A decision of consequence
In a preliminary vote last week, Elgin lawmakers voted 5-4 to recommend putting a question on the November presidential election ballot asking residents if the Kimball Street dam on the Fox River should be removed as the Army Corps of Engineers recommends.
The question would take the form of an advisory referendum, meaning the City Council would treat the results as no more than a survey and won’t be bound to act according to them. Council members took the action as a Committee of the Whole; those same members will meet as the Elgin City Council in the next few months and finalize the referendum — or abandon the idea.
Even as members were being polled last week, there was a sense that one or more of those who voted “yes” to pursue an advisory vote might already be wavering. We encourage the waver and hope that the council ultimately decides to collect public opinion another way.
Advisory referendums are almost never good ideas. Too many voters inevitably misunderstand and think their vote is the real deal. When they find out they were merely being surveyed, they get mad, and for good reason. The only value an advisory referendum has is the cover it offers for council members who aren’t willing to take a stand on a controversial issue. If councils really want to abandon their leadership responsibility in favor of a direct vote of the public, they should do so openly, in the form of a binding referendum.
This is especially important for a consequential decision like that facing Elgin.
The Elgin dam is one of nine along the Fox River in Kane County that the Army Corps has proposed tearing out — largely for environmental reasons but also because of compounding maintenance costs and human safety issues. These so-called “legacy” dams, built in the 1800s to mechanically power the mills that populated the Fox’s banks, are today obsolete and cost significant amounts to maintain and repair. They are sometimes factors in tragic boating accidents and drownings, as the circular currents below the dams can pull boats and people underwater. Moreover, the segmented river can lead to large algae blooms and reduced wildlife habitats.
Elgin has a particularly acute interest in whether its dam remains, because the city gets some of its drinking water from the Fox. Does loss of the dam create a threat to the city’s water supply? Is the threat strong enough to overcome the other issues posed by the dam’s existence? What would the dam’s removal do to the riverbank, and how would it affect the flooding already occurring in the Willow Lakes Estates subdivision on the riverfront?
These are not mere questions of aesthetics. They require careful, technical examination. An elected city council is empowered to study issues like this. The officials hire experts to collect data, and then they consider the results and decide based on what is best for the city. That is their function, that is their job.
Seventy percent of Elgin’s drinking water comes from intake pipes upstream of the dam, and removing the dam will make the river shallower. Should the intake pipes have to be relocated, the cost will be high. But the costs will be high either way: If Elgin decides to keep the dam, the city will inherit them and be responsible for its maintenance and repair going forward.
These are the awesome decisions Elgin’s elected officials are charged with getting right. As it has done and will continue to do, the city surely has a responsibility to solicit public opinion and provide thorough technical analysis through hearings and written communications.
An advisory referendum on an issue of this magnitude only demonstrates that council members don’t have faith that the community has the expertise to make the decision in a binding vote. Failing that, the right place for the vote is in City Council chambers.