Decomission Springbank Dam

Signatures 150 total

Page: 1, 2, 3

1. 1
   Name: Steven on Nov 26, 2008

   Comments: Please show your support. Maybe this will get the London City Councils attention

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Marco De Luca on Nov 26, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Cody Moorhouse on Nov 26, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Eric McGuire on Nov 26, 2008

   Comments: Springbank Dam needs to be decomissioned, The dam is a complete waste of tax money.

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Eric Rayson on Nov 26, 2008

   Comments: Please do not repair the Dam.

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Anonymous on Nov 26, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Elizabeth on Nov 26, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Anonymous on Nov 26, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Anonymous on Nov 26, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Shane Cass on Nov 26, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Sean on Nov 26, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Sean on Nov 26, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Jeff on Nov 26, 2008

    Comments: Decommission it...and stop WASTING my tax dollars!

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Debra Kavcic on Nov 26, 2008

    Comments: Waste of money - should be used elsewhere

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Dean on Nov 27, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Anonymous on Nov 27, 2008

    Comments: Ask your self this What does the dam do for me It Stinks up the air. You cant swim anywhere near it.(they wont) Kills fish (potential revenue for all others up stream) At one time they had a boat tour but thats been gone for years. Its very simple Big fish go up in spring little fish come back down in summer for colder water only to find a dam Dam stoping them and roasting them.

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: John A. Jackson on Nov 27, 2008

    Comments: Stop wasting my money on this project and decommision the dam, my taxes are high enough already. Will the new fountain a the forks spray airborne E. coli all over the kids at the splashpad when the wind is right I sure hope not.

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Wayne Scrimshaw on Nov 27, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: P J Kavcic on Nov 27, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: John Robertson on Nov 28, 2008

    Comments: Let the river run free...

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: John Robertson on Nov 28, 2008

    Comments: Let the river run free...

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Cherylle Pilon on Nov 28, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Jade Ewart on Nov 28, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Anonymous on Nov 28, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Kyle Wilson on Nov 29, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Randy Bailey on Dec 12, 2008

    Comments: This project has been a white elephant from the start. The 4.2 million dollars will end up costing the taxpayer 12 million by the time it is done. Fish passage monitoring results from year 1 post construction tell me there is a fish passage problem. That being said is going to create a whole new set of problems for our beloved City Council. CUT YOUR LOSSES NOW AND DECOMMISSION IT

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Todd Sleeper on Dec 16, 2008

    Comments: The tax money wasted on Springbank Dam should have been spent on fixing the sewer lines that are connected to the storm water lines and cause raw sewage to enter the Thames during downpours! Shame! Shame!

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Jacob Weiche on Dec 17, 2008

    Comments: I cannot believe that the City of London actually went ahead to build a new dam when the current responsible consenus is to remove dam where possible to restore waterways to natural conditions. I say "blow it up" and cut our losses.

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Bob Shiell on Dec 17, 2008

    Comments: Observing the Thames this past sumer in a more "natural" state was very enjoyable. I did not smell the river as I have in the past after a heavy rain.

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Jeremy Beaton on Dec 17, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Jaclyn Goodwillie on Dec 18, 2008

    Comments: I prefer a more natural Thames River

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Anonymous on Dec 22, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Christie Doneff on Jan 6, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Felix Barbetti on Jan 6, 2009

    Comments: Decomissioning Springbank with a one time cost on top of what has been wasted will stop this and not cost future generations. Healthier environmental conditions and renewed biodiversity of species will result and benefit many more people than the current rationalization.

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Jim Mahon on Jan 7, 2009

    Comments: All over North America dams have been removed in a movement to restore natural water flow where possible. This dam was put in purely to raise water levels for recreational boating purposes. The cost of this dam which never should have been built in the first place has become an absolute farce. In a day an age when financial resources are precious Council should be step up and do the right thing by removing the dam and restoring the natural water flow. This will save tax payers money in the long run, Please stop throwing money at past mistakes.

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Chris McFadden on Jan 7, 2009

    Comments: If the city wants to make a viable change, let them spend thier (our) monies on making The Thames River clean-up program what it could potentially explode into. Come on city council make real change.

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: ERICH HERING on Jan 7, 2009

    Comments: If If Springbank Dam was totally removed,it would definitely inprove the flow of the river,which in turn would create more oxygen,which all Species of Gamefish,such as Trout,Salmon and Walleye, would benefit from,for them to help migrate further upstream,which in return,would open up endless miles of better Angling oppurtunity for everyone.

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Keefer Pitfield on Jan 8, 2009

    Comments: I am a resident of London and feel the dam must be removed.

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Michael Wencel on Jan 8, 2009

    Comments: I believe removal of this damn will help the habitat of this river and bring new species of fish back up the river once again. This damn just creates a wall of fresh flowing water and decreases the habitat on the river itself. thanks, Michael Wencel

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: P. C. Moore on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments: This dam should be removed. Clearly another case of the tail wagging the dog!

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Mike Ormsby on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments: Decommision the Springbank Dam -- the title of a poplular fly fishing book (and movie) says it all -- "A River Runs Through It"!!!!

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Ron Gardiner on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments: Spending millions on the repair of a dam that only serves one minority user group is a blatant waste of tax payers money not to mention the ecological impact it has on the river and the environment. Stop wasting time and money and remove the dam.

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Ron Gardiner on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments: Spending millions of taxes dollars to repair a dam for one minority user group as a blalant waste of money no to mention the ecological damage it causes to the water course and the environment. As a tax payer in London I say stop now!

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Gary Gould on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Craig Bailey on Jan 9, 2009

    Comments: I would hope that even rationally thinking row-boaters can see this dam needs to go

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3