Stebbinsville Dam could face removal
Stebbinsville Dam timeline
1973: Peter Burno buys the Stebbinsville Dam from the city of Stoughton. He uses it to generate power for his company, Wisconsin Edison Corp.
April 1998: The state Department of Natural Resources inspects the dam. Its report calls the dam "unsafe and dangerous to life, health and property." The DNR orders Burno to keep the dam open.
May 2004: Chains holding open the dam gates apparently fail, backing up water during heavy rain. Burno reportedly digs a trench to relieve pressure on the dam, and the surging water rips out 60 feet of dirt around the end of the dam. The damage threatens a county bridge and forces officials to close Stebbinsville Road.
June 2004: The DNR orders Burno to perform a dam failure analysis and either repair or remove the dam.
August 2006: North American Hydro applies for a preliminary permit to study the viability of a hydroelectric plant at the Stebbinsville Dam. The company later decides not to pursue the idea because it's not convinced the dam is safe, said William Pickrell, chief operating officer.
November 2006: A Rock County judge fines Burno $1,000 for obstructing navigable water and orders him to repair or remove the dam.
July 2007: Burno applies to abandon the dam.
Photo
Stebbinsville dam owner Peter Burno is feuding with the Wisconsin DNR again over the structure. The state claims the dam needs to be removed and Burno is resisting.
PORTER TOWNSHIP — Shelly Schieldt has spent much of his 74 years on a farm next to the Stebbinsville Dam on the Yahara River.
And though the dam needs much repair, he doesn't think the government should turn its back on this alternative source of energy, he said.
"We need the power plant for electricity," he said.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has accepted an application to abandon and remove the 90-year-old dam. It says the dam is unsafe and the owner has made no effort to repair it.
The owner, Peter Burno, Stoughton, said he's being forced to abandon the dam because the DNR wants it gone.
The dam hasn't operated in at least 11 years. In 1998, the DNR issued a report ordering Burno to draw down the water behind the dam, calling it "unsafe and dangerous to life, health and property."
In the years since, the DNR and Burno have gone through a public battle over the dam, culminating in 2006 with a court order for Burno to pay $1,000 and either repair or remove the dam.
Burno applied to abandon the dam in 2007. He said the dam is safe but the DNR is forcing him to abandon it.
The plant could generate about 2 million kilowatts of electricity a year, eliminating the need for about 300,000 gallons of crude oil, Burno said
That's why Schieldt, the dam neighbor, would like to see someone repair the dam, though he agrees with the DNR that it needs a lot of work.
"It's a public health hazard and an eyesore, so it either has to come out or be fixed," Schieldt said.
He's collected signatures from more than a dozen neighbors on a petition encouraging the DNR to save the dam. The petitioners have collectively pledged about $2,000 to Burno or a future dam owner if he or she generates 5,000 kilowatts of power by the end of 2014.
The pledge is "just to show our good faith," Schieldt said.
But the DNR doesn't have a choice if Burno doesn't repair or sell the dam, said Rob Davis, DNR water management engineer.
"We're just reacting to a permit application that we received to abandon and remove the dam," he said. "Unless there is an owner who steps forward to buy the dam and to bring it back into a safe condition, we don't have any choice but to move forward."
Davis said he's not sure the dam would be financially viable for anyone, though he didn't have an estimate on repair costs.
North American Hydro, the company that operates the Indianford and Centerway dams, showed interest in the dam in 2006 but decided not to pursue it. Burno did not convince the company the dam was safe, said William Pickrell, chief operating officer.
The DNR estimates it will cost $75,000 to $90,000 to remove the dam. It plans to seek grants to pay for the removal, Davis said. It hasn't set a timeline but hopes to start work this summer, he said.
Dam neighbors won't notice much difference when the dam is gone, he said.
"Other than the concrete structure being there, we don't think it's going to be much different than what it's been for the past 11 years," he said.
Oct 18, 2009 at 5:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
What dam? The remnants, the building, and the grounds looks like a pile of junk to me -- as it has for years.
It's just lucky than nothing else was washed away when the levee gave out. If the gates would have been operational at the time (they were not, as the chains needed to lift them up had not been repaired - Bruno blamed it on "vandals," but rust and time were the most likely candidates) prior to the failure, they could have been lifted to release the pressure and volume in a controlled manner, thus saving the dam and levee.
The owner, Peter Burno, is responsible for its unsafe operating condition at the time of failure and its eventual demise as a functional dam. Burno should be held responsible for removal or repair costs, at least a big part of them, and not "grants" (i.e. TASPAYERS!).
Oct 17, 2009 at 6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sannio, your absolutely right, it is scary.
------
World population 1950: 2.5 billion
World population present: 6.7 billion
World population 2050 projected: 9.1 billion
How DENSE can we get?
Apr 2, 2009 at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
The remains of the Stebbinsville dam are very dangerous to paddlers because it is a "low-head" dam. Look that term up on the internet if you don't know what it means.
Apr 1, 2009 at 10:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
The dam timeline states that in 2004 Mr Burno dug a trench to relieve "pressure" on the dam.
(VERY bad idea btw...)
THAT was your final card to play Mr. Burno. The DNR has called your bluff and now you either need to finish the dam wrecking job or let the water run its course.
You can plainly see from the picture that the dam now is nothing more than a temporary water diversion now and the channel is slowing moving around the dam.
Apr 1, 2009 at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
partarican1 - We can promote sustainability here in Rock county by having fewer babies. There is no solution to anything if the human population doesn't stop growing. Scary chart linked below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Popula...
Apr 1, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
You can judge me all you want, but what do you do to promote sustainability here in Rock County? I don't agree with you and your posts won't convince me of your point. Stebbinsville dam needs to go. I don't work for the DNR, and the department has become too politicized to function properly. Not all dams need to be removed and if the state wants them gone, they should help pay. The land owner probably can't afford the removal if he can't afford the upkeep.
Apr 1, 2009 at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Janesvillean - read my posts. Don't be obtuse.
Apr 1, 2009 at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Long_Time_Gone, your response is pretty over the top. Being concerned about wetlands is indeed being concerned about human impacts, because we too share the impact of wetland destruction in flooding and water quality. Although hydropower is clean, and is the historical basis for Janesville as a manufacturing center, this one little dam is not going to make much of a difference and if repair costs are beyond what a power company is willing to underwrite we are left with a derelict. To the contrary, it appears you are the one calling for retaining dams regardless of their value.
Apr 1, 2009 at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Patrician1 -
Why is it that those most concerned with environnmental impacts do not concern themselves with human impacts.
*
It is a shared responsibility, not an either/or choice.
*
Your support for arbitrarily ripping out dams throughout the state demonstrates your profound bias and frankly, lack of intelligent rebuttals.
Apr 1, 2009 at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
partarican1, Water quality now and in the future? I don't understand what you are talking about and I don't believe you do either.
It would be wonderful to address safety and history with the future of Stebbinsville, the Beckman Mill in Newark township is a perfect example.
Apr 1, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
To reiterate my previous post and not confuse the simple:
I understand Stebbinville dam needs to go, but it's still sad to bury technological history.
Removing the Indianford dam is a profoundly stupid idea.
Back when these hydroelectric dams were built they were technological marvels, funny how right they were back then, not knowing the future and what we deal with these days regarding oil.
Apr 1, 2009 at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
The existing facility is not capable of producing the kind of energy needed for the area. While hydropower is better than fossil fuel power at any extent, the value of a wetland (Lake Koshkonong) remains greater than the value of the dam (Indianford dam). I am not concerned for the lakefront property owners who may lose their boat launch if the dam comes out. I am concerned with the surface and ground water quality in the region, now and in the future.
Besides, this article is about the Stebbinsville dam not the Indianford dam. The Stebbinsville dam is dilapidated and should come down. It is a safety hazard and does nothing but divert water around itself. It is a fun spot to canoe past, though.
Apr 1, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gandalf -
Koshkonong was known by the robber barons of the Great Depression as a place to slaughter ducks and ship ice boxes back to their favorite restaurants in Chicago and the East. Your dating of the "modern" dam at Indianford certainly confirms this piece of shameful history.
*
As I search the Rock County property database, I see that remnants of this history still remains. There are several "trusts" listed, which is a legal mechanism to keep those private duck hunting clubs in family estates.
*
For 75+ years, the Lake has been discovered by average income families looking for quality of life that fishing and boating out their backyards offers.
*
In that regard, the Dam has promoted a huge tax base and invited simply another form of recreation beyond duck hunting - which I believe still occurs each fall.
*
You may be wistful for a rice filled lake bed that only fills each spring, luring in ducks for a select few high income hunting club members, but today, and the future, is much more fair and profitable and environmentally friendly than those days pre 1931.
Apr 1, 2009 at 8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Long Time, the original dam didn't create the Lake as we know it today. The dam built in 1931 is mostly responsible for the lake. Before then, Koshkonong was a destination from around the nation and Europe.
metromilton, to characterize Koshkonong as 'just a swamp' prior to the dam is a display of sheer ignorance. If you want a swamp, go down to Louisiana.
Apr 1, 2009 at 8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
I imagine people bought their homes in Stebbinsville because of the flora and fauna of the millpond created by the dam.
*
But I have to ask, as the structure fell into disrepair, the DNR turned-up the heat 10 years ago to remove it, and then the highway was washed-out because of this Bruno guy's neglect, why the residents did not take action long ago?
*
The DNR is an agressive condemner of ALL dams, but this Bruno person is nothing more than a slum lord.
*
Sadly, property values will drop without the appeal of a mill pond in those backyards.
Apr 1, 2009 at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
It's a quaint and beautiful little corner of the region, remote and still quite natural. And hardly of size to pose major threats to life and limb. So let's destroy it, just like any last remaining pieces of our past we might have recourse to.
Mar 31, 2009 at 10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
LTG...the dam at Indy was built in 1846 of wood to power a sawmill. It was replaced with concrete dams in 1917 and again in 1931.
Before the dam was built, "lake K" was nothing more than a swamp...something it will never be returned to....
Here's a link to the dam (and the lake K's history)...http://webpages.charter.net/jsill/Koshkonong/The%20Dam.html
Mar 31, 2009 at 7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gandalf - what year was a dam contructed at Indianford? And when was Koshkonong last world class waterfowl hunting grounds?
Mar 31, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Umm -- let's get some basic physics out of the way here. The claim that the dam could generate 2 gigawatts (2 million kilowatts) of electricity in a year is bogus -- the units are wrong. A gigawatt is a measure of power, or how strong it is at any one moment. A gigawatt is the amount of power put out by a huge power plant, or something like Grand Coulee dam (6.8 gigawatts).
Energy is power times time, so energy is measured in watt hours, kilowatt hours, etc. A 100 watt bulb burning for 10 hours is one kilowatt hour, and it costs about 10 cents or so. If the dam produced 2 gigawatt hours of energy in a year, it would be producing a power of about 228 kilowatts, or enough power for about 228 houses, on average.
What's that all worth? If it was worth enough, they would have fixed the dam, wouldn't they? At about 10 cents per kilowatt hour, that comes to about $200,000 per year. Evidently, that's not enough to keep it going.
Mar 31, 2009 at 5:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Didn't electricity production at Indianford shut down in 1962? I could be wrong...did it start producing again?
Mar 31, 2009 at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Janesvillelifer, the Indianford dam is hardly a Green means of power production. It comes at the price of the continued destruction of what was once one of the world's great wetland areas; one that was without peer as habitat for waterfowl. It has made Koshkonong a cess-pool of carp and silted-over springs. Instead of attracting wildlife lovers from all over the world, the dam has destroyed habitat and sends eroded soil down to the Gulf of Mexico.
Mar 31, 2009 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
It would be nice to remove the Indianford dam as well? Are you kidding me? Why? It's the biggest truly GREEN means of power production in Rock County!
It is too bad that the Stebbinsville dam's refurb would not at least break even in power production. I remember going there as a kid, amazed that this quietly humming building surrounded by flowers and mulberry trees was supplying power to the grid twentyfour seven.
Removing the Indianford platform is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on here... and there have been some doozies!
Mar 31, 2009 at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's time to remove the dam. It would be nice to remove the Indianford dam, as well.
Mar 31, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
I _think_ the speaker meant "Other than the concrete structure NOT being there", because it hasn't been an operational dam for the last decade.
Mar 31, 2009 at 11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
I grew up down the road from this dam and have great childhood memories of fishing with my dad there.
Mar 31, 2009 at 11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Thank you Stacy. *s*
Mar 31, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Thank you. I understand that. I just didn't understand the sentence as it is written.
And how 'bout them, "Dam neighbors"! *lol*
Mar 31, 2009 at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
they mean the river and the water flow
Mar 31, 2009 at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Other than the concrete structure being there, we don't think it's going to be much different than it what it's been for the past 11 years," he said.
.
Huh?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.