Michigan complains old decrepit dams are hindering the ability of a "natural flow",
but won't step up for their removal.
http://shiawassee-river.blogspot.com/2011/01/saginaw-bay-watershed-blocked-by-dams.html
The Shiawassee Town Dam aka Shiatown dam has had 5 deaths over the past 20 years. It provides no flood control, and is a liability for its owner - the Michigan Land Bank Authority.
http://www.doxtop.com/browse/fb051954/shiatown-dam-inspection-report-2010.aspx
The Shiawassee River has the potential of offering over 100 miles of navigable waterway for canoeists and kayakers without portages in the near future.
In the works :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cloudedmaple/4426096780/lightbox/
Many dams are remnants of a time long gone. They only create liability for the owners, and danger for those who venture to close to the massive force of the water.
Removal is the overwhelming best choice in many cases.
dams
The point of this post was???
In case you don’t know, dams are not cheap to remove, the state of Michigan isn’t exactly rolling in cash, bad combination.
Figure out how much it costs to remove the dam, find a way to pay for it, submit this to the state and get it removed. Bitching accomplishes nothing.
Bill H.
People are the government
When ordinary citizens pressure the politicians WE elected to do the bidding and will of the citizens, then the government is truly a "government for the people, by the people"
I'm not bitching, I'm mobilizing the masses.
What have you done for your local paddlers lately ?
Michigan has a multi-million dollar fishing industry which is hindered by ancient dams.
http://shiawassee-river.blogspot.com/2011/01/saginaw-bay-watershed-blocked-by-dams.html
Reading Comprehension
The point of the post was "Removal is the overwhelming best choice in many cases", and that's a true statement too. Here in Wisconsin, removing old dams is becoming popular. On the other hand many of the really decrepit dams are under private ownership, and because so many people have waterfront homes on crappy, weedy, silt-filled ponds that would become meadows and then thickets soon after dam removal, not everyone likes the idea. That's why pushing the positive aspects of dam removal is a good thing.
Dams owned by the State
The Shiatown dam is owned by the State of Michigan.
Technically the Michigan Land Bank Authority - thru default on taxes.
http://shiawassee-river.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-shiatown-dam-got-its-name.html
Almost no one goes down to the local grain mill located riverside or mill pond (retention basin) to get their harvest ground. These old relics should be blasted out and removed. Everyone in the state would benefit, including the environment.
Blue infrastructure aka waterways are just as important as green infrastructure like parks, ballfields, and walking trails. Water trails have existed since man walked around, but are treated as something new and foreign in todays world.
Michigan is most definitely in a crisis :
http://www.damsafety.org/media/Documents/STATE_INFO/REPORTS/MichiganReptCard_Dams.pdf
People are suing the State of Michigan because of lack of commercial fishing in Saginaw Bay.
http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2009/05/commercial_fisherman_sues_to_c.html
OPEN the dams and let nature work
http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/fishing/dams/MI_dams.pdf
If We Wait Long Enough…
the “problem” takes care of itself… 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/audit_warns_of.html
Of course, it would just suck big time to live downstream of one when it goes…
sing
Here in Northern VA
the Riverton Dam on the North Fork Shenandoah river was recently removed; besides impeding fish migration, the 104-year old dam had fallen into disrepair since it had not served any function since 1930, and it was far cheaper to demolish it than to repair it to required safety standards. Local, state and federal officials along with a grant from the US Fish & Wildlife Service worked together to make it happen. The demolition contract was awarded to a nearby excavation company, pumping $100K back into the local economy. The Virginia official overseeing the project noted the benefit to canoeing & kayaking as there are several launch points upstream.
This would have been a great success story if it had not required the drowning of a 9-year old boy there (after a history of other drownings) to finally spark everyone into action.
Pro-Active response pays dividends
I’m a firm believer if it “looks like a shithole, it acts as a shithole” i.e. a mess is a self fulfilling prophecy with people continually dumping stuff. When an area looks decent people are more apt to care about it.
Blue Infrastructure definitely has a economic benefits, yes $$$$, monetary currency.
People choose to live and work in areas where recreation is readily available. People are willing to pay a premium for locations with high quality green & blue infrastructure i.e. recreational areas have significant impact on property values. High quality natural and environmental amenities attract commercial development , jobs, and people. They help support the quality of life of local residents and foster community attachment.
Talent tends to migrate to places with significant green & blue infrastructure.
doing for the community
I teach a couple classes every year on kayak and paddle building, I’m the VP of the local paddling club, am a member of the state paddling council etc.
What have you done?
Bill H.
dams
Pushing for it’s removal is one thing, figuring out how to pay for it is something else entirely. Michigan like many states these days is nearly bankrupt, they have no money to even maintain the infastructure, let alone tear down dams. Figure out a way to pay for it and it might get done, otherwise you’re likely to have to wait for the economy to improve.
Bill H.
Agree, of course
but the problem is that its very hard to quantify the actual financial gain that removal would bring in terms of recreational activities. Arguing strictly from an environmental point of view often (and inexplicable in rational terms) tends to entrench some portions of the general population who see it as an expense imposed on them by quasi-socialist “Sahara clubbers.” Its can be a hard sell.
What isn’t as hard a sell is to inspect such dams regularly for public safety - a failed dam does major property damage at the very least and can quite easily present a hazard to the life of residents downstream. When the dam is deemed iffy, which a great many are already, do the estimate for a proper repair and present the bill to the owner or community. Propose a referendum and tax increases to pay for the repairs. See what kind of a response THAT generates these days.
THEN present the alternative proposal for the cost of removal. This is playing the political game effectively, IMHO. At least according to cost comparison studies of the group I’ve volunteered for, the cost of removal is usually between 40 and 60% of the cost of repair. That puts the removal expense in a much more favorable light.
Makes it easy to make the right choice and let go of the lesser amount of cash - and this is especially true in tough economic times. Of course if the dam is still producing electricity it becomes a more dicey proposition, and perhaps there is justification for leaving it.
No hydroelectric happening here
The Shiatown Dam is owned by the State of Michigan because of private individuals repeatedly purchasing the dam and promptly defaulting on taxes from lack of revenue. This has occurred on 4 distinct occasions as each attempted to use the dam for hydro-electric production.
Basically the citizens of Michigan pay out of pocket in ALL scenarios as "we are the state" .
Removal is a one time cost - with massive benefits.
No owner = no liability - for death or maintenance.
Fishing is big business money in Michigan, more than people can possibly imagine.
Great Lakes fishing = $ 7 Billion per year, with a captial B
The warm-water ecosystem of the Shiawassee River supports about 60 species of fish and 12 species of freshwater mussel. It's big time economic impact - for fishing and paddlesports.
http://shiawasseeriver.org/images/ShiawasseeWatershed_11x17.pdf
This isn't some little stream - it's 110 miles long
Official report - Removal Shiatown Dam
Article in the Argus Press on Sunday Feb 13, 2011
State of Michigan to remove Shiatown Dam in Durand, MI
http://bit.ly/ShiatownDam
In North Carolina
There are people who will buy a dam remove it to get the credits for the restoration of every foot of shoreline upstream of the dam and sell those credits to the highest bidder. These credits for wetlands restoration can be very expensive and removing a dam it the least expensive way to get them. If you build in an area that has wetlands you need to restore other wetlands. If your state has to dam a river to build a water reservoir then they need to buy a lot of restored wetland shoreline credits. It a beautiful scheme or is scam a better word for it…
I guess they could afford it after all.
Griffin800 must’ve floated 'em a loan.
It’s not always a good thing.
Removing dams can cause more problems.
There is a home in Kent County MI with a dam by it and a few years ago they opened it “temporarily”.
It has a trout stream below it and perhaps a mile down from it is a small bayou just before the Thornapple River.
When they opened the dam, all the silt ended up in the stream, in front of homes, plus the river.
The homes on the bayou had to pay mega thousands of dollars to get it dredged, just so they could get their paddles boats, small fishing boats, kayaks and canoes to the river. The homes are not high end valued.
To date, it is still not as it was and trout fishing on it has never been the same. Much of the silt is still there.
It’s almost never a good thing
But it is a way for people to use the current environmental laws to make a large profit. I’ve yet to see where removing a dam and selling the “restoration” credits had a net positive effect on the environment.
I’m dubious of that claim
…but assuming I take it as gospel, how about a net economic, environmental and safety benefit?
Not addressing dams like this is only kicking the can down the road.
Antiquated manmade hazard
A dam splits the river, period.
Fish and people can not go over the dam.
This means the communities upstream and downstream are dis-connected.
Many people will simply turn around, without portaging.
http://bit.ly/Seperator
No one gets rich here, there are no credits to be had.
Dam removal reduces the reservoir - no wetland creation.
The goal of wetland mitigation is to replace wetland functions which provide benefits,
-- such as flood storage, wildlife habitat, and groundwater recharge.
No creation - no credits. It's not an issue at Shiatown Dam.
Blue Infrastructure definitely has a economic benefits, yes $$$$, monetary currency.
People choose to live and work in areas where recreation is readily available.
People are willing to pay a premium for locations with high quality green & blue infrastructure
i.e. recreational areas have significant impact on property values.
High quality natural and environmental amenities attract commercial development , jobs, and people.
They help support the quality of life of local residents and foster community attachment.
Talent tends to migrate to places with significant green & blue infrastructure.
The Michigan Land Bank has done nothing...literally
http://bit.ly/LogJamDam
Owner has done NO maintenance on Shiatown Dam in a very, very long time as captured on camera.
After a ton of public pressure, the dam will now be removed allowing the river to flow free.
The silt can easily be captured, detained, and manged with very fine clothlike nets.
Perhaps the silt can go back to the local farmers.
http://www.geotextilefabric.net/
same page
From the article you posted, it sounds like the first thing you’ll need to do is get everyone on the same page. The state will not be agressive in getting it removed if half the people that live around it want the dam to stay and the other half don’t.
Bill H.