|
|
Loss of RC dam concerns citizensBy MaryHelen Swanson When and if, and it looks more like ìwhenî the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) removes the concrete dam on Rush Creek, property owners along the waterway will see a shrinking shoreline that could considerably reduce the value of their property. It will also have an affect on the wildlife. While the first snow and ice storm of the season blasted the area Monday night, inside the community center in Rush City more than 50 people sat in a circle to learn the fate of the dam that has been in place on the creek since 1953. The original three property owners who provided easements to the DNR for the dam are no longer involved, perhaps no longer alive. The many land owners there now seemed to be in consensus that the body of water that was created by the dam should be retained at the same level it has been for many years. That area of water is about 10 acres in size. According to Dana Gauthier, a dam safety engineer with the DNR waters division, the DNR does not intend to replace the dam, nor repair it, but would consider another option, if the homeowners were interested. Jason Moeckel, of the fisheries department, said the DNRís hands were tied in what can be done because there is no money for a new dam. Likewise, Dave Pauly of the DNR said license fee funds could not be used to restore lost habitat for the Giant Canada Goose population, because the species has become a nuisance in some areas. It would be hard to justify using money to encourage these geese in Rush City, he said. The dam, located behind First Lutheran Church, failed last spring when the south bank began to wash away and the water moved into a new channel. At that time the DNR hired a local contractor to dredge a new channel on the north side to turn the water away from that south bank. The DNR would like to see the city of Rush City get involved in any solution now, and take over ownership and management of whatever solution is approved for the creek area. DNR area hydrologist Mike Mueller suggested that when the creek withdraws, and it will do so when the dam is removed, a possible solution to loss of wildlife habitat would be to create small ponds on the north side of the basin. To replace a dam, according to the DNR, would cost about $200,000, but it would not be a concrete dam as is there now. It is expected to cost $25,000 to remove the dam. Itís cheaper to pull it than to replace it, Gauthier said. Also, if the barrier was replaced, there would have to be work done on the south bank and a new floodplain study conducted. Jim Ertz, who was mayor of Rush City in the late 80s, reminded the DNR folk that when the city looked at doing some dredging at the dam site back then, the DNR was opposed because it said it was a good wildlife area. Now, he said, that the dam has failed and thereís no money to fix it, the area doesnít look so good for wildlife. He said itís always about money. Ertz asked why the dam failed, because it was 50 years old or because of lack of maintenance? Gauthier explained that many things have changed over the 50 years and that scientifically, there are things that are different today. The dam is no longer needed as a fish barrier, either. Gauthier also noted that the state has over 1,000 dams and two people to inspect them. Moeckel told the group the DNR could provide technical assistance, when everyone involved came to a clear vision about what they wanted to happen by the creek. There didnít seem to be a desire for an alternative plan. Former state representative Loren Jennings said the landowners would have to go to their legislators and have them get funding through the bonding bill next session. Reminding the landowners that their property values would go down if the large body of water was gone, he said the solution would come from the legislature, not from the DNR. Sen. Sean Nienow, in attendance Monday night, said there was a need to look at what makes the most sense, that it was not quite as cut and dried as Jennings made it sound. While on his way to another meeting, he encouraged the people to contact him with their feelings and desires regarding the creek. Rep. Peter Nelson, while agreeing with Jennings on many points, disagreed that it was a political issue. He said heíd ìrun with itî at the legislature if the people got something figured out. He thought another meeting was needed, that a drawing of what could be done in the area should be produced and more information brought forward. He agreed that the devaluation of property was an important issue. Most of those in the room raised a hand. Another DNR representative, Roger Hugill, reminded the people that the fisheries division is removing dams across the state and restoring free-flowing streams. Whatever the landowners, or city or any other entity would substitute for the dam would have to have a DNR approved fish passage but the DNR would not be responsible for it, he said. The DNR representatives made it very clear that the state does not want to be responsible for any other project on the creek and it does not want the liability of a dam. Hugill noted that 15-20 people are killed at dams each year. There was no solution as the meeting came to a close. As the folks filed out into the blustery night, Moeckel told the Post Review the dam would be removed soon. Itís the best time of the year to do it, he said. ©ECM Post Review |