I attended the public meeting at the Corn Palace on the Lake Mitchell Project and was a trifle appalled. There was just a smattering of people in the audience for such an important issue for the town and taxpayers’ pocketbooks. Now it is true that the meeting was televised on Mitchell Channel 90 so lots of folks could have been watching from the comfort of their homes. When I was on the City Council (2009-2018) I initially scoffed at the idea of televising City Council meetings. After all, who would watch them? I was surprised by the number of people who stopped me in public to comment and critique a meeting that they had seen on television. I gave up my skepticism and became a believer in broadcasting the meetings. I was wrong then, and maybe I’m wrong now about how many people actually saw the proceedings when television is taken into account.
I was also a bit discouraged by some of the questions from the audience. There seemed to be a quest for certainty and absolute guarantees by a few that boggled the mind and demands for post-election specifics that were frankly impossible to answer at the present time, especially not knowing if the lake restoration plan will pass public muster or who will be elected in the City Council and mayoral races.
This issue of the lake has been ongoing and for a long time now. Lake Mitchell is a manmade lake and that is the root cause of much of the problem. Lake Mitchell is basically a hole in the ground; it wasn’t constructed with many of the features that a natural lake would ordinarily have which is partly why we have difficulties all these years later. How many years later you ask? Nearly one hundred, the lake was constructed in 1928. There was one questioner who seemed, obliquely, to take to task our forebears for not anticipating our present tribulations. There was another question about whether the plan that will be on the ballot in June will suffice for the next ninety years – out to 2114. Obviously, the policy makers back in 1928 did not have the prognostication power to anticipate our current difficulties nor do current policy makers have all the answers for the next ninety years. However, there will be another thirty or so elections for mayor and City Council during the next nine decades and hopefully some advances in technology may emerge that could be helpful to our grandchildren (or in my case, my great grandchildren) in continuing to cope with problems of the lake.
For years the lake was fine. There was sufficient rainfall to “flush out” the lake periodically. Phosphorous builds up over time so it’s worse now than twenty years ago and worse twenty years ago than it was twenty years before that and so forth and so on. There was no EPA to contend with until 1971 and unless the lake was green with algae, no one was testing the water quality of the lake, so all seemed fine even if it really wasn’t under the surface.
There was some outrage expressed, in the form of questions, because “nothing” had been done in the past or that dredging had been done and it hadn’t worked. Both assumptions are fallacious.
First, the City has tried numerous things over the years. There have been attempts to engage land owners in the watershed (which is 350,000 acres – roughly seven times the norm for a lake of the size of Lake Mitchell) to improve their grazing and fertilizing practices to minimize seepage of natural sewage and fertilizer from eventually finding its way down to Lake Mitchell. Mayor Everson has stepped up those discussions, building on the work of previous Mayors. The City has tried the lake with “natural grasses” (like pussy willows) for filtration and then in later years without such vegetation. Chemicals, like Alum, have been dumped in the lake at regular intervals to try and minimize phosphorous. Products to “clean” the lake, like the SolarBee, have been introduced into the lake with minimal success. The City has also rerouted storm drains over the years to try and help restore the lake to its former glory. In addition, the City has been participating, since 2019, in the Lower James River Watershed Implementation Project.
The dredging in 1985 was “wet dredging” and frankly part of the problem. Phosphorus concentrations rise when the lake is “stirred”. Any time boats are used, and to a lesser extent when the lake is filled with swimmers, the lake is churned adding to our phosphorus difficulties. The lake was dredged with the water still in it forty years ago for the purpose of making it deeper and not necessarily to rid the lake of phosphorus. The dredging that is currently proposed is “dry dredging” with the water drained from the lake so that dredging is not counterproductive. The best presentation of the night was by Dr. Paula Mazzer, a Professor of Biochemistry at Dakota Wesleyan University. She explained in layman’s terms why dry dredging was necessary and why it is NOT necessary to dredge the entire lake.
The watershed contributes 52% of the phosphorus load to the lake with the lake itself contributing the other 48%. Dr. Mazzer explained that once the lake is drained and dry, the lakebed can be tested and areas with the highest concentration of phosphorus can then be dredged. She didn’t use this illustration, but her presentation suggested this laundry analogy to me. Everyone has dirty laundry but some of it is really dirty – blood or grass stains, food stains etc. Some laundry is soiled in the regular sense and some clothes aren’t clean just out of the laundry but sufficiently fresh so as to be worn another day. That’s the condition of the lake. Just as not all of your laundry needs stain remover or special preparation neither does all of the lakebed need to be dredged. The engineers on the panel explained that the lake fills and discharges four to five times in a year – depending on rain and snowfall – and that a drained lake should fill in a season. However, if we have a particularly dry year, it may take an entire calendar year for the lake to fill up again post dredging.
The plan calls for over half the lake to be dredged and then Alum applied in other areas for treatment of 97% of a 671 acre lake. Work will continue with land owners on the watershed. There was an excellent question from the audience about how much it would cost to restock the lake with fish, should all this draining and dredging go ahead. A representative from the fisheries section of the Game Fish and Parks answered, pointing out that restocking waterways is part of the Department’s mission. There would be no cost to the City to restock the lake and the Game Fish and Park’s would stock it with the proper species for the ecosystem, biodiversity and fishing.
There was one questioner who was hot and bothered over whether voters were being asked to decide on the project per se or simply on a loan amount. The practical answer is “both”. The voters will be deciding whether or not to approve this measure: RESOLUTION 2024-11 “Shall the City of Mitchell issue its revenue bonds in a principal amount of $16,851,900 bearing interest at such rates payable upon such terms as may be determined by the City Council for the purpose of providing funds for the Lake Mitchell Project, and paying all the costs of issuance?”
The total cost of the project is $25 million with the difference between the loan and the total coming from other sources of revenue. The questioner appeared to feel that wording wasn’t sufficient to bind the amount to the specific project detailed in the presentation despite all of the public announcements, posted online information, City Council minutes, town hall events (like the one I’m describing) and published materials all outlining what the “Lake Mitchell Project” is. However, in order to get that precise loan amount to place before the voters, a proposal with costs and projections needs to exist to justify the amount requested. Having been in politics, at both the State and Municipal level, I’m absolutely confident that if voters approve the loan, what the City Council will be obligated to do is to carry out the plan that was described at the meeting at the Corn Palace and what is posted online at the City’s website as the specified project.
So many questioners at the meeting seemed to be looking for a “once and for all” solution. Of course there is no such thing. Phosphorus is a natural chemical and one we will always have to keep our eye on and do battle with no matter what “solution” (if this one doesn’t pass) is proposed. Anyone who says they have the definitive answer that will fix the lake for good and forever is either lying to you or incredibly misinformed and naïve.
Many people seem to feel that the lake is a neighborhood issue, like traffic around the Hitchcock pool in the summer or noise from Joe Quintal field on the nights of home football games. However, 72% of the lake shore is owned by the City as park land, public access or beach and what not. The lake is a civic amenity. In the Forward 2040 process, folks were asked to list what they thought the most important priorities and problems were for the City of Mitchell. Coming in first was the deterioration of Main Street and the downtown corridor. A close second was the condition of Lake Mitchell. Third was retaining and growing the City’s population. Fourth was lack of amenities with the lake being included, since it is virtually unusable, near the top of that list.
The lake is a nuisance property and it’s the City of Mitchell’s nuisance property. It’s also embarrassing as well as dangerous to have the lake closed to the public periodically because it’s a health hazard. The specter of the EPA lurking in the background with the power to order this clean up and much more beyond what this proposed plan of action envisions should weigh on the minds of taxpayers as well.
My kudos to all who attended the meeting or who watched it on television. My hope is that every person eligible to vote will register to vote. My advice to registered voters is to go to the polls and let your voice be heard on this important issue. My question is, if you don’t like this plan do you really think any future solution, especially one that may be EPA imposed or court ordered, will be any less expensive or less involved at some time down the road?
The specifics of the proposal that you will be voting whether or not to finance can be found on the City’s website. Please take the time to know what you’re voting on before you vote. This plan has had years of research, building on studies that were done in the past, has been engineered with precise specifications and is ready for bid. Other states have been consulted about what actions they took to mitigate problems with their lakes, what solutions they used and what costs they incurred. Those states’ experiences and advice have been taken into account when crafting this approach to restoring Lake Mitchell. If you’re going to reject this plan, please don’t do so because some charlatan has an enchanted elixir to pour into the lake regardless of EPA regulations and restrictions or because some self-proclaimed seer spent a few hours on the internet and think they now have discovered a magic wand to wave over the problem. Lake Mitchell’s problems won’t be solved overnight or with simple solutions and definitely not on the cheap. That much is for certain.
See you at the polls on June 4th.