Safety Concerns Prompt Water Drawdown on Millpond Dam in Holly
(Crystal A. Proxmire, July 22, 2025)
Holly, MI – As major storms and flooding problems continue to grow in SE Michigan, state officials have moved forward with plans to reduce the water level of Stiff’s Mill Pond in the Village of Holly due to a dam that has failed inspections for several years.
The Millpond Dam, also known as the Holly Dam, was built in 1840, making it one of the oldest in Oakland County. The pond it created is known as Stiff’s Mill Pond. Back then the dam had the purpose of fueling a grist mill at the site. At some point the dam was converted to provide hydroelectric power, and then that operation ceased.
These days the purpose is aesthetic, with the dam supporting Stiff’s Mill Pond which is used for fishing and for the enjoyment of about 20 homes that surround it. At normal levels the pond is about 25 acres. A small area of grass along Broad Street provides space for public fishing. Across the street another outlet connects overflow with the Shiawassee River, which is a popular spot for kayaking. There is also a spillway that formerly housed the Waterworks building. In 2017 Village Council voted to remove the building due to unsafe conditions. Water flows under the roadway at that location, and the main portion of the dam is just feet from the roadway.
According to the State, the Millpond dam has not been well-maintained through the decades, and in 2017 it was rated a “Significant hazard”, meaning that should the dam fail loss of life would not be likely, but it would likely cause economic loss and environmental damage. The dam has a concrete spillway structure as well as earthen embankments.
The dam in owned by the Village, but is regulated by Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE).
According to a report done by ROWE Professional Services earlier this year for the Village, the left embankment of the dam is non-compliant and would need to be re-done to meet state safety standards. There are issues both with the size of the embankment and materials used. The report also expressed that forthcoming state standards need to be taken into consideration.
“Because Holly Dam is assigned a Significant hazard potential classification (rather than a Low hazard potential classification), these pending regulatory changes will significantly increase compared to the current flood. Since the existing spillway is deteriorated and cannot pass the current design flood with adequate freeboard, we anticipate an entirely new spillway will need to be constructed to comply with Part 315 once the proposed changes are adopted,” the report said. “EGLE suggested during our meeting that the Village might want to consider removal of the dam or reconstruction of the dam instead of addressing on the deficiencies of the left embankment of the diversion dam.”
Rowe agreed with the state’s recommendation of a draw down of the pond level until either repairs or replacement is made. They estimate that any option – repairing the dam, replacing the dam, or removing the damn – would take three to four years to complete. If the dam is removed, the pond would cease to exist.
A similar dam removal took place in Davisburg over the past couple of years. When the dam was removed the pond was eliminated and the river returned to its natural course. Native plants are now filling in the space that was once the bottom of the pond.
In May Village Manager Tim Price told council “we don’t have the funds to do any removal or replacement at this time.”
Since the 2017 inspection the Village has done tree and brush removal, “However, nothing has been done to address deficiencies associated with the principal spillway,” according to the report. “In addition, grading performed on the left embankment of the diversion dam in 2021, exacerbated concerns over this portion of the dam since clay fill was place on the downstream portion of the embankment. Efforts to address deficiencies on the left embankment were completed without obtaining a permit, which resulted in a Violation Notice being issued by EGLE.” The report states clay fill should generally not be placed on the downstream side of a dam embankment because it lacks permeability.
EGLE told Village leadership that a drawdown would need to occur, and that water levels would need to remain low until sufficient repairs are made. According to EGLE “Inspections have found the Holly Dam’s earthen embankments to be unstable, putting them at elevated danger for failure during a high-water event. Such a failure would endanger lives and property. The state has worked with the Village on actions to reduce the risk of failure. The Village never completed work that EGLE permitted in 2003.
“Several inspections since then have repeated the same concerns over embankment and spillway conditions. An engineering report for the Village found that unauthorized modifications the Village made to the dam’s embankment in 2021 made conditions worse.
“EGLE and engineers for the Village advised the Village to draw down the water level behind the dam to reduce the risk of dam failure until the Village can explore rehabilitation or removal of the dam as a long-term solution. This drawdown is now underway. EGLE is not currently calling for permanent removal of the dam.”
On Monday the drawdown began, and a court upheld EGLE’s right to do it. An EGLE statement said “The current drawdown follows years of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy working with the Village of Holly to take action to reduce the public safety risk posed by the dam. The village has been afforded due process in accordance with the Michigan’s Part 315 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.
“The Village of Holly was notified of the drawdown in an emergency order on July 14. The Michigan Court of Claims today denied the village’s request for a temporary restraining order to stop the drawdown.
“We know the situation is frustrating, and we share that frustration. Michigan residents should be able to feel confident in the safety of our dams, and the use of our lakes and streams should not be interrupted because of failure to maintain infrastructure. We will continue to work with Holly and all other communities facing similar challenges to ensure that safety risks posed by dams are addressed.”
According to the ROWE report to the Village, removal is a cost-effective alternative to repairs, stating “Removal of the dam would generally involve permanently lowering the river to its original level throughout the reach within the impoundment area of the dam. This would include the removal of the spillway and at least portions of the embankments so that water is no longer impounded, meaning there would not longer be a pond. A dam removal project would eliminate the need for a dam replacement project, with the periodic dam inspections, routine dam maintenance, and intermittent dam repairs.”
The cost of removal would vary based on the amount of sediment involved, which is not currently known. “We are aware of dam removal projects that have ranged in cost from a few hundred thousand dollars where there was relatively little sediment that was present, to dam removal projects of a similar size that cost over 10 times as much because of the amount of sediment present and limitations as to where the sediment could be placed on site,” the report states.
Replacing the dam could cost between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000.
Rowe recommends removal of the dam due to long term costs of repair and maintenance. They also noted that if the dam were to remain, “it would be prudent for the property owners that benefit from the dam and associated pond to bear these costs.”
Mechanisms for charging the homeowners could include establishing an Inland Lake Level under Part 307 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 which would allow Oakland County Water Resources to collect funds from property owners to pay for the reconstruction of the dam as well as inspections, maintenance, and repairs.”
The Village created a committee to study the dam situation. Regina Kakos, a Mill Pond resident and spokesperson for the Dam Committee, released a statement saying “This is not just a local water issue. This is a story about: A small-town government trying to follow the rules, residents committed to protecting both people and wildlife, a state agency now acting without transparency or fairness — while ignoring the very permit they granted.”
The email invited media to “cover the broader story of a small, law-abiding Michigan village being strong-armed by a Michigan State regulatory agency, despite trying to do everything right.” Kakos did not respond to questions Oakland County Times sent in followup.
EGLE had required the drawdown to take place June 3, and the Village delayed the date by requesting hearings on the matter and forming the committee. After the Village failed to conduct the work, EGLE stepped in to serve the Village with the emergency order July 14. Rather than complying, the Village went to court for an injunction and lost. EGLE started the drawdown themselves on Monday.
A statement by Village Manager Tim Price said “Over the past week we have collaborated with the Attorney General’s office to see compromise between EGLE and the Village. Unfortunately, while the Attorney General and the Village proposed terms for a compromise, EGLE has rejected them. Although we wish to comply with EGLE’s requests, agreeing to a temporary drawdown based on the permit would mean accepting the terms and conditions set forth by the DSU, several of which may negatively impact our residents and surrounding communities. We do not oppose the eventual drawdown of the mill pond or the necessary repairs; our concerns lie with the process followed by DGLE-SU and the urgent nature of their demands.” Price had hoped that EGLE would allow them to wait until fall to reduce the water levels.
Members of the community have rallied against the drawdown. A change.org petition created by Kakos includes a call for Oakland County “to explore preservation and rehabilitation over removal—solutions that retain the ecological and cultural value of this cherished place while addressing structural and safety concerns.” However Oakland County does not own, manage, or control the dam.
Other concerns include impact to wildlife, potential impact to wells in the area, maintaining the historic nature of the area, and recreational access.
Previous story:
Remove or Replace: Holly Mulls Over Future of Dam, Public Meeting May 27
