Front Page News
>
News
>
Front Page News
Dam reconstruction supporters dominate
By CHRISTOPHER DIEM, Journal Staff Writer
MARQUETTE — While public opinion about the possible reconstruction of the Tourist Park dam differed, a majority of people who spoke at a meeting Monday were in favor of the project.
During public comment at a joint work session of the Marquette City Commission and Marquette Board of Light and Power, eight people spoke in favor of rebuilding the dam and three were against it.
“We need the body of water at the Tourist Park,” Walt Anderson said. “It’s an asset to the city of Marquette. Is the body of water a greater asset than the falls? In my mind, yes, it’s a much bigger asset than that falls ever will be.”
Anderson said the lake at Tourist Park made for better swimming than the Shiras Pool because it was warmer and less windy at the Tourist Park.
Jorma Lankinen said the dam was part of the BLP’s infrastructure and one of the BLP’s duties is to maintain and repair its infrastructure in case of natural disasters.
However, Ron Sundell said a dam would take away from the ecology of the river system.
“Well, one of the things with fish in Lake Superior is they need these streams to go up and down and spawn and do the things that fish and other aquatic organisms do,” he said.
Sundell said there were many environmental and ecological problems with dams.
“Dams might not contribute to air pollution but that doesn’t mean they’re environmentally benign,” he said, adding that he worked for 17 years at a research lab studying the effects of hydro-electric projects.
Dave Allen said he preferred the free-flowing river and asked both boards to make fiscally responsible decisions and not be swayed by emotion.
Bob Cambensy said the lake at Tourist Park was the city’s second biggest gem next to Lake Superior.
“When we lost that dam and lost the reservoir there I think we lost the water recreational opportunities,” he said. “It was a place where people could go, take a small boat and go there, go fishing.”
Several people said they would support paying for the dam and even suggested paying extra for a more expensive dam.
The BLP’s attorney, Ken Savoy, said that was not possible. He said legally the BLP can’t raise rates for all its customers in the county if the dam — in addition to generating electricity — provides a perceived benefit in the form of the Tourist Park to only the citizens of Marquette.
During public comment at a joint work session of the Marquette City Commission and Marquette Board of Light and Power, eight people spoke in favor of rebuilding the dam and three were against it.
“We need the body of water at the Tourist Park,” Walt Anderson said. “It’s an asset to the city of Marquette. Is the body of water a greater asset than the falls? In my mind, yes, it’s a much bigger asset than that falls ever will be.”
Anderson said the lake at Tourist Park made for better swimming than the Shiras Pool because it was warmer and less windy at the Tourist Park.
Jorma Lankinen said the dam was part of the BLP’s infrastructure and one of the BLP’s duties is to maintain and repair its infrastructure in case of natural disasters.
However, Ron Sundell said a dam would take away from the ecology of the river system.
“Well, one of the things with fish in Lake Superior is they need these streams to go up and down and spawn and do the things that fish and other aquatic organisms do,” he said.
Sundell said there were many environmental and ecological problems with dams.
“Dams might not contribute to air pollution but that doesn’t mean they’re environmentally benign,” he said, adding that he worked for 17 years at a research lab studying the effects of hydro-electric projects.
Dave Allen said he preferred the free-flowing river and asked both boards to make fiscally responsible decisions and not be swayed by emotion.
Bob Cambensy said the lake at Tourist Park was the city’s second biggest gem next to Lake Superior.
“When we lost that dam and lost the reservoir there I think we lost the water recreational opportunities,” he said. “It was a place where people could go, take a small boat and go there, go fishing.”
Several people said they would support paying for the dam and even suggested paying extra for a more expensive dam.
The BLP’s attorney, Ken Savoy, said that was not possible. He said legally the BLP can’t raise rates for all its customers in the county if the dam — in addition to generating electricity — provides a perceived benefit in the form of the Tourist Park to only the citizens of Marquette.
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces