CELPIP Reading Part 4 Practice Test: Taking Down the Carrow Mills Dam Debate

For nearly 150 years, a dam has restrained the Carrow River in the heart of Carrow Mills, creating the millpond that gives the community its postcard view. A recent engineering inspection, however, discovered serious cracks in the concrete spillway, and councillors must soon choose between repairing the structure and dismantling it.

Public works director Raymond Osei has tabulated the alternatives without advocating either. Restoring the dam to current safety standards would demand an estimated $4.2 million, with no assistance available. Removal would require about $1.6 million, sixty percent of it recoverable through a provincial and federal river restoration grant, provided the application arrives before next March. “Inaction is unavailable. The spillway won’t survive another decade,” he warns, and crews have already lowered the pond slightly as a precaution.

Fisheries biologist Leah Morrissette finds the choice self-evident. The barrier denies brook trout and American eels many kilometres of upstream habitat, the shallow pond overheats beyond what trout tolerate, and removal would eliminate the danger of a catastrophic failure during spring flooding. Comparable rivers have rebounded within a few years. “Residents should nevertheless brace themselves for a season or two of exposed mud along the former pond bottom before grasses and shrubs recolonize the valley,” she cautions.

Gord Halvorsen, who has overlooked the millpond for thirty-one years, has no appetite for a river valley. “Removal would reduce my waterfront to a muddy creek bank and eliminate the water where my grandchildren swim and paddle,” he says, and he suspects it would depress property values along the shore. Accepting that the spillway cannot remain as it is, he insists that the municipality find the money for repairs. “People move here for that pond,” he declares.

Eileen Thibodeau, president of the historical society, sees the dam as the final link to the grist mill that named the community. The society proposes extracting the failing concrete section while retaining the original stone wall on the east bank and the wheel pit as a heritage site, maintained through its own fundraising. This compromise, she allows, would also drain the pond. “We can’t save everything,” she reasons, “but we shouldn’t erase our history either.”

I grew up swimming in that millpond, and my own children learned to paddle there, so this debate pains me. Even so, Mr. Osei’s numbers settle it: repair would 6. Choose…take longer than removalcost far more, with no outside helpdrain the pond for several yearssatisfy only history buffs, a considerable imposition on a community our size. Dr. Morrissette is upfront that 7. Choose…the valley will look worse firstthe fish may need a decadethe eels may stay awaythe work will drag on, and residents deserve such candour.

Ms. Thibodeau’s proposal also appeals to me, because retaining those old stones 8. Choose…keeps the pond levelcosts less than full removalsalvages part of our pastlets fish survive summer while the river runs free. Mr. Halvorsen’s distress about 9. Choose…the spillway’s safetythe grant’s sizethe old mill’s fatethe water at his doorstep is one I would share in his place, but millions cannot be spent protecting a view.

Councillors should not dawdle: delay, and 10. Choose…trout will lose a seasonthe grant will lapsethe pond will drop furtherthe society’s fundraising will falter, making removal far costlier as well.