Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. spatny
   Member

   Why does the Village Board continue to avoid complying with the stipulations agreed to that nothing (demolition, construction, excavation, planting, etc.) in the Riverside Historic District and/or Swan Pond Park until a 100% finished plan is provided and approved. Why would anyone undertake a project like this without a 100% finished plan that was thoroughly scrutinized? Why does the Village continue to evade want to proceed with a project that is still undefined?

   I have researched this project, written them letters, asked for information, and they don't respond. When I try and elicit a response at the meeting they don't respond. Tonight they admitted that they have not been given a finished plan, yet when they approved the easement back in September President Gorman cited the 1006 plan - the one that is not being used - as the basis for granting the easement.

   This is a serious issue for the village. Back in the 1950s the Village and the Forest Preserve District went to court to get permission to build the present dam at a higher level because of problems with odor and exposed toxic sediment. Now they want to destroy it without any commitment, iron clad and in writing - to remedy whatever ills it may cause. The old plan called for exposing almost nine acres of contaminated sediment. That was when they spoke of operating within 200 feet of the dam. To comply with EPA Superfund rules that would require about 1200 truckloads of clean fill. I heard the IDNR guy talk about operating 1000-2000 ft upstream, so imagine how much that would require. And which is it - 1000 feet or 2000 feet? Who rights contracts that way. Who pays to fix and maintain what they do?

   It is not enough to say that this was looked at for ten or twelve years. As far as I can see no one questioned anything. To do construction, any construction, you need finished plans, permits, to be in compliance with the rules. Contrary to what some have said, the Army Corps guys in Chicago said they had never worked with the IDNR to remove a dam in Illinois and they have no outcome studies on such projects. So, with no actual experience or expertise, why is the Village Board allowing them to experiment with Riverside, a National Historic Landscape District.

   Olmsted liked the broad water created by the dam. He wrote about it and thought it should be increased. So why are we rushing to destroy it? I'm looking for answers and I can't get them from the Village. I don't like to go and bitch at my friends, but they are wrong to proceed on this project without a finished plan.

   Posted Monday Feb 7, 2011 20:45 #

2. spatny
   Member

   Talking about this issue and attempting to get a direct answer to a simple question like "What has ever been constructed - or deconstructed - in this Village without a completed, vetted and approved plan? engenders frsutration, which showed on my part at the meeting last night. I guess I was rude, and for that I apologize, but this is what it feels like when people won't address a valid issue.

   Posted Tuesday Feb 8, 2011 13:16 #

3. admin
   Administrator

   This was sent by Spatny to the Village Board and Village Manager:
   
   

   Dear Village President, Village Manager, Board of Trustees:
   
   For months I have been trying to convince you to be skeptical of data and prognostications presented by the IDNR and the Army Corps relating to the proposed dam "notching" project. Here is visual proof of what we are likely to have at times of low water if this project goes forward. This old streetcar crossing is directly across the street from my front windows, and I rode that streetcar many times when I was a child and know that this condition was common because of the lower dam and reduced backup. All along the river it was like this - wide, muddy banks full of all kinds of debris where weeds would sprout during low water times and then be flooded over. If this project goes forward the Des Plaines river at Riverside will not become some lush garden. It will be a stinking mess.
   
   The dam crest is at river mile 44.34 - approximately two miles downstream from this location. Remedial work will end approximately 1.5 miles down river from the spot shown in the photo. The data that was presented by the IDNR/ACofE does not accurately reflect what happens to the river at times of low water, as we have had for many months - where the Riverside gage has been reading right about 3.0-3.2 ft for many months prior to the recent snow melt and rain. The Army Corps 7Q10 (Exteme Low) modeling chart that was previously presented as "fact" stated the low water existing depth condition at this location is at about 4 ft, and that it will drop to about 1.75-2.45 feet between Forest and 31st St. after the "notching."
   
   I contend that this photo refutes that claim and clearly shows what I have been saying all along. The dam in its present configuration backs up 156 acre feet of water that extends past 31st street, and if it is notched this is the condition that we will have all along the river if this project goes forward. You can clearly see that the riverbed was dry for a long period because of the size of the weeds that grew in where we now have flowing water. When the 1908 dam was at its lower level after the WPA removal of the top -3-4 feet, the river went down like this and the odor was noxious and stagnant pools were created in the prime season for mosquito breeding all along the river, on both banks. It was because of this condition that in 1950 the Village and the Forest Preserve District banded together in a lawsuit to have the 1950 dam built at the old height, as it is now. If this project goes forward as it has been discussed, it will in fact be at the level shown in the photo, or worse, for much of the year.
   
   If the dam is "notched" to bedrock by removing 150 feet - 60% of its total width of 258 feet, and the water is allowed to run out, this unhealthy condition will occur all along the river on a regular basis, just as it did back when the dam was lower. Homes along Fairbank, Bloomingbank, West, Groveland and Maplewood will have their views destroyed and their property values severely impacted. The boat houses and river walls along Maplewood will be standing in mud, far from any flowing water.
   
   At the present time there is no completed plan for this project. Unless and until a complete and accurate plan is presented and thoroughly vetted by the appropriate parties nothing should proceed. That is what the MOA with the IHPA called for and for good reason. Nothing is allowed to be built in Riverside without accurate plans, permits and approvals. You do not at present have either a completed plan nor accurate and provable data for what the river coverage of the bed will be. Therefore the Village must insist that this - perhaps the largest and most important project that this Village will ever see - be carefully scrutinized and evaluated. Any plan that is developed must include data that shows irrefutably that this condition will not occur and that any negative effects such as this will be corrected regardless of cost, at the expense of those agencies that are foisting this project on us. So far, that has not happened.
   
   The permission to proceed with part of this project that was granted by the Board in September was based upon the statement that a completed plan was in hand and approved. Clearly, that is not the case. You do not have a 100% completed plan or provable data that can be relied upon. Lacking these and with discrepancies like this in the data that has been supplied, and with both the IDNR and Army Corps not even knowing that substantial remnants of the 1908 dam are still in place and will also need removal, this project should not be given a greenlight until a more accurate estimate of the outcome can be ascertained. Riverside is a highly valued, registered, National Historic Landscape District and must be protected and not altered in such a cavalier fashion.
   
   There is also the aspect of spending eight million dollars or more - perhaps a lot more - in times like these on a project of such dubious worth. Whether the funding comes from the state or Federal governments, it all comes from the taxpayers. Right now, the dam as it sits is not costing anyone anything. Why should we risk a disaster and waste needed funds on a project like this?
   
   

   

   Posted Monday Feb 21, 2011 19:13 #

4. spatny
   Member

   Thanks for posting that for me. I put it here and write the Landmark so that people will see there are serious questions about this project.
   
   At the meeting Trustee Shevitz asked if times had not changed. Yes, they have. There is more paving up north, so during a storm, or snow melt off, less water is absorbed into the ground and more of it gets into the river faster, which means our water level rises faster, and sometimes higher. That is beyond our control. Only some vast diversion or retention scheme could solve flood control - this project has little/nothing to do with that.
   
   What I am worried about is when the river is at low level, as it was before when the old dam was chopped off. There are people around who saw what happened and smelled it and know that dam removal/notching is not going to work.
   
   
   
   When there is little or no rainfall, if the dam is notched the level of the river will fall to where it is low and much more narrow. That is what the condition was when the photo above was taken in 1947 when the old 1908 dam had the top 3-4' removed, and it happened for protracted periods of time in summer and fall and we had all those problems. That was caused because a lower level dam backed up less water to cover the riverbed. If the new dam is notched as projected, 14' down to bedrock, at low flow the level will be down like this and stay that way until rain raises it. THe "Extreme low level" numbers projected for this project are inaccurate and do not reflect this condition, which is "true low level."
   
   Before anytbody starts digging things up the project needs to be finished and then the numbers proofed to be sure they are accurate. You couldn't build a garage in this town until you provided complete plans and proved that you would meet code. Why then should we allow this to go forward without the same process? As of now, nearly four months after the last meeting, the IDNR and ACofE have still not provided a complete plan or the data to support the requested topographic map of what the river will be like if/when this project is done. Obviously they don't know and can't give the answer, or don't want to. So why are we letting them proceed blind? I keep asking these questions and the Village never answers. One of the trustees refused to even accept my memo. Saying "we will look out for the Village" is not the same as having things in writing. If this goes forward and the property owners along the river are harmed, they will sue, and then what? This is a very slippery slope we are on. All we need to do is to wait and see what the IDNR/ACofE come up with, then thoroughly vet it, have the commissions concur or not, and then proceed. Why are we not doing that?

   Posted Monday Feb 21, 2011 22:46 #

5. spatny
   Member

   If you want to construct something in Riverside, you need permits, and the building department needs to see plans drawn and completed by an architect or a builder. They are gone over, checked, looked at to see if they meet the codes. If you want to demolish something you need a demolition permit, and that requires a plan. Where is the finished plan and where are the permits for the demolition of the Fairbank Dam?

   Posted Tuesday Feb 22, 2011 19:20 #

6. Fred
   Member

   Might want to check this link for statutory authority of IDNR over waters of the state:
   http://www.dnr.state.il.us/Wetlands/ch4f.htm
   IDNR and USACE may indeed have the authority to perform work in the river, as long as they can get to it. An easement to access the river would be all that they need. Oh wait, wasn't that already granted? Seems like the agency with the discretion here is IDNR. Why beat up on the Village?

   Posted Wednesday Feb 23, 2011 13:34 #

7. spatny
   Member

   Fred - I was surprised when this situation arose and it popped up on the village board agenda. There was a brief presentation, and we asked questions - like why they were not doing Hofmann first as their 2006 plan - the one they call "preliminary" now - called for and they admitted that they weren't finished. They published a notice, and we had it on the village website, stating the dams were in Lyons (where they didn't need an MOA with the IHPA because it is not protected by being a registered National Historic Landscape District.) The easement was granted and the contract for Fairbank was let before the period for comments called for in the notice ended. This deal was pitched to the village as an "opportunity" - a "use it or lose it" funding deal. Even some of the people at the Corps were leery of some of the statements made by the IDNR, but it went ahead.

   We asked what they were going to do about the old 1908 dam that is largely still out there behind this one, and they didn't even know about it. How's that for an unknown cost? I calculated the number of truckloads they were talking about and it was many thousands, and they want to do that from Fairbank Road. I later got them to admit they had not done any soundings within 200 feet of the dam because, they said, it was "too dangerous." So I began to question what their plan was. So then they said they were working on it, but no one has seen it yet and I know for a fact it has not yet been completed.

   Then the Board passed the resolution. From the minutes of the Village Board meeting on Sept. 20th: "President Gorman introduced the item and stated the Army Corps of Engineers completed the report....." but you see, that is untrue, there was no completed report then and there no completed project report as of today. You are right and you are wrong by stating that they can do the work in the rivers if they have the easement, but in this case that easement was granted under a false premise - that the report was completed, which it is not. Also, Riverside is not just any place. It is a registered Historical Landscape District, so to do this work within that district, which is legally defined as going all the way to the south bank of the river, there also had to be a Memorandum of Agreement with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, and that memo, signed by the Corps and the IHPA officer, and concurred with by the Riverside Preservation Commission, the Lyons Historical Commission, and the FL Olmsted Society has stipulations which the parties agreed to when they signed it.

   Among those stipulations it states:
   "The Corps shall not commence demolition, construction, planting, excavation or repair at SWan Pond Park, the Riverside Historic District, Hofmann Dam or the Hofmann Tower complex before obtaining 1) comments from concurring parties on plans and specifications (at the 75% design stage and the 100% design stage)..."

   There is no plan completed or submitted for comments at this these design stages at this time, and my objection is to passing the resolution that granted this easement without one. Under Other Terms and Conditions it says that "Modification, amendment or termination of this agreement shall be accomplished by the signatories in the same manner as the original agreement" and that has not been done. Further, it also states that "This agreement shall be null and void if its terms are not carried out within one year of the date of its execution..." and that has not been done. This was signed in 2003. So there is no valid MOA and there is no finished plan.

   It is very dangerous to grant the Corps this easement without having the finished plan and the supporting data so that a reasonable evaluation of the outcome can be made by the concurring parties. The contract for work is drawn between the ACofE and the IDNR and the contractor they choose, and the village, once it has granted the easement, has no standing. The way it is now, the easement was granted without seeing a complete plan for the project, and they have the right to go in and do whatever they come up with. No one would just sign a paper that says "Go ahead and build whatever you choose to do" but that's what we have done.

   When in 1972 the village accepted the national historic landmark designation of which everyone is very proud, the village government undertook to "preserve, so far as practicable, and to the best of its ability, the historical integrity of this landmark." In keeping with that the village has the obligation to not let a change of this magnitude go forward without at least seeing and carefully scrutinizing a completed plan. The village board could have, and in my opinion should have, said, "Let's see the completed plan and the data it is based on, and tell us how you plan to do this, and we will consider granting the easement.

   These agencies - IDNR and ACofE - have spent a hell of a lot of the taxpayers money - perhaps $1.5 million - on this boondoggle so far, and there isn't even a finished plan. They have never removed a dam in Illinois, so saying they have experience or expertise is bogus. They offer no outcome studies. The fish data they were using was twelve years old. The newest set of numbers they have for flow and depth were not incorporated into the 2006 plan. There are lots of questions about this project that should be asked, answered, documented and verified before it starts. I, and others, have asked those questions repeatedly and we don't get any answers beyond - "Don't worry, we'll do the right thing." Nobody builds anything on the basis of statements like that.

   No private person would be allowed to build a structure or even tear something out without filing plans with the village, having them checked, getting the proper permits. There have been dams on the river for 184 years, and as I wrote earlier, when the old dam was at a lower height there were problems, so the Village and the FPD went to court to have the present dam built at this height. These guys - the IDNR and ACof E don't live here and won't have to put up with the conditions they may create - but the residents will inherit whatever situation results. Why are we doing this without a finished plan, thoroughly checked and vetted, in hand, before granting the easement. Is this envisioned as some kind of legacy or accomplishment. And why didn't/doesn't the village deny the easement and force them to work from the south bank and keep the thousands of truckloads of materials and the all the mess that will create off Fairbank Road. The Corps is already working from the Forest Preserve on the Armitage dam, so they should be able to do that here as well. We might even get an improved FP over there in the bargain.

   Posted Wednesday Feb 23, 2011 14:39 #

8. Fred
   Member

   Excellent summary Don, but you miss my point. The Corps/DNR have the statutory authority to construct or alter dams in waterways of the state/navigable waterways of the U.S. A memorandum of agreement is not authorized by any legislative body nor elected executive branch official at the state or federal level. It lacks the basic elements of a contract (time of performance, elements of performance, consideration). The body to which you should be appealing is either DNR (or elected state bodies) or the Corps (or elected federal bodies). MOAs are non-binding. Implying that the Village, after having granted an easement, has any authority to block a project is just not correct. The state and feds are tougher to deal with, but that's the law. Of course you can berate the Village board for granting the easement, that would be water over the dam...

   Posted Thursday Feb 24, 2011 08:15 #

9. spatny
   Member

   The easement was granted under a false premise, that the plan had been completed. The plan has not been completed to this date, and no one knows when it will be. The President of the Board stated that it was completed, which is worth a couple Pinocchios at least. Since the premise is false, the village should rescind the the authorizing resolution for the easement. they could do that.

   From the MOA: "WHEREAS, the Corps has determined that the proposed work will have an adverse effect on 1) a property (the Hofmann Tower complex) listed for inclusion on the National Rgister of Historic Places and 2) a National Historic Landmark (the Riverside Historic District), and has consulted the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency blah blah blah

   and WHEREAS The Corps and the IHPA have determined that the the adverse effects can be mitigated by implementation of an MOA... blah blah blah NOW, THERFORE, the Corps and the IHPA agree that the Corps shall ensure the following stipulations are implemented..."

   "Stipulation 3 - The Corps shall not commence demolition, construction," etc. as I quoted above. until they have the plans at 75% and 100% design stage completed and get comments from the concurring parties.

   Since the Village's adoption of the national historic landmark designation says it shall preserve to the best of its ability the historical integrity of the district... in a manner consistent with its historical character... and the dams are part of that historical district and character since the district is defined as extending "on the south by Ogden Avenue and the south bank of the Des Plaines River" the Village government must at the least require that anything demolished or built have completed plans and then, only aftyer review by the competent commissions and the building department, and comments being taken, they might possibly be given the permits and thus the easement.

   Bottom line: The Corps agreed to these stipulations, and they haven't met them. They haven't submitted final 100% design stage plans, data, the topographic map and data to support it that was requested of them, etc. And no one has commented on them, since it doesn't yet exist. So they are in violation of the MOA if they start, regardless of having the easement or not.

   And since all that is true they can't be given an easement because President Gorman's statement is false - there is no completed plan. The vote was taken on the basis that his statement was factual, and it wasn't.

   BTW, the IHPA is a State Agency, and has some jurisdiction when the work would have an adverse effect is to take place within a National Historic Landmark, otherwise the Corps would not have sought to consult with them or signed the MOA and agreed to the stipulations.

   They all just need to do the right thing: Wait for the finished report and plan, read it carefully and seek professional help if they can't understand it or a second opinion if they don't trust the data, submit for comments to the Commissions, then have a vote on doing it or not and/or granting the easement. If the villlage refused to grant the easement and the Corps went ahead from the other side at least the construction chaos and traffic would be kept out.

   Posted Thursday Feb 24, 2011 09:51 #

10. spatny
    Member

    DEWEY WINS! At least in Riverside Township. I was looking through old newspapers from the 1940s today and saw that. I also saw that the Caucus candidates trounced the opposition - garnering votes of from 1200 to 250 and winning.

    I was looking for stuff on the dam project(s) at that time and saw that the FPD and the towns along the river wanted to build a series of "about ten" smaller dams, with drops of 3-4' each along the whole upper river upstream of Hofmann for - guess what - to cover the banks and whatever was in the river at that time. There was also a movement to clean up the stuff in the river and the state actually approved $25,000 for that - a lot at the time - but after the election they took it back and it never happened.

    I also saw there was a picture and brief article on an electric power plant at Forest Avenue that was there in the early part of the century which provided power for the area. It must have been on the south side of Forest where the yellow brick apartment house is now, so there must have been a dam or some way to get water to it at location too.

    In '48-9 there was a lot of clamor to get the dam we have now raised to the old level because of the problems of maintaining water in the river, and the Village, the FPD and Mosquito Abatement were all on the side of raising it even two feet higher to keep control of he river level above Hofmann. Eventually they went to court to get it built at the 605 level which was the height of the 1908 dam but they couldn't get it any higher. The present dam construction was actually started before the ruling came down from the Illinois court, but they had designed the present dam to be able to be built at either level and when the suit was won they built this one at the 605 level which was the level of the 1908 dam before the WPA removed the wooden top.

    If the present dam is "notched" for 150 feet we will find all kinds of stuff out there in the riverbed that probably no one wants to see - and this condition, by the way, was all the way from here to Madison street. The idea was that there would be sections of water where people could put in boats all the way up to Madison. So you see, there are problems out there that have not been fully explored. If these conditions come back, who cleans up the mess that will be exposed and who pays for it? I remember there was an old car in the Swan Pond that they had to haul out of there. A lot of people dumped rubble and other detritus in the river as places were being built back then in those halcyon days of yore, and I can't find any record that it was ever extracted.

    Olmsted wrote about the broad water above the older dam that he saw when he was here and thought it should be increased for recreational purposes. It's in the Preliminary Report and proposal that he made to the people that hired him to design Riverside. The guys before the Hofmann brothers got a 100 year deal to build that first dam - and that was behind the 1908 dam, so there may a couple extra dams - or large parts of them - out there. In those days they just kept moving the thing forward from the natural waterfall. Those first two were from locally quarried stone, the 1908 with a timber top. I think they both were semi- circular, the first in a real curve, the 1908 was made of five straight chords.

    I also saw where Blythe school was being bullt at that time and also the Methodist church building. There was a drive to name Blythe for Stephen Forbes but that didn't happen. Who was Blythe - anyone know?

    I also saw that even back then there was a lot of pallaver about sprucing up the CBD, etc. I guess things take more time than one would think.

    Posted Friday Feb 25, 2011 16:00 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.