Should Minneapolis-St Paul restore the Mississippi Rapids?

[Nice Squirrel]

Background:

There is a long series of rapids beneath the Mississippi River between St Anthony Falls and the Lock and Dam #1 (the Ford Dam).
The St. Anthony Falls Locks closed this month effectively ending all barge traffic on the river between the Minnesota river and downtown Minneapolis.

So should Lock and Dam #1 be removed from the Mississippi (with the loss of the electricity it produces) to allow a kick-ass miles long rapids to develop in the old riverbed?

http://www.startribune.com/how-about-a-wilder-river-imagine-this-mississippi/307262171/

Lock and Dam No. 1 opened in 1917 to promote navigation through the rapids and to provide a 35-foot head for a hydropower plant that enticed Henry Ford to build a giant auto assembly plant in a then-remote space between the cities. The project gave St. Paul jobs and electricity, while Minneapolis got the serene, navigable waterway that it craved.

But that rationale has now all but vanished. Ford closed the assembly plant in 2011. Commercial barge traffic to north Minneapolis’ Upper Harbor Terminal ended in 2014 when the St. Anthony Falls locks closed to prevent invasive carp from heading upriver into Minnesota’s northern lakes and streams. The only remaining purpose for what’s still called the “Ford Dam” is to enable a privately owned hydro plant to generate and sell electricity and to accommodate a relatively small number of canoes, cruise vessels and collegiate rowing boats. For that, the Corps of Engineers spends $2.4 million a year.

Totally not photoshopped courtesy of Zebulon Pike.

While it’s too early for federal and state officials to stake out a position on rapids restoration, many midlevel managers are privately excited — even giddy — about the prospect.

Mike Davis, a mussel expert with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, views it this way: “Would anyone today seriously consider erecting a dam and burying what would be the longest white-water run through a major city anywhere in the world?” He answers himself emphatically: “Of course not.”

An interesting proposal. Whitewater rapids through the middle of a major metropolitan area.

Thoughts?

 

[Arctish]

Restore the rapids!

Make Minneapolis-St Paul the whitewater rafting capital of the US, then host the World Rafting Championship.

 

[Toni]

Interesting idea but 3 concerns:

1. Loss of electricity generated could be an issue.
2. There would certainly be a significant uptick in drownings, some of them children.
3. How would the loss of Dam 1 affect downstream flooding and the communities downstream of the Twin Cities? After serious flooding in the early '60's, a more extensive system of dams and levies were constructed to help prevent more serious flooding. Of course, one could argue that these locks and dams simply shifted flooding downstream and that development of communities along the river has eliminated and/or compromised vital wetlands which also mediate flooding, provide habitat, etc. but I am operating under the assumption that we don't actually want to kill more people or relocate or destroy communities.

But yes, a white water river in a major city would be awesome.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting idea but 3 concerns:

1. Loss of electricity generated could be an issue.

Just how much electricity does it actually generate?

2. There would certainly be a significant uptick in drownings, some of them children.

If we encourage the elderly to white water raft, that could help the Social Security shortfall a bit.

3. How would the loss of Dam 1 affect downstream flooding and the communities downstream of the Twin Cities? After serious flooding in the early '60's, a more extensive system of dams and levies were constructed to help prevent more serious flooding.

One would need to show this dam is part of a flood maintenance program.

Of course, one could argue that these locks and dams simply shifted flooding downstream and that development of communities along the river has eliminated and/or compromised vital wetlands which also mediate flooding, provide habitat, etc. but I am operating under the assumption that we don't actually want to kill more people or relocate or destroy communities.

And I don't think removing the dam will affect flooding too much, because the large storms that cause those floods typically cascade over such a dam.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And I don't think removing the dam will affect flooding too much, because the large storms that cause those floods typically cascade over such a dam.

There is a major undammed river (for over 60 miles) than connects downstream (the Minnesota) that also contributes to flooding. I'm not sure that this dam was originally part of flood control and the water does cascade over it during a flood.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And I don't think removing the dam will affect flooding too much, because the large storms that cause those floods typically cascade over such a dam.

There is a major undammed river (for over 60 miles) than connects downstream (the Minnesota) that also contributes to flooding. I'm not sure that this dam was originally part of flood control and the water does cascade over it during a flood.

If that dam was flood control, I seriously doubt there would be talks about removing it. There would be a bazillion people downstream bitching about flood insurance!

 

[dismal]

4. When the bridges collapse there won't be as much water to fall into

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm sorry, but how would the rapids lead to an increase in drownings, except those of recreational rafters? If you fall in now, you go over the dam, and perish horribly. It happens fairly often. If the rapids are restored, if you fall in, you will be battered in the rapids, and perish horribly. I don't see why one is necessarily more dangerous than the other.

 

[Toni]

I'm sorry, but how would the rapids lead to an increase in drownings, except those of recreational rafters? If you fall in now, you go over the dam, and perish horribly. It happens fairly often. If the rapids are restored, if you fall in, you will be battered in the rapids, and perish horribly. I don't see why one is necessarily more dangerous than the other.

If you fall in a slower moving river without the rock hazards, you have a greater chance of making it to shore without going over the dam.

Increased drowning risk might come from:

1. Recreational rafters.
2. If access is improved, there would be more children (and I am including under 18 y) who are drawn to the river. Actually, I would predict there would be more college age young people who drown, because they would be one of the groups who would be naturally drawn to white water rafting and also because of the increased risk due to general more risky behavior in that age group, especially (and including) with significant consumption of alcohol.
3. If I understand things correctly--and I may not--the restored river would have a much more rapid current = greater drowning risk to all users plus the rocks/rapids themselves = increased risk of injury/death/drownings.

I'm not saying that the river shouldn't be re-opened. I think it's a really cool idea and I'm in favor of restoration of natural features whenever possible. I am also saying that this is something to consider. Large population + white water river = increased risk of drowning. Minnesota in general has many lakes and rivers. The Twin Cities area also has a number of lakes and a(n underutilized) riverfront.

I live pretty close to a large river. There's a lot of commercial (barge) traffic on the river and also recreational use--boaters, fishing, a little swimming in a couple of more quiet spots along the river. There are occasional drownings, but these are not frequent. Some are indeed due to boat vs lock and dam but there are simply some boating accidents plus, downriver from me, a number of drownings of drunk college students wandering along the water front, a couple of blocks from the bar district. Not lots but there are some.

The river near me does not have any rapids. There is significant current, but that depends on where on the river you are. There are various channels, wider spots where the current is slower, more narrow spots where the current is faster. Likewise, boat traffic in the river varies. So do local ordinances about motor use/speed, wake, the use of personal recreational water devices, the character of the river bank, etc.

Using a river is a lot different than using a lake.

 

[Toni]

There is a major undammed river (for over 60 miles) than connects downstream (the Minnesota) that also contributes to flooding. I'm not sure that this dam was originally part of flood control and the water does cascade over it during a flood.

If that dam was flood control, I seriously doubt there would be talks about removing it. There would be a bazillion people downstream bitching about flood insurance!

Just because water overflows the dam, doesn't mean it isn't meant to and doesn't serve as flood control. I honestly do not know what, if any, role Dam 1 plays in flood control in that area or downstream. I just mentioned it as a potential issue.

As far as outcry: Well, we're talking about Minnesota and people don't do things that way. Also, the proposal was just widely published. Give it time for people to bitch. The first thing people would bitch about would be if it negatively affected their fishing, followed by how it might affect barge traffic which is significant along the Mississippi, and then how it might (negatively) affect their boating/recreational use followed by how it might affect their risk of flooding. At least until next spring when floods are on everyone's mind.

 

[Toni]

Just how much electricity does it actually generate?

From the linked article:

As for hydropower, the 17-megawatt capacity at Lock and Dam No. 1 would be lost. That’s enough electricity to power 30,000 homes, according to Douglas Spaulding, co-manager of the Nelson Energy hydro project at Lower St. Anthony Falls. Moreover, Brookfield Renewable Power, the private firm that owns the historic power plant at Lock and Dam No. 1, would almost certainly expect tens of millions of dollars in compensation if the dam were removed before its federal license expires in 2034. The Nelson plant could also be affected if the water level drops below its outflow pipes, adding more expense.

That amount of electricity would power my entire town with some to spare. It's relatively small compared to the population of Minneapolis and/or St. Paul and surrounding suburbs, but it's significant.

One would need to show this dam is part of a flood maintenance program.

I don't know whether it is or is not. But certainly that would be an issue to explore. There is not a great deal of flooding in the Twin Cities, but downstream, it can be quite significant and was much more so prior to the building of the various locks and dams along the river in Minnesota.

And I don't think removing the dam will affect flooding too much, because the large storms that cause those floods typically cascade over such a dam.

You would be surprised how much flooding is an issue to communities while are located along the river front, from Minnesota all the way down to Louisiana. Even with the series of locks and dams built after the extensive flooding of the 1960's, flooding is a serious issue for many cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Mississippi_River_floods

Actually, there is currently a flood watch out:

http://www.hannibal.net/article/20150615/NEWS/150619314


Please note: I am not saying it shouldn't be done. I like the idea for many reasons. But restoration would certainly affect the river and all of the communities and ecosystems downstream. Some of the effects could be seriously bad; some could be quite good. The river is a large one and what happens along one part of the river affects the rest of the river, at least whatever is downstream. Sometimes greatly. That also needs to be weighed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Somehow whitewater in a city doesn't strike me as the best idea.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From the linked article:

Huh? This is an active dam? Typically EPA is looking to take down inactive ones, not active ones that I'm aware of. I can't imagine they'd take it down, unless the power numbers are being exaggerated.

One would need to show this dam is part of a flood maintenance program.

I don't know whether it is or is not. But certainly that would be an issue to explore.

Yes, it would, and I'm glad you brought it up because no one else would have. Not EPA, not the Army Corp, not FEMA...

There is not a great deal of flooding in the Twin Cities, but downstream, it can be quite significant and was much more so prior to the building of the various locks and dams along the river in Minnesota.

A shit ton of stuff was done to protect the areas around the Mississippi.

And I don't think removing the dam will affect flooding too much, because the large storms that cause those floods typically cascade over such a dam.

You would be surprised how much flooding is an issue to communities while are located along the river front, from Minnesota all the way down to Louisiana. Even with the series of locks and dams built after the extensive flooding of the 1960's, flooding is a serious issue for many cities.

You don't say. Tell me more about this thing called "flooding".

Actually, there is currently a flood watch out:

Holy fuck! Quick! Build another dam!

Please note: I am not saying it shouldn't be done. I like the idea for many reasons. But restoration would certainly affect the river and all of the communities and ecosystems downstream. Some of the effects could be seriously bad; some could be quite good. The river is a large one and what happens along one part of the river affects the rest of the river, at least whatever is downstream. Sometimes greatly. That also needs to be weighed.

No. It doesn't need to be weighed. If some rich white guy wants to white water raft, fuck the downstream. Fuck it all!

I'm not certain where all this sarcasm is coming from, but it is just piling on in my post.

 

[Toni]

Huh? This is an active dam? Typically EPA is looking to take down inactive ones, not active ones that I'm aware of. I can't imagine they'd take it down, unless the power numbers are being exaggerated.

One would need to show this dam is part of a flood maintenance program.

I don't know whether it is or is not. But certainly that would be an issue to explore.

Yes, it would, and I'm glad you brought it up because no one else would have. Not EPA, not the Army Corp, not FEMA...

There is not a great deal of flooding in the Twin Cities, but downstream, it can be quite significant and was much more so prior to the building of the various locks and dams along the river in Minnesota.

A shit ton of stuff was done to protect the areas around the Mississippi.

And I don't think removing the dam will affect flooding too much, because the large storms that cause those floods typically cascade over such a dam.

You would be surprised how much flooding is an issue to communities while are located along the river front, from Minnesota all the way down to Louisiana. Even with the series of locks and dams built after the extensive flooding of the 1960's, flooding is a serious issue for many cities.

You don't say. Tell me more about this thing called "flooding".

Actually, there is currently a flood watch out:

Holy fuck! Quick! Build another dam!

Please note: I am not saying it shouldn't be done. I like the idea for many reasons. But restoration would certainly affect the river and all of the communities and ecosystems downstream. Some of the effects could be seriously bad; some could be quite good. The river is a large one and what happens along one part of the river affects the rest of the river, at least whatever is downstream. Sometimes greatly. That also needs to be weighed.

No. It doesn't need to be weighed. If some rich white guy wants to white water raft, fuck the downstream. Fuck it all!

I'm not certain where all this sarcasm is coming from, but it is just piling on in my post.

I'm sorry. I thought the post was supposed to generate discussion. My mistake.