I taught Social Studies at Mitchell High School for thirty-six years. I always told kids that there was no shame in making a mistake. After all, mistakes are how we learn. We simply call it “experience” when we apply the lessons learned as we encounter similar situations in the future. The only “stupid” mistakes are the ones you repeat and the mistakes you don’t or refuse to learn from.
There has been a myriad of mistakes made concerning Lake Mitchell. The first mistake was the original creation of the lake. Man-made lakes have more problems than natural lakes because they tend to lack the ecosystems that help to maintain and clean them. The lake was fashioned a century ago with the best of intentions. It did have several positive, immediate consequences. It put people to work during the Great Depression in the construction of the lake. It created a public amenity for recreation and water supply for the City of Mitchell. It raised the value of real estate around the newly manufactured lake. Perhaps the lake should have never been excavated and filled or maybe it should have been formed in another location but either way, it’s water over the spillway – as it were. The question remains, since we have the lake, what do we do now?
The second mistake was the buildup of homes around the lake and the gradual crowding out of natural habitat that would filter, clean and rejuvenate the lake. When other factors are added in – like fertilizer run off from lawns into the lake – the algae bloom was magnified.
The third mistake was the continued elimination of natural habitat, for example the pussy willows, reeds and other natural filtration, around the lake over the years in the name of “cleaning up the lake”.
The fourth mistake was ignoring the growing signs of the stagnation of the lake either out of forlorn hope that nature would fix it on its own (which has happened to a degree in years of overly abundant summer rainfall) or because of a mistaken view that not spending tax money on clean-up was a better than investing in the lake. When the spillway was reconstructed some years ago, dredging the lake would have cost in the neighborhood of $65,000-$100,000. We couldn’t be bothered to care or to spend the money then. Now, it is obviously much more expensive.
The fifth mistake was turning to chemicals, like alum, to “clean” the lake thus compounding the problem while doing nothing towards advancing a lasting solution to the buildup of algae on the lake.
The sixth mistake was not to control the steady construction around the lake. We continue to build and some of the City lots that were just authorized for sale will no doubt be purchased in order to construct additional dwellings around the lake on that newly acquired land. It was a tradeoff, revenue for cleanup against what’s a few more houses around an already crowded lake philosophy.
The seventh mistake was the City Council rejecting, on a 4-4 vote, a plan to dredge and refurbish the lake. Good first steps have been taken toward creating a wetland to naturally filter the lake, but more work needs to be done. The City owns the lake. It is the City’s responsibility. The Council can certainly put off the day of reckoning but inevitably they cannot escape the costs or the consequences of that delay.
The eighth mistake was referring the disposition of this nuisance property, the lake, to a vote of the people. It would be easier to swing one Council vote – especially with two new Councilmen joining the Council – than to convince a majority of the citizens of the City. It was bad tactics and a dereliction of duty to pass this decision off to the people.
The ninth mistake was putting off any vote for a year. The referendum is scheduled for early June of 2024. What will a year do to construction and cleanup costs as well as to interest rates and the rate of inflation? How much worse will the condition of the lake be nearly twelve months from now?
If I were a lake resident or someone passionate about the lake, I’d make a health and safety complaint to the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA will be obligated to inspect, adjudicate and order remediation and restoration of the lake and the City of Mitchell will have to comply. Until that’s accomplished, the EPA can make the City of Mitchell ineligible for any federal grants or matching funds. The EPA can threaten to cut off federal funds to the State of South Dakota if the State of South Dakota allows Mitchell to participate in State funds and programs prior to cleaning up the lake thus incentivizing the State to leave Mitchell high and dry for water and other project funding. There are other sticks in their enforcement portfolio as well. It can be an expensive nightmare.
I’ve seen stupidity, stubbornness, ignorance and miscalculation both in the classroom and in my life in politics but rarely all at the same time. I understand cleaning up the lake is expensive. I know it isn’t a priority for most of the people of Mitchell. I realize it is wildly unpopular with a large swath of the populace. It doesn’t change the fact that the lake is owned by the City. It is a nuisance property which is the City’s responsibility to clean up. It is a health and safety hazard for which City government is accountable to remediate. The consequences to our attractiveness as a community to new businesses, tourists and the additional costs and punitive measures that could be imposed by the EPA are enormous.
Often in politics what the “right” thing to do seems murky and uncertain. On the other hand, the “wrong” political action to take is frequently crystal clear. Putting off a verdict on the lake for nearly a year is absolutely the wrong decision. Dodging a resolution to this issue because it is difficult, expensive and on top of that evading responsibility for it by dumping it in the laps of citizens is the cowardly thing to do. Waiting for the EPA to order redress is a calamitous course that will ultimately result from indecision or lack of progress on the lake.
There is still time to do the right thing and reverse recent mistakes in decision making. The question for the Mayor and the Council is, will they rectify their mistakes or compound them?