Commissioner Annie Young's Crown Hydro Decision Remarks
CROWN HYDRO DECISON REMARKS May 5, 2004 Annie Young, citywide Park Commissioner
In my 15 years of work on the Park Board I have worked hard to do my job as best as is humanly possible - to protect and serve as a steward of our beloved Park system.
Martin Sabo has been enormously helpful in working with the Park Board in getting federal dollars to help redevelop the St. Anthony Falls area including the Stone Arch Bridge and Mill Ruins Park. He has done so much to help us make the river happen. Most recently he has brought funding to include a water park in the east side of the river that would include white water rafts which he recently supported. Rice, Kroening and Sarna brought us home the state funds to support implementing the vision.
It's also interesting in that the Park Board filed a Motion to Intervene with the FERC in March of 2003, with strongly-worded opposition to this project in which the Park Board staff states "while Crown has been willing to discuss the design of the forebay/headrace area, its representatives have refused to engage in the preparation of any form of agreement," and concludes with: "This flagrant disregard of the stipulations of the license cast into question the ability of the licensee to undertake this project in a timely, cooperative, and competent manner.
Based upon the reasons outlined above, the Park Board holds that granting the requested amendment of license has the potential to do irreparable damage to the goals of the Park Board and the City of Minneapolis in the ongoing development of recreational facilities and historic preservation activities in the project area."
There is not an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Cataract Mill. The current EAW is from 10 years ago and the Crown Hydro Mill. I have yet to understand all the delays and reasons why it has taken Crown Hydro 13 years to finish all its preparatory work necessary to convince us all that this is right! The last five years the staff have put in hundreds of hours of work on trying to make this happen but it just doesn't seem to come together.
I also have done enough history research now to understand that this building had an operating turbine in it for decades and has yet to collapse. The building dates to 1879, and its power system is described as at least a century old and operated until 1933. Because the historical turbine transmitted power through mechanical means, I bet those turbines in 14 different companies milling operations (with those big huge machines) produced more vibrations than what is being proposed of this smaller project and the production of electricity.
Crown Hydro cannot do this without the $5.1 Renewable Energy Development Funds and I question whether this is the best use of those funds. If Crown Hydro is not producing energy by January, 2005 they lose this money. No matter what happens this Wednesday there is no way they can start producing energy by that date.
This is an incredible risk to the area - the Falls and the bridge. It has taken 5 years of staff time which actually has taken away from some of our other capital improvement projects. If we approve this there would be an incredible amount of time that would still be spent by staff on the project as it winds its way through the Met Council, the City (for Zoning), the state , etc., etc., etc as we are only the first in a long, long list of people who have to give approval.
When people ask me what has changed in the last ten years from where we all started on this - we have put into place the vision for the riverfront. In a short ten years we have built a new park, development has brought new residents and started a new neighborhood, the Guthrie has come to the Riverfront, the Mill City Museum and more. The oak plank road has been finished and the tail races opened up. This changes have been unbelievable and has had a great impact on the area. This spot is no longer the "perfect" place for a model hydro project.
The lower lock and dam area (immediately below St. Anthony Falls) is not fully utilized with respect to potential hydro-electric development if we the Park Board deems it important in meeting our Mission.. A license has apparently recently been applied for development of that area more fully with hydroelectric power. For 3 times more (9.3mw).
Please understand that this does not diminish my love and passion for renewable energy and a belief that there is a need for hydro (which is right across the river at XCEL). I just think this is not the right time and the right place for this particular hydro project.
The bottom line is it is about the RISK to the Park Board for so little money - and in reality it isn't even about the money - it is about 100 years into the future - It's about seven generations. I personally would hate to be responsible for the loss of the Falls or the Stone Arch Bridge.
PS. As yet it is still a discussion item on the agenda. It is not clear who will make the motion and what the motion will be. I do know that there are not 6 Yes votes no mater how you cut the pie.