[Mpls] "Doing" the Crown Hydro project!

[Chris Johnson]

Sean Ryan wrote:

>  Chris Johnson seems to fear the worst circa 1868. Let's clear up some 
> misconceptions...again.
>
>  (Also, some suggest catastophic collapse of the Stone Arch Bridge- 
> Did it fall when Mill Ruins Park was built? The Crown Hydro project 
> would preform the same type of excvation near the bridge as was done 
> for the park but in a much shallower space. Were utility lines, 
> pollution, hidden caves etc. found in the park? Did the park blow up?)

Shall I use Sean Ryan's insulting tone and take him to task for being a 
Pollyanna about nothing ever going wrong with large-scale construction 
and engineering projects?  Or should I instead go back and quote myself 
over and over to demonstrate his repeated misrepresentation of what I 
said and -- even more amazing -- what I believe.  Decisions, decisions...

I have no misconceptions, Sean.  I have stated none, either.  I've spent 
many hours studying this project.  I've read many of the FERC filings 
associated with it -- but maybe only half, since they are so numerous.  
I've seen Crown Hydro's engineering plans.

I've also spent a lot of time researching the history of St. Anthony 
Falls, the geology, and the historical industries and constructions on 
both banks and in the river channel.  I did much of that before the 
Crown Hydro issue even came up on this list, because I just happen to be 
very interested in history and these kinds of archaeological sites.

No, I don't fear the worst since circa 1868.  However, try reading a 
little on the subject of the Army Corp of Engineers efforts to stop the 
collapse of St. Anthony Falls after the Eastman tunnel collapse over a 
15 year period.  You'll discover the river was not particularly amenable 
to being tamed.  It kept finding new ways to bore through the sandstone 
and find an outlet.  If not for a very large curtain wall of concrete 
that the Corp. put in under the limestone, those falls wouldn't be there 
today.

The collapse of the Falls is a very remote possibility.  My statements 
regarding past disasters in the area only serve to point out that 
unexpected things can happen when engaging in excavation projects in 
that geological area.  If you want to argue that's not possible, I have 
a pair of Space Shuttles to sell you real cheap.  Guaranteed not to blow 
up or burn up.

And actually, if memory serves, they did find pollution while excavating 
the park.  Did the first or second shuttle blow up?  Nope.  Guess that 
guarantees none of them would.  Oops.  So much for the argument that the 
park did not blow up when they excavated it, so nothing can go wrong 
with the Crown Hydro excavation.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop mischaracterizing my 
statements.

>  The project would reopen the old headrace channel that already exists 
> underneath the parking lot albeit filled in with debris. The channel 
> is not under the falls, it is seperated from the spillway by the lock 
> & dam. It was filled in the the 1960s so any utility lines that do 
> exist are probably accounted for (why anyone would run utility lines 
> across the crest of falls is beyond me anyway.)

Who said anything about anyone running utility lines across the crest of 
the falls, etc.?  I said Crown Hydro will have to excavate from the 
power house to the nearest Xcel energy power connection to hook up.  
That distance is about 400 feet, according to the FERC document I read.

The project will re-use some parts of the Holly and Cataract Mills 
headraces, but it will also enlarge, alter and add new pieces, because 
what is there is not adequate or appropriate to the project.  This isn't 
simply digging some dirt and junk out of an existing channel.  If this 
thing does get built, you can go down and perhaps visit the construction 
site during the project, and I guarantee you'll see a whole lot more 
digging and concrete pouring than simply re-using an old headrace.  Note 
that I am not accusing you of saying that such re-use is the ONLY 
channel construction involved.  I am merely amplifying on it so that it 
is clear to the readers it is not so isolated.

>  The so called 'extension' to the Stone arch bridge would simply cross 
> this restored water-filled channel, which would have exisited 
> originally. The plans call for this extension to be planks similar to 
> the plank road in front of the Mill City Museum. The 'extension' will 
> make the approch the bridge better and more visible.

Sounds wonderful, it that's what really happens.  However, I don't trust 
a company which is trying to cut its costs and has quoted the entire 
bridge, plank road and landscaping project as costing less than $1 
million to be using anything but the quickest and cheapest means to get 
the bare essentials done.  How many bridges have been built recently for 
substantially less than that figure?  Maybe they can do it, but the 
price is so low I worry about the architectural sensitivity it will 
have.  And if it ends up being ugly and detracting from the area, then 
we're stuck with a white elephant and decreased public value to the 
riverfront, aren't we?  Crown Hydro could ameliorate this kind of 
concern if they could show us real construction plans for the bridge and 
attach real costs to it.  But they have not done that, and in a way, I 
don't blame them.  Every dollar they can avoid committing to up front 
decreases their risk.  That's how I would run a business.

That, in fact, is the whole rub here.  They're a business, in it 
primarily for the profits.  We're the public, primarily in it for the 
good of Minneapolis and society.   We are being asked to assume too much 
risk and cost for the benefits we get in return.  It's not that there is 
one single "deal breaker" -- such as the strawman about the Falls 
collapsing -- but that taken as a whole, the deal is not a good deal for 
the Park Board and is not a good deal for the City.

> Photos- a must see!!!
>
> 1929 picture of west side- (cookies must be enabled)
>
> http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81320&Page=8&Digital=Yes&Keywords=stone%20arch&Type=Photo%2CArtPhoto&SearchType=Basic 
>
>
> See the plank road on the left? 

No, actually I don't, though it may be there.  I see train cars on train 
tracks on some indeterminate surface from this photo.  Might be planks.  
Might not.  But so what?  What's that got to do with whether this 
project makes sense?

Like I said above -- it's not that one detail of this project makes it 
worth opposing.  It's that it costs us, the public, too much for what we 
get in return.