ANN ARBOR – A near-failure at a dam in northern Michigan is forcing a difficult question into the open:

What should Michigan do with hundreds of aging dams that are becoming harder — and more expensive — to maintain?

In Cheboygan County, high water and concerns tied to aging infrastructure recently pushed local officials into emergency mode, highlighting how deferred maintenance can quickly escalate into a potential disaster.

The situation did not result in a catastrophic failure.

But it came close enough to serve as a warning.

After years of delay, rising costs, and mounting risk, communities across Michigan are being forced to confront a stark choice:

Fix aging dams — or remove them before something worse happens.

A State Built on Dams — Now Facing Their Limits

Many of Michigan’s dams were constructed decades ago, including a large number built in the 1930s under the Civilian Conservation Corps, part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s effort to modernize infrastructure and create jobs.

At the time, dams powered industry, controlled waterways, and created inland lakes that reshaped communities.

Today, many remain — but they are aging, expensive to maintain, and in some cases no longer serving their original purpose.

Michigan has more than 2,500 dams, and a growing number are classified as being in poor condition or posing a high hazard if they fail.

The Cheboygan situation underscores how little margin for error exists.

The Case for Keeping Dams

For many communities, especially in rural areas, dams are not just infrastructure — they are economic anchors.

Along the Muskegon River in Newaygo County, reservoirs created by dams like the Hardy Dam and Croton Dam support boating, fishing, camping, and tourism.

“Those reservoirs are part of the identity of these communities,” said Nick Smith, Michigan state director for The Conservation Fund. “They support recreation, tourism, and local economies in ways that people don’t always fully appreciate until they’re gone.”

For local leaders and property owners, the argument is straightforward:

Losing a dam can mean losing a lake — and with it, a key piece of the local economy.

But preserving those benefits comes at a cost.

Repairing or upgrading aging dams can run into the millions, with ongoing maintenance requirements that stretch decades into the future.

The Case for Removal

For other dams, especially those that no longer serve a clear economic or operational purpose, removal is gaining traction.

“Dam removal is often the most cost-effective long-term solution,” said Jessica Fox, national program director at American Rivers. “It eliminates the safety risk, removes ongoing maintenance costs, and restores natural river function.”

Removing a dam can:

  • Eliminate long-term liability
  • Reduce the risk of catastrophic failure
  • Improve fish passage and ecosystem health

Across the country, dam removals have accelerated as communities weigh the high cost of repairs against long-term risks.

Michigan is beginning to see similar conversations take hold.

The Trade-Offs No One Likes to Talk About

But removal is not a clean win.

When a dam comes out:

  • Reservoirs shrink or disappear
  • Shorelines shift
  • Waterfront property values can decline
  • Recreation patterns change

“You’re not just removing a structure,” said Jim Hilt, president of the Michigan Lake & Stream Associations. “You’re changing an entire community dynamic — and that’s where these decisions become very emotional.”

That tension often turns dam decisions into high-stakes local debates — pitting safety and cost against lifestyle and economic identity.

A Triage Approach Is Emerging

State officials and infrastructure experts increasingly agree that Michigan cannot treat all dams the same.

Instead, a triage approach is taking shape:

  • Preserve and upgrade dams with clear economic or infrastructure value
  • Remove those that are obsolete or too costly to maintain
  • Reevaluate ownership and responsibility where private owners want out

“We have to be realistic about what we can sustain,” said Phil Roos, director of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). “Some dams are going to be worth saving. Others are not. Our focus has to be on protecting public safety while making smart long-term decisions.”

A Turning Point

The Cheboygan near-failure may not have made national headlines.

But it highlights a growing reality across Michigan:

The state is running out of time to avoid hard decisions.

Dams built for a different era are colliding with modern costs, changing weather patterns, and uncertain ownership.

And doing nothing is no longer a viable option.

What Comes Next

Michigan’s dam debate is shifting from whether there is a problem to what to do about it.

Fix them.

Remove them.

Or risk the consequences.

For communities across the state, the answer will shape not just infrastructure — but the future of their local economies and landscapes.

Previous Stories In This Series

Coming Next in the MITechNews Series

  • The Rural Economy Behind the Reservoirs
  • Michigan’s 1930s Dams Meet 2026 Reality
  • When Owners Walk Away: Who Inherits the Risk?