Lower Gar Again

So what is the problem? How would you state it? This is how I state it, beginning with some background. The flood of 1993 alerted us that something needs to be done to allow flood waters to exit more rapidly from the Iowa Great Lakes region. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) was commissioned to study the problem, and they identified flow constrictions on Big Spirit Lake and the Lower Gar outlet. Big Spirit was addressed and if another flood event as 1993 occurs again the duration of flooding will not be as severe. As to the Lower Gar outlet, no final solution has been taken. We know the road that runs between the Lower Gar and the weir impedes the flow of water out of the lake, but to what extent? The COE conducted a follow up study in 1999 that evaluated 5 alternatives to reduce the impact of the road at Lower Gar on the duration of flooding at different elevations, but no action has been taken. Out of sight, out of mind. (Available online: I tried to post the link but the full address gets cut. This will get you started: http://www.co.dickinson.ia.us/department...

The statement of problem, as I see it, is the interests of people who are afraid of flood against those afraid of drought, translated into property owners living next to shallow waters against property owners living next to deep water. If you owned property on a shallow lake, in other words, you would be more afraid of drought than flood and vice versa if you lived next to deeper waters. That is a more accurate description than saying it is the West Okoboji folks against the East Okoboji chain of lake folks, as ably demonstrated by Owen Primavera who has a shallow access area on West Okoboji, who opposes any action.

The fear of the shallow lakers is that any of the 5 solutions proposed by the 1999 COE study would lower the water level of Lower Gar Lake and make it shallower than it is already. (Its mean depth is 1.1 meters or about 3 and a half feet) But, engineers say, it is not the road but the weir downstream from the road that controls the Lower Gar water levels. "Baloney" say the those afraid of lower water levels. "The road controls the water level."

Well, yes and no.

Thanks to the leadership of the Dickinson County Board of Supervisors and the Milford City Council, there were two public meetings last week to discuss the facts and the solutions.

The first one was held May 20 at the Pearson Lakes Art Center where the experts from the US Army Corps of Engineers -- Roger Kay- and the Department of Natural Resources (represented by Fisheries biologist Mike Hawkins; Barb Lynch, Environmental Services Division, and Ken Hessenius, standing in for the Floodplain permitting person who could not make the meeting) were invited to present background data and facts, and gathered with the Milford City Council members and the Dickinson County Board of Supervisors on the PLAC stage. I estimate about 200 people were in the audience. The second meeting was held the following night at the Milford Community Center, in which the experts were absent and some struggled to remember what the experts said. Both meetings were mediated by NW Iowa Planning folks.

The Tuesday meeting was informative, but there was not enough time for questions, but I got my two questions answered, and this is why I have to blog.

My first question was already asked by someone else. He asked how much more rapidly would water levels in Lower Gar drop to the top of the weir with any of the alternatives in the 1999 COE report as compared to the current Lower Gar outlet configuration. My jaw dropped when I heard the answer, but when I looked around the room I did not see anyone else's jaw dropping, so I thought I did not hear right.

The answer was, that under current conditions, an average year would see water levels at or above the spillway approximately 197 days per year; the maximum reduction would be LESS THAN ONE DAY PER YEAR ON AVERAGE. (caps mine) Hello! What is the problem, then? Why does anyone fear any of the proposed solutions would lower Lower Gar water levels in June to what they normally are in August? I thought I must have misunderstood what Roger Kay said, otherwise there would not be so much controversy and so many people hashing this out. So after the meeting, I went up to Roger Kay and asked him the same question and got the same answer. Then I saw two gentlemen talking away, and I approached them and asked them if they understood the answer to the question about the road, the weir and the water levels. They both said they did and they both said the road controlled the water levels, not the weir. I said, "Let's go talk to Roger!" We talked to Roger and they "got it". Then I saw supervisors Mardi Allen and Pam Jordan. I asked them if they understood same thing. They both looked at me like I was crazy so I said, let's go talk to Roger and have him explain once more. Now for the 3rd or 4th time that evening Roger explained the answer, and both Mardi and Pam nodded, and Mardi, bless her, got Roger to give a written reply to the question which should be posted soon on the Dickinson County website. In the meantime, visit the website and study Figure 1 from the 1999 study, review the information, and ask yourself why there is so much controversy. Maybe I have mis-stated the problem?