|
Forum: Current Events Topic: Watershed Board Members Dissent started by: Nose for News Posted by Nose for News on Mar. 10 2004,1:13 pm
A milestone occurred at the last watershed meeting. For the first time the board did not agree 100%(thank goodness)It would be nice to hear Watershed Board members dissenting ideas and from which board member in the trib, maybe next time.(it appears we have some watershed board members doing their job) . Shouldn't Watershed Board members be repected intelligent people with common sense in personal and bussiness and a concern for the taxpayers. We should learn from history. Do we want people with questionable previous business success gullible for any new sell job ? Do you think they will give the $3000 they wasted back to the city and county?($1000 each) Its time someone gives us the bio history on these board members to see who is spending our dollars. What have the done in the past? Have their past decisions been wise or foolish? The county board needs this information when they reappoint every board member in July. Electric barrier option out for carp control By Ann Austin, Tribune staff writer The electric weir to prevent the migration of carp into Albert Lea Lake was taken off the table as a possible solution, according to members of the Shell Rock River Watershed Board. The board met last Thursday to discuss the weir and a temporary barrier to prevent carp from immigrating during their spring migration, but a decision was postponed as the board wanted more information. A motion was made Thursday to appoint a committee to investigate the possibility of a barrier or weir. At a Tuesday meeting, the committee said there was not enough time or resources to buy and install an electric weir. "There is no way we can get it installed this spring," said Don Sorenson, member of the Shell Rock River Watershed Board. He then presented the option of installing a mechanical barrier to stop the spring carp migration. There were dissenting opinions from members of the board as to whether the barrier would be structurally sound. It could malfunction if floods caused high water and also requires cleaning. Andy Henschel, from Freeborn County Environmental Services, said any barrier would be beneficial. Even if some carp were to pass through, the numbers would be far less than if there were no barrier, he said. "You're looking at a balance," he said. Less carp would mean less spawning and the likelihood game fish would keep numbers in check by feeding on the eggs and young carp. Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Supervisor Hugh Valiant has approved a permit for a temporary barrier structure, but with the unusually warm weather, carp will likely start migrating before a barrier could be installed, board members said. The process of installing the barrier still needs county permission and liability contracts, which will prevent the barrier being put in this spring. Board consensus was not to take action this year. The fish kill last month was just too late to get a viable solution in place this year, according to Ken Nelson, watershed board member. "We just simply ran out of time," he said. "All we can say is we tried," said Harley Miller, director of the watershed board. The board intends to use the information gathered this year for future barriers. They are waiting for their watershed plan to be approved by the Department of Soil and Water Resources, which if approved would give the board more authority to make decisions. The DNR requested a committee to be appointed to regulate carp numbers. Members will be assigned from county and city departments, along with members of the watershed board and sportsmen's club. The next watershed board meeting will be at 4 p.m. Tuesday at the highway department's conference room. Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2004,2:09 pm
How can any cleanup plan be credible, when there is no detailed record of exactly where the PROBLEM lies? I think MOST people would be glad to support elimination of a problem, IF that problem was identified. The report, for all its detail, DOES NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC GOALS--only the amorphous "clean up the lakes". SPECIFIC, MEASURABLE GOALS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ANY CLEANUP PLAN. Why was this information not included in the Watershed Plan? Might it have been that if the problem was found to be NOT in one of the creeks, that those people would petition to opt out of the Watershed? Absent any information to the contrary, I'd have to guess that this information was DELIBERATELY OMMITTED! Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 10 2004,5:41 pm
Good work jim and nose, thanks for the post ;)
|