|
How Not to Manage Water
<br />By Larry Whittakar
<br />Administrator
<br />City of Laka Elmo
<br />Lake Elmo is a rural city of 5,300
<br />people in the middle of the Valley
<br />Branch Watershed District, in central
<br />WasNrtgton County. The watershed
<br />runs from the urban fringes of White
<br />Bear Lake, Oakdale, North St. Paul,
<br />and Mahtomedi on the northeast
<br />side of St. Paul, to very rural area
<br />of West Lakeland Township atHf
<br />Afton, on the St. Croix River.
<br />Within the watershed, there are
<br />two large landlocked basins which
<br />receive most of the run-off from the
<br />urban frirrge and large agricultural
<br />areas. Or>e of these subwatersheds
<br />eiKls in Lake Jane, within the City
<br />of Lake BnK>. It is a 180 acre lake
<br />surrounded by homes. Lake Jane
<br />would have to rise 20 to 30 feet
<br />above the basement floor elevatiora
<br />of these homes to reach Hs “natural"
<br />outlet.
<br />The other subwatershed winds its
<br />way from Oakdale through Eagle
<br />Point Lake into Elmo Lake. Aftw
<br />the high wate' levels threaten septic
<br />systems aruJ homes on Lake Elmo,
<br />it witKis its way through an under
<br />sized culvert into Tartan Park, the
<br />3M recreation cemer, where it has
<br />flooded large parts of a golf course,
<br />threaterted tennis courts, and pilled
<br />up in end around Horseshoe Lake. It
<br />flows out of Horseshoe Leke end the
<br />City of Lake Brno into a small pond
<br />in West Lakeland. That pond is the
<br />last "safe" resting place: and it is six
<br />miles from the St. Croix River, the
<br />only netural outlet for run-off and
<br />floodwaters in the Valley Branch
<br />Watershed District.
<br />Since 1968, when the Wetershed
<br />District was formed, the city has
<br />spent over $100,000 trying to control
<br />flooding on Lake Jerw. We have
<br />instelied temporary dams, weB^, ar>d
<br />pumps, and we have twice petitioned
<br />tiw Watershed District for a solution.
<br />The first petition resulted in a plan
<br />that was found to be not cost-
<br />effective.
<br />The second resulted in a permanent
<br />pump being placed on Lake Jene,
<br />wAiich pumps the floodweters into e
<br />pond in a City Park. It, too, is not
<br />a permanent solution to the Cit/s
<br />water problems which stem from
<br />increasing nsvoff generated by urbart-
<br />ization in the upstream portkMts of
<br />this subwatershed.
<br />The City has built holding ponds,
<br />iratalled control structures on ponds,
<br />built dams on Eagle Point Lake, arnf
<br />also twice petitioned the Watershed
<br />DiMrict for a solution to the flooding
<br />problems on Lake Brno, Hbrseshoe
<br />Lake and the West Lakeland pond.
<br />Each time we have petitioned, we
<br />have decided to withdraw from the
<br />protect after preliminary engineering
<br />and cost estimates have been pre
<br />pared by the Watershed District be
<br />cause the proposed solutions were,
<br />basically, too expensive to finance
<br />with the preasnt largely niral tax base.
<br />Now, after al thaaa City investments
<br />end 13 years of planning by the
<br />Watershed District stkI the affected
<br />communities, we are rtot much closer
<br />to a compr^ensive solution to the
<br />problems than we were in 1968. We
<br />have not been able to control the
<br />run-off from upstream communities
<br />nor create an outlet through down-
<br />streem communities. We have not
<br />reached a greemem with the Water
<br />shed District or affected communities
<br />on how to solve the preasnt problems
<br />nor how much we can afford to
<br />build to deal with future development
<br />in the watershed.
<br />Most of our petitions to the Water
<br />shed District have resulted in proposals
<br />to solve the "dtimats" problem in the
<br />watershed. But most of the work
<br />that has been done has been piece
<br />meal and temporary: and almost all
<br />of it has been paid for by the
<br />property owners in Lake Brno, even
<br />though much of the rurt-off comes
<br />from outside Lake Brno and eventually
<br />flows away from Lake Elmo.
<br />Where have we gorte wrong? What
<br />have we learned?
<br />You cannot ignore surface water
<br />management no matter how rural
<br />you are. You must watch your neigh
<br />boring commuttities as wM as your
<br />own. You cannot hope they win
<br />limit or control surface water unlese
<br />you have a dear idea of the pioblenns
<br />it wkl cause your community, the
<br />opportunities they have to coii^ it
<br />upstream, and your limits for accept
<br />ing additional run-off. Despite the
<br />years we have been fighting this,
<br />the City still does not have a plan
<br />to control our own surface water.
<br />You have to conskfer surflsoe water
<br />in an land use control activities-plan-
<br />ning, zoning, subdivision, variartces,
<br />conditional use permits, and building
<br />permits. You have to adopt and
<br />enforce shoreland and floodplain man
<br />agement ordinances, inventory artd
<br />control the development of wetlands
<br />aruJ poor soils, and encourage neigh
<br />boring communities to do the same.
<br />When you petition a Watershed
<br />District for a solution, you have to
<br />define the problem very dearly. We
<br />tended to ask for "a solution to the
<br />flooding on..." We did rwt defirte
<br />our ability to pay. We were often
<br />not clear if the "solution" we sought
<br />was for existing problems, ultimate d^
<br />velopment, or simple planned growth.
<br />Most of the convnunities in this
<br />Watershed District and, I suspect,
<br />in your watershed did rtot think
<br />about the effect of devdopmem or
<br />agricultural practices on rurt-off utttil
<br />flooding be^n to occur. Ail com
<br />munities issued permits and variartces
<br />to build homes on virtually every
<br />attractive oond or lake in the dty
<br />lintHs. We did not preserve all of our
<br />martagement options. You must pro
<br />tect yours. You must protect your
<br />wetlartds, ponds, lakes, and water
<br />ways as th^ are esserttial for surface
<br />water martagemertt.
<br />You should also rementber that the
<br />manic reactive approach to surface
<br />water management equates to tinker
<br />ing with the natural surface water
<br />system, which does not gatteraHy
<br />solve the over-all management pro
<br />blem: it relocates it aruf it's very
<br />expensive. Plan first and buRd later.
<br />Realistic comprehensive plannktg
<br />for surface water management must
<br />involve your Watershed District (if
<br />one exisM) and all affected consnurti-
<br />ties particularly for any capital improve
<br />ment projects within the watershed.
<br />Any p^ion to a Watershed District
<br />should include: a strict defirtition
<br />of the area it will serve, the planrted
<br />use of larKf in that area for the time
<br />period you expect the project to
<br />serve, and life of the project (you
<br />cannot build the ultimate system
<br />urfoss you have ultimate davalopmant
<br />or unlimited resources), the preferred
<br />method of ssseeament (as you may
<br />want to protect certain clssees of
<br />land —agricullural land —or find a spe-
<br />■e* 6
|