Editorial: Ann Arbor City Council must decide on Argo Dam; we favor 'dam in'

It can repair the dam’s deteriorating embankment and retain Argo pond, more formally known as the Argo impoundment, as a recreational resource that people in Ann Arbor have treasured for decades. Or it can remove the dam and restore the natural flow of the Huron River, a move that would have ecological benefits, while still preserving the area for recreational use in some new and different ways. We look forward to hearing the options from city staff, and we fully appreciate the difficult decision that council faces on an important and emotional issue. But for heaven’s sake, let’s have a decision. Like many issues in Ann Arbor, this one has been analyzed and argued to death. Meanwhile, the dam embankment has continued to deteriorate year after year, since a state inspection found it in poor condition in 2001. The Huron River Impoundment Management Plan committee studied this issue exhaustively over two years, gathering information and input from every quarter and conducting three well-attended public hearings. But while the committee was able to agree on many other issues involving stewardship of the river, it could not arrive at a recommendation on whether to remove the dam or keep it, declaring either to be a viable choice. (Click here for a link to download a PDF of the final report.)

No community consensus has emerged since then - nor does one seem possible.

What we have here are two very different visions for that stretch of river, one deeply valuing the recreational resource that Argo pond offers the community, and the other valuing the admirable goal of restoring the river to its natural flow. The most salient points we take from the management plan committee’s lengthy report are the observations that the likely costs of preserving the pond or removing the dam are similar and that the decision “comes down to one of community preference.’’ But there is no clear community preference, just two legitimate and persuasive points of view that can’t be reconciled. We respect the views of those who call for the dam to be removed, but we think Argo pond is an asset in its current state, and worth preserving. It’s been in place for decades and is used by outdoor enthusiasts of all sorts. If the city had properly maintained the embankment over the years, there’d be no issue here. The dam itself and the pond are not the problem and could continue to offer recreational enjoyment to the community for years to come. Barring any evidence we haven’t seen yet that repairing the embankment and keeping the dam would be an irresponsible financial decision on the city’s part, we favor “dam in’’ over “dam out.’’ But we acknowledge there’s no wrong decision here, just a tough one that’s going to leave a lot of people unhappy either way. At least the state has forced the city to finally make a decision - so let’s get it made.

(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and reflects the opinion of the AnnArbor.com editorial board.)