|
|||||||||||
|
LETTERS TO THE EDITORS & RESPONSES |
|||||||||||
|
4-22-03 Look at the facts on Batavia dam issue Over the years, we have been involved in many projects we felt were best for our community. We have never taken a position without studying the subject and researching the facts before we take a position. We have never been involved in any effort where valid scientific facts from respected biologists, engineers and environmentalists were either disregarded or manipulated to meet personal goals. The Batavia City Council did not pull the idea that the dam had to come down out of thin air. Many council members grew up in town and truly love the dam. This Batavia council looked at the facts, spent long hours poring over research and listening to experts, and then made the best decision possible based on Illinois Department of Natural Resources policy and fiscal responsibility to taxpayers. The Save the Dam group never mentioned the fact that the repairs made to the dam in past years were not in the dam itself. Repairs were made in a section of the dam on the east side where it meets the Challenge building. The group never told people that the most the state was ever willing to consider was building a new half-dam, north of the current dam near the Batavia boat dock. The state requires new dams be built with access to a public road for construction, maintenance and emergency operation purposes. The group ignored the fact that this old dam is undergoing more wear daily and that behind the 10-foot dam lies 7 feet of muck and silt that will be swept down to the Aurora water supply. Maybe the dam will hold out. Maybe it won't. The impact of a serious breach is available for all to see on the east side of this dam. This breach occurred almost 30 years ago. The remaining portion of the dam could possibly hold out for another year or 10 years, or it could fall apart in the next 10 minutes. Everything wears out eventually, and we are on borrowed time with the dam that is there now. The failed south dam is another example of a structure that did not hold. The Save the Dam group never mentioned dollars Batavia would need to spend if the dam breaks. The possibility of huge financial responsibility that Batavia would incur if the city, knowing about our failed dam, allowed private or public property to be damaged, is a reality that might well result in a tax increase. I am sad that a respected community leader said the dam should be restored to "produce hydroelectric power." How can anyone believe the state of Illinois would spend the millions basically to rebuild a falling-down dam as well as the road necessary to keep the dam in its current location? The Batavia City Council used the best possible judgment in the best interest of current and future Batavians. Council members voted to remove the dam. Their best interest was sabotaged by a group financially supported by a far-right national group with little respect for facts and less concern for the long-term interest of our town. The carefully crafted plan developed by well-known engineers, biologists, environmentalists, attorneys and financial experts was completely disregarded by those unwilling to look at facts. Factual information is available every day at the Batavia city offices. Ron and Mary Anne Gilkerson , Batavia |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
4-21-03 Deal with dam now to prevent problems The question regarding Batavia's north dam shouldn't have been whether the dam should be removed but how it will be removed, what we are left with afterward and how much it will cost Batavians. If we do nothing about the dam, the river will continue to take it apart in an uncontrolled and, quite possibly, dangerous way. You can imagine the mess we will have when a large chunk breaks off, sending all the backed-up water and sediment cascading through the area. In addition to threatening public safety, we will be left with the smelly, messy mud flats that folks are worried about, plus the depot pond surely will lose most of its water. It would take months for us to figure out what to do, and we would have to pay dearly for obtaining services in such an emergency situation. On the other hand, if we act in a planned way, we can control the process, maintain public safety, reduce long-term expenses and minimize any unpleasantness. While work is going on in the dam area, the water will be directed and controlled, the sediment will be managed, the depot pond will be protected, and the riverbanks will be stabilized and planted immediately. The question then becomes, "What are we left with after the old dam has been taken out?" If we put in another half-height or full replacement dam, the people of Batavia will pay millions of dollars in taxes for the periodic dredging of the depot pond and maintenance of the new dam. Of course, when that dam also starts to crumble, we will be faced with the same predicament we are in today. Did you know that Batavia taxpayers would pay just $17,200 of the total $8.6 million for removing the dam, protecting the depot pond and beautifying the riverfront? That kind of money won't even pay for an estimate when the dam crumbles unexpectedly. If we allow the Fox River to run freely, we can have a beautiful downtown riverfront, enlarge and protect the depot pond, extend the Riverwalk Wildflower Sanctuary and save millions of tax dollars in ongoing maintenance and dredging costs. Please support the city council members who studied the facts and made an informed choice. Dan Lobbes, Batavia |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Remember the Dam, Then Remove It! "Save the Dam!" some people are saying, "Repair, don't remove!" I can understand why they feel that way. After all, Batavia's north dam has been here for over 100 years; great-grandparents remember playing on it as kids; it's in all the photographs. I think back to when it was built. It was quite an achievement. Imagine trying to harness the power of the river to run machines, machines that made windmills, windmills that made Batavia famous. People back then knew the power of the Fox River, and they knew they had to make the dam strong. They'd had enough experience with wooden dams to know they wouldn't last long. So they used the strongest materials they could muster to build a dam that would hold back the river for as long as they needed it. And it did. In fact, the dam lasted until well after the need was gone. Today we use electricity to run the machines, though the machines no longer make the windmills that made Batavia famous. The time for Batavia's windmills has long past, and the time for Batavia's dam is gone, too. Bit by bit, the river has been removing the dam, the man-made obstacle in its way, trying to reclaim its original path. And though we may patch it again and again, bit by bit, the river will keep working, and we will be joined in an unending struggle. Dams, like windmills, like people, aren't supposed to last forever. Let us celebrate the success of the dam in building our town, and let us be respectful enough to let it go. Let's not prolong its suffering, and let's not burden ourselves and our children with the constant struggle against the river. Yes, "Save the Dam!" - in memories, in photographs, in remembrance of things that got Batavia off to a good start. Please vote yes on the question, "Should Batavia's north dam be removed?" Dan Lobbes Batavia |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
August 29,
2002 This letter is in reply to two Letters to the Editor which were published in the Kane County Chronicle on August 29th regarding the Batavia dam removal. Firstly, I applaud the involvement of concerned citizens. Residents of our communities can and should and do become involved in decisions affecting their communities. Each of our communities has different values and different situations to deal with. In the case of Batavia, our dam was breached and neither repair nor continual deterioration was an option. We feel that we have the opportunity to contribute to the overall health of the river and feel that the riverbank restoration proposed will be an enhancement, albeit a change, in the look of the river. Ginger Smietana writes, “On the front page of the Aug. 20 Chronicle, the part about “the Batavia community has been involved all the way” was misleading. Truth be told there are very few privately owned riverfront properties in Batavia.” We, in positions with Batavia city government, the Batavia Park District and the Kane County Forest Preserve, consider public lands as important as private lands in that they are held for the benefit of the many, not just the few, and feel a responsibility to protect them as well as recognize the private property interests of our residents. Therefore all these entities representing many citizens were involved in the process of decision regarding this dam. Of the phone calls I received and in conversations with residents, the great majority were in favor of full river restoration which is dam removal. I would like to correct a comment made by Bob Knox that “…the two options that would have retained a 10-foot dam and the present pool behind the dam, were not offered by the DNR to the citizens of Batavia. Options were offered only for complete dam removal or for a half-height dam…”. There were originally five options offered, three of which did contain a full height replacement dam in various forms. These options were rejected fairly early on in the process but only after much deliberation and discussion. The options remaining included a half-height dam and full dam removal. Again, after much discussion only these two options were considered in the final advisory vote to the IDNR. I find it disturbing that people who live outside of town comment on what may or may not have been put before the citizens of Batavia when it is obvious to me that they know very little about the two year process we went through regarding dam removal or restoration. In Batavia, this particular dam removal or replacement was discussed at numerous public meetings which were also broadcast locally on our public-access channel BATV-45, mentioned in the City Administrator’s report at many Council meetings, written up in newspapers and our City newsletter Currents which goes to every household. We want to have an educated and involved public and try to use every means possible to get the word out, but it is incumbent upon the citizenry to pay attention. Upstream residents in this instance seem to want to be proactive and protect themselves from a threat even if that threat may be only perceived. Educating themselves in the event of proposed dam removal is admirable; but spreading misinformation and fear through inaccurate information should not be a part of the process. Linnea C. Miller, 3rd Ward Alderwoman, Batavia |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Letter to Batavia Aldermen 2-26-03 In June of 2002 I spoke with you prior to the City Council’s vote on the recommendation for the removal of the North Batavia Dam. I attended the joint City Council and Park District Board meeting where you voted for the removal of the dam. I thank you for that vote, as I believe it was the most economical and environmental choice available. I have served on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Dam Removal project since that time, and have enjoyed the opportunity to provide input on the restoration efforts that will follow removal of the dam. As you know, Batavians will have a chance on April 1 to cast an advisory vote on the removal of the North Batavia Dam. I hope in your conversations with constituents and friends that you will relate the reasons why you voted to recommend removal of the dam last August. Following are a few points that may be helpful to discuss with voters who may not be familiar with the facts of the dam project: 1. Leaving the dam ‘as is’, or repairing at the current location, are not options. The dam is unsafe, both structurally and hydraulically. The current dam configuration causes scouring and erosion downstream of the immediate dam site. If the dam were repaired to correct for the scour issue, it would result in a dangerous ‘roller’ which would be a threat to human safety. Other modifications to the current dam (building on the current dam with a ‘stepped design’ or ‘rock ramp’ to provide fish and recreational passage as required of any new or modified dams under current law) are not possible because they would increase the flood profile downstream. All options presented by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) in 2002, therefore, involved complete replacement or removal of the current dam. The replacement option called for a new dam structure to be built nine hundred (900) feet upstream of the current dam with large boulders set into the river to create a mild whitewater section between the new dam and the current dam location. Clearly, those proponents of ‘keeping things as they are’ do not understand that under any scenario possible, the face of the river will change. 2. The upfront costs to replace or remove the dam are virtually the same. According to IDNR’s “Alternative Evaluation Report, Replacement of Upper Batavia Dam, Kane County, Illinois”, the cost to replace the dam is $8.3 million (Alternative 1), and the cost to remove the dam (Alternative 4) is $8.8 million. Some citizens are citing the cost to repair the dam ($1.9 million) as proof that the dam should not be removed. Again, note that repair is not an option – see above. 3. Complete removal is the only financially long-term, sustainable solution. The construction of a half-height dam will commit City of Batavia and State of Illinois residents to long-term maintenance, engineering, and construction funding requirements. The current life expectancy of a new dam structure is 50-100 years, and maintenance may be expected to begin just 20 years after construction. If a new dam is constructed, the IDNR will require the City of Batavia to maintain the structure for a minimum of 50 years. Therefore, if a new dam is constructed, future Batavia and Illinois residents will be burdened with not only the time and energy to complete the same decision making process as the new structure degrades, but also the funds to maintain and ultimately reconstruct or remove the new structure. Additionally, under any dam replacement scenario, the City of
Batavia would continue to face the need to
dredge Depot Pond every 20 years. Consultants for the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources estimate that the next round of dredging will cost $1
million. Complete dam removal and the construction of a berm to close off
Depot Pond will eliminate the need to dredge the pond. The river will not ‘dry up’ - McLaughlin Water Engineers, IDNR’s consultants on the dam replacement study, estimate that after removal of the dam, the river will be 200-400 feet across at bank full flows, compared with 600 feet across currently. The banks will not be dominated by ‘mudflats’ – $2.7 million is currently budget for channel restoration under Option 4 (complete removal). Channel restoration will include dryland seeding, landscaping, and all necessary sediment management and stabilization. Landcape restoration was of high importance to all members of the Citizens Advisory Committee, and IDNR has assured the committee of its commitment to proper restoration. Additionally, attractive limestone banks are likely to emerge upon removal, based on McLaughlin’s recent channel surveys. Once again, I hope you will pass on this information to residents in our Ward who are seeking information on this referendum. I appreciate the time and effort the city invested in this project for the last few years, and hope the decision the Council made last fall will be supported by residents again this spring. Please feel free to call or email with any questions or comments. Enclosed for your reference is the letter I sent last summer before the Council’s vote. Sincerely, Karen Kosky, Batavia |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
2-28-03 Removal of dam is good for nature Removal of the north Batavia dam is a hot topic today. I, for one, support the proposed removal. For hundreds of years, mankind has manipulated nature to create an orderly and structured world. Our manipulation of the natural world has caused problems, such as pollution, erosion, habitat loss and resource degradation. Natural resource abuses have led to disrupted natural processes. Once passenger pigeons were abundant, but they were hunted to extinction for their meat. In flight, these birds dropped acorns and accidentally planted oak woodlands. The loss of passenger pigeons is an impediment to oak woodland regeneration, just as a river dam is an impediment to a healthy river system. The 11 dams along the Fox River in Kane County have created order and function, but they also have created a pearl necklace of lakes, not a river. This necklace of lakes is nice to look at, but hardly functions as a river should. From Geneva to Batavia, few pockets of natural riverbank persist. Wave action has caused bank erosion behind the dams. Our local officials have pledged to have thousands of live plants installed along the banks following dam removal. Deep-rooted native plants will stabilize newly exposed banks, and wildflowers shall add beauty to the river edge. Native vegetation along the river shall create habitat for myriad wildlife, including songbirds. Habitat loss is the main reason for the decline of many wildlife species, especially songbirds. Planting beds of aquatic plants will serve as turtle havens and nurseries for young fish. Live plants shall be installed on the sand, gravel and cobbles dredged from behind the dam. Dam removal opponents overlook the fact that course materials will be placed along the banks. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has pledged, at substantial cost, to dredge the accumulated mud and silt from behind the dam. As mankind has changed the face of the Fox River, weedy plants have taken hold. One is purple loosestrife. This plant is present on Duck Island. Left unmanaged, this plant could spread across the newly exposed riverbanks. However, through years of practical experience, I can attest that small populations of this can be controlled. There is a large group stepping forward to act as land and water stewards. These stewards shall help local agencies eradicate plants such as purple loosestrife. Overall, removing the north Batavia dam will improve the look and function of this river stretch, but we cannot expect instant results. The IDNR is committing over $8 million to this project. Rome was not built in a day; neither was the Batavia Riverwalk. Removing the dam will not compensate for past wrongs mankind has imposed on the nation's land and water, but on April 1 Batavians will have a chance to make a positive local change. Let's improve the Fox River locally. Vote "yes" to remove the north Batavia dam. Drew Ullberg, Batavia |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
