In the quiet towns of northern Michigan, the margin between a routine spring thaw and a catastrophic disaster recently narrowed to a mere five inches. On April 16, rising floodwaters pushed the Cheboygan Dam to its absolute limit, coming within inches of spilling over and forcing local officials to consider emergency evacuations for a city of approximately 4,700 people. In nearby Bellaire, the urgency was just as palpable, as crews scrambled to deploy 1,000 sandbags to shore up a century-old barrier against the surge.
While the waters eventually receded, the near-misses have sparked a critical conversation about the fragility of Michigan’s aging dam infrastructure and what it signals for the rest of the United States. These events are not isolated anomalies; rather, they are stress tests revealing a systemic vulnerability. As intensifying storms and erratic precipitation patterns become the new baseline, the structures designed to manage water in the mid-20th century are proving ill-equipped for the climate of the 21st.
For business leaders, policymakers, and economists, the situation represents a staggering infrastructure liability. The tension lies in a complex intersection of private property rights, dwindling public funds, and the escalating physical risks of climate change. When the cost of repair climbs into the billions, communities are forced to weigh the emotional and economic value of man-made reservoirs against the existential risk of a structural failure.
The crisis in Michigan is a microcosm of a national emergency. Across the U.S., thousands of dams are currently classified as “high-hazard,” meaning their failure could result in the loss of human life. With the average American dam now 64 years old, the window for proactive intervention is closing, leaving many regions to choose between prohibitively expensive upgrades or the strategic dismantling of their waterways.
The National Scale of Infrastructure Decay
The scale of the problem is vast. Notice approximately 92,000 dams across the United States, a significant portion of which were constructed based on rainfall patterns that no longer reflect current atmospheric realities. According to data cited by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, about 18 percent of these structures are considered high-hazard. The financial burden of addressing this decay is equally daunting; the Association estimates that repairing all aging structures nationwide will cost more than $165 billion.
In Michigan, the vulnerability is particularly acute. More than half of the state’s dams have already exceeded their 50-year design life. State officials estimate that the cost to address these specific risks within Michigan alone is approximately $1 billion. This funding gap creates a precarious environment where maintenance is often deferred, and inspections remain uneven across different jurisdictions.
The danger of this neglect was vividly demonstrated during the 2020 Edenville Dam failure. That catastrophe, which overwhelmed the downstream Sanford Dam, forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 residents and destroyed thousands of homes. Investigators later determined the disaster was avoidable, yet it serves as the primary catalyst for current efforts to overhaul state safety regulations and funding mechanisms.
The Economic Dilemma: Private Ownership and Public Risk
One of the most challenging aspects of dam safety is the disconnect between ownership and liability. In Michigan, roughly 70 percent of dams are regulated by the state, while 99 hydroelectric dams fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). However, a critical complication exists: about 75 percent of the dams regulated by the state of Michigan are privately owned.
This private-public divide creates a regulatory gray area. When a dam is privately held, the responsibility for maintenance and upkeep falls on individuals or private companies rather than government agencies. This represents a common trend across the U.S., where the Association of State Dam Safety Officials notes that most dams are privately owned, often leaving the public to bear the risk if a private owner fails to maintain the structure.
Michigan State Senator John Damoose has highlighted this tension, questioning whether private ownership is a sustainable model for critical safety infrastructure. During a roundtable discussion in Traverse City, Damoose noted that while he generally supports private ownership, the “close call” at Cheboygan Dam—which is under both state and private control—suggests a need to re-evaluate how these barriers are managed.
The financial reality is that many private owners cannot afford the steep costs of modernizing a dam to withstand “500-year” flood events. This has led to a growing push for legislative reform. Phil Roos, Director of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), has advocated for proposed state legislation that would bolster inspection rules, update design standards, and create new funding opportunities for both upgrades and removals.
Removal vs. Repair: The Path to Climate Resilience
Faced with billion-dollar price tags, many communities are discovering that the most cost-effective and sustainable solution is not to fix the dam, but to remove it entirely. Dam removal can reduce long-term liability, eliminate expensive upkeep, and restore river ecosystems to their natural state.
A landmark example of this strategy is the removal of the Union Street Dam along the Boardman-Ottaway River in Traverse City. Completed in 2024 as part of a decades-long restoration project, the effort cost $25 million. The project included the installation of “FishPass,” a system designed to allow native species to migrate while blocking invasive sea lamprey. The investment paid immediate dividends during the recent floods; engineers noted that the removal and subsequent upgrades likely reduced flooding impacts, as waters surged to near-record levels but fell just short of a 500-year flood.
Daniel Zielinski, a principal engineer for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, described the event as a successful “stress test.” He noted that without the removal, upstream areas would have likely been under an additional two feet of water, which would have been “quite devastating.”
Other organizations are seeing a surge in interest for similar projects. Huron Pines, a conservation group in northern Michigan, has managed nine removals over the last 13 years. They are currently managing the removal of the Sanback Dam in Rose City, an effort estimated to cost $4 million. Josh Leisen, a senior project manager for Huron Pines, emphasizes that even dams that appear to be in good condition are vulnerable to the extreme weather events now becoming common.
The Barriers to Dismantling
Despite the safety and environmental benefits, dam removal is rarely a simple administrative decision. There are two primary hurdles: emotional attachment and practical utility.
- Emotional and Aesthetic Value: Many residents have developed deep ties to the lakes and waterfronts created by dams. Daniel Brown, a climate resilience strategist at the Huron River Watershed Council, explains that there is often an “emotional attachment to that impoundment” that makes removal politically challenging.
- Critical Infrastructure: Some dams cannot be removed because they provide essential services, such as drinking water or hydroelectric power. In these cases, the dams are integrated into the local economy and infrastructure in a way that makes dismantling impractical.
However, Brown warns that there are limits to how much these structures can be adapted. He describes dams as “long-term, huge, expensive infrastructure” that does not align with the fluid and unpredictable behavior of nature and climate change.
Funding the Gap: State and Federal Limitations
The transition to safer waterways requires significant capital, yet funding remains fragmented. In response to the 2020 Edenville disaster, EGLE launched a $44 million grant program to fund dam removals, upgrades, and engineering studies. While impactful, this program ended last year, leaving a void in available state resources.
Federal funding is available through agencies such as FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but these resources are insufficient to meet the estimated $165.2 billion national need. Some of these federal funding streams are currently at risk of elimination, adding a layer of urgency to the search for sustainable financing.
The economic argument for removal is often based on the avoidance of “slowly unfolding failures.” Richard Rood, a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan who specializes in climate change, warns that the atmosphere’s ability to hold more moisture is fueling more intense precipitation. He asserts that the recent flooding has exposed an “incredible vulnerability,” stating, “ [Dams] are either going to have to be removed or reengineered. Or they’re going to become a set of slowly unfolding failures.”
What Happens Next: The Legislative Outlook
The immediate focus for Michigan is the passage of legislation to standardize dam safety. Luke Trumble, Michigan’s chief of dam safety, clarifies that while legislation cannot stop flooding—which will always occur during heavy rain or rain-on-snow events—it can prevent that flooding from being exacerbated by a structural failure.
The goal of the proposed regulations is to move away from a reactive posture and toward a proactive management strategy. This includes stricter inspection mandates for privately owned dams and a clearer framework for when a structure should be upgraded versus when it should be removed.
As the state prepares for the next season of snowmelt and spring rains, the “close calls” of April serve as a stark reminder that the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of repair. The conversation has shifted from if these structures will fail to when, and the only remaining variable is whether communities will act before the next record-breaking storm arrives.
Next Checkpoint: State officials and legislators are expected to continue deliberations on the proposed dam safety legislation throughout the current session, with a focus on establishing permanent funding mechanisms for high-hazard structures. We will provide updates as these bills move toward a vote.
Do you believe the responsibility for dam maintenance should shift entirely to the public sector, or should private owners be held more strictly accountable? Share your thoughts in the comments below.