HomeMy WebLinkAboutResident Letter, Channel DredgingHoward W. Meagher
3980 Dahl Rood
Mound, Minneftoto 55364
Tol: 472-2167
Moiling Addroftt:
Box 66, Novorre, Minn. 55392
Gloria McDonald, Chairwoman
Orono Planning Commission
At your meeting Tuesday^ September 6th# I made a few remarks
concerning the water quality of North Arm. I agree with you
100% that a 6' dock access to navigable water using the short
est route over the marshland area is the way to go.
It was only after the DNR Official explained the Northshore
Marina problem, that I realized that his recommendation of
dredging the current 110* channel in the north end of North
Arm was a complete contradiction based upon his comments
justifying dredging at North Shore Marina.
As you will recall, he stated that the original dredging
at Northshore Marina really caused the current problem,
because it created an area for boat dockage, and that the
boats and not the dredging caused the eventual problem due
to propeller agitation of the many boats moving in and out
of their slips. The lower the water the more movement
of slit, etc.
The DNR Representative agreed with the current request from
Northshore on the premise that no further damage could occur,
and, of course, this is questionable in the opinion of many
lakeshore residents.
Now, let's look at the contradiction. If the 110* channel
at the north end of North Arm were dredged,
conditions that would exist:
below are the
1. A channel docking area for six residential lake homes.
This means twelve boats (two for each property owner).
The residents will have guests coming and going by
boat. Also, if the channel is navigable it would
be public domain.
2. The boat activity in this new dredged channel would
produce the same disturbing results that are now
apparent in Maxwell*s Bay. Propeller action would stxr
up the bottom and the nutrient affluent would be carried
south to other areas of North Arm. Spawning beds,
etc. would also be affected in the adjacent areas
Page Two
from the channel. The conclusions are not mine but
based on comments made by the DNR Representative.
Furthermore, the channel would require maintenance
which would mean more dredging in years to come -
a mini Maxwell's Bay situation.
During my 27 years as a resident on North Arm, the water
quality has remained stable. There have been many complaints
elsewhere. It might be a good idea for the DNR or someone
else to explain this phenomenon.
However, without explanation, 1 would not want to see any
course of action taken that might affect the water quality
of North Arm.
Other Issues
Enclosed is a copy of a first page headline article in the
Minneapolis Star - August 2, 1977. I'm amazed that the
fifteen lake municipalities didn't band together and demand
equal space to answer this ridiculous, false, and biased
rhetoric sponsored by Charles Burrows, Fisheries Chief for
the DNR.
Below are a few points that Mr. Burrows doesn't seem to
understand.
1.Any restrictions suggested or enacted by Lake
Minnetonka municipalities were involved with public
safety due to default by our Hennepin County Com
missioners to provide traditional financial support
to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol.
You will note that Burrows' only authorities to
support his position are a representative of the Bass
Angler's Society, a member of the In Fishing Fra
ternity and a member of Huskies Inc. Burrows' right
hand man, Shodeen threatens not to stock Lake Minne
tonka and might stop removing carp. In this connection,
I've had six dead carp float onto my beach this year -
so far. If Shodeen did a better job of carp removal,
the state wouldn't have to spend very much on stocking.
After all, carp damage more spawning beds than boats.
3.I wonder if Burrow's has ever been on Lake Minnetonka.
It's a very interesting lake. It's bays, arms and
channels are beautiful. It's unique in this respect.
It's the kind of lake where just cruising can be a real
relaxing treat and on weekends that's what goes on along
with a great increase in sailing, water skiing and even
swimming. Whether you have a runabout, a pontoon boat.
Page Three
or a. cruiser, it's great fun to just move from one bay
to another and perhaps end up having lunch or dinner
at one of the many fine restaurants accessible by boat.
As a matter of fact the recreational activity on Lake
Minnetonka today is probably 30% fishing ar<d 70% other;
and, because of the uniqueness of the lake, that's the
way it should be.
4.Burrow's criticizes the DNR for developing access sites
in lakes outside the.roetropolitian area and wants more
public access sites at Lake Minnetonka. In a state of
10,000 lakes, the current DNR policy is the only way
to go. Boat density, public safety, and type of lake
should be the considerations for new access sites for
fishing. After all, fishing is not the only recreational
activity on all our lakes, and this is particularly
true of Lake Minnetonka. I'm sure you'd find that many
Lake Minnetonka residents go north to their favorite
lake for fishing.
5.The Star article doesn't seomto recognize lake shore
residents as part of the public and certainly doesn't
understand their contribution to public access. When
you see a pontoon boat with 8 or 10 people aboard or
a houseboat with 20 people or even a runabout with 4 or
6 people aboard, you can be pretty sure that outside
of the"captainr and his wife, the others aboard are not
lakeshore residents. They're guests from the metro
politan area or even from other states. In addition,
there are hundreds of boats available for rental at
marinas as well as hundreds of boats docked at marinas
by metropolitan residents.
1
Conclusion
With 10,000 lakes in our state, let's use them wisely. 7 t's
determine how much boat density any given lake will stand and
still provide adequate public safety and maintain proper water
quality for people as well as fish.
Priorities for Lake Minnetonka
1. Retain reasonable water quality.
2. Do what is necessary to guarantee an adequate lake level.
In connection with point #1, there are many environmental
questions involved.
1. Excess urbanization.
2. Wet lands control.
I ,
kt
Page Four
3.
4.
Storn water run off control.
Use of fertilizer by lakeshore residents on lawns, etc,
Is there a fertilizer that is harmless?
5.
6.
V.
Should rip-rap be promoted?
Refuse control.
On land storage of boats at marinas vs slips in water.
Point 12
Enclosed is data on the seyen wells drilled in the 1930*s
calculating the capacity of these wells, our LMA Engineer
estimates that the seven wells operating 25 days a month,
24 hours a day, would contribute 7” to the lake level in
seven months of operation. This would be a meaningful
contribution based upon 1976-1977 drought conditions. This
information has been given to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District by a committee from LMA.
Questions to be answered -
(a)
(b)
(o)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Status of Jordan Sandstone source.
Cost to reactivate wells.
Would more wells be required and how many.
Cost to operate and maintain.
Is the irell plan feasible.
What are the alternatives.
InciJciitally, I thought you did a real good job handling the
meeting Tuesday evening.
Sincerely I
Howard W. Meagher
HWM:rg
51