Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Hydropower topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge board to keep and invest in Junction Falls Dam, calling it a community hydroelectric asset

City of River Falls Municipal Utility Advisory Board · July 21, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two residents during public comment told the advisory board that Junction Falls Dam is a community‑owned hydroelectric asset producing more than 1.2 million kWh a year and urged the city not to remove it; one speaker said the city's current plan contemplates roughly $24 million for removal, and advocated investing in hydropower and improving Lake George instead.

During the public‑comment period, two residents urged the advisory board to retain and invest in the Junction Falls Dam rather than pursue removal.

Patricia LaRue, who identified herself and gave a local address, said the dam is community owned and produces local renewable power. "Junction Falls Dam is owned and operated by those of this community," LaRue said, adding that the hydro plant generates "over 1,200,000 kilowatt hours each year." LaRue said she opposed a plan she described as spending "$24,000,000 all from taxpayer coffers and River Falls ratepayer bills" to remove the dam and urged the city to invest in local hydro and Lake George improvements instead.

William Hanson, another resident who spoke during the same public‑comment block, reiterated the generation figure and framed the facility as the community's largest local source of renewable electricity, saying it reduced dependence on grid power and citing local customer and coal‑displacement comparisons.

No formal action on the dam was taken in the meeting; speakers' comments were submitted during the public‑comment period and will remain part of the record. Board members acknowledged the comments during the meeting but did not make a motion related to the dam during the session.