The legal fight over Consumers Energy’s hydroelectric dams has entered a new phase, with settlement discussions now beginning and no ruling yet issued on the proposed sale of the dams.
That should not be viewed as an invitation to cut a backroom deal.
It should be viewed as a warning.
Michigan has an opportunity to make a fundamentally different choice about the future of its rivers. Instead of negotiating over who gets to own aging dams, Michigan should be asking the question that has been staring us in the face for years:
Why are we trying to preserve these dams at all?
From a river-restoration perspective, the answer is clear: remove them.
Consumers Energy has spent years defending its position regarding its hydroelectric facilities. Critics of the proposed arrangements have argued that Michigan could ultimately be left carrying substantial financial, environmental and public-safety responsibilities associated with aging infrastructure.
And now, with settlement talks beginning, there is a very real danger that Michigan could end up accepting a compromise that looks politically convenient today but becomes an enormous problem for taxpayers, communities and Michigan rivers tomorrow.
Don’t mistake negotiation for victory
There is nothing inherently wrong with negotiations.
But negotiations become dangerous when the public is pressured to accept a bad deal simply because it is called a compromise.
Michigan taxpayers should not be expected to celebrate a transaction merely because it gets a difficult legal and political problem off someone’s desk.
If a deal leaves Michigan responsible for aging infrastructure, future maintenance, environmental liabilities, dam failures or eventual removal costs, then Michigan isn’t solving the problem.
Michigan is inheriting it.
And that is precisely what should concern everyone who cares about the state’s rivers.
Consumers Energy has powerful political and lobbying resources. That makes transparency even more important—not less.
The public deserves to know exactly what is being negotiated, who assumes liability, who pays when these structures eventually reach the end of their useful lives, and what happens when another dam becomes economically or structurally unsustainable.
There should be no ambiguity.
There should be no rushed agreement.
And there should be no deal that leaves Michigan holding the bag.
A dam is not automatically an asset
For decades, dams were treated as infrastructure assets.
But an aging dam can also become a liability.
Every dam represents a permanent interruption in a river’s natural movement. It changes water temperature, sediment transport, fish passage, habitat and the character of the river itself.
Eventually, somebody has to pay for that infrastructure.
The question isn’t whether the bill exists.
The question is who gets stuck with it.
Michigan should not accept a deal that privatizes whatever economic value remains while potentially leaving the public with the long-term environmental and financial consequences.
That isn’t responsible public policy.
That’s shifting the problem.
Michigan rivers deserve better than another generation of delay
Dam removal isn’t a radical concept.
It is river restoration.
Removing obsolete dams can reconnect rivers, restore natural flows, improve aquatic habitat, reopen migratory pathways and eliminate infrastructure that may otherwise require decades of maintenance.
Michigan should be looking at the entire system—not simply asking how to preserve individual dams.
The state should be asking:
Which dams still serve a legitimate public purpose?
Which dams are economically justified?
Which dams can safely operate for decades into the future?
And most importantly:
Which dams should come down?
Where a dam no longer makes economic, environmental or public-safety sense, removal should be the default option—not the last resort.
Making a deal with the devil?
For those of us watching Michigan’s rivers, the prospect of negotiating away the opportunity for meaningful dam removal is deeply troubling.
To put it bluntly, giving Consumers Energy and its lobbyists more time to sell Michigan on what critics could view as a lousy backdoor deal would be like making a deal with the devil.
That may sound harsh.
But this is about Michigan’s rivers, Michigan taxpayers and decisions that could last for generations.
A settlement that looks attractive on paper today could lock Michigan into obligations that nobody fully understands until years from now.
Once that happens, it may be too late.
Politicians finally have a chance to get this right
The previous push to move the matter forward was shut down by Michigan political leaders.
That creates an opportunity.
But stopping one bad outcome isn’t enough.
Michigan’s elected officials now have to resist the temptation to simply replace it with another questionable compromise.
They need to demand the strongest possible public protections.
They need complete financial disclosure.
They need independent engineering and environmental analysis.
They need clear liability provisions.
And they need to put dam removal squarely on the table.
Not as a bargaining chip.
As the solution.
Don’t sell Michigan’s rivers short
Michigan possesses some of the most extraordinary rivers in the Midwest.
Those rivers are not merely channels between two points.
They are ecosystems.
They are fisheries.
They are recreational resources.
They are economic assets for communities.
They are places where families paddle, fish, hike, hunt, camp and reconnect with the outdoors.
And they belong to the public.
Michigan shouldn’t mortgage that future to make today’s political problem disappear.
If a dam is obsolete, unsafe, economically unsustainable or environmentally destructive, Michigan should have the courage to remove it.
If a dam truly has a compelling future, prove it.
If keeping it requires massive public subsidies or transfers long-term liability to Michigan taxpayers, reject the deal.
And if the only argument for keeping an aging dam is that somebody has owned it for a long time, that isn’t good enough.
This is bigger than Consumers Energy
This fight isn’t ultimately about Consumers Energy.
It’s about what Michigan believes its rivers are worth.
Do we continue treating aging dams as sacred infrastructure simply because they have been there for generations?
Or do we recognize that some infrastructure has reached the end of its useful life—and that restoring a river can be a better investment than perpetuating a liability?
Michigan has a choice.
We can negotiate another generation of uncertainty.
Or we can finally begin restoring Michigan’s rivers.
As settlement talks begin, Michigan’s leaders should remember one thing:
Don’t make a deal simply because a deal is available.
Make the deal that protects Michigan taxpayers, protects public safety and restores Michigan’s rivers.
And if that means removing the dams, then remove the dams.
Michigan’s rivers deserve nothing less.
Michigan Watershed Watch
Protecting Michigan’s rivers. Challenging bad deals. Fighting for permanent river restoration.
Wild Rivers. Rugged Trails. Real Adventure
A Message from West Michigan Kayaking Club
The fight over Michigan’s dams is not an abstract political argument for the people who spend their weekends on these rivers.
We paddle them.
We hike beside them.
We camp along them.
We see the water, the wildlife, the fish and the changing conditions firsthand.
Michigan’s paddling community therefore has a direct and powerful stake in what happens to these rivers—and in the decisions being made about aging dam infrastructure.
At West Michigan Kayaking Club, we believe Michigan should be pursuing permanent river restoration, not simply finding another owner for aging infrastructure that may already be approaching the end of its useful life.
Don’t sell the problem. Solve it.
If a dam is obsolete, unsafe, economically unjustifiable or no longer serving a compelling public purpose, Michigan should have the courage to consider removal and restoration of the river—not another round of negotiations that simply transfers the liability to someone else.
The public deserves a transparent process, independent engineering and financial analysis, meaningful public involvement, and a settlement that protects Michigan taxpayers, communities and rivers for generations.
A deal should not be judged by how quickly it resolves a political problem.
It should be judged by whether it actually solves the underlying problem.
Follow West Michigan Kayaking Club
West Michigan Kayaking Club is a Grand Rapids-based adventure paddling community focused on river exploration, endurance paddling, hiking, camping, wilderness adventures and responsible stewardship of Michigan’s waterways.
🌐 Official Website:
https://www.westmichigankayakingclub.online
📘 Official Facebook Community:
West Michigan Kayaking Club on Facebook
Wild Rivers. Rugged Trails. Real Adventure.
The Bottom Line
Michigan does not need another generation of negotiations over who gets to own yesterday’s infrastructure.
Michigan needs leadership willing to ask a harder question:
What is best for tomorrow?
Where dams are obsolete and removal is the responsible option:
Remove the dams.
Restore the rivers.
Protect taxpayers.
Protect public safety.
Protect Michigan’s waterways.
That is the deal Michigan should be fighting for.
West Michigan Kayaking Club
Wild Rivers. Rugged Trails. Real Adventure.
