.  When asked why that’s the case, Naud explained that federal agencies like the VA are given incentives to both reduce their energy costs and to use renewable sources.

Westphal said that on a site-specific level, the information indicates that removal of Argo Dam would improve the ecology of the area. However, coming from an urban planning background, he said he takes a broader view and suggested that the commission itself could take that approach as well. One of his concerns is that rowers, if relocated to a different venue, would have to drive their cars a greater distance, which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. He said that biodiversity includes the people who use the river. Like any urban amenity, he continued, natural features are sacrificed for the benefit of living in this kind of setting. The decision to remove Argo Dam is “not terribly clearcut for me on that wider angle,” he concluded.

Commissioner David Wright, who is also a member of the city’s Energy Commission, agreed with Westphal. While they wouldn’t build a dam there today, he allowed, the dam enjoys a long history. It generated hydropower in the past and could do the same in the future, he said. [The dam was used for hydropower by Detroit Edison until the early 1960s.] Wright reported that  the Energy Commission wanted to learn more about a 2008 study that the city had conducted about potential hydropower at Argo and Geddes.  That commission also is interested in the VA’s proposal, and will be developing its own recommendations to the city council regarding the HRIMP report and Argo Dam. He requested that a member of the Energy Commission be appointed to the River Stewardship Committee that Stead’s resolution recommends creating. [This was considered a friendly amendment, and added to the resolution.]

Proposed amendment: More studies before dam removal

Wright also suggested that instead of a recommendation that the dam be removed, perhaps they should simply ask that further studies be done.

Commissioner Valerie Strassberg said she agreed that the dam should be removed, but before that happened she wanted studies done about who uses Argo Pond and what types of revenues are generated, as well as investigating alternative forms of recreational use that might be available when the dam is removed.

Margie Teall was concerned about the amendment calling for additional studies, saying that the state Department of Environmental Quality wants a decision by July 31, and that’s the timeline that city council needs to follow. They can do studies to implement the plan, but first they need to decide what direction to take, she said.

Naud clarified that rather than spend money and staff time on studies that covered both dam removal and dam repair, the idea would be to pick a direction and then do studies related to that decision. If the studies resulted in information that caused council to change its course, they could go to DEQ and request a change, he said. He added that they could also ask DEQ for an extension on their decision, but it wasn’t clear if that would be granted.

Chris Graham, the commission’s vice-chair, asked Naud whether there was temporary action that could be taken to protect the dam from failing. Naud said there were no signs of failure for the dam – DEQ had simply asked that the toe drains be repaired. Graham asked if they could do anything to buy time from the DEQ. Naud replied that the DEQ had requested the toe-drain repair five years ago – they’d already bought five years of time.

Commissioner Gwen Nystuen, who is also a member of the city’s Park Advisory Commission and had voted for keeping the dam at last week’s PAC meeting, said her concern was that there’s very little information about the condition of the dam. There might be a low-cost way to repair it, she said. Naud reported that the city had budgeted $300,000 for repair.

Westphal suggested there might be middle ground – perhaps partially draining the millrace and repairing some of the toe drains. He wasn’t comfortable just recommending more studies.

Commissioner Rita Loch Caruso said that if they recommend further study, council would go ahead and make a decision without the commission’s input – they’d essentially be opting out of the process.

Returning to Strassberg’s proposed amendment, Stead said that the city’s parks staff already provided information about users – it would be redundant to ask for that information again, and it doesn’t have anything to do with whether the dam is removed. Strassberg disagreed, saying that she wanted the community that’s worried about dam removal – the rowers – to know there’d be a study done about post-dam options for them.

Responding to a question about the study of hydropower, Naud said the city looked at putting in hydropower systems at Argo and Geddes dams. The project would cost an estimated $4.5 million, and based on the amount of electricity and estimated revenues generated, it would take about 44 years to get a return on that investment, not including interest on a $4.5 million bond. Steve Bean, the commission’s chair, assessed that as a long payback period, especially for electricity usage.  Lighting conversions for achieving energy efficiency, for example, have a 2-3 year payback, he said.

Wright stated that conditions could change that would affect the payback period for a hydropower system at Argo, including an increase in the price of electricity and implementation of a federal cap-and-trade program. He said it wasn’t the most efficient way to produce electricity, but the dam is in place and someone in the community – the VA – is interested in exploring the possibility. “It’s at least worth a look at before we move forward,” Wright said.

Outcome: Strassberg’s amendment failed – voting against it were Steve Bean, Rita Caruso, Anya Dale, Chris Graham, Carsten Hohnke, John Koupal, David Stead and Margie Teall.

Proposed amendment: Keep the dam

Westphal proposed his own amendment which reworked the resolution to recommend repairing the dam to meet DEQ standards. He proposed eliminating these two “Whereas” clauses:

Whereas, Many river ecologists in the region have supported a recommendation to remove three priority dams: the Mill Pond Dam and Impoundment in Dexter, Michigan, Argo Dam in Ann Arbor, and Peninsular Paper Dam in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

Whereas, The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Fisheries Division, recommended the removal of these three dams as a key component in the rehabilitation of the Huron River (Fisheries Special Report, No. 16, Huron River Assessment, April 1995).

He proposed replacing those clauses with these six:

Whereas, the relocation of some recreational opportunities due to Argo Dam removal has the potential effect of generating higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions via greater transportation demands.

Whereas, the future pricing of electricity is uncertain.

Whereas, Argo Dam may represent an economically and ethically viable source of non-polluting energy at a future date, either for the City or in partnership with other entities.

Whereas, the Argo Impoundment currently provides for the greatest number of recreational trips of any segment of the Huron River in the City and, as such, constitutes a significant urban amenity near the downtown core.

Whereas, studies demonstrate that urban living (in which residential, employment and recreational opportunities are located in close proximity) has a significantly lower impact on the environment than non-urban living.

Whereas, the maintenance of the Argo Impoundment enhances the appeal of living in the City by providing a) a significantly larger total water area available for some recreational opportunities and b) a central location near the urban core for some recreational opportunities.

Finally, his amendment called for modifying the crucial “Resolved” clause in this way (additions noted in blue):

Resolved the Ann Arbor Environmental Commission recommends to the City Council that the Argo Dam is removed is repaired to meet MDEQ standards. Immediate studies should be conducted regarding options for compliance with MDEQ requirements. Further studies should also be conducted regarding potential hydroelectric opportunities. Several studies should be conducted prior to removing the dam including, but not limited to:

1. Sediment management,

2. Dam removal protocols,

3. Land reclamation strategies; and

4. Evaluation of user groups and resulting revenues.

Hohnke said that the price of electricity, referenced by Westphal’s second “Whereas” clause, is irrelevant to environmental considerations of the dam removal. He also took issue with the assumption that the impoundment, or pond, constitutes a greater urban amenity than a free-flowing river would. There may be a greater attraction for kayakers, canoeists  and fisherman after the dam is removed, he contended.  He said it was unclear whether rowers would have to travel farther to get to Argo than they would to get to Barton or Geddes – we don’t know where they live, so we don’t know where they’re coming from, he said. As for hydropower, Hohnke concluded that it’s already been studied, and  if the VA decides to move forward with hydropower, that doesn’t have anything to do with the environmental impact of the dam, which is the commission’s responsibility.

Stead contended that Westphal’s “Whereas” clauses were suppositions, not facts.

Commissioner Gwen Nystuen noted that the Park Advisory Commission had voted 5-4 in favor of keeping the dam, because they felt that removal was disruptive and that there were options to repair the dam that cost significantly less. She also said that taking out Argo Dam did little to help the river, since there were dams on either side of that impoundment.

Graham said he saw the collision of three compelling public interests: 1) the environment – it’s true that dams damage the environment; 2) recreation – a decision to take out the dam is a decision to take rowing out of this community, and it’s a venerable sport; and 3) energy – someday, we could be in a position to have to scrap for all the energy we can get, he said. He recommended using the $300,000 to repair the dam, while continuing the discussion and trying to reach consensus on what to do next. (Stead responded later in the meeting that the HRIMP committee spent two and a half years trying to reach consensus on the issue, and couldn’t get there. “How many more years do you want to spend on this?” he asked. “I understand,” Graham replied, “but council’s going to have a hell of a whale on their hands.”)

Caruso argued that there were two stumbling blocks in Westphal’s proposal: 1) recreation, which is not in the commission’s mandate, and 2) hydropower. That second issue was being discussed, Caruso contended, as if generating electricity through hydropower trumps everything else, including environmental concerns. They wouldn’t build a dam today specifically to generate electricity, she said, and there are new ways of generating electricity that are starting to be developed. “The DEQ has recommended removal of the dam. I don’t think that’s been done frivolously.”

Strassberg brought up the issue of users again, and Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation services manager, came to the podium to address that issue. He said there’s great interest among kayakers and canoists in having a free-flowing river that wouldn’t require a portage. If there’s a decrease in users, it would come from “pond paddlers” who don’t want to canoe on the river, he said, but they could use Gallop Park as an alternative venue for pond paddling. Strassberg inquired about usage patterns of the park around Argo Pond, but Smith responded that they didn’t have any way of tracking that activity.

John Koupal, the commission’s newest member, said the commission’s charge was to look at environmental tradeoffs. He agreed with Hohnke that the amendment’s clauses about urban amenities and increased vehicle trips were speculative. Regarding hydropower, it didn’t seem to him that this would be the first place they should invest alternative energy dollars.

Wright responded to Caruso’s statement about hydropower seeming to trump environmental concerns. He noted that by that logic, they should remove all the dams. Caruso responded by saying that  the issue is that Argo Dam isn’t functioning as it should – it’s a dysfunctional facility, and is it worth investing in to repair.

Hohnke said that he and  his colleagues on council would be struggling with competing interests. He urged the commission to be as clear as possible in their assessment of environmental factors, noting that the city council would have the recommendation from the Park Advisory Commission that speaks to recreational issues, and the Energy Commission would  give input on hydropower. The Environmental Commission dilutes its input if it includes assessments of recreational and energy uses, he said.

Westphal contended that having the impoundment at Argo and providing the rowing amenity is a way to encourage people to live in the city – and that has environmental impacts. He had serious doubts about the ability to relocate the rowing community. The ecological factors surrounding removal are real, he said, and the potential benefits are fairly subjective. The notion of payback on a hydroelectric system is an open question for him, he said. Fixing the dam could cost a lot less than $300,000 and they could always revisit its removal in the future. But if they take it out now, there’s no going back, he warned.

Bean said he wouldn’t be supporting the amendment. But he disagreed with Caruso that recreation wasn’t in the commission’s purview – one of their goals is to have a health-promoting urban environment, and use of the river fits into that. Hydropower also fits within the scope of the commission, he said. But he doesn’t expect the Huron River to support the community’s recreation and electricity needs. It’s a system – part of a watershed – and it’s been degraded, he explained. If they balanced the ecological quality of that system against its economics and recreational value, it’s clear they need to improve the ecology, Bean concluded.   The other areas “are doing just fine,” he said.

Nystuen questioned Bean about other impoundments, noting that  the HRIMP report calls for a free-flowing river. If they supported the original resolution, she wondered if that meant they should get rid of all the impoundments? Bean said it might be the case that in the future, the other impoundments would be removed. He also noted there are ways to improve the river’s ecology without removing impoundments, such as by adding fish passages to existing dams. But for the amendment under consideration, it’s not relevant, he said.

Outcome: Amendment failed, with Steve Bean, Rita Caruso, Anya Dale, Carsten Hohnke, John Koupal, David Stead, Valerie Strassberg and Margie Teall voting against it.

Graham offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, that changed the resolution from “that the Argo Dam is removed” to “initiate activities to remove Argo Dam and to ensure that the dam not fail during that time period.” Naud emphasized that it’s not as though staff haven’t been paying attention to maintenance of the dam – it’s inspected regularly. “It is not like the Stadium bridge where we wait til the very end then beg for federal dollars to fix it.”

Strassberg again stated that she wanted to add an amendment that there be a detailed investigation of alternatives for rowing venues and a study of users and resultant revenue in the wake of dam removal. Hohnke said the HRIMP report includes a recommendation that alternatives for rowers be vigorously explored, and states explicitly that an alternative is desired – the amendment would be redundant. Naud said the process of removing the dam, which includes getting necessary permits from the DEQ, would take a while, and that they likely wouldn’t begin actual removal for at least a year. That would give them time to work on finding alternatives for the rowing community.

Outcome: The amendment failed on a voice vote.

At this point, 10:20 p.m., Graham asked, “Are we getting close to voting?” Bean said, “We’re getting closer.” After some additional discussion, a vote on the final resolution was taken a few minutes later.

Outcome: The resolution – which included the recommendation to initiate activities to remove the dam – was approved on an 8-4 vote, with Graham, Nystuen, Westphal and Wright dissenting.

Matt Naud, environmental coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor, gives the universal gestural sign for Whoah-there-fella, as Steven Yaffee of the UM School of Natural Resources & Environment looks on.

At the first of three public meetings on the future of the Huron River held Wednesday evening at Forsythe Middle School, the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) committee’s vision for the Huron River’s future was presented. It reads in part: “The river and its publicly-owned shoreline and riparian areas create a blue and green corridor across the city that contains restored natural areas and adequate, well-sited public trails and access.”

It was that sentence that prompted the first whispered interactions between The Chronicle and other folks at our table: What, exactly, does “riparian” mean? Russ Miller, a rower who’s now hooked on the sport after taking it up only a couple of years ago, had a notion that it had to do with the place where the water meets the shore, but it was his PALM handheld computing device that provided a definitive answer: interface area between land and a stream.

The Forsythe meeting itself could fairly be described as an interface between two groups as different as land and water: people keen to see Argo Dam preserved, and those who wouldn’t mind seeing it disappear.

Why Are We Talking about Argo Dam Now?

Based on the public participation at Wednesday’s meeting, many people on both sides of the Argo Dam question perceive the idea of dam removal to have developed as an isolated question about that dam. But Steven Yaffee of the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources & Environment introduced the informational part of the presentation to around 150 people by giving some background on HRIMP in the general context of planning for the length of the Huron River. In March 2006, it was the Ann Arbor environmental commission that created the HRIMP committee and charged them with developing a Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan. [A list of committee members is included in the primer for planning along the Huron, which is a PDF file with native digital text (i.e., not scanned).]

Rowers from Pioneer High School.

HRIMP’s current timeline for work after the last of the public meetings is to spend February hammering out a draft plan, in March present the draft plan to the city’s park advisory commission and environmental commission with public hearings at both bodies, and finally sometime in April recommend a plan to city council, again with a public hearing. April won’t be the first time some of the councilmembers will be seeing the material: Stephen Rapundalo and Margie Teall attended Wednesday’s meeting.

The remaining public meetings before the committee works on the draft will be held Jan. 31 (9 a.m. – noon); and Feb. 5 (7-10 p.m.) at Forsythe Middle School, 1655 Newport Road [check dates]

So where did the impetus to form a committee and develop a river plan come from? Yaffee pointed out that the Huron River is the most prominent natural feature in the city of Ann Arbor, and the city owns most of the shoreline, yet there is no plan for its management. Further, there is no budget for its management. The current initiative is partly a response to this gap.

It’s also the condition of the river itself and the four ponds formed by the four dams (Barton, Superior, Argo, Geddes) that has started to force the question of river management. The city of Ann Arbor’s environmental coordinator, Matt Naud, presented the challenges now faced by the city. The build-up of sediment over decades behind the dams and the interference of aquatic vegetation with uses like canoeing and rowing means that investment needs to be made in dredging and vegetation harvesting, if those uses are to continue.

Laura Rubin of the Huron River Watershed Council talks with Jonathon Lutz of Huron River Paddlers.

Further, Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality set a deadline for Dec. 31, 2008 for the city of Ann Arbor to address maintenance issues with the toe drains under the earthen berm that extends along the mill race on the east side of Argo Dam. With that deadline passed, DEQ has given the city an extension until June 2009 to present a plan for the toe drains. If the plan is to remove Argo Dam, then the toe drain maintenance issue could become moot.

Three Scenarios for Argo Dam

There were three different scenarios presented for the future of Argo Dam: (i) preservation of the dam as it is, (ii) complete removal of the dam, and (iii) partial removal of the dam with construction of whitewater drops.

It’s only under the scenario of complete dam removal that the issue of aquatic vegetation management disappears – but that’s only for Argo Dam. The issue of management of the vegetation in Barton Pond would become even more crucial in that scenario, because Barton is envisioned as one of the alternative venues for rowers.

Steven Yaffee, of UM's School of Natural Resources & Environment, listed out people's concerns as they voiced them.

Why isn’t the removal of Barton Dam being contemplated? One reason is that Barton Pond is the source of 80% of the drinking water for the city of Ann Arbor, and another is that the hydro-power generated at Barton Dam generates a small profit. Superior Dam is the other dam currently generating hydro-power. According to Naud, it pays for itself with the power it produces. One alternative not included among the three scenarios presented is to restore hydroelectric generation to Argo Dam. The 2008 hydroelectric feasability study suggests something like a 44-year payback on the required investment.

The removal of Geddes Dam, the other purely recreational dam (i.e., non-hydroelectric generating dam) besides Argo, was also not presented as an alternative. As a part of his presentation, Naud described how Geddes Dam had failed during the flood of 1968, and when it was rebuilt in 1974, it was guided by the vision of Guy Larcom (the former city administrator for whom the city hall building is named) for the recreational facility that is now Gallup Park. But hydroelectric capacity was not included in the rebuilding plans.

Breakout Session: Complete Removal of Argo Dam

The status of Geddes Dam arose in one of the break-out sessions that followed the large-group presentation and the answering of clarificational questions. One participant said that when he reflected on the reasons given for the removal of Argo Dam, those same reasons were arguments for removal of Geddes Dam.

The question this rower had for proponents of dam removal: "Why is it so important to remove the dam?"

The breakout sessions were based on the different scenarios for Argo Dam. And the comment about Geddes Dam came in Room 310, where the topic was complete dam removal at Argo.

Yaffee was acting as the facilitator in the room, along with Laura Rubin of the Huron River Watershed Council. The room was filled mostly with folks from the rowing community but included hikers and fishermen, too.

The dialogue threatened to bog down in the discussion of dollars: What alternative is the cheapest? In his presentation to the large group, Naud had attached some dollar amounts to various parts of different scenarios – which seemed intended to illustrate the point that under any plan moving forward, large amounts of money would need to be invested. Those amounts, however, led to the marshalling of arguments for and against scenarios based on cost. After much back-and-forth on that question, one person in Room 310 offered: “We don’t know anything – we should take the numbers out of it.” But that met with the response from another person: “We’re here to talk about numbers!”

People did manage to steer clear of the numbers hazard enough of the time that the non-financial aspects of the issue rose to the surface. Rowers were keen to make the case that Argo Pond was not just great for rowing, it was really the only place for that activity. When a Bird Hills hiker asked the rowers: “When will it get to a point when you’re not blasting people with megaphones?” the response from one young rower was to emphasize that while there were lots of places to enjoy walking, there was only one place to row. The implied message: Find someplace else to walk, if you don’t like the noise.

Talking to University of Michigan rowing coach Gregg Hartsuff after the breakout session, he told The Chronicle that the megaphone noise comes from the motorized launches that accompany a rowing boat during a training session. Coaches convey instructions to their team during pracice with the megaphones. Wireless technology that would allow a rowing coach to speak into a microphone that would send a signal to speakers built into the bottom of the boat costs around $1,000 per boat, Hartsuff said. Asked if the yelling into the microphone itself could still pose a noise problem, Hartsuff said that he didn’t generally yell at his team – because his goal was to get his guys to relax and that yelling had the potential to cause them to tense up in a way that undermined smooth stroking.

Room 310 breakout session.

Interesting fact from the coach: UM rowers pay $2,300 a year in order to participate in the sport.

It’s not just the UM boats that would need to be outfitted with speaker technology in order to eliminate megaphone noise. Some 540-570 rowers use Argo pond on a regular basis. And it’s not just high school and collegiate rowers. Marcia Leonard, who had sat at The Chronicle’s table and rows with the Ann Arbor Rowing Club, doesn’t fit either category. That statistic about the number of rowers was one source of friction, because canoe usage was measured in terms of paddling trips (50,000 a year) whereas rowing usage was reported by the number of participants.

Anglers were also represented in the room in the form of Paul Christensen, president of the Huron River Fly Fishing Club. He said that removing Argo Dam would give fly fishermen an extra mile or so of wade-able water.

Some of the discussion focused on the question of whether trout could be introduced into the Huron, and if they could, whether they counted as “natural.” Also a part of the discussion of what counts as “natural” was the river itself. Rubin reduced the issue to what a river’s natural function is: to transport water and sediment. A dam stops water and sediment, Rubin said, and therefore interferes with a river’s natural function.

Russ Miller clarifies for The Chronicle what "riparian" means.