Maybe the mayor and city officials are dam wrong.

While Matt Brown and legal staff warn that not fixing London’s long-busted Springbank Dam may prompt senior governments to claw back $2.8 million in repair funding they handed over a decade ago, the opposite may be true.

At a Tuesday public-input meeting that packed city hall with citizens weighing in on the dam’s future, a federal politician argued Ottawa actually doles out money to help cities decommission dams — and that demanding the 2005 cash back is unlikely.

“I am confident in saying it would be unprecedented for either the federal or provincial governments to come asking for those funds,” London-Fanshawe NDP MP Irene Mathyssen argued in a letter read at the meeting by her top aide, Shawn Lewis.

“The city spent the funds on the project for which they were intended, acting in good faith to carry out the project.”

Rather than cost London money, Mathyssen noted Ottawa is willing to help pay the cost of decommissioning the dam.

Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mathyssen argued city hall can apply for federal cash if politicians decide to decommission the structure, instead of making it operational again.

Mathyssen is urging council to do an environmental assessment (EA) study only on the dam, with an eye to decommissioning it.

But the matter facing council’s civic works committee Tuesday wasn’t quite so simple.

City staff were seeking the green light to develop a plan and budget to conduct a much larger EA, dubbed One River, that would cover the area from the forks of the Thames to Harris Park and Springbank Dam.

As the clock struck midnight, the eight-hour meeting ended with politicians voting 4-2 to endorse the staff-recommended plan. Michael van Holst and Anna Hopkins were opposed; Mayor Matt Brown, Maureen Cassidy, Jesse Helmer and Josh Morgan were for it. It now goes to council for an official vote.

But before the vote, another councillor who attended the debate slammed the staff report that recommended the larger EA.

"The report we received on this agenda was one of the most biased things I've ever read," Coun. Tanya Park said. "I hope I never have to say that again."

Earlier in the evening, more than 100 Londoners attended the public meeting, filling up council chambers and overflow rooms.

In 2006, years after flooding damaged the dam, a $6.8-million repair was started.

Bolts sheared off one of four new steel gates during testing in 2008, rendering the structure inoperable.

That prompted the city to launch a $5.5-million lawsuit against some of the firms working on it.

City hall settled the suit and received $3.77 million in December. That set the stage for a renewed debate over what to do next.

Many environmentalists argue the river is healthier with the dam inoperable. That includes large groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund of Canada.

A former longtime city councillor also weighed in on Twitter Tuesday, indicating she’d supported fixing the dam a decade ago while in politics.

“I made the mistake of supporting the dam, never again,” Cheryl Miller tweeted at a Free Press reporter. To repair (it) is a money pit. It doesn’t work and will never work.”

Many Londoners, however, spoke out Tuesday on the recreational benefits of the higher water levels the dam would create.

pmaloney@postmedia.com

twitter.com/patatLFPress

SPRINGBANK DAM CHRONOLOGY

1878: Dam and waterworks built at Springbank Park to solve city’s sanitation problems. Rowing soon becomes hugely popular, including for spectators.

1930: Springbank Dam built as recreational structure, with removable logs used to control river flow.

1968: Major renovations to dam owned by city and operated by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

2000: Flood damages dam.

2003-06: Work on new dam delayed and cost jumps more than 50 per cent to more than $6 million.

2006: Dam shut down in open position, allowing water to flow freely and virtually draining river basin used by paddlers, rowers. A $6.8-million repair begins.

2008: In June, bolts shear off one of four new steel gates after its hinge is forced up by debris during testing.

2009: City launches $5.5-million lawsuit against designers, engineers, saying city paid for inoperable dam. Counter-claims blame city and conservation authority, saying workers tested gates without expertise and if any design mistakes were made, it was the fault of city staff who set parameters for dam design, maintenance and operation.

2014: Matt Brown, in his mayoral run, promises to fix dam.

September 2015: Case resolved in mediation and approved by council, staving off a long trial in 2016.

December 2015: Settlement cheque for $3.77 million arrives at city hall in exchange for confidentiality agreement and no admission of liability by those sued by the city.

THEY SAID IT

More than 100 people packed city hall Tuesday as Londoners weighed in on the future of Springbank Dam. Also submitted was a petition signed by 2,500 people opposed to fixing the structure. Here’s a sampling of what was said:

Leslee White-Eye

As chief of Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, she reiterated her community’s opposition to repairing the dam, calling instead for it to be decommissioned. “(Our) law requires women in our culture to be responsible to the water. We have a responsibility to be protectors of water. It’s a lifeblood. It’s a life source. In this time . . . we need to think about what’s going to be best for the long-term future use of that water.”

Diane Waite

She expressed concern about the divide between Londoners who want the dam fixed and those who want it to remain inoperable. “It can be a win-win. I think we can work together on this, if we focus on getting back to the forks of the Thames, if we wait for the environmental assessment (on the dam’s future) and then make a responsible decision.”

Robin Whimster:

“Canoeing or kayaking on the river, especially solo, is an amazing experience,” said the former executive of the London Canoe Club. “As city dwellers, we think we control our environment. On the river, the environment controls you. It’s a different relationship.”

Robert Huber

“Many Londoners including myself never turned our backs” on the river, said Huber, a member of the Thames River Anglers Association. “We consider it more enjoyable to be around since the dam broke.” He added London can’t claim to be among Canada’s greenest cities “if the community and civic leadership places a higher (priority) on recreational uses and esthetics of the river than the ‘eco-cide’ that damming it causes the environment.”

Stephen Ross

“Without the high water levels the dam provides, recreational uses of the river (have suffered) for 10 years,” said Ross, president of the London Rowing Club. “Do we want a vibrant, urban river? Or do we want the current state?”

Dr. Jan Pennycook

The longtime London Canoe Club member expressed concern over the “acrimony” created by the dam debate. “Those of us who care deeply about the river need to find a way to work together. We all want the same thing.”

Elizabeth Hendriks

Representing the World Wildlife Fund Canada, Hendriks, of Toronto, called for “the full decommissioning” of Springbank Dam. “The science is clear that in this situation putting the dam back in use would exacerbate the river’s poor environmental health.”