Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 3 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Ditch 16 study moves closer
Published 12:00 p.m., April 3, 2009
By Tom Hintgen
Daily Journal
Changes are needed if Ditch 16 near Clitherall Lake will do what it was designed to do several decades ago. To that end, an engineering study may be close at hand.
That was the prevailing opinion following a public meeting Thursday evening at Battle Lake High School. What was scheduled as a redetermination meeting to detail the benefits of an enhanced Ditch 16 will be reconvened during the Tuesday, May 5 County Board of Commissioners meeting in Fergus Falls. The issue will again be taken up at 1 p.m. that day.
Water flows along Ditch 16 from Bonnie Beach at Clitherall Lake northward to the Highway 210 underpass and into West Battle Lake.
“We have safety issues,” said Clitherall Lake resident Jeff Stabnow, “in addition to other problems associated with the ongoing, unnaturally high water. We see water damage and mold in basements, severe shoreline erosion, damage and displacement of riprap and compromised septic systems. This is real physical damage to the lake as opposed to a potential inconvenience.”
Not everyone at the meeting, however, was in favor of Ditch 16 changes. Others, while in favor of Ditch 16 enhancements, had questions about special assessments that would be needed.
If changes were made to Ditch 16, a property owner that benefits from the ditch would be assessed a one-time fee based on a percentage of the overall cost, initially estimated at $100,000 for determination of fees purposes. The higher the benefit, the higher the cost to the property owner.
A nearby property owner (close to Ditch 16) who would not see flooding as a result of the changes would pay a higher fee as compared to a resident living high on a hill where only a minimal amount of water seepage would drain into Ditch 16. Ongoing maintenance costs to property owners, in future years, would be minimal, said County Auditor Wayne Stein.
The five-person County Board of Commissioners also acts as the county Ditch Authority. All five commissioners were present at the Thursday evening gathering in Battle Lake. The Ditch Authority, in turn, appoints ditch viewers who work in teams of three to evaluate ditches such as Ditch 16.
Other lakes affected by Ditch 16, in addition to Clitherall Lake and West Battle Lake, are Belmont Lake and Crane Lake.
Last summer, permits were issued so that lake residents could remove cattails, which many people believe is interfering with the water flow and contributing to the water level rise in Clitherall Lake.
The channel originally was eight feet wide when it was built in 1906. In recent months, however, the channel was only from two to four feet wide in some areas downstream. Lakeshore property owners have documentation, including photos, of trees that have washed into Clitherall Lake.
Among those representing property owners at previous county commission meetings were Stabnow and Don Davenport who also serves on the Clitherall Township Board. Davenport and Stabnow both spoke at the Thursday evening public meeting.
Any changes, said moderator and County Attorney David Hauser, could not legally result in Clitherall Lake going below its ordinary high water mark. Monitoring results of the ditch project, among others, would be the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
One individual said the original intent of the ditch was to allow for making farmland more tillable, and not for lowering the level of lakes. While agreeing with that statement, Hauser said that times change. In the past 19 years, he said that summer rainfall has been consistently above the average rainfall as compared to previous decades. This, in turn, has led to the rise in area lake levels.
Stabnow said that in 2008 the West Battle Lake Lakeshore Association Board of Directors went on record in support of an engineering study for Ditch 16. West Battle Lake has its own outlet. That, say Ditch 16 enhancement proponents, is another reason why the engineering study should take place, with the retrofit to follow.
Also attending Thursday’s gathering in Battle Lake, and answering questions, was Otter Tail County Ditch Inspector Randy Wasvick.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post. To post a comment you will need to register. Or, if you're already registered but have not included your true, verifiable identity with your registration, you will need to update your account to include your identity. Effective Dec. 1, 2009, all posts appear with the commenter's true identity, which must be verified by site staff. Those who registered prior to Dec. 1, 2009, should be aware that once you update your information with your true identity, all prior posts under your user name will also indicate your true identity. If you do not wish to link yourself to prior comments, you should register again with a different user name.Posted by thetruthhurts (anonymous) on April 3, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Way way too many regulations, it will cost way more for studies and consultations then it would to just hire a backhoe and clean the dang ditch back to what it originally was, I bet there wasn't nearly as much fuss involved in 1906, and no reason for it now either.
Posted by cascade (anonymous) on April 3, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've posted this before-
1335.78,1951-06-16
1336.01,1968-05-09
1336.22,1973-07-12
1336.64,1993-06-12
1336.70,2003-06-16
1337.17,2008-06-17
1336.35,2008-10-31
.5 ft in 57 years....I think the lake fluctuated before we were here, and it will continue to do so long after we are gone.
www.dnr.state.mn.us
Its interesting how we feel the need to control all aspects of our surrounding environment. At least the land owners will be assessed the cost.
Posted by propertyowner (anonymous) on April 4, 2009 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems to me we have too much government regulation these days. Whatever happened to letting people deal with their own problems? Just get somebody to dig out the debris and silt and don't go digging any deeper and end up hurting others down the line just because of a few people. By digging the ditch down, this water has to end up somewhere eventually and may do more damage, like to the Fargo area, and they don't need any more problems. Maybe these people should have take into consideration about where they built to begin with and now want someone else to solve their problems. As far as the trees going into the lake, the rip rapping probably should have been done years ago to prevent a lot of damage. Don't blame your problems on the water level; the lake waters go up and down every year.
Why do we need a ditch inspector if you have to hire an engineer to do a study along with 3 ditch viewers? This is a waste of our tax dollars.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)
You may also register to comment in our forums at www.fergusfeedback.com.