Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Junction Falls Dam topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions $24 million Junction Falls Dam plan, says ratepayers would shoulder costs
Summary
At the Sept. 15 River Falls advisory board meeting, resident Patricia LaRue said the U.S. Army Corps feasibility report lists a new cost 'over $24,000,000' for Junction Falls Dam removal and that appendix cost details were missing; she asked why utility ratepayers would fund river enhancements such as 'lunkers' and 'rock arch rapids.'
Patricia LaRue, who identified herself as living at 49 Marcella Court, used the public-comment period to challenge the transparency and cost allocation for the proposed removal of Junction Falls Dam.
LaRue said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers returned in May with a new feasibility estimate she described as "over $24,000,000," an approximately 20% increase from the prior figure. She said she followed the Corps' feasibility report to appendix F and then attachment 1 for itemized costs but found those pages blank. "These are our costs. This is how you can decide what we're paying for," she told the board.
LaRue quoted a city council member as saying, "It goes back to the ratepayers to pay for it because we've already passed a resolution and the dams are coming out," and pressed why utility customers would finance river enhancements she described as intended for anglers. "It's about the fishing," LaRue said, arguing that features such as "lunkers, root balls" and "rock arch rapids" appeared to be designed to enhance trout fishing rather than lower utility costs.
LaRue requested a clearer accounting of how much of the Corps' estimate would fund recreational or ecological features versus utility-related work. She said she contacted the Corps about missing cost information more than two months earlier and had not received a response.
The advisory board did not provide a detailed reply during the meeting. LaRue's remarks were part of the public-comment period and did not trigger a formal action on the agenda during the session.
Next steps: LaRue urged the city and the Army Corps to provide the missing cost breakdowns; the transcript does not record a response from the Corps or a staff commitment to produce the appendix details at a subsequent meeting.
