Residents and scientists urge caution as St. Charles council considers formal support for Fox River impoundment

Steve Leffler, a St. Charles resident, told the Committee of the Whole that "The Fox River is not a healthy river. It is legally impaired waterway, designated as such by the Illinois EPA under the Clean Water Act," and warned the council that formally committing to maintain the impoundment could influence future NPDES permit decisions.

Leffler, who said he has attended Fox River Study Group meetings and serves on multiple local conservation organizations but was speaking in a personal capacity, summarized the group's 2022 implementation plan and said without dam removals, wastewater treatment upgrades could cost communities "as much as $150 million within the next 10 years." He urged the council to slow down, share a scheduled bathymetric study with riverfront property owners, consider a special service area for owners who directly benefit from the impoundment, and ultimately put the question to a referendum.

Jeff Mengler, an ecologist and St. Charles resident, said the resolution under consideration "does not even mention the ecological health of the river" and argued the draft prioritizes short-term recreation and economic interests. Mengler warned the council that maintaining pool elevations could lead to the city inheriting dam ownership and the associated maintenance costs and liability, including for drownings linked to a known hydraulic roller.

Several council members, led in discussion by Alderperson Weber, described the resolution as a policy statement focused on preserving the impoundment (the pooled water upstream of the dam) rather than mandating the existing dam structure remain intact. City Administrator Heather Maguire and other staff clarified the resolution's language is intended to allow flexibility — for example, modifications that maintain pool elevation while addressing ecological or safety concerns.

During discussion, Councilmember Brett (identified in the record by first name) and others requested the resolution explicitly account for impacts on local historic properties. Brett cited National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 review and asked that the revised Army Corps study include assessments of municipal buildings, Hotel Baker and other listed resources. Council members and staff also discussed potential dam modification options (fish passages, roll modifications) that might preserve recreation while reducing liability.

A motion by Alderperson Weber to amend the draft to add language about the impact on specific historic sites and to acknowledge alternatives for maintaining impoundment — including structural modification — was seconded and approved by roll call.

The record shows robust public comment both for and against taking a formal policy position: residents emphasized the river's recreational and downtown economic value as well as the public-safety and ecological risks of keeping the status quo. Council members said the measure is intended to state a clear policy direction to intergovernmental partners (IDNR and the Army Corps) while allowing staff to continue technical study and intergovernmental coordination.

Next steps noted during the meeting included continuing work with IDNR and the Army Corps, awaiting funding or study timelines from those agencies, and incorporating the amendment language on historic resources and modification options into the city resolution. The transcript does not record a final roll-call vote on the original resolution after the amendment in the provided excerpt.