City Council Approves $500K To Remove...

City Council Approves $500K To Remove Fifth Avenue Dam | WBNS-10TV, Central Ohio News

There are 41 comments on the 10TV WBNS story from Nov 2, 2010, titled City Council Approves $500K To Remove Fifth Avenue Dam | WBNS-10TV, Central Ohio News. In it, 10TV WBNS reports that:

The low-head dam near Fifth Avenue will be removed. Members of Columbus City Council voted Monday night to spend about $500,000 to remove the dam from the Olentangy River, 10TV News reported.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at 10TV WBNS.

Since: Sep 09

Columbus, OH

#27 Nov 2, 2010
What I find interesting is that when the young man died in 2008, the articles said it was going to cost 1.2 million to remove. In my multiple decades on this planet, I've never known a government bid to go down over two years... only up.

And the other thought I have... because Columbus has already stated its intentions to remove the dam, they are probably looking at which is less costly to them...$500k to remove it or potentially millions in a lawsuit when someone gets injured or killed. I'm not an attorney,but my guess is that a good lawyer could make it stand up in court that the city "knew the dangers and didn't do anything to fix it".
dave

Chillicothe, OH

#28 Nov 2, 2010
well dam if you do and dam if you dont
Flood Plain Citizen

Kenton, OH

#29 Nov 2, 2010
What an amazing waste of money. They dam is there for a reason and also people know now allow close to them. Sure feel for the family. But removing this dam endanger over 100k people. City has unproven flood wall and lots of places behind that can flood the south.

Look at it this way 500k for a person not following the rules or Billions to rebuild the South when a flood hits. The Army Corps of Engineers should been called in before these fools remove flood protection. City Council does not have the knowledge to make this Judgement.
Aaron

United States

#30 Nov 2, 2010
City Council better watch out! They are wasting are money and they get elected. Yes, it is sad that someone died but should they have been rafting out on the river in the first place. Just because someone doesn't have common sense doesn't mean we need to spend 500K on it. I am sure this money could be used elsewhere. Not to mention that removing it might have unknown environment impacts from tearing it down. And just so we know who are current council members are: they are listed below:
Michael C. Mentel
Hearcel F. Craig
Andrew J. Ginther
A. Troy Miller
Eileen Y. Paley
Charleta B. Tavares
Priscilla R. Tyson
floyd

Canal Winchester, OH

#31 Nov 3, 2010
Only a moron would try to raft over a lowhead dam!
Johnny

Columbus, OH

#32 Nov 3, 2010
Flood Plain Citizen wrote:
What an amazing waste of money. They dam is there for a reason and also people know now allow close to them. Sure feel for the family. But removing this dam endanger over 100k people. City has unproven flood wall and lots of places behind that can flood the south.
Look at it this way 500k for a person not following the rules or Billions to rebuild the South when a flood hits. The Army Corps of Engineers should been called in before these fools remove flood protection. City Council does not have the knowledge to make this Judgement.
These types of dams are not for flood control. You are thinking of a dam like the one at Alum Creek or Delaware Resevoir. They were built in the 30's-50's with the thinking that it would create habitats for fish by creating pools of water during the dry season. In fact, they hurt fish populations because the fish are trapped and cannot move up or downstream. There is a huge push to remove all of these types of dams in Ohio. ODNR has already removed several.
Christa Ansley

Cincinnati, OH

#33 Nov 3, 2010
rowdy1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not trying to sound crass here,but don't people heed the warnings about this type of dam? They know the dangers but still fool around these areas. Another piece of Columbus history is going to be destroyed.
You are sounding very crass. It was my son who lost his life in this damn. You are allowed to raft there! He did not know that there was a low head damn until he went over it! There were no signs warning them of danger.(There is now) Another piece of Columbus History destroyed?? My son is gone..........
Christa Ansley

Cincinnati, OH

#34 Nov 3, 2010
TTT wrote:
Ok, there were signs warning of the dam and were ignored. This is no good reason to justify the 500k to remove. Now, what was the purpose of it to begin with?
There were no signs at the time of my son's death in that damn! My son did not even know that it was there. The signs were posted after his death. I believe the $500k is WELL JUSTIFIED!
Christa Ansley

Cincinnati, OH

#35 Nov 3, 2010
SW Columbus wrote:
What I find interesting is that when the young man died in 2008, the articles said it was going to cost 1.2 million to remove. In my multiple decades on this planet, I've never known a government bid to go down over two years... only up.
And the other thought I have... because Columbus has already stated its intentions to remove the dam, they are probably looking at which is less costly to them...$500k to remove it or potentially millions in a lawsuit when someone gets injured or killed. I'm not an attorney,but my guess is that a good lawyer could make it stand up in court that the city "knew the dangers and didn't do anything to fix it".
Thank you. Christian Hallam was my son who lost his life in that damn.
Jay

Versailles, OH

#36 Nov 3, 2010
I'll need some military hardware, but I will do that for ALOT less than $500K.
NoWay

Columbus, OH

#37 Nov 3, 2010
A twenty year old should know better than to swim in a dam. Why should we have to pay $500,000? That is a lot of money.

“Can't we all just get along? ”

Since: Dec 09

Home is where you make it.

#38 Nov 3, 2010
I understand that a man lost his life. I also understand removing a dam would have effects along the river. I further understand why a decision like this is made. What I don't understand is, if it is neccessary to remove the dam, why it would cost half a million to do so?

Let me school you

Canal Winchester, OH

#40 Nov 3, 2010
It's amazing how ignorance runs rampant on here. Here are two facts everybody's overlooking:
1. The damn had no warning signs posted when the young man was killed in 2008. When you're upstream from a dam, it's not the easiest thing to see unless you've trained your eye to do so.
2. This dam has nothing to do with flood control. It was constructed so Ohio State can have a small reservoir of water to supply its power plant. Taking the dam out will not be a flooding threat.
Removing the dam not only has numerous environmental and safety benefits, but it also provides an unimpeded water trail from campus to downtown. With the growing popularity of paddlesports, this opens up countless recreational options and opportunities that are centrally located. But most of you probably don't care considering the closest you get to exercise is doing 12-ounce curls.
Johnny

Columbus, OH

#41 Nov 4, 2010
Fire-and-Ice wrote:
I understand that a man lost his life. I also understand removing a dam would have effects along the river. I further understand why a decision like this is made. What I don't understand is, if it is neccessary to remove the dam, why it would cost half a million to do so?
Because it takes planning, environmental permits, material disposal, heavy equipment etc. The environmental studies and other EPA type stuff eats up a lot of time and resources.
hey

Columbus, OH

#42 Nov 4, 2010
columbus flooding 1913 wrote:
Its my understanding that these dams were built for foold control. Dose city council think that if they return it back to its natural state it won't flood anymore. What a bunch weinners.
Low head dams are not for flood control. They do nothing to stop flooding. They were usually built for water supply for mills along the rivers. And removing them doesn't take away history, the are determental to the river and are death traps for whoever gets caught in the roller downstream.
Christa Ansley

Cincinnati, OH

#43 Nov 4, 2010
Let me school you wrote:
It's amazing how ignorance runs rampant on here. Here are two facts everybody's overlooking:
1. The damn had no warning signs posted when the young man was killed in 2008. When you're upstream from a dam, it's not the easiest thing to see unless you've trained your eye to do so.
2. This dam has nothing to do with flood control. It was constructed so Ohio State can have a small reservoir of water to supply its power plant. Taking the dam out will not be a flooding threat.
Removing the dam not only has numerous environmental and safety benefits, but it also provides an unimpeded water trail from campus to downtown. With the growing popularity of paddlesports, this opens up countless recreational options and opportunities that are centrally located. But most of you probably don't care considering the closest you get to exercise is doing 12-ounce curls.
Thank you very much!!

“Can't we all just get along? ”

Since: Dec 09

Home is where you make it.

#44 Nov 4, 2010
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>Because it takes planning, environmental permits, material disposal, heavy equipment etc. The environmental studies and other EPA type stuff eats up a lot of time and resources.
That sounds like "creative jobing"...Come on...No one can justify half a million, sorry.
ChristianAmerica n

Columbus, OH

#45 Nov 4, 2010
hey wrote:
<quoted text>
Low head dams are not for flood control. They do nothing to stop flooding. They were usually built for water supply for mills along the rivers. And removing them doesn't take away history, the are determental to the river and are death traps for whoever gets caught in the roller downstream.
The Olentangy River isn't a thing you put your body into. It is a open sewer that drains chemicals off our streets and contains overflow sewage. It is always muddy brown, smells nasty and would send you to the bathroom for a week if you drank from it. The low head dams keep the water pooled so it doesn't turn into a stinking, oozing mudpile with a trickle running through it every summer.
Johnny

Columbus, OH

#46 Nov 5, 2010
Fire-and-Ice wrote:
<quoted text>
That sounds like "creative jobing"...Come on...No one can justify half a million, sorry.
Didn't say it was needed, but it's all federally mandated, nothing you can do about it.
Phillip Golovin

Columbus, OH

#47 Nov 7, 2010
I grew up in this area. This is the Fifth Avenue dam on the Olentangy River. The river is obvioisly HIGH! In this picture, we are seeing only the western half of the dam. The shadow is the 315 overpass. This dam WAS NOT built for flood control. It was built in the late 20's or early 30's to supply cooling water for the power plant at OSU. That function is no longer necessary. There are warning signs posted, however some folks still wish to ignore them to their own peril. The dam no longer serves a purpose. Tear the damn thing down!(No pun intended.)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rafting Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Time to Vote! The Nature Conservancy Photo Contest (Aug '15) Aug '15 TNC-Midori 1
News Virginia man dies on Colorado rafting trip (Jun '08) Jun '14 emmy 18
News Mudslide rescue op suspended, but search for mi... (May '14) May '14 JASPER TUDOR 1
News Outdoor adventure industry lacks oversight, vic... (Mar '14) Mar '14 Mary 1
News Rivers flow through it (Dec '13) Dec '13 elf 1
News Amy Lynn Gockman (Nov '08) Nov '13 Amanda Schultz 6
News River Activity Up as Water Levels Go Down (Jul '13) Jul '13 syne 2
More from around the web