The writer noted that since I work for the Conservation Foundation, and since it receives grants to facilitate wildlife habitat improvement and restoration projects, financial gain is really the driving force.

In fact, the Conservation Foundation is a private, not-for-profit organization whose mission is "to enhance quality of life by preserving open space, protecting natural lands, and improving rivers and watersheds." It was founded more than 30 years ago by business and civic leaders who were distressed over the vanishing natural landscape in DuPage County. We now have more than 2,000 members and are active in DuPage, Kane, Kendall, LaSalle and Will counties.

Part of our work involves obtaining grants to help forest preserves, park districts and communities improve their natural areas. The writer cited the fact that the foundation recently was awarded Illinois C2000 grants for habitat improvement projects and implied they represent a financial gain for the organization. In truth, 100 percent of the money goes to fund on-the-ground restoration, stabilization and improvement projects.

The foundation receives no funds for staff time or any other benefits from these grants - in fact, they are a financial liability. But we do them anyway because they are part of our mission.

None of these grants is in any way connected to Batavia's north dam or, for that matter, any dam removal project. They weren't for work along the Fox River or even in Kane County. Furthermore, the foundation's priorities do not include the Batavia dam. As a matter of policy, the Conservation Foundation generally supports the removal of dams that currently serve no functional purpose. Dams impede the upstream migration and distribution of fish and animal populations, disturb the natural flow of river and stream ecosystems, impair water quality and impose danger to human life. The foundation also strongly endorses public input to such decisions and supports the process that has been followed by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources in the north dam project.

Please attend the meeting at 7 p.m. Thursday in the city council chambers to see what the project plans are and what will happen after the dam is removed.

I am proud of the work I do with the Conservation Foundation, and I am proud of the work the foundation does in the region it serves. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my motivation and the foundation's position regarding Batavia's north dam. For more information about the Conservation Foundation, visit it on the web at www.theconservationfoundation.org.

Dan Lobbes, Batavia

Since the subject of what to do about the deteriorating Batavia dam began to be discussed in June of 2000, I have tried to follow the issue and become informed.

I attended a number of the six separate public meetings that were held between July of 2000 and July 2002. These meetings were well-advertised and held specifically to educate and receive input from the public on this issue.

While attending these meetings, and by further investigation, I learned:

• That repairing the dam in its current form is not an option because of safety issues, no fish passage, no canoe passage and the fact that it would not help improve water quality.

• That costs are about equal for building a new dam (which would have to be in a different place to accommodate the above issues) or taking out the deteriorating dam.

• That biologically and ecologically a river is healthier without dams, and that if a dam has no function and is deteriorating, it is best for people and all living things that it be removed.

• That the engineers and planners have carefully planned dam removal so the depot pond and riverwalk plantings would be protected. In fact, the depot pond should be cleaner and less expensive to maintain.

• That money was budgeted to replant the land exposed by the draining down of the currently impounded water. In most dam removals, these areas often are left to regenerate in their own, but in this case, because of the neighbors' fears of aesthetic issues, officials have agreed to replant.

• That the silt and other sediments now present behind the dam have been tested and found to be not toxic.

• That plans have been made for handling the silt and sediment now present behind the dam; it will not be allowed to just wash away.

• That if nothing is done, the dam eventually will break down, release its silt load downstream and cause serious damage to the depot pond and the riverwalk plantings.

The study, planning and dialogue with local officials and citizens has been extensive. It has gone on for more than two years.

City officials and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources have made an informed decision to remove the dam, and they have made the right choice.

Batavia residents, please show them you understand the issues and support them by voting "yes" to remove the dam.

Mary Ochsenschlager, Sugar Grove

I have attended a couple of meetings by those who favor keeping the dam and then, most recently, a meeting hosted by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources/ Office of Water Resources.

Officials presented, again, the information leading to the decision regarding removal as being the best option, and they, too, are very concerned about the misinformation being circulated about the project. I have heard nothing new that would lead me to change my vote in support of dam removal.

I have heard, however, the proponents of keeping the dam present misleading and incorrect information, use partial quotes from scientific research to support their opinions and impugn the credibility of respected organizations, individuals and even the Illinois Department of Natural Resources itself.

All of this to obscure the fact that they have no credible evidence to support keeping the dam. The prophets of doom and gloom who forecast the "Fox Ditch" are using simple scare tactics.

While nothing is ever 100 percent accurate when dealing with nature, it can be predicted with a good deal of certainty what the final product will be, and it is not what you may have heard from those who wish to keep the dam. Dam removal was not a foregone conclusion.

It was a decision that evolved over the two-year-plus process of meetings and education - meetings that were open to the public, broadcast on BATV and reported both in local newspapers and the city newsletter Currents. Progress reports were given at many city council meetings.

I was interested in all five options presented and evaluated each one for its pluses and minuses. The breached dam is a situation that needs to be taken care of. The repairs that were made years ago are not holding. Repair or enhancement of the existing dam is not an option and has been stated so many times.

There are many reasons for this including: no fish or canoe passage possible to be added without increasing the possibility of higher water elevations downstream. This is unacceptable due to concerns for the Riverwalk Natural Area and Riverain.

If the dam were to be allowed to simply continue to fall apart on its own, then the depot pond would disappear and all the accumulated sediment released from behind the dam would overwhelm our downstream neighbors.

Dam repair is not an option, and therefore, there will be no savings to the taxpayers of $6.7 million. The only other considered option, if there is a will to have a dam in the river, is to build a new one 900 feet north of our current dam while still removing the existing dam.

A new dam will cost more than what we are looking at with this project for dam removal.

Since the state is willing to fund this, I don't see how we can turn our backs when the alternative is to wait until there is a failure, the depot pond becomes a mud flat and we have to look to just our own citizens to fund a multimillion-dollar project. As an alderman, I have to consider the future of Batavia and do not feel this is something that should be left for the inevitable someday when it can be taken care of now.

Another concern was the depot pond. The pond, which is actually a finger of the river, continually silts in and will need to be continually dredged if it is not to eventually become a marsh.

There is a new berm planned that will enclose the depot pond, cutting it off from the river and ensuring its health forever.

Once it is dredged again, it actually will be a pond. Aesthetics are important, but different to all of us.

Those opposing dam removal would prefer to have a river section that, on the surface, appears pretty but covers over 300,000 cubic tons of silt and organics that remove oxygen from the water.

This "beauty" is only skin deep. I know that much misinformation has been presented to the public and am concerned that many people may cast their vote being unclear on the facts.

There are a number of places available to get information, both pro and con for dam removal, such as the following Web sites: bataviansforahealthyriver.org; keepthebataviadam.com; and cityofbatavia.net. And BATV also is showing the recent meetings regularly on Channel 45.

I recognize the genuine concern of some of our residents who are concerned about the way the river will change. But I believe the river will acquire a new kind of beauty and viability and cannot accept aesthetics alone as a reason to change my vote.

I wish to affirm my vote in favor of dam removal since I believe it is the best choice for all of us who live with this marvelous asset, the Fox River. Whatever your decision may be regarding this and other important issues affecting Batavia, please read the information available to you on all the various referendums and go out to vote April 1.

Linnea C. Miller
3rd Ward Alderman, Batavia