Generating Public Awareness and Political Action to Create a Program for Michigan’s Crumbling Dams
Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 8, Issue 4
Abstract
The tiny village of Lyons, Michigan, (population 715) owns the dilapidated remnant of a former hydroelectric dam on the Grand River, Michigan’s largest river. Various engineering consultants and state agencies have been working with Lyons for almost fifteen years—without success—to identify sources of funding needed to repair critical structural issues at the dam. Spurred by Lyons’ frustrating attempts to obtain funding assistance, a group of professionals approached the problem by raising the awareness of Michigan legislators and establishing a goal to create a statewide fund earmarked for dam repairs and removals.
Records of over 2,500 dams are kept by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) Dam Safety Unit. Nearly 90 percent of Michigan’s dams will have reached their design life of fifty years by 2020. A total of 166 dams were constructed before 1900, and with the exception of 110 hydroelectric dams, only a few structures (mostly lake-level control dams) produce any income or have a mechanism for funding needed maintenance or repairs.
One of the major “poster children” for the financial plight of many dam owners, and the impetus for the report described herein, is the Lyons Dam. Lyons is a tiny village (population 715) in Ionia County in west-central Michigan. The village owns the dilapidated remnant of a former hydroelectric dam on the Grand River, Michigan’s largest river. Various engineering consultants and state agencies have been working with Lyons for almost fifteen years—without success—to identify sources of funding needed to repair critical structural issues at its dam. After many years of study, the village came to realize that removal of its dam—although unpopular—held the most potential to acquire much-needed grant funding, and actually cost less than repairs. I have been attempting, since 2001, to help Lyons find funding to remove its dam. To date, Lyons has received much interest in outside assistance, but no commitments from outside grant agencies. It was frustration that led to a report by the Michigan River Partnership (2007) entitled, The Growing Crisis of Aging Dams: Policy Considerations and Recommendations for Michigan Policy Makers.
Birth of an Idea
When working with clients to obtain grant funding for a much-needed project, a certain amount of rejection and disappointment is tolerable, and frankly, expected. In the case of the Lyons Dam, enough was enough. After almost five years of trying—unsuccessfully—to find outside financial assistance for Lyons, I came to a realization. Without political involvement and activism, Lyons and several other Michigan communities in similar situations would go without help until their crumbling dams eventually failed.
The first inclination was to pick up the phone and contact Michigan’s Speaker of the House, an individual who sought occasional input from my firm on infrastructure-related matters. But what to say? Other than intimate knowledge of the Lyons Dam, I only had anecdotal knowledge about struggles in other communities and the gut feeling that many others shared stories similar to the village of Lyons.
And then came the idea to write a report, and use it to convince legislators and policymakers to stand up and take notice of the statewide predicament. A phone call the same day to a contact within the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ (MDNR) Fisheries Division resulted in a kick-off meeting only two days later.
Building the Team
A group of very impressive stakeholders were convened by MDNR on short notice to brainstorm the idea of writing a report that would create political awareness and eventually funding for dam owners. At the meeting were representatives of MDNR Fisheries Division, MDEQ Dam Safety Unit, respected public policy “think tank” Public Sector Consultants (PSC), Michigan State University, and me. It was agreed that PSC would lead the report team, seek grant funds, and co-author the report.
The first action by PSC was to create the Michigan River Partnership (MRP) to sponsor the report. The MRP is a broad-based coalition of government and nongovernment partners formed in 2004 to:
•
assess opportunities to facilitate dam removal on Michigan rivers;
•
highlight the need to repair dams that are not candidates for removal;
•
provide dam owners, opinion leaders, and other stakeholders with the information necessary to optimize decision- making processes at the local level; and
•
underscore the need for dedicated funding to address these emerging challenges.
Over the next PSC obtained almost $90,000 in grant funding from the Mott Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to produce the report. In addition, PSC recruited the following organizations as sponsors of the MRP’s final report:The following groups were recruited as technical advisors:Eventually the Michigan Municipal League Foundation acted as the fiduciary for the grants received to produce the report.
•
American Fisheries Society, Michigan Chapter
•
Association of County Drain Commissioners
•
Association of State Dam Safety Officials
•
Izaak Walton League, Michigan Chapter
•
Michigan Environmental Council
•
Michigan Lakes and Streams Association
•
Michigan Municipal League Foundation
•
Michigan Sea Grant College Program
•
Michigan State University Extension, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
•
Michigan Townships Association
•
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
•
Sierra Club
•
The University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment
•
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
•
Trout Unlimited, Michigan Chapter
•
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
•
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
•
Michigan Department of Transportation
•
Natural Resources Conservation Service
•
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
•
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Writing the Report
PSC then led the team in delegating the production of several report sections and overseeing the development of the final document. Although the writing was done primarily by PSC and Prein&Newhof, regular review meetings with technical advisors helped to form the final document. This process took almost one year from beginning to the 2007 publication of The Growing Crisis of Aging Dams: Policy Considerations and Recommendations for Michigan Policy Makers.
Report sections included analyses conducted using the MDEQ’s dams database; overviews of other states’ dam funding programs; case studies of problem dams as “poster children,” including the Lyons Dam; and an overview of the myriad economic, social, environmental, ecological, legal, regulatory, design, and construction perspectives associated with dam ownership, maintenance, repair, and removal.
What the Report Concluded
Among the report’s conclusions were the following:
•
The lack of dedicated funds for dam removal (and rehabilitation) portends an increasing problem as dams across Michigan age and the need for investment in repair or removal becomes more critical.
•
Removal of dams that don’t make sense can be a simple, cost-effective way to alleviate many (owners’) problems.
•
Without state and federal support, dams eventually will fail and put public safety at risk.
Policy Recommendations
The following policy considerations were taken verbatim from the final report:
•
There is currently no state dedicated funding for dam maintenance, dam removal, or fish passage projects in Michigan.
•
Dam owners generally lack adequate information and resources to fully consider dam removal as a potential option during dam-related decisions (e.g., dam safety, permitting).
•
State financial assurance fund programs and other financial responsibility requirements (e.g., performance bonds) required in environmental programs are an effective means to enhance regulatory compliance and ensure sufficient financial resources to mitigate damages.
•
Benefit-cost analysis provides a process for identifying and measuring the outcomes and setting priorities, whether they are perceived as positive or negative, and for clarifying tradeoffs between dam retention and dam removal.
•
The legal aspects of each dam removal are inherently unique and complex. Elements of property law, tax law, land-use planning, and zoning must be evaluated. The body of law used to resolve property disputes is constantly evolving and expanding.
•
Current state and federal regulations that relate to dam removal (e.g., wetland protection) are complex and inconsistent.
•
Dam removal is a process that requires complex, multilevel permitting and review from local, state, and federal regulatory agencies.
•
A decision by both the dam owner and public agencies involved needs to be based on a balanced and rational analysis of the pros and cons of both dam removal and dam retention.
•
There are many local, regional, state, and federal stakeholders to consider when making a decision regarding a dam.
•
Small communities often do not possess the expertise and human resources to oversee a dam removal or rehabilitation.
•
Michigan’s Dam Database and its Geographic Information System platform is an effective tool for resource managers considering dam removal.
•
Removing dams to enhance fish passage and address unsafe and unwanted dams is emerging as a river and watershed management tool that is gaining support and popularity across the country.
•
Nonprofit organizations in other states have been effective at information dissemination and facilitating dam removal (e.g., Wisconsin River Alliance).
•
Local support in the decision-making process (dam retention versus dam removal) often results in optimum outcomes.
•
Collaboration among state agencies results in streamlined and effective decision-making outcomes.
The “Roll-Out”
The condition of Michigan’s budget at the inception of the report was dismal. Everyone involved with producing the report felt that perhaps things would improve by the time the report was ready to be released. Unfortunately, with the exception of an increase in collection of sales taxes on rising gasoline prices, Michigan’s budget is arguably worse now than in 2004 when this project began.
And as even a small child knows, when asking for money, timing is everything!
Consequently, although the report has been completed for several months, a planned “roll-out” to the media has been delayed for a more opportune time. The report, however, has been slowly making its way into the hands of key legislators, and the MRP hopes that when the time is right, their support for dam program funding in Michigan will be secured.
Observations and Lessons Learned
What started as a simple notion to call an influential state legislator and ask for help turned into a real-world exercise in navigating the political process. The following are just some of the lessons learned along the way:
1.
The political process is all about salesmanship, and timid salespeople have skinny children. If you need money or support for a project, you need to ask. And when you ask, you must have a compelling argument to compete with all the other people who are seeking the same funds.
2.
A report written by a well-meaning organization carries much more clout than one produced by an organization that has a potential financial gain or interest in the outcome.
3.
Collaboration and the support of a broad-based coalition of parties and organizations can be very effective in developing a message, and having it heard.
4.
Many public policy think tanks are very credible.
5.
Have a vision of what the outcome looks like, and keep it in mind in everything you do. My vision for this report was to see a state legislator standing in front of his or her local dam, waving the final report in front of a television camera saying “… and that is why I am supporting a new appropriations bill to help Michigan’s dam owners.”
6.
Reports are much less expensive than construction projects and can mold public policy; private foundations are much more likely to fund a report than a project. It’s all about leverage, and not necessarily action.
Reference
Michigan River Partnership. (2007). The growing crisis of aging dams: policy considerations and recommendations for Michigan policy makers, Michigan River Partnership, Lansing, MI.
Biographies
James Hegarty, is a civil engineer and a member of the board at Prein&Newhof, a Grand Rapids, Michigan-based consulting engineering firm. He served as president of the ASCE Michigan Section and is a member of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. He can be contacted by e-mail at [email protected].
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • October 2008
Pages: 206 - 209
Copyright
© 2008 ASCE.
History
Published online: Oct 1, 2008
Published in print: Oct 2008
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.