Why the Estabrook Dam Was Created
Ancient geological conditions created troublesome stretch of the Milwaukee River which led to unique solution. Part 2 of a series.
Engineering Plan for Milwaukee River Channel Deepening Project (December 1933). Right side of the drawing includes a rough schematic of the three major components of the dam (the row of ice-breakers is shown by the straight line with “x” marks, the main dam structure by the heavier black line, and the spillway represented by the curving line). Final plans for the dam were refined over the following 3 years.
On March 10, 1934, Milwaukee County filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for permission to construct both the Estabrook and Kletzsch Park Dams on the Milwaukee River. The stated purpose for the Estabrook Dam was to “maintain normal water level under normal conditions, aid in flood control, and provide recreational facilities.” The timing of the planning phase for the dam is significant as multiple documents published by Milwaukee Riverkeeper have suggested that the Estabrook Dam was not a component of the original flood control project, but a feature that was only added later in response to complaints by riverfront property owners.
After a more than three-year detailed design and review process, authorization to proceed with the Estabrook Dam project was granted by the PSC on May 26, 1937, with a permit to construct, operate and maintain the dam at a fixed pool. Work on the project using labor provided by the Civilian Conservation Corps began the following month. The dam was completed in early 1940, just in time to be subjected on June 22-23 to a record breaking deluge during which rainfall totals of 5.97 to 7.29 inches were reported at local weather stations. The water level at the dam rose only 6-inches during this major flood, according to a Milwaukee Journal story on June 24, 1940.
Work on cutting through the oxbow bends in Lincoln Park began in early 1937 and continued into 1940, culminating a project spanning seven years that represents one of the major Depression-era public works projects completed in the Milwaukee area – a project on which thousands of Milwaukee residents were employed, with most of the work conducted by hand (a requirement for projects that were intended to provide employment during the Great Depression for as many workers as possible).
Drawing of the plans for transformation of Lincoln Park in conjunction with the flood mitigation project, including the creation of the expanded impoundment resulting from the construction of the Estabrook Dam. The vision for the park as described by Jerome Dretzka (Secretary of the County Park Commission) and Eugene Howard (Chief Engineer of the Park Commission’s Planning Department) was that “Lincoln Park will be one of the finest places for swimming and boating and skating in the country.” (Source: The Milwaukee Journal, 11/13/1938).
View of the initial phases of construction of the Estabrook Dam (circa 1937).
View of completed dam with icebreakers at center, gate structure at upper left, island at center, and spillway on upper right.
The geologic conditions that resulted in the drainage lake forming at this particular location, as well as the flooding problems that led to construction of the dam, can thus be traced back to events that occurred 360-420 million years ago. The dam was created not as a boon to riverfront property owners, but as part of a decades-long effort to help transform a degraded industrial area into recreational parkways, to solve a major flooding problem, and to transform Lincoln Park into one the finest places for swimming, boating and skating not just in the county, but in the entire country. That history is critically important to understand in deciding the fate of the Estabrook Dam.
Article Continues - Pages: 1 2
A Freshwater Controversy
-
The Path Forward for Estabrook Dam
Feb 10th, 2016 by David Holmes
-
Estabrook Dam’s Environmental Impact
![Photograph of fish passing through the fish passage at the Mequon-Thiensville Dam. As of June 2015, a total of 35-species of fish have been recorded by a “fishcam” in the act of swimming past the dam [http://www.co.ozaukee.wi.us/1248/Fishway-Camera]).](https://urbanmilwaukee.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/image03-185x122.jpg)
Jan 17th, 2016 by David Holmes
-
Does the Estabrook Dam Cause Flooding?
Dec 30th, 2015 by David Holmes
Interesting article, but I still find myself focusing on:
The dam was created not as a boon to riverfront property owners, but as part of a decades-long effort to help transform a degraded industrial area into recreational parkways, to solve a major flooding problem, and to transform Lincoln Park into one the finest places for swimming, boating and skating not just in the county, but in the entire country. That history is critically important to understand in deciding the fate of the Estabrook Dam.
It never became “one the finest places for swimming, boating and skating not just in the county, but in the entire country” and the industrial area could and has been transformed without a real necessity for the dam. Additionally, I do not claim to be a flood expert, but my understanding is that the damn does not help alleviate flooding issues.
At this point, keeping the dam, because it seemed like a good idea 70 years seems like a waste of tax dollars and a mistake.
If we want to restore natural conditions to this section of the river, as this piece intimates, then why don’t we add rock fill back where the rock ledge was blasted out, and re-meander the river into the “s curve” it once was, get rid of the straight cut through Lincoln Park, and reestablish the wetlands that were once there? We’d be in favor of that, but there is no way it could be permitted. Keeping the dam does not restore natural conditions, not even close, and two wrongs don’t make a right. You could argue that the dam reestablishes higher water levels, but it does not reestablish natural flows or natural ecological processes that require a free river for fish passage, movement of sediment and organic material, freshwater mussel reproduction (which requires fish hosts to have free movement), etc. Keeping the dam does not address water quality problems caused by the dam or impacts to biological life (mussels, invertebrates, amphibians) from fluctuating water levels due to dam operations (fluctuating water levels due to gates being opened and closed). Lastly, although most dams were built for certain reasons, we need to examine whether it makes sense to keep these structures NOW based on new realities, which include major changes to water levels from upstream development and climate change, the increased risk of flooding caused by the dam NOW, as well as the high cost of fixing, operating and maintaining this 80 year old structure given the fiscal realities at the County (over $300 million+ in deferred maintenance needs for capital facilities). Dam repair with operations and maintenance is 3 times more expensive than dam removal (with fish passage construction and maintenance its likely closer to 4 times more expensive than removal). Over 300 homes could experience higher flood risks during any storms over the 5 year event if the County can’t get the gates open at a repaired dam, which has been a reoccurring problem in the past (due to poor condition, poor maintenance and electricity failures and lack of county resources). Regardless of the geologic history of this area, the County could and would be liable for that flood damage if they fail to act in a timely fashion. What the water levels were during glacial times is interesting, but increasingly irrelevant. I agree with Mike that keeping the dam because it seemed like a good idea over 80 years ago makes no sense. Removing the dam is the best alternative for the river and for the taxpayer NOW.
Wow, it was always a lake….built to preserve fishing and swimming. This is opposite of what Milwaukee Riverkeeper has always stated. Perhaps this is the reason Riverkeeper requested not to go to trial last summer…..over issues with the dam.
Dear Author, could you please list the sources and or methods you used to derive all of these complex calculations especially regarding: river miles (or feet), and changes in elevation?
How much would it cost to install a rock out crop that would raise water levels above the damn that would still allow some fish to battle over it compared to a traditional damn? Seems like that would be the best of both worlds.
Wonderful history.
But I am not sure what it has to do with the dam. Nature inexorably most forward, not back.
Cheryl Nenn says: “… why don’t we add rock fill back where the rock ledge was blasted out, and re-meander the river into the “s curve” it once was, get rid of the straight cut through Lincoln Park, and reestablish the wetlands that were once there? We’d be in favor of that, but there is no way it could be permitted. …”
That’s what many of us don’t understand: the “no way it could be permitted” part.
May as well get it out in the open. Even lefties (like me) need to know if the restoration option is hamstrung by, you know … those environmental … things.
To Casey and Gary–there was a rock ramp design to take out the dam structure and build essentially a ramp of rock. It couldn’t be placed where the old shelf was exactly, because models show that would increase water elevation, which is against FEMA rules. When placing a structure in the river or doing restoration, you need to show that you don’t increase water level by 0.01 inches. In the case of the dam, since its an existing structure, they don’t have to meet FEMA regs with a repair scenario. The reason we couldn’t put the ledge back in and/or re-meander the river is for the same reason that work was done in the first place–it would increase flooding of existing structures by causing an increase of elevation and backwatering effect. The river was modified to eliminate flooding. The dam was added on to the project because residents wanted to have their cake and eat it too–or namely, wanted to be able to drain the area to minimize flooding while also maintaining higher water levels for recreation and aesthetic reasons. I don’t dispute that the dam was put in place to re-establish the water elevation that was in the area. But from that information, one can not infer the river was deeper (there was a rock ledge) or wider. That is just not supported by the aerials, which we have going back to the mid 1800s. I have no idea where David is getting this “drainage lake” concept–its semantics. This area had a slowly meandering river that caused overbank flooding–that is what river bends/meanders do. Regardless of what we call it, there is not right to a water level, and upstream residents in favor of the dam can’t force a downstream owner to keep a dam if it is causing a nuisance or is a liability. There are hundreds of less vocal residents in the Lincoln Park neighborhood that want the dam removed to reduce flood risk. While the dam has changed the same over the last 80 years (albeit in a crumbling, deteriorated state), the water levels have not changed the same nor the increased rate of volatile storms. It is time for it to come out. Interestingly, the river seems to be favoring the west oxbow again post dredging. If we take out the dam, it may very well, re-meander itself. The east oxbow is becoming a wetland, with some assistance from local beavers. There is some hope that while we couldn’t go back to the way things were, that we may be able to approximate a more natural, free-flowing condition.
Above sentence should state “While the dam has STAYED the same over the last 80 years (albeit in a crumbling, deteriorated state), the water levels have not STAYED the same nor HAS the increased rate of volatile storms (WEIRD AUTOCORRECT).
I’d also add that the rock ramp alternative was in between the costs of repair and removal. About twice as expensive as dam removal. It would still be permitted as a dam, and maintenance would be required to ensure no increase in flooding upstream, etc. They were having a hard time designing a rock ramp that didn’t increase flooding. There was one design they looked at, which seemed buildable. As part of a fish passage, they will likely encounter similar issues. It’s not entirely clear how or where it would be built to not increase upstream water levels.
Milwaukee Riverkeeper had their chance for a day in court last July concerning Estabrook Dam but requested and was granted a stay. They did so because they lacked expert witnesses for their lawsuit against the county. Riverkeeper filed this lawsuit over 6 years ago, that was more than enough time to gather evidence involving the Dam.
I wrote a short article, “Milwaukee’s Lincoln Park District: A Look at Three Photomaps”, in Milwaukee History, vol 2, no 3, Autumn 1979. The article has three annotated aerial photographs: 1937 (shows the old meanders in Lincoln Park), 1954 (meanders removed via “straight-cut”, and 1971. I would appreciate the disclosure of the source of the older aerial photos (maps?) mentioned, going back to the 1800s.
I keep hearing the Riverkeepers state they want the river back to its natural state. Do they know how much this alternative would cost. You would have to repair countless shorelines that people live on not to mention digging out the impoundment area so the river was actually deep enough to have any chance to use recreationally. None of the “tear the dam down” advocates have this cost in any of their estimates if the dam was removed. They think they can tear the dam down and let nature take its course. They don’t care about the people that have homes on the river or the countless people that use to enjoy Lincoln Park. This area of the dam has been modified, and homes have been built since the dam was put in place. You cant just rip the dam out and say see you later. Riverkeeper is missing the big picture!!
Give it up Cheryl. You lost. Put your excellent mind elsewhere .
A before image of the river inserted into image of same location after Scott Walker stopped funding repairs on the Dam. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208244211043193&set=p.10208244211043193&type=3&theater
Thanks to everyone for the feedback.(including critical comments). One goal for the article series was to foster further meaningful discussion, in particular on some aspects of the controversy that seem to have received no attention to date. My work and travel schedule this week prevented me from responding earlier to some of the comments. Following are some initial responses to a few of the comments.
Regarding comment 1 by Mike C: I believe the extent to which Lincoln Park achieved the vision of becoming “one of the finest places for swimming, boating and skating in the country” is subject to debate. In fact, it may have come close to achieving this vision in the 1940s before increasing pollution in the Milwaukee River associated with Milwaukee’s expanding industrial footprint and urban sprawl led to the closure of the swimming beaches at Lincoln and Estabrook Park. Previous discussions seem to have missed the point that Lincoln Park was specifically designed to provide water-based recreational opportunities associated with the impoundment. I think that the vision for Lincoln Park from 70 years ago is in fact completely relevant to the recreational needs of residents living today in the neighborhoods surrounding Lincoln Park. I remain unconvinced that removing the dam will simply replace one type of recreational opportunity with another of equal value.
Regarding comment 4 by A. Nonymous: I don’t have a technical reference, but those statistics were presented in the introduction to the “River Reborn” article series in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel which can be found here: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/5-billion-revival-leaves-milwaukee-river-cleaner-more-valuable-b9948752z1-261880681.html
Regarding comment 6 by Tom Bamberger: I disagree. I think understanding the historic significance and context is an essential element of any decision affecting a major public resource. This context has been missing from most previous discussions of the dam, and the impoundment has been characterized (at least initially) as an artificial feature in existence for a few decades. Context has generally been lacking as well the significance of the dam and impoundment in the development of Lincoln Park. The impoundment wasn’t a feature that just happened to be located in Lincoln Park. It was the key element of the Park. Considering the historical context is an essential element of moving forward in a manner that will provide greatest lasting benefit.
Regarding comment 8 by Cheryl Nenn: The drainage lake concept is from the WDNR. The description of a deep swimmable pool existing upstream from the high point of the rock ledge is from engineering documents of the 1930s, as referenced in the article. As a geologist, I found the description of this deep pool upstream from the high point of the rock ledge somewhat curious. It’s possible that it could have formed due to flow dynamics and erosion acting over the past 10,000 years. I suspect it might have formed at towards the end of the Wisconsin glaciation when the pre-cursor to the Milwaukee River may have at times served as a major outlet for glacial meltwater, with flows that at times could have been vastly greater than peak flows occurring during recent millennia, and flows ladden with boulders and glacial detritus that can erode rock at a much greater rate.
I’ll try to post one or two more comments over the weekend.