Photo Credit www.milwaukeenotebook.com
It’s been almost a decade since the state Department of Natural Resources ordered to the county to open the 80-year-old Estabrook Dam’s gates because of the hazard the dam posed and to fix or remove it, and four years since a Milwaukee County judge declared the dam a “public nuisance” that needed to be repaired or replaced. Deadlines have come and gone since then and yet the dam’s gates are still as the DNR ordered them: raised out of the water and out of operation.
That said, pending court cases and a new deadline of Dec. 31, 2016, could force the county to jumpstart its solution to this years-long stalemate, whether the solution is fixing the dam and reinstating a lake within the Milwaukee River or pulling it out of the water altogether.
The Estabrook Dam saga has been full of twists and turns, political intrigue and big questions about the dam’s past, its purpose and its value, such as:
When was the Estabrook Dam built, and why?
The dam in Estabrook Park was built as part of a New Deal-era public works project. A limestone ledge was removed, which lowered the water levels, the Milwaukee River was re-routed to create islands, and other amenities were built, such as bridges, a golf course, swimming areas, a boat landing and a beer pavilion. The dam raised the water levels and created an impoundment, which is sort of an inland lake that could accommodate motorized boats.
Decades after it helped to create a unique recreational spot for Milwaukeeans, the Estabrook Dam fell into disrepair. The county received many orders to fix it, but those were ignored. The 2009 order to repair or remove it still stands and has a Dec. 31 deadline.
Why save it and fix it?
According to the dam’s most visible supporter, Milwaukee County Board Chair Theo Lipscomb, who represents the area, keeping and repairing the dam will benefit the river. “The biggest misconception is that removing the dam will return it to its natural state,” Lipscomb said. As Lipscomb explains it, the river’s level was altered and lowered when the rock ledge was removed back in the 1930s. The dam helped to restore that water level. In addition, he argues that keeping the dam and fixing it so that it’s operational again will help to alleviate flooding issues upstream. Without a dam, that flooding control will be lost, he says.
|
|
Why remove it?
Advocates for removal—which include Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, the Milwaukee Riverkeeper, the City of Milwaukee, Shorewood and the Metropolitan Milwaukee Sewerage District (MMSD), among others—argue that allowing the Milwaukee River to flow freely is the cheapest and most environmentally sound solution to the problem. In addition, a free-flowing river with a lower water level diminishes the threat of flooding, they say.
“We think it will be a real disaster for the river to repair this dam,” said Cheryl Nenn, whose organization, the Milwaukee Riverkeeper, has filed five legal actions to get the county to remove it. “Removing it would be such a benefit for water quality, fisheries and for the community.”
What’s the cost to taxpayers?
The current estimates are $4.1 million to repair the dam and build a fish passage, plus $160,000 annually in ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Removal would cost $1.7 million.
Lipscomb disputes those numbers, saying that the county would need to restore the riverway as well as remove the dam, bumping up its final cost. In addition, the county could potentially open itself up to costly lawsuits from private property owners, whose property values could be at risk if the dam is removed, Lipscomb said. About 150 private property owners would be affected by the dam removal. “I would be surprised if removal would turn out to be the cheap option,” Lipscomb said.
Last week, the Milwaukee River Preservation Association intervened in one of the Riverkeeper’s cases and argued that the ultimate cost of removal could be $13 million for remediation and to compensate property owners for possible loss in property values.
The Riverkeeper, for its part, states in court documents that keeping the dam would benefit about 40 property owners and that county taxpayers shouldn’t pay for a project that primarily benefits so few individuals.
“We have taken down other dams throughout the basin and there’s no basis for this fear that their property values are going to go down,” Nenn told the Shepherd. “And frankly, if the homeowners wanted to pay—this is in our legal action—if they wanted to pay to fix the dam and have a private lake I would have less of a problem with it.”
What’s the county’s official position on it?
This seems to have gone back and forth in recent years, with both the advocates for repair and removal claiming to represent the county’s true policy.
After the order to repair or remove the dam, the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors voted in 2009 to repair the dam and they approved $1.9 million in bonding for it. That was the county’s policy until late 2014, when the parks department recommended removing the dam, a recommendation that the board didn’t vote on. Then, County Executive Abele inserted instructions to remove the dam in his proposed 2015 budget. Through a mix of maneuvering by Abele and the board, the final 2015 budget changed the county’s policy from repair to removal, but included no money for removal.
That didn’t last long. In February 2015, the finance committee, then headed by Lipscomb, and the full board approved funding for repair through $1.6 million of municipal bonds. This item was among a list of other county projects needing to be funded and remains controversial. Those votes, in effect, changed the county’s policy from removal to back to repair. They’re now the subject of one of the Milwaukee Riverkeeper’s lawsuits.
Where does it stand now?
Despite the controversy over those votes on policy and funding, the parks department has developed a plan to repair the dam and build the fish passage, supposedly to meet the Dec. 31 deadline. It let out a request for proposals for it but hasn’t signed any contracts. Why? The county hasn’t set aside enough money for the work—an estimated $4.1 million total. “Since none of the bids came in within the available budget we can’t select a contractor for the work,” emailed Melissa Baldauff, Abele’s spokeswoman.
The state DNR has given its OK to the plan, but the Riverkeeper is fighting that in court, saying that the DNR didn’t consider removal as an alternative solution. It’s also arguing that the county board never gave an up-or-down vote on the repair plan and that the county can’t confirm that it has the funds to pay for ongoing maintenance of the dam. In addition to DNR approval, the dam would need federal permitting as well, Nenn said.
What happens next?
Abele and Nenn are advocating for a clean up-or-down vote by the board on the dam. That may happen this fall, when supervisors could act on a funding request for repairs. The Abele administration submitted a request for those funds this summer; Lipscomb is asking for more details about its estimated cost for repairs and any matching funds to offset the county’s contribution. The board referred that request to the finance committee at its July meeting.
In addition to board action, the Milwaukee Riverkeeper’s lawsuits are still pending and could force a decision in some way.
“I would hope that the county board would have some courage and do the right thing,” Nenn said. “Lacking that, it looks like we are going to go into court in a couple of cases so hopefully a judge could compel the county to do the right thing. I hope that we find a solution. I think everyone is kind of getting weary of how this has been dragging out forever.”
