Published: January 27, 2009 01:34 am      

CITY OF LOCKPORT: Flight of Five project hitting snags with Canal Corp.

The Flight of Five committee knows what it wants. So does the state Canal Corp.

Unfortunately, it seems, the end goals of the two are not the same.

Choppy waters have surfaced on the City of Lockport’s journey to Flight of Five canal locks restoration. The citizen committee in charge is being advised it can’t have the full, historically accurate restoration that it’s been trying to chart for years.

Canal Corp., which controls the locks, instead is steering the committee toward a watered-down version that doesn’t disrupt the way it does its business.

The gist, according to project manager Peter Welsby, is the city won’t get permission to do any work on the flight area if the project it proposes is more, or less, than the agency wants to handle.

The city wants the Flight of Five locks operated as they were in 1842, by the use of wooden gates opened and closed by balance beams over them. Two modern structures, a utility building between the old and new locks, and a vehicle bridge spanning Lock 67, are in the way of that vision. Canal Corp. doesn’t want the structures moved, despite the project designers having suggested alternatives.

The agency’s stance is it can’t incur any additional operating/maintenance costs and, therefore, Welsby said, “it is not able to make any changes to current operating procedures. ... The only recourse we have is to take a second look at what we want this project to be.”

Canal Corp. has not explained how the alternatives would cost it more or be otherwise unworkable, however. Its silence isn’t sitting well with Flight of Five committeemen, who confronted the possibility of downsizing their ambitions Monday and agreed: Unless the agency can justify it on technical or financial grounds, they won’t do it.

Welsby is meeting with Canal Corp. officials today and was instructed to convey that message.

“I’d rather hold out for historic accuracy than do a short-term compromise just to get (construction) going,” Becky Burns said. “Don’t tell me ‘fall in line or there’s no project.’ That just gets my hackles up.”

Margaret Truax suggested the agency’s fixation on “nuts and bolts (instead of) heritage” is misplaced, and the committee ought to pursue as much restoration as the agency will allow — then let public outcry over an incomplete job prod the agency to change its tune. At some point, she observed, the State Historic Preservation Office will weigh in on the project and could be the committee’s ally.

Welsby suggested a compromise on the gates wouldn’t necessarily lessen restoration’s historic value. If the modern structures remain, two of the six gates would have to be built beneath footbridges, instead of over them, but there are examples of that design from the 1800s. “It’s not historically accurate to Lockport but it’s still historically accurate,” he said.

Welsby, committee Chairman David Kinyon and Mayor Michael Tucker met with Canal Corp. principals in Albany on Dec. 23, when they were informed of a veritable laundry list of restoration impediments also including:

• Long-term maintenance issues — Canal Corp. said its project approval also will be conditioned on the city’s promise to pay the costs of maintaining “new” flight features: locks and appurtenances, stone work, lamps and anything else it adds or improves at the site, as well as the salaries of lock tenders hired to operate it. The committee hasn’t commissioned an economic impact study to gauge how much revenue a renovated Flight would generate, so the city can’t project at this point whether it would be self-sustaining or require a subsidy. Maintenance costs also can’t be estimated yet, since the project is still a concept. Under these conditions, Burns said, “We’re going into O&M (operation and maintenance) negotiations (with Canal Corp.) almost blind.”

• Dam issues — Department of Environmental Conservation warned it will view addition of a gate at Lock 71 as a “dam safety hazard” under new state regulations. The top lock is closed with a concrete bulkhead now. Removal of the bulkhead and replacement with a lock gate raises questions about effects downstream. Canal operation can affect water levels in the Genesee River and adjunct bodies, Truax said.

• Water rights — Treaties between the United States and other nations governing diversion of water from the Great Lakes, and agreements between the federal government and canal-based power plants, could affect the legality of flight operation.

Contact reporter Joyce Miles at 439-9222, ext. 6245.