Journal-Sentinel Editorial Agrees: Hydropower "Of Questionable Value"

The Milwaukee County Supervisors have recently approved a costly plan to turn the crumbling Estabrook Dam into a hydropower facility.

Milwaukee Riverkeeper (as stated earlier in our position paper) is against the repair of the Estabrook Dam, and we see the hydropower effort as another action by the County Board to find justification for keeping a failing dam that creates a safety hazard and provides little public benefit.  To read more about our position against hydropower click here.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial staff recently agreed in an article stating, "it would require an extensive and expensive permitting process at the state and federal levels. And for what gain? To help cover the cost of extensive repairs of the dam and provide power for a small number of homes in the area."  The full article is below.

In a previous article we had misinterpreted information that we received from the county due to a confusing “unit” of measurement.  We had previously reported that the dam would only fuel about 12 houses per year when it looks like it will more likely fuel 120 houses.  That number is still uncertain due to considerable “wiggle room” as the estimates are based on “full pool” conditions of the river, which are very unlikely throughout most of the summer and early fall.

To read more about the background of the Estabrook Dam click here.

[excerpted from the Journal-Sentinel]

Could an a hydroelectric power plant be built as part of the Estabrook Dam on the Milwaukee River? Absolutely. Should it be? Probably not - unless subsequent study shows that the benefit would outweigh the cost. Right now, and despite a recent study outlining the positive prospects for such a plant, there is no assurance that it will.

Still, all the facts aren't in yet, and we understand why county supervisors want to look a little further into construction of such a plant to see if it does make sense, something the Milwaukee County Board recently decided to do. At the same time, we hope some aren't just clutching at straws in an effort to save the dam, which is under state order for extensive repairs.

The idea of building a power plant at the dam in Glendale stems from that order, which says basically repair the dam or tear it down. Because of the stiff cost of repair and removing the debris - estimated as high as $12 million - supporters of the 1930s-era dam are hoping that a privately built power plant could generate enough money to cover that cost over time.

Supervisor Theo Lipscomb, who represents the Glendale area on the County Board and landowners who want the dam preserved, said the proposal for a hydroelectric plant deserves serious consideration because it could mean some private support toward preserving the dam and it would provide a clean energy source. The county would receive a share of revenue from the sale of power generated by the dam, according to a study from Titus Energy Management Services, a local firm. The study was paid for by the county and the City of Glendale.

Lipscomb has an admirable goal, but there are serious and expensive problems. The river bottom would have to be excavated just below the dam by five to eight feet, depending on who you talk to, to get the drop necessary for adequate power to run hydroelectric turbines. A special channel also would have to be dug. And once running, the plant could also cause environmental problems for the river and its fishery, according to an environmental group that favors removing the dam.

It also would require an extensive and expensive permitting process at the state and federal levels. And for what gain? To help cover the cost of extensive repairs of the dam and provide power for a small number of homes in the area.

More information will come from a $200,000 dam stability analysis the county has agreed to do this year. But until that's done, and unless it conclusively shows otherwise, this remains a highly dubious proposal.