# Huron River to 'natural state'?



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Idea of returning Huron to 'natural state' needs dose of caution

The article in the summer 2008 edition of the "green MI" magazine regarding the future of the various dams and impoundments along the Huron River provides a one-sided story to the reader. The views of those with a vision of a bucolic 18th century Huron River watershed remain controversial.

http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews_opinion/2008/07/idea_of_returning_huron_to_nat.html


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

I don't see how removing dams would create swamps, but it sure would create a lot of high and dry homes and yards, where people currently have lakefront property. If those landowners could vote on the removal of the dams on the Huron, I am sure it would be voted down. A LOT of fish and wildlife that rely on the various impoundments along the Huron would be negatively affected by the removal of these dams. It really is not a large stream, and it really does not have very much grade, so it doesn't flow very fast.


----------



## Queequeg (Aug 10, 2007)

The Huron flows very slowly, even below the dams. I'm no expert, though I have fished the Huron, but it seems to me that most of that water is runoff. Removing the dams would substantially decrease the size of the river, possibly to a very narrow trickle in spots. I could easily see how this would become a swamp in areas. If you've ever been to Proud Lake (where the Huron begins) the flow there is not substantial. I once paddled UP river in an inflatable drift boat over a mile with little resistance. Trying to paddle up river on a river with more flow is impossible (PM, Little Man, Grand). 

I'm not a fan of dams, but the Huron is a meandering, lazy river, removing the dams would make it a lazy meandering oversized creek, in my opinion anyway.


----------



## hooknem (Mar 14, 2003)

There is so much BS in that article I don't know where to begin. 
Drinking water supply disruption? Why? The flow of the Huron is not going to change because of dam removal.
Interference with proposed trout fishery? The Huron was never meant to support trout because of water temperature.
Inference to swampland creation? Why? Doesn't make sense. If Argo dam was removed, several acres of parkland would be created along with a rapids to boot. 

Mr. Beltcher obviously has his agenda on this one. Unfortunately, his statements are completely unfounded. 

I agree that any dam removal project demands serious scrutiny of the ramifications, but let's present some realistic facts.


----------



## kype138 (Jul 13, 2006)

The biggest problem here is the ever-present issue of dam maintenance and safety. In many cases, dams built in the early 1900s are no longer needed for their original purpose (small parts plants, electric power, etc). The impoundments created by these dams slowly build up huge amounts of silt and sediment, and when the dam structure becomes structurally unsound, there's an increased risk of downstream damage when they fail.

Of course, by the time a dam is ready to fail, the owners/operators are most often long gone, leaving the local municipality to deal with the risk and/or mess, should a failure occur.

That being said, I believe that while impoundments do not benefit a river ecologically, they do provide much in terms of public access and recreation. 

Finally, I think the city of Ann Arbor needs to take a step back from being the self-appointed caretaker of the Huron. At one time, it was okay for that city to be built on the banks of the Huron. Now that their town is established, AA feels the need to nursemaid other municipalities regarding their activities in or near the river. Not only did Ann Arbor mandate what kind of lawn fertilizer can be used within city limits, they also went so far as to NOT assist a neighboring municipality with some riparian corridor work because this other town wouldn't rely on AA standards.

I realize that stewardship of this natural resource is very important - however, some of the stewards have become self-important.

*THUMP* I've jumped down off my soapbox....


----------



## Michigander1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Really dont thing that is going to happen but being on the Lower Huron makes me wonder what it would be like down here.What about Ford lake and Bellville lakes ? Mich


----------



## amon (May 8, 2002)

Amen!


----------



## dairy6 (Sep 26, 2003)

How about just building some fish ladders so we can get steelhead up here in ann arbor and ypsilanti. There are some great looking spots for them. I'd like to step out my back door and fish for them.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

I don't think they could make it. By the time they get to belleville. They are pretty beat up. 

Just kick back and enjoy the smallies.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

The river would be dry a couple months a year. All the swamps that used to feed it are dry. Even old ponds that had water when I was a kid are dry. The water table had become lower and lower, ceasing most spring fed activity. Now all that is left is run off water influx, and it peaks and falls rapidly due to mank interference in the natural order. Removing the dams now would actually be detrimental to wildlife.


----------



## amon (May 8, 2002)

This isn't supposed to be an adversarial comment at all. I'm just trying to present another side to your argument:
There's no evidence that the water table would get lower and lower and the Huron would just dry up for months out of the year. What did it do for the thousands of years before the dams got there? The Native Americans wouldn't have been permanent residents of the area had this happened.
The main reason why the river runs low today is because the dams hold back water for the big impoundments to maintain recreational water levels. The water in the summer evaporates off the lakes very fast due to the large surface area exposed to the sun. 
If anything waterflow would increase if the dams were removed. There would be miles of rapids, wildlife would increase, and the water would be much less polluted. This is a fact. One only has to look at other rivers in Michigan and across the country where the dams have been removed.


----------



## jellybread (May 4, 2008)

amon said:


> There's no evidence that the water table would get lower and lower and the Huron would just dry up for months out of the year. What did it do for the thousands of years before the dams got there?


The Huron River watershed is no longer in the condition that it was for the "thousands of years" before the dams were built. Read up on what "impervious surfaces" do to a river - it is not good. By impervious surfaces, I mean surfaces that will not readily absorb water - roofing and pavement, most notably.

When you install these impervious surfaces, you remove groundwater from the system and change it into storm water. Ground water assumes the ground temperature (53 degrees F, here in SE Michigan) and *slowly* seeps into the river through natural mechanisms to support cold water species. When you put up an impervious surface, the rain assumes the temperature of the surface (too hot in the summer, too cold in the winter) and quickly blows out the river, killing most everything. The "drains" that are added into a water shed are proof positive of this phenomenon.

The Clinton River is a great example of this. I watch this river go from 20 cubic feet per minute to over a 1000 during a good rain. In its natural state, this former storm water surge would be mostly contained by swamps, which would moderate the flow (essentially, higher flows during the dry days, lower flows during the wet days, colder temperatures during the summer, warmer temperatures during the winter).

IMHO, the Huron is just as dead as the Clinton. They should leave the dams to facilitate recreation and warm water fishing. Like the Clinton, they would certainly get a few spots where trout could still live but it wouldn't be worth it, at this point.


----------



## amon (May 8, 2002)

I like your point of view. It's a side of the equation that isn't talked about very much. I also have somewhat of a rebuttal to it, but your points definitely make sense.

First, I don't think one could classify the warm water fishing in the impoundments as very good at all overall. Barton is ok but only during limited times of the year; Ford and Belleville are pretty good to a point. Most of the other impoundments are basically full of carp and (bad) weeds. They're basically devoid of oxygen. 

Second, please note that I'm certainly not advocating removal of all of the dams, particularly in the lower huron. They're needed for flood control. The residents on Belleville and Ford Lake would never let this happen anyway. But I doubt removing Argo, Dixboro, Superior, Peninsula, Flat Rock, and various low-head tributary dams would be determinental to the river. Look at what happened after the Big Rapids dam was removed. It's comparitively urbanized (i.e. pavement, drains, etc. to your point) to the areas surrounding Dixboro/Superior dams and there hasn't been the serious negative environmental consequences you describe. The removal of the dam in Dexter has been considered successful as well. To be fair to your point, the Big Rapids dam area is not comparitively urbanized to Argo, which is adjacent to downtown Ann Arbor. 

I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to the Huron as being dead. For example, the smallmouth fishing between Dexter and Ann Arbor in the free-flowing stretches is very good. You can hook 100 decent to good sized smallies in a day. The stretch from Flat Rock to Lake Erie is full of big dog Pike, Muskie, Bass, and various anadramous species. Both stretches are prone to runoff as you described, but the fishery is largely unaffected. The only dead stretches of the river I know about lay behind dams.

It's unrealistic to remove ALL dams on the Huron for a variety of reasons, but I'd like to see the impoundments in Ann Arbor disappear along with most of the other impoundments, leaving a handful of recreational lakes that the DNR can focus treatment and stocking on. With flood control provided in the lower Huron, I don't see a problem with this.


----------



## jellybread (May 4, 2008)

amon said:


> I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to the Huron as being dead.


Sorry - I should have clarified that. I meant that the natural hydrology is dead. As long as a large population of people and associated impervious surfaces exist in the area, the river will never be healthy in a free-flow state. Mind you, if you've followed my previous ramblings, you would know that I am a staunch free-flow advocate so it really pains me to concede that (at least some) of the dams should remain in the Huron.

So, I think that we are in agreement.


----------



## amon (May 8, 2002)

Cool. I really learned a lot during this discussion. Thanks.


----------



## A2Walleye (Oct 26, 2007)

The best one I saw was an article over the summer about how removing the Argo dam would make the river into a white water rafting hot spot for tourism in Ann Arbor. That was awesome.

Late one night I ran across this project by some students at the U of M. It's like 260 pages long but I ended up reading a lot of it just because I fish under and around the dam a lot. It has a couple really old pics of the dam area too.


----------



## Michigander1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Lets face this.Its not going to happen.DNR land is up and down most of the Huron.Not to mentoin the metroparks which to me is one in the same.Nature has been set by the dams.For them to change it would change it all.Im sure the DEQ,DNR ect...would put an end to it real fast.And the folks on lakes north would love to have thier boats sitting in mud :sad:.Wont happen but is a good thought to think about.Mother Nature is what it is. Mich


----------



## amon (May 8, 2002)

Michigander1 said:


> Lets face this.Its not going to happen.DNR land is up and down most of the Huron.Im sure the DEQ,DNR ect...would put an end to it real fast.


Actually it's the Michigan DNR that's advocating the removal of Argo Dam.


----------

