Topic: They Want Another 8 million to Dredge Lake
started by: Stone-Magnon
Posted by Stone-Magnon on May 14 2011,12:22 am
OK, get out yer wallets, here it comes...another $8 million to dredge Fountain Lake. We ONLY have to pay half of $16 million. Our state taxes will pay the other half so it's really only costing is $8 million in real pain like property tax increases. The other $8 million comes from the Gods who dwell in the North I guess.Let's see, what else would you folks like to see $8 million spent on if you had a choice?
Posted by Alfy Packer on May 14 2011,10:29 am
State is in the hole to the tune of $5,000,000,000.00, and the two representatives from this area want to give us $8,000,000 of more State debt for Fountain Lake. Didn't we pass a sales tax to take care of the Lake? So why do we need this additional candy when we have such a debt problem? Here is my recommendation to the "Family Man", take your right hand and grab your left ear; then take your left hand and grab your right ear and pull with all of your might! Maybe you can get your head out your A$$.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 14 2011,10:45 am
Too much phosphorous has accumulated in the lake and that's the reason it needs to be dredged? Has anything been done to find out how it got there in the first place? Will something be done to ensure it doesn't happen again?
Posted by Alfy Packer on May 14 2011,10:58 am
QUOTE
Too much phosphorous has accumulated in the lake and that's the reason it needs to be dredged?
So! Why do we need an addition $8,000,000 of state debt to fund the dredging? Why isn't the local sales tax adiguate to fund the work? Why does the work need to be done yesterday? When did they discover the phosphorous, and when did it become a problem?
You can believe what you want, but I think Murry and Sparks don't have their eye on the ball, and they don't want us to have our eye on it either.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 14 2011,11:06 am
Oops, I can see how you took that statement the way you did! Sorry, actually it was actually a question. Is phosphorous the reason they are dredging the lake? I have been looking for information on this subject but can't find much at all. Sorry, I have a big problem with being misunderstood. I know what I am meaning to say, and don't realize sometimes how it might sound to others.'I agree, we need to stop throwing money away, and I"m guessing they've known about the phosphorous problem for a longggg time, why they feel the need to do something about it now, I have no idea. I hope whatever is causing this problem in the lake gets figured out and taken care of. If they do go ahead and spend all that money on it, what would be the point if they don't take care of the cause in the first place. We tend to spend way too much money, time and effort in fixing problems, instead of trying to prevent them in the first place.
Posted by grassman on May 14 2011,5:54 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ May 14 2011,10:45 am)
QUOTE
Too much phosphorous has accumulated in the lake and that's the reason it needs to be dredged? Has anything been done to find out how it got there in the first place? Will something be done to ensure it doesn't happen again?
Maybe go look at the yards on the west end of Edgewater bay. Just sayin.
Posted by hymiebravo on May 14 2011,7:16 pm
Get the money from the water & sewer fund. That seems to be a good cookie jar to raid when you need a few extra bucks.
Posted by MADDOG on May 14 2011,7:40 pm
Dredging Fountain has been on the agenda in the long term plan of the watershed. It's not something they just thought up. The SRRWD had been taxing us for roughly seven years now to the tune of $250,000 per year. They have to be banking some of that money for these big projects. Back in '09 they submitted a bonding request of $7.5M for this. < Four Senators > toured the lake. Albert Lea Lake will come after that and will probably be an even bigger project. Since the original self-seekers left the board, the SRRWD has been working to clean the watershed from the beginning to the end at the Shell Rock. They are nearing the end of some of their projects leading to Fountain. It takes a long time to further their projects. If the County Board and the local landowner at the mouth of the river quit messing it up any more, they can hopfully get this job done. Remember, it will take years to complete.
Madd Max follows the watershed board better than I. Maybe he can lend a little knowledge here?
Posted by hymiebravo on May 14 2011,8:00 pm
I see the storks took a shine to the upper lake today. They were fishing just above the damn by Katherine Island and down below in the channel. I suppose the rain gives them the opportunity to dominate the fishing there on days like today.
Posted by Stone-Magnon on May 14 2011,8:03 pm
Is it OK if I hand them my checkbook and they can just give me back what they don't need?
Posted by Santorini on May 14 2011,10:20 pm
(grassman @ May 14 2011,5:54 pm)
QUOTE
(Rosalind_Swenson @ May 14 2011,10:45 am)
QUOTE
Too much phosphorous has accumulated in the lake and that's the reason it needs to be dredged? Has anything been done to find out how it got there in the first place? Will something be done to ensure it doesn't happen again?
Maybe go look at the yards on the west end of Edgewater bay. Just sayin.
I think you are partly right grassman, especially since phosphorous is found in fertilizers as well as animal waste (manure). Plus all the sidewalks and roads around the lake, sources where the lake receives run-off; septic sytems? Has to be more of a non-point source since there is really no industry around that lake.
Some phosphorous just natually occurs in sediment but with the lake being so green ya can see its loaded!
Posted by Wolfie on May 15 2011,1:05 am
Makes one wonder how much fertilizer can be traced back to the large factory farmland west of town that drains into the watershed that works its way into fountain lake.
Posted by Tony Montana59 on May 15 2011,1:44 am
Unbelievable $8 million dollars to clean up the lake for the property owners who surround Fountain Lake. We have more important issues in our City to spend our tax dollars on. Give me a break.
Posted by Duck Hunter on May 17 2011,7:17 am
(Stone-Magnon @ May 14 2011,8:03 pm)
QUOTE
Is it OK if I hand them my checkbook and they can just give me back what they don't need?
I doubt one extra Jackson is going to help that much.
Posted by Santorini on May 17 2011,9:25 am
(Tony Montana59 @ May 15 2011,1:44 am)
QUOTE
Unbelievable $8 million dollars to clean up the lake for the property owners who surround Fountain Lake. We have more important issues in our City to spend our tax dollars on. Give me a break.
True!
I wish our city forefathers would have been wise enough to see the potential of this town with the beautiful lakes! not to mention the location since the interstates were finished.
Too bad they could not envision the big picture and had focused on business vs touism.
Albert Lea Lake is virtually the first lake you see after driving from Texas to Mn.
We are too far away from big cities to survive as a bedroom community...and without industry we cannot survive on our own...
What was left is a tourist destination! This should have been a resort community and promoted our beauty, and serene lakes! This should have been a vacation destination!
What a shame...
and because they tried to be an industrial location it has destroyed out lake system!
Posted by grassman on May 17 2011,7:53 pm
First lake? Have you been out of Albert Lea? 
Posted by MADDOG on May 18 2011,5:31 am
Some of you are dreaming. You want to have pristine lakes where you can play and boat and swim. You want beautiful shores and yards to line the lakes where fishing and recreation give you pleasure, yet complain when the watershed research and attempt to solve the problems that you and nature continue to create.People nearly every year beetch about a green Fountain Lake, yet demand to continue to keep harming it. The DNR stocks Albert Lake Lake and works with the watershed towards improvements that would cost people little money, yet the county and landowner
These lakes for the most part were natural potholes and shallow swamps flooded out by spring thaws every year as was much of town. The dams on Bridge Street and at the Shellrock are what turned these eutrophic lakes into what they are. Eutrophic lakes are perhaps the most vulnerable lakes to the problems we have. Problems created by nature and, yes, man.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were to go to the outlets of Pickeral or, say Bancroft Creek which feed Fountain, you would find that the water quality is near what it is coming out of your tap. Why? Because of what the watershed has done with the agricultural community and landowners in the upper portion of the watershed.
You want a beautiful Fountain Lake? How about if the watershed was able to have motorized boats banned on Fountain Lake? What if the shorelines were required to be seeded and then allowed to naturally be repopulated with shoreline grasses such as cattails and rushes? No more mowed boulevards?
These lakes are eutrophic lakes. Without dredging, you will never have the "beautiful lakes" you're dreaming of. They need to remove much of what has settled to the bottom of Fountain Lake. They need to do much more to protect it after they have dredged. But the people of this town will never let that happen. They will demand that they have the recreation they desire. They will have to put their boats back into the water to stir up the bottom. To destroy the clarity that has been created after dredging. But you can't have it both ways.
You don't realize that one of the major contributors to the pollution is geese. Yeah, geese and don't forget about those big white beautiful birds nearly everyone enjoys seeing soaring over the lakes.
Posted by grassman on May 18 2011,6:01 am
Well said MD.
Posted by nedkelly on May 18 2011,6:41 am
(MADDOG @ May 18 2011,5:31 am)
QUOTE
Some of you are dreaming. You want to have pristine lakes where you can play and boat and swim. You want beautiful shores and yards to line the lakes where fishing and recreation give you pleasure, yet complain when the watershed research and attempt to solve the problems that you and nature continue to create.
People nearly every year beetch about a green Fountain Lake, yet demand to continue to keep harming it. The DNR stocks Albert Lake Lake and works with the watershed towards improvements that would cost people little money, yet the county and landowners devise plans to scuttle attempts by the DNR and SRRWD to help the lake. They do great things to Pickeral Lake and people complain about aquatic vegetation starting to inhabit the shorelines and lake.
These lakes for the most part were natural potholes and shallow swamps flooded out by spring thaws every year as was much of town. The dams on Bridge Street and at the Shellrock are what turned these eutrophic lakes into what they are. Eutrophic lakes are perhaps the most vulnerable lakes to the problems we have. Problems created by nature and, yes, man.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were to go to the outlets of Pickeral or, say Bancroft Creek which feed Fountain, you would find that the water quality is near what it is coming out of your tap. Why? Because of what the watershed has done with the agricultural community and landowners in the upper portion of the watershed.
You want a beautiful Fountain Lake? How about if the watershed was able to have motorized boats banned on Fountain Lake? What if the shorelines were required to be seeded and then allowed to naturally be repopulated with shoreline grasses such as cattails and rushes? No more mowed boulevards?
These lakes are eutrophic lakes. Without dredging, you will never have the "beautiful lakes" you're dreaming of. They need to remove much of what has settled to the bottom of Fountain Lake. They need to do much more to protect it after they have dredged. But the people of this town will never let that happen. They will demand that they have the recreation they desire. They will have to put their boats back into the water to stir up the bottom. To destroy the clarity that has been created after dredging. But you can't have it both ways.
You don't realize that one of the major contributors to the pollution is geese. Yeah, geese and don't forget about those big white beautiful birds nearly everyone enjoys seeing soaring over the lakes.
People nearly every year beetch about a green Fountain Lake, yet demand to continue to keep harming it. The DNR stocks Albert Lake Lake and works with the watershed towards improvements that would cost people little money, yet the county and landowner
These lakes for the most part were natural potholes and shallow swamps flooded out by spring thaws every year as was much of town. The dams on Bridge Street and at the Shellrock are what turned these eutrophic lakes into what they are. Eutrophic lakes are perhaps the most vulnerable lakes to the problems we have. Problems created by nature and, yes, man.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were to go to the outlets of Pickeral or, say Bancroft Creek which feed Fountain, you would find that the water quality is near what it is coming out of your tap. Why? Because of what the watershed has done with the agricultural community and landowners in the upper portion of the watershed.
You want a beautiful Fountain Lake? How about if the watershed was able to have motorized boats banned on Fountain Lake? What if the shorelines were required to be seeded and then allowed to naturally be repopulated with shoreline grasses such as cattails and rushes? No more mowed boulevards?
These lakes are eutrophic lakes. Without dredging, you will never have the "beautiful lakes" you're dreaming of. They need to remove much of what has settled to the bottom of Fountain Lake. They need to do much more to protect it after they have dredged. But the people of this town will never let that happen. They will demand that they have the recreation they desire. They will have to put their boats back into the water to stir up the bottom. To destroy the clarity that has been created after dredging. But you can't have it both ways.
You don't realize that one of the major contributors to the pollution is geese. Yeah, geese and don't forget about those big white beautiful birds nearly everyone enjoys seeing soaring over the lakes.
The truth has arrived...Good on ya MD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...ned
Posted by Madd Max on May 18 2011,9:58 am
The Shellrock River Watershed District has been very active in working on cleaning up our lakes. People throughout the state and nation are in awe at how much they have accomplished in the short amount of time they have been in existence.Look at the water clarity of our lakes. Can anyone ever remember seeing the water clarity in Pickerel Lake so clear? How about the Edgewater parks dump site and the mark improvement it made to Fountain Lake after it was cleaned up. Then there are the holding ponds that were put in between Hwy 65 and South Shore drive that stopped the flooding problems that often happened out there. Look at the clarity of the water in Albert Lea Lake. These are just a few examples of what the Shellrock River Watershed District has been doing.
How many of you go fishing on our lakes? How many of you walk around the lake? Have any of you ever been camping out on Big Island? How many of you take your boats out on the lakes? Were any of you out duck hunting on Pickerel Lake last fall? The lakes are for everyone to enjoy that chooses to use them not just the property owners.
Debate is good and everyone has a right to their opinion. But the cleanup of our lakes will have a lasting effect on the quality of life here for generations to come.
Posted by nedkelly on May 18 2011,12:25 pm
(Madd Max @ May 18 2011,9:58 am)
QUOTE
The Shellrock River Watershed District has been very active in working on cleaning up our lakes. People throughout the state and nation are in awe at how much they have accomplished in the short amount of time they have been in existence.
Look at the water clarity of our lakes. Can anyone ever remember seeing the water clarity in Pickerel Lake so clear? How about the Edgewater parks dump site and the mark improvement it made to Fountain Lake after it was cleaned up. Then there are the holding ponds that were put in between Hwy 65 and South Shore drive that stopped the flooding problems that often happened out there. Look at the clarity of the water in Albert Lea Lake. These are just a few examples of what the Shellrock River Watershed District has been doing.
How many of you go fishing on our lakes? How many of you walk around the lake? Have any of you ever been camping out on Big Island? How many of you take your boats out on the lakes? Were any of you out duck hunting on Pickerel Lake last fall? The lakes are for everyone to enjoy that chooses to use them not just the property owners.
Debate is good and everyone has a right to their opinion. But the cleanup of our lakes will have a lasting effect on the quality of life here for generations to come.
Look at the water clarity of our lakes. Can anyone ever remember seeing the water clarity in Pickerel Lake so clear? How about the Edgewater parks dump site and the mark improvement it made to Fountain Lake after it was cleaned up. Then there are the holding ponds that were put in between Hwy 65 and South Shore drive that stopped the flooding problems that often happened out there. Look at the clarity of the water in Albert Lea Lake. These are just a few examples of what the Shellrock River Watershed District has been doing.
How many of you go fishing on our lakes? How many of you walk around the lake? Have any of you ever been camping out on Big Island? How many of you take your boats out on the lakes? Were any of you out duck hunting on Pickerel Lake last fall? The lakes are for everyone to enjoy that chooses to use them not just the property owners.
Debate is good and everyone has a right to their opinion. But the cleanup of our lakes will have a lasting effect on the quality of life here for generations to come.
The last dredging was done about 40 years ago. How long will this dredging last? Dams slow down the water, and slow water dumps sediment... Fountain and Albert Lea lakes are both prairie potholes and nature will always be working it's magic to return them to what nature intended them to be....
....ned
Posted by Stone-Magnon on May 18 2011,8:12 pm
It's why we need to say NO TO DREDGING at this juncture! We can't afford dredging at this time. $4 gas and rising. Greedy utilities..now is NOT the time to be piling on property taxes. This is real money.
Posted by hymiebravo on May 19 2011,7:23 am
QUOTE
Dams slow down the water, and slow water dumps sediment
It keeps the current from moving along like a river too it seems. Which is basically what both lakes are right?
If you watch the currents they seem to shift and swirl. Moving what would be considered upstream in places.
At least that's what it looks anyway.
Posted by hymiebravo on May 19 2011,7:27 am
How does the dredging process work exactly? Isn't there supposedly some plan for draining the big section, "Albert Lea" lake, and making islands out of the sediment or something.
Can you drain the whole thing and dig it down a 1,000 feet. That would keep the sediment issue at bay for a while. lol
Plus think of the bragging rights.
Posted by MADDOG on May 19 2011,12:20 pm
(Madd Max @ May 18 2011,9:58 am)
QUOTE
Look at the water clarity of our lakes. Can anyone ever remember seeing the water clarity in Pickerel Lake so clear? How about the Edgewater parks dump site and the mark improvement it made to Fountain Lake after it was cleaned up. Then there are the holding ponds that were put in between Hwy 65 and South Shore drive that stopped the flooding problems that often happened out there. Look at the clarity of the water in Albert Lea Lake. These are just a few examples of what the Shellrock River Watershed District has been doing.
I posted a few pictures in a different thread last fall showing the clarity of Pickeral with Secchi disks. When they first started monitoring the lake, the clarity was around 5-6 inches. Last year after much of their reclamation was completed, the clarity is nearing four feet. In fact if you look at the clarity of Fountrain, last year it was the best on record at over two and a half feet due to a cleaner Pickeral.
Posted by ICU812 on May 19 2011,12:34 pm
(nedkelly @ May 18 2011,12:25 pm)
QUOTE
(Madd Max @ May 18 2011,9:58 am)
QUOTE
The Shellrock River Watershed District has been very active in working on cleaning up our lakes. People throughout the state and nation are in awe at how much they have accomplished in the short amount of time they have been in existence.
Look at the water clarity of our lakes. Can anyone ever remember seeing the water clarity in Pickerel Lake so clear? How about the Edgewater parks dump site and the mark improvement it made to Fountain Lake after it was cleaned up. Then there are the holding ponds that were put in between Hwy 65 and South Shore drive that stopped the flooding problems that often happened out there. Look at the clarity of the water in Albert Lea Lake. These are just a few examples of what the Shellrock River Watershed District has been doing.
How many of you go fishing on our lakes? How many of you walk around the lake? Have any of you ever been camping out on Big Island? How many of you take your boats out on the lakes? Were any of you out duck hunting on Pickerel Lake last fall? The lakes are for everyone to enjoy that chooses to use them not just the property owners.
Debate is good and everyone has a right to their opinion. But the cleanup of our lakes will have a lasting effect on the quality of life here for generations to come.
Look at the water clarity of our lakes. Can anyone ever remember seeing the water clarity in Pickerel Lake so clear? How about the Edgewater parks dump site and the mark improvement it made to Fountain Lake after it was cleaned up. Then there are the holding ponds that were put in between Hwy 65 and South Shore drive that stopped the flooding problems that often happened out there. Look at the clarity of the water in Albert Lea Lake. These are just a few examples of what the Shellrock River Watershed District has been doing.
How many of you go fishing on our lakes? How many of you walk around the lake? Have any of you ever been camping out on Big Island? How many of you take your boats out on the lakes? Were any of you out duck hunting on Pickerel Lake last fall? The lakes are for everyone to enjoy that chooses to use them not just the property owners.
Debate is good and everyone has a right to their opinion. But the cleanup of our lakes will have a lasting effect on the quality of life here for generations to come.
The last dredging was done about 40 years ago. How long will this dredging last? Dams slow down the water, and slow water dumps sediment... Fountain and Albert Lea lakes are both prairie potholes and nature will always be working it's magic to return them to what nature intended them to be...
...nedOne would think with current farm practices and such, a dredge now would last much longer.
Posted by jimhanson on May 19 2011,1:05 pm
The last dredge was rather small for the project--able to dredge deep-water "holes", but hardly the entire bottom.Dredges are usually hydraulic vacuums--sucking muck and water out of the lake, and piping it on land for disposal--sometimes quite a distance. The area between Edgewater Park and the old golf course clubhouse is dredge fill--as is the skating rink area by Shoreland Heights.
One of the problems is that in the People's Democratic Republic of Minnesota (where, as Garage Logic says, "Absolutely NOTHING is legal") anything removed from a lake bottom is treated as "hazardous waste." That means that all of that fill and the water that is sucked up with it is not supposed to leak back into the lake. That makes dredging VERY expensive.
Oddly enough, the Army Corps of Engineers creates islands in the middle of the Mississippi when dredging to maintain the barge channel--but that's OK--since it is an Interstate navigable waterway. I guess Federal dirt isn't as "dirty" as State dirt.
I've flown Bob Mehsikomer--the guy that does the TV show "Simply Fishing". When we talked about the problems of lake dredging in Minnesota, he said (only partly in jest) "It would be cheaper to buy some land adjoining the lake, get some scrapers out to excavate a new lake, and use the dirt to fill in the old lake!"
Hymiebravo--
QUOTE
Can you drain the whole thing and dig it down a 1,000 feet. That would keep the sediment issue at bay for a while. lol
There IS an accumulation. Fairmont says that normal suspended particles and windblown dirt accumulated 40 centimeters in 25 years--just for point of reference.
Posted by Stone-Magnon on May 19 2011,5:10 pm
I'm pretty sure Jethro would be for making the whole thing a big C-MENT pond.
Posted by MADDOG on May 19 2011,6:51 pm
QUOTE
RAIN BARREL TRUCKLOAD SALE
Date
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Time
9:00 am – 3:00 pm CDT
Where
Oak Park Mall Parking Lot- 1301 18th Ave NW Austin, MN 55912
Northbridge Mall Parking Lot - 2510 Bridge Ave, Albert Lea, MN 56007
Notes
ONE DAY ONLY! Rain Barrel Truckload Sale $150 Value - Only $60
Saturday June, 18th, 2011 9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
2 Locations - Oak Park Mall Parking Lot 1301 18th Ave NW- Austin, MN & Northbridge Mall Parking Lot, 2510 Bridge Ave Albert Lea, MN
Hosted by: Cedar River Watershed District, Shell Rock Watershed District, Austin's Izaak Walton League, Freeborn County Soil & Water Conservation District, Mower County Soil & Water Conservation District, Austin Coalition for Environmental Sustainability, Freeborn County Sportsman's Club, and Austin Utilities. (Rebates available for Austin Utilites Water Customers & Shell Rock Watershed Residents.)
Why Rain Harvesting?
■Lower your water bill
■Improve your soil's pH balance (rainwater is slightyly acidic; preferred by many plants, flowers, and microorgansims)
■Provide clean water for gardening, free from chlorine and salt commonly found in tap water
■Reduce storm water run-off, erosion, and flooding
■Relieve strain on your municipality's sewer system
■Help protect rivers, streams, lakes and the environment
FreeGarden RAINTM Barrel -
■55 gallon/208 litre rain barrel
■Insect-resistant, stainless steel screen
■Higher spigot accomadates most watercans
■Childproof lid and stable footprint
■34" h x 24" w x 24" d
■$130 value for $60
For more information: Austin Residents: Contact Justin Hanson - Cedar River Watershed District at 507-434-2603 Albert Lea Rsidents: Contact Connie Kaupa - Shell Rock Watershed District at 507-377-5785
< shellrock.org >
Date
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Time
9:00 am – 3:00 pm CDT
Where
Oak Park Mall Parking Lot- 1301 18th Ave NW Austin, MN 55912
Northbridge Mall Parking Lot - 2510 Bridge Ave, Albert Lea, MN 56007
Notes
ONE DAY ONLY! Rain Barrel Truckload Sale $150 Value - Only $60
Saturday June, 18th, 2011 9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
2 Locations - Oak Park Mall Parking Lot 1301 18th Ave NW- Austin, MN & Northbridge Mall Parking Lot, 2510 Bridge Ave Albert Lea, MN
Hosted by: Cedar River Watershed District, Shell Rock Watershed District, Austin's Izaak Walton League, Freeborn County Soil & Water Conservation District, Mower County Soil & Water Conservation District, Austin Coalition for Environmental Sustainability, Freeborn County Sportsman's Club, and Austin Utilities. (Rebates available for Austin Utilites Water Customers & Shell Rock Watershed Residents.)
Why Rain Harvesting?
■Lower your water bill
■Improve your soil's pH balance (rainwater is slightyly acidic; preferred by many plants, flowers, and microorgansims)
■Provide clean water for gardening, free from chlorine and salt commonly found in tap water
■Reduce storm water run-off, erosion, and flooding
■Relieve strain on your municipality's sewer system
■Help protect rivers, streams, lakes and the environment
FreeGarden RAINTM Barrel -
■55 gallon/208 litre rain barrel
■Insect-resistant, stainless steel screen
■Higher spigot accomadates most watercans
■Childproof lid and stable footprint
■34" h x 24" w x 24" d
■$130 value for $60
For more information: Austin Residents: Contact Justin Hanson - Cedar River Watershed District at 507-434-2603 Albert Lea Rsidents: Contact Connie Kaupa - Shell Rock Watershed District at 507-377-5785
< shellrock.org >
Posted by stardust17 on May 24 2011,10:24 pm
Lakes near farmland collect tons of sediment, and chemical runoff. Until farmers truly change their practices dredging will continue. Take a look at rural drainage ditches and streams after a downpour. Brown. Once marshlands were able to absorb sediment runoff. Nowdays it's a brown rush of water from field to ditch to stream to lake. And many farmers with land adjacent to lakes have the strange idea that the lake is theirs to manage. They manipulate the DNR. County commissioners side with local big farmers. Local rural politics smells like a manure lagoon.
Posted by jimhanson on May 25 2011,4:40 pm
For at least the 50 years I can recall, farmers blamed the city dwellers, and vice versa. Despite all of the studies, it seems that every one of them studiously avoided drawing a conclusion as to the source of the problem. As long as there is a controversy, people will always look for "more studies" (read that as "Money") for the problem.I opposed the Shell Rock Watershed as just another tax and spend program--and initially, it was. There was something of an internal revolution, though, with many of the originals being replaced. The reformers drastically altered the original plans--instead of starting with the dam on Albert Lea Lake, they started at the headwaters and worked downstream.
Contrary to your assertion, 95% of the land adjacent to streams is now banked and filter-stripped--that issue is no longer valid. With surface runoff virtually eliminated, the idea that ag land was contributing the majority of phosphorus load also goes away.
My wife was a volunteer for collecting water samples for the Watershed from various monitoring sites. The results are shown here null< My Webpage >
Note the graphs on page 4 for suspended solids. In every case, the streams leading into Fountain Lake are well below the State norm for area lakes. Also compare the suspended solid loads at the OUTLET at the Shell Rock River dam--they are several times higher than at the inlet. Where do you suppose those solids entered the water, between the INLET and the OUTLET?
As the page shows, there are monitoring sites along both Fountain and Albert Lea lakes as they flow downstream--but the Watershed has not chosen to display them. Wouldn't it be informative to be able to compare those sites with sites further upstream?
Enough of 50 years of finger-pointing without facts--let the facts speak for themselves.
Posted by l21ps on May 25 2011,5:39 pm
I would think with all the stupid thing the city spends money on, bike trails, main street lights, old buildings, tiger hills and on and on, this would be one project that would benefit Albert Lea the most and have a chance to bring in the most out of town people (=MONEY)
Posted by stardust17 on May 25 2011,10:28 pm
Banked, filter-stripped, whatever....none of these help in downpours. I live in a rural area. I drive around when it is pouring rain and watch farmland gushing into drainage ditches, creeks. These lax preventative measures are designed for average rain...or a bit above...not downpours. One downpour erases alot of average prevention. As fields grow larger(creating massive open areas for runoff) the problem grows worse.Another issue is this: due to miles and miles of tiling(which may reduce surface runoff somewhat) and less and less marshland or holding ponds the chances for greater stream, river, and lake currents goes up; which in turn will draw sediment from sides and bottom. Massive tiling only increases chances of flooding and other problems downstream. One way or another the water is reaching streams and lakes faster...and in some cases filled with sediment.
Unfiltered tile inlets also are drains for fertilizers and toxic chemicals during heavy rain. Those who believe all lakes are filling with sediment through natural means are believing what they want to believe. If only fish, aquatic plants, and local wildlife could speak. Their story would more readily reflect reality.
Posted by hot84svo on May 26 2011,11:44 am
Like they ever would move them but Fireworks are a direct point source of phosphate pollution. All the phosphorus from each of the thousands of fireworks shot over the lake in the last xxx years is a direct piont source of pollution.
Posted by jimhanson on May 26 2011,2:04 pm
Stardust-- QUOTE
Banked, filter-stripped, whatever...none of these help in downpours. I live in a rural area. I drive around when it is pouring rain and watch farmland gushing into drainage ditches, creeks. These lax preventative measures are designed for average rain...or a bit above...not downpours. One downpour erases alot of average prevention. As fields grow larger(creating massive open areas for runoff) the problem grows worse.
What are you saying? That there should be NO STREAMS inletting to the lakes? That there should be no farmland allowed? Flooding on major rivers MAY happen, too--but it isn't the norm. Look again at the study--in only ONE case did ONE stream even hit the NORM the DNR set for the area--the rest of the time it was much lower. As for the normal inflow into the lakes, Wedge Creek was 1/10th of the suspended sediments compared to the outflow down the Shell Rock. Bancroft Creek was 1/4 of the suspended sediment.
I'll ask again--if this is the suspended sediment going INTO the lakes, and the suspended sediment going OUT of the lakes is this much higher, where do you suppose the problem lies?
Maddog--I know that you talk to Henschel--does anybody have access to the reporting point data on the west, center and near the dam on each lake?
Posted by MADDOG on May 26 2011,4:16 pm
(jimhanson @ May 26 2011,2:04 pm)
QUOTE
Maddog--I know that you talk to Henschel--does anybody have access to the reporting point data on the west, center and near the dam on each lake?
Jim, it's just back to the blame game with a couple posters. In one major rain, more sediment can run off an urban area setting than in ten years of farm runoff anymore with the practices used in field tiling and drainage today. Stardust also doesn't take into account the miles of county ditches the water runs before it enters the lake where the water is slowed down. This allows the suspended particles to be captured in the ditches. Before it reaches the lake. Conservation practices today in agriculture ARE NOT lax preventative measures anymore.
Stardust forgets all the water running off parking lots, fertilized lawns or construction sites. The amount of oils, salts and debris carried into the storm systems. The watershed recommends the city residents maintain rain gardens, leave strips of vegetation along the lakes for filtration and not mowing lawn clippings into the street. Do they? How many residents blow their leaves into the street? Helck, I've watched city street employees doing it on their own property.
Jim, I don't believe they take or maintain records for some of those areas you're asking for. As far as I know, they publish only the water quality at the entry and exit points on Fountain. (Shoff, Bancroft and the dam)
Posted by usmcr on May 26 2011,9:23 pm
a few years ago when they redid the bancroft creek they installed cache basins to capture the sediment from the run off. i had the opportunity to view the plans, in case anyone is interested you could check with the watershed personal at the courthouse to see what they had done to bancroft creek. i have no idea what they have done to wedge creek in that regard. i do know that where it dumps into edgewater bay off old hwy 13 there has been a sediment build up at that point.
Posted by jimhanson on May 27 2011,2:20 pm
Whatever they did, it is working. As the chart shows, suspended sediment at Wedge creek is 1/10 of that leaving Albert Lea Lake. Suspended sediment at Bancroft Creek is 1/4 (10 ppm vs. 40 ppm) at the entrance to Fountain Lake vs. the exit from Albert Lea Lake.
What do you suppose is happening in between?
Posted by nedkelly on May 28 2011,9:28 am
(jimhanson @ May 26 2011,2:04 pm)
QUOTE
I'll ask again--if this is the suspended sediment going INTO the lakes, and the suspended sediment going OUT of the lakes is this much higher, where do you suppose the problem lies?
A shoreland management plan is needed...rip-rapping the total shore area isn't the answer... Replant the shores,and do it right instead of on the cheap.... Enforce unauthorized cutting of plants on public owned lakeshore and bluff zones. Impose heavy fines with community service on the offenders...city dwellers or farmers...
The authorities cannot be allowed to look the other way if we are going to spend 16 Million dollars of taxpayer money.... There I've said it...
...ned
Posted by jimhanson on May 28 2011,12:41 pm
Ned--I agree.You also have to make a decision on the geese--as long as there is a resident goose population, there will be problems. One of the ways to get rid of resident geese is to not use the aerators--but that will be detrimental to the fishing. Always a trade-off.
You will also have to make a decision on allowing high-powered boats on the lake, or making it "quiet water." They stir up the bottom, just as carp do--flying overhead, you can see the mud trails in the summer. It does little good to spend money on bottomfeeder eradication while having the bottom stirred up by big boats. Not advocating one or the other--just sayin' that there is a trade off.
It's always a trade-off between access and environment.
Posted by MADDOG on May 28 2011,1:37 pm
Dredging may solve a portion of the trade off problems. I haven't looked at the dredging plan as to what extent the plan is. If the final result is deep enough channels dug so when it "levels" out, the large part of the lake has enough depth, boating would be a lesser detriment to the bottom. Strategically placed islands from the byproduct of the dredging could also result in less wide open areas where these speed demons throttle up. Reduced speeds could be enforced in other parts of the lake. Regardless, there will have to be compromises made or it will all be for naught.More depth also means the need for less aeration to sustain a fish population. Less open water, less geese. It's the lack of water volume combined with winter weather factors that create the need for the aeration. Deep snow cover reduces plant growth during winter months. Less growth means less oxygen in the water.
Dredging, along with conservation measures, will probably not solve all the problems, but it will be a major step in the right direction.
Posted by nedkelly on May 29 2011,8:01 am
(jimhanson @ May 28 2011,12:41 pm)
QUOTE
Ned--I agree.
You also have to make a decision on the geese--as long as there is a resident goose population, there will be problems. One of the ways to get rid of resident geese is to not use the aerators--but that will be detrimental to the fishing. Always a trade-off.
You will also have to make a decision on allowing high-powered boats on the lake, or making it "quiet water." They stir up the bottom, just as carp do--flying overhead, you can see the mud trails in the summer. It does little good to spend money on bottomfeeder eradication while having the bottom stirred up by big boats. Not advocating one or the other--just sayin' that there is a trade off.
It's always a trade-off between access and environment.
You also have to make a decision on the geese--as long as there is a resident goose population, there will be problems. One of the ways to get rid of resident geese is to not use the aerators--but that will be detrimental to the fishing. Always a trade-off.
You will also have to make a decision on allowing high-powered boats on the lake, or making it "quiet water." They stir up the bottom, just as carp do--flying overhead, you can see the mud trails in the summer. It does little good to spend money on bottomfeeder eradication while having the bottom stirred up by big boats. Not advocating one or the other--just sayin' that there is a trade off.
It's always a trade-off between access and environment.
Winter goose hunt....A balance of predator and prey...
...ned
Posted by Liberal on May 29 2011,9:55 am
QUOTE
For at least the 50 years I can recall, farmers blamed the city dwellers, and vice versa. Despite all of the studies, it seems that every one of them studiously avoided drawing a conclusion as to the source of the problem. As long as there is a controversy, people will always look for "more studies" (read that as "Money") for the problem.
That's just not true, but I'm sure you know that considering in 2005 the water leaving Albert Lea lake was 5 times cleaner than the water going into the top of the lakes before it gets into the city. So either the water is bringing in silt and nutrients from farmland, or Albert Lea is somehow filtering the water after they muck it up.
(Liberal @ Dec. 09 2005,1:54 pm)
QUOTE
I could only view one page of this report but it was the one page that says the water coming in Fountain is dirtier than the water leaving Albert Lea lake.
< http://www.shellrock.org/pdfs/waterreport.pdf >
< http://www.shellrock.org/pdfs/waterreport.pdf >
It's funny you didn't remember me gloating about being right, and you being wrong.
Posted by RET on May 29 2011,11:50 am
You know the City owned the dredger that used to sit by Edgewater back in the 60's. Why did they sell it? I went online yesterday and found that a dredge with a 40' capability that is 1 year old could be purchased for 1.8 million. That is a hell of alot cheaper than the 15 million the watershed board wants to spend. In Iowa there is a lake that the local coop owns that cost them $.45 per cubic yard to dredge. Seems simple to me, purchase the dredge and operate it 7-8 months each year. They will need to purchase some land to set up holding areas for the sludge also but I am sure it would be a lot cheaper than what they are proposing. In the end they will have a dredge that they own and can continue to use on area lakes.
Posted by jimhanson on May 29 2011,3:27 pm
Libbie--I don't know what your point is. Are you disputing the findings published in the study, showing the water to be cleaner going in than it was going out? Do you not trust government?
Posted by Liberal on May 29 2011,7:25 pm
Once again I'm disputing what you're claiming your link says. You claimed the readings were for the OUTLET (caps yours) of Albert Lea lake, but when I follow your link it's a bad link. I could tell by the link that you were trying to pull a fast one by using 2008 report, and on top of that the readings were not taken at the OUTLET of Albert Lea lake like you claimed, they were taken in Glenville like the chart says.If you look at the 2009 report it says that Albert Lea lake was considerably cleaner than Fountain, and in the 2010 report the lakes are at parity, but that's mostly because Albert Lea lake saw a decrease in clarity of 11 in.
Why is it your links rarely say what you claim they do?
It's funny you want to believe a government report now, but in 2005 when the report showed that Albert Lea Lake was much clearer, you acted like they were lying.
It's nice to see you still have that conservative double standard.
Posted by MADDOG on May 29 2011,10:08 pm
(Liberal @ May 29 2011,7:25 pm)
QUOTE
If you look at the 2009 report it says that Albert Lea lake was considerably cleaner than Fountain, and in the 2010 report the lakes are at parity, but that's mostly because Albert Lea lake saw a decrease in clarity of 11 in.
Can you provide us a link to these reports?
Posted by Liberal on May 30 2011,3:20 pm
Here's a link that should get you there. If that doesn't work try the one below it.< http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Shell+Rock+River+Watershed+Water+Quality+reports >
< http://www.shellrock.org/index.p...emid=76 >
Posted by jimhanson on May 31 2011,9:27 am
Libbie-- QUOTE
I could tell by the link that you were trying to pull a fast one by using 2008 report
Because that's the one I mentioned that my wife volunteered for, you ninny! Your referenced 2009 report also CONFIRMS that the suspended solids in both Wedge and Bancroft Creeks were far lower than Minnesota standards--putting the lie to the "farmers are screwing up our lakes" whimper.
Libbie--
QUOTE
If you look at the 2009 report it says that Albert Lea lake was considerably cleaner than Fountain
Do you suppose that might have anything to do with the fact that Albert Lea lake doesn't have high-powered speedboats racing around on it?
Posted by Liberal on May 31 2011,11:13 am
QUOTE
Because that's the one I mentioned that my wife volunteered for, you ninny!
I thought that might be the case, so I looked at the 2008 list of volunteers (it's on the report) and the only Hanson on there was a Wayne Hanson. So unless you've been keeping something from us I would guess that's not your spouse. Of course there's always the possibility...
QUOTE
Your referenced 2009 report also CONFIRMS that the suspended solids in both Wedge and Bancroft Creeks were far lower than Minnesota standards--putting the lie to the "farmers are screwing up our lakes" whimper.
According to the 2010 report Bancroft and Wedge creek are responsible for 40% of the phosphorous in Fountain lake. The only other source that's higher than that is the internal loading of the lake caused by algae decaying and releasing the phosphorous that's built up over the years.
Bancroft Creek, Wedge Creek and the built up phosphorous is responsible for 83% so that leaves 17% including Shoff Creek.
That doesn't leave a lot for your goose crap theory. (which oddly didn't make the list)
< http://www.shellrock.org/index.p...emid=76 >
Posted by jimhanson on May 31 2011,12:10 pm
She told me that it was the year she retired-2008. Check the 2009. If you can't find it there, I wonder what she was doing down in the bottom of the drainage ditch? QUOTE
According to the 2010 report Bancroft and Wedge creek are responsible for 40% of the phosphorous in Fountain lake. The only other source that's higher than that is the internal loading of the lake caused by algae decaying and releasing the phosphorous that's built up over the years.
You neglected to mention that the "internal loading" of Fountain Lake was 43% So, by your own admission, "internal loading" of the lake constituted almost half of the phosphorus load--more than the two largest incoming streams combined. 
From the 2010 report
QUOTE
Another significant source of phosphorus to Fountain Lake during the 2010 monitoring season was internal loading (about 43%).
All lakes accumulate phosphorus (and other nutrients) in the sediment from the settling of particles and dead organisms. Internal
loading occurs in some lakes as the phosphorus in the sediment is reintroduced into the lake water and becomes available again
for uptake by plants. This complex process of internal loading can be affected by water temperature, oxygen, pH, wind mixing,
and disturbance by bottom-feeding fish such as carp.
Carp, eh? Not a single reference to speedboats--which leave a visible trail of disturbed mud in the summertime. All lakes accumulate phosphorus (and other nutrients) in the sediment from the settling of particles and dead organisms. Internal
loading occurs in some lakes as the phosphorus in the sediment is reintroduced into the lake water and becomes available again
for uptake by plants. This complex process of internal loading can be affected by water temperature, oxygen, pH, wind mixing,
and disturbance by bottom-feeding fish such as carp.
Suspended solids in Bancroft creek were 14 ppm in 2010, vs. approximately 10 ppm in 2008--though it is hard to read the 2008 graphs.
In Wedge Creek, suspended solids were 25 ppm in 2010, vs only 4% in 2008. Why do you suppose that is? Do you suppose those danged farmers are plowing up the embankments and filter strips?
Since the water coming INTO Fountain Lake has less phosphorus than that CONTRIBUTED by the lake and its environs, maybe the best thing to do to clean up the lake is for everyone upstream to flush their toilets more and run more water into the lake.
Posted by Liberal on May 31 2011,1:15 pm
QUOTE
You neglected to mention that the "internal loading" of Fountain Lake was 43% So, by your own admission, "internal loading" of the lake constituted almost half of the phosphorus load--more than the two largest incoming streams combined.
Neglected to mention it. I even explained it for the Danes that might be reading the post.
QUOTE
The only other source that's higher than that is the internal loading of the lake caused by algae decaying and releasing the phosphorous that's built up over the years.
If you had any reading comprehension skills you'd see the internal loading is the phosphorous that as built up over years. It has nothing to do with residential property owners like you try to imply.
It's funny how you claim to want to get to the bottom of the source of pollution and when the science comes out against you, and your farmer friends, you just apply that older conservative double standard that believes all studies that reenforce you beliefs are accurate, all other studies are just a waste of government money that's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 06 2011,6:24 pm
JIM-- QUOTE
The only other source that's higher than that is the internal loading of the lake caused by algae decaying and releasing the phosphorous that's built up over the years.
Libbie--
QUOTE
If you had any reading comprehension skills you'd see the internal loading is the phosphorous that as built up over years. It has nothing to do with residential property owners like you try to imply.
Do they have any reading and comprehension standards in lib schools, or are students automatically passed on to the next grade?
I said that it was the internal loading and phosphorus built up over the years--and somehow, you use the exact same language to disagree with me? I think I saw and Abbott and Costello bit like that once!
Where do you suppose that phosphorus comes from, Lib?
We know from the report that the water coming INTO the lake has less phosphorus than that IN the lake. Should we have all rural residents turn on their water taps to further improve the water quality in Fountain lake?
No quick retort to the fact that Albert Lea Lake just MIGHT be clearer due to the lack of speedboats?
Lib--
QUOTE
It's funny how you claim to want to get to the bottom of the source of pollution and when the science comes out against you, and your farmer friends, you just apply that older conservative double standard that believes all studies that reenforce you beliefs are accurate, all other studies are just a waste of government money that's not worth the paper it's printed on.
And it's funny how you defend those who live in the city--despite the lake itself being the largest source of phosphorus. It's the same junk science that had people believing in
The DNR used to report water quality at different points downstream on the lakes--why can't we have access to the new data from those same points? As it turns out, the DNR DOES sample the East and West Bays of Fountain Lake
Here's the West Bay on 10/1/2008 < My Webpage > with .024 ppm of Total Phosphorus.
Here's the East Bay in 2008--the last year for data for both East and West Bays. null< My Webpage > East Bay had .309 ppm of TP (Total Phosphorus)
Why do YOU suppose that the total phosphorus is half again higher downstream than on the West Bay near the streams?
I would like someone from DNR or the Watershed to provide data on ALL of their sampling sites to pinpoint exactly where the problem lies. Fifty years of each side pointing at the other has produced nothing. The data exists--why aren't we getting it? Can any of the internet experts on this site find the data?
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 06 2011,7:12 pm
QUOTE
I would like someone from DNR or the Watershed to provide data on ALL of their sampling sites to pinpoint exactly where the problem lies. Fifty years of each side pointing at the other has produced nothing. The data exists--why aren't we getting it? Can any of the internet experts on this site find the data?
You'll just cherry pick the numbers trying to claim that the farmers are discharging clean water and the people that live in the city are pouring fertilizer down their drains.
The data is out there, you just want to close your eyes to it. Do you not realize that Wedge Creek and Bancroft contribute to over half of the total phosphorous when you consider the residual phosphorous (internal loading) from all the years those two creeks have been pumping phosphorous into it?
We all know where the creek gets the phosphorous, it's from the farmers using fertilizer full of phosphorous. Where are you suggesting the phosphorous comes from in the city?
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 07 2011,2:51 pm
Libbie gets so excited he goes into a high-speed wobble and jumps the tracks. QUOTE
You'll just cherry pick the numbers trying to claim that the farmers are discharging clean water and the people that live in the city are pouring fertilizer down their drains.
You are presumptive enough to tell me what I MIGHT SAY? Isn't that what the Roger Bok lawsuit was all about--people being afraid of what MIGHT be said? Have you been taking Gabe lessons? 
And where did I say THAT?
QUOTE
The data is out there, you just want to close your eyes to it.
Sounds suspiciously like "The truth is OUT there". Well, Libbie--if it is out there, BRING IT ON--after all, I asked for it to find out once and for all. If it is indeed "out there"--I would have thought you would have USED it! You talk about "you just want to close your eyes to it"--I posted the Total Phosphorus for the West side of Fountain Lake (the UPSTREAM side) AND the East Side--the East side was half again HIGHER than the West side--yet you don't have a response to where that phosphorus came from?
QUOTE
We all know where the creek gets the phosphorous, it's from the farmers using fertilizer full of phosphorous.
A clever attempt at a trap--but it didn't work. Yes, there is phosphorus in the creek water--BUT NOT AS MUCH AS THERE IS IN TOWN.According to the Watershed, the ditches are 95% filter stripped and banked away from the ditches--yet you continue to blame farmers. Agronomists also say that field-applied phosphorus moves very little when placed--yet you don't mention how that phosphorus moves. From null< My Webpage >
QUOTE
Migration studies showed that phosphorus moved very little
under the conditions studied. Maximum movement of about one
inch occurred at soil moistures approximating field capacity on
three soils. Most of this movement took place in the first week of
a 4-week period. Compacting soil tended to increase both dissolution
and migration of fertilizer phosphorus. The larger the
superphosphate granule, the more extensive was phosphorus
migration.
under the conditions studied. Maximum movement of about one
inch occurred at soil moistures approximating field capacity on
three soils. Most of this movement took place in the first week of
a 4-week period. Compacting soil tended to increase both dissolution
and migration of fertilizer phosphorus. The larger the
superphosphate granule, the more extensive was phosphorus
migration.
So--with filter strips, banked-back ditch sides, and low migration, how do YOU suppose that phosphorus moves from the farm fields to the lake?
Are animals tracking it in?
Terrorists with fertilizer bombs?
Is it like the "magic bullet" in the JFK assassination (or the "magic hat" of John Kerry?)
Posted by alcitizens on Jun. 07 2011,3:29 pm
(jimhanson @ Jun. 07 2011,2:51 pm)
QUOTE
So--with filter strips, banked-back ditch sides, and low migration, how do YOU suppose that phosphorus moves from the farm fields to the lake?
Many septic systems are being failed even though they work fine. Why? Because if you live in a watershed district it is considered that human waste that is several feet under the ground will work its way into the creeks and streams..
Farms are the main reason for high phosphorous levels that have not only drained off the surface but also what has soaked several feet down into the ground, eventually reaching ground water, creeks, streams and lakes.
Posted by Expatriate on Jun. 07 2011,4:02 pm
(RET @ May 29 2011,11:50 am)
QUOTE
You know the City owned the dredger that used to sit by Edgewater back in the 60's. Why did they sell it? I went online yesterday and found that a dredge with a 40' capability that is 1 year old could be purchased for 1.8 million. That is a hell of alot cheaper than the 15 million the watershed board wants to spend. In Iowa there is a lake that the local coop owns that cost them $.45 per cubic yard to dredge. Seems simple to me, purchase the dredge and operate it 7-8 months each year. They will need to purchase some land to set up holding areas for the sludge also but I am sure it would be a lot cheaper than what they are proposing. In the end they will have a dredge that they own and can continue to use on area lakes.
I remember the old dredge, watched it working...I remember some years ago the Tribune had an article that highlighted the dredge and operator, I think he moved here from Winona with his family and became the head operator because he had work experience with the Army Corps of Engineer's on the Mississippi or something like that as a dredge operator, forget how many people the dredging operation kept employed..
If there's one thing Albert Lea needs worse than the lake dredged it's employment..I agree with Ret. buy the dredge hire one guy with experience to train locals..
This is what lakes do, they fill in, White Water State Park had some interesting reading on Minnesota Lakes most are glacial leftovers and have a natural tendency to fill in, sure we're speeding the process both city and country dwellers, if we want to save the lake it should be county wide effort..
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 07 2011,4:51 pm
Expatriate--good idea! I'll make another suggestion--use the "sentence to serve" people.One more--post it at the unemployment office. There should be no reason to pay unemployment when there are jobs available on the dredge.
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Jun. 07 2011,4:54 pm
Good Idea Jim. Let's bust people for pot and then make em work for free...ya...that's the ticket. You see, if we put enough prisoners to work for free it'll make everyone feel a little better about jailing Johnny for pot. I've got an idea as well Jim...how about putting your fat ass to work for eating like a cow and never exercising. Screw you... ya jerk off hypocrite.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 07 2011,5:07 pm
(alcitizens @ Jun. 07 2011,3:29 pm)
QUOTE
(jimhanson @ Jun. 07 2011,2:51 pm)
QUOTE
So--with filter strips, banked-back ditch sides, and low migration, how do YOU suppose that phosphorus moves from the farm fields to the lake?
Many septic systems are being failed even though they work fine. Why? Because if you live in a watershed district it is considered that human waste that is several feet under the ground will work its way into the creeks and streams..
Farms are the main reason for high phosphorous levels that have not only drained off the surface but also what has soaked several feet down into the ground, eventually reaching ground water, creeks, streams and lakes.
I was responding to Liberal's charge that it was from the farm fields.
I did consider septic systems, but Best Practices null< My Webpage >
says
QUOTE
Conventional septic systems are usually very effective at removing phosphorus. However, certain soil conditions combined with close proximity to sensitive surface waters can result in phosphorus pollutant loading. If such conditions are sufficiently prevalent within areas of concern, restrictions or bans on the use of detergents containing phosphate can be implemented
Here's another view < My Webpage >
QUOTE
Phosphorus from septic tanksPhosphorus in septic tanks and in their outflow behaves completely differently from nitrogen. Firstly, a significant proportion of inflow phosphorus in septic tanks is effectively removed by settling and subsequent pumping of septic tanks (48% - 57%, see above).
Phosphorus in septic tank outflow is 85% soluble orthophosphate, with some organic and inorganic particulate phosphorus attached to suspended solids. The latter will be retained in soil. The soluble orthophosphate can be retained in soils both by precipitation to mineral phases by ions present either in the septic tank effluent or in the soil (iron, aluminium, calcium …), or can be adsorbed to soil colloids (formation of a strong chemical bond between orthophosphate and clay minerals).
Typical mass balance studies have shown that 65% - 95% of the septic tank effluent phosphorus is found in soils within a few metres of the outflow point, even after years of septic tank operation. The “plume” of phosphorus concentrations downstream of septic tank outflow is estimated by several studies to develop 10x – 100x more slowly than the general plume of contamination.
Aulenbach et al. 1981, estimated 85% overall removal of phosphorus from sewage in septic tank systems (including soil retention, and assuming 5% of systems failing) around Lake George, New York State.
Previous research
Several authors, many cited by Gold in this review, or elsewhere, have previously confirmed that the risks of phosphorus contamination of wells or surface waters from septic tank outflow are very limited.* Johnson & Atwater 1988
Phosphorus in septic tank outflow is 85% soluble orthophosphate, with some organic and inorganic particulate phosphorus attached to suspended solids. The latter will be retained in soil. The soluble orthophosphate can be retained in soils both by precipitation to mineral phases by ions present either in the septic tank effluent or in the soil (iron, aluminium, calcium …), or can be adsorbed to soil colloids (formation of a strong chemical bond between orthophosphate and clay minerals).
Typical mass balance studies have shown that 65% - 95% of the septic tank effluent phosphorus is found in soils within a few metres of the outflow point, even after years of septic tank operation. The “plume” of phosphorus concentrations downstream of septic tank outflow is estimated by several studies to develop 10x – 100x more slowly than the general plume of contamination.
Aulenbach et al. 1981, estimated 85% overall removal of phosphorus from sewage in septic tank systems (including soil retention, and assuming 5% of systems failing) around Lake George, New York State.
Previous research
Several authors, many cited by Gold in this review, or elsewhere, have previously confirmed that the risks of phosphorus contamination of wells or surface waters from septic tank outflow are very limited.* Johnson & Atwater 1988
For years, the charge was made that there was raw sewage flowing both into the lake in the city and into streams from farm houses. That practice has been largely eliminated--yet the perceived problem persists.
I just find it odd that the Wenck report on the watershed went into such great detail to list every watershed, sewer system, soil type, fur-bearing animal, lake makeup, trees and vegetation--yet studiously avoided where it was coming from. Now we have ditch, stream, and lake monitors--and the information STILL isn't widely available.
I can only assume the it is because someone WANTS it that way.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 07 2011,5:17 pm
Once again, Stoner has managed to turn a subject into a pot rant. 
Stoner--I don't care WHAT people are locked up for--they were convicted by a judge or jury trial--a trial of their choice. I had nothing to do with that.
They were sentenced to serve--I had nothing to do with that, either.
Where was your outrage when they were sentenced to serve doing painting or street cleaning?
How is working on a dredge different than any OTHER public service sentence?
Of course they CAN refuse, and simply sit in jail.
Does the prospect of having to work off a sentence hit a little close to home for you?
It might do you some good--get you out of the basement--get you out in the sun light--eat something besides your Mom's cooking.
Just think of it as military service. You might even quit hating your life and start feeling good about yourself.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 07 2011,5:23 pm
That's a lot of typing to say nothin.For years Hanson has been blaming city residents for using too much lawn fertilizer. I wonder where they get that fertilizer considering phosphorous has been banned in lawn fertilizer for the better part of a decade in Minnesota. Of course he can't blame detergent because we discharge that water into the shell rock river.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 07 2011,5:33 pm
SPEAKING of foaming at the mouth-- QUOTE
For years Hanson has been blaming city residents for using too much lawn fertilizer.
The only time I mention lawn fertilizer is in quoting Clayton Peterson, Watershed Board member and agronomist. He says "In order to clean up the lake, we would have to rip-rap the entire lake. We would have to ban fertilizer within 500 feet of the lake. We would have to construct holding ponds for runoff. We would have to eliminate the geese (usually by turning off the aerators). We would have to ban motors over 10 horsepower on the lake. Is that the lake we want?"Do you have a problem with me quoting a Watershed official? Did I say that the problem was using too much lawn fertilizer?
I HAVE often said that the problem was stirring up the bottom from speedboats--that they leave a visible wake of churned up mud. Do you have an issue with that?
Since that information on the lake measuring readings is readily available, how about bringing it out for us? I can't seem to find it, but YOU must know where it is.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 07 2011,5:44 pm
So you didn't mention fertilizer except when you did mention it. Seems like a simple question, where does the phosphorius in the city come from?
Posted by alcitizens on Jun. 07 2011,7:25 pm
(jimhanson @ May 31 2011,12:10 pm)
QUOTE
Suspended solids in Bancroft creek were 14 ppm in 2010, vs. approximately 10 ppm in 2008--though it is hard to read the 2008 graphs.
In Wedge Creek, suspended solids were 25 ppm in 2010, vs only 4 ppm in 2008.
In Wedge Creek, suspended solids were 25 ppm in 2010, vs only 4 ppm in 2008.
Many people that live in the (County) Shell Rock River Watershed District have been forced to put in new septic systems at great financial stress ranging in cost on average of $15,000 to $20,000 each.
Thats hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that residents of the county have paid for clean lakes.
What clean lakes?
The Watershed Board has good intentions that don't work. We want to know what is causing the problems in our lakes and have it posted in the Albert Lea Tribune.
I will soon be starting a new thread about waste, fraud and abuse at the Shell Rock River Watershed District. Stay Tuned
< http://www.shellrock.org/ >
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 07 2011,7:38 pm
(alcitizens @ Jun. 07 2011,7:25 pm)
QUOTE
I will soon be starting a new thread about waste, fraud and abuse at the Shell Rock River Watershed District. Stay Tuned
< http://www.shellrock.org/ >
< http://www.shellrock.org/ >
Just talking or proving?
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 07 2011,7:51 pm
Libbie--"just being libbie" QUOTE
So you didn't mention fertilizer except when you did mention it.
I know that you know the difference from a statement, and a quote. Why are you being so dense? QUOTE
Seems like a simple question, where does the phosphorius in the city come from?
Well, MAYBE we'll find out when you publish the easily obtainable water samples from the streams and throughout the lakes. You said they were available--why not produce them?
I don't understand libbies--they state that something IS available, but then don't produce it--Kerry's health records, Kerry's magic hat, his cadre of Swiftboat vets that would corroborate his story--Obama's school records, how he got into and paid for Ivy League schools, his school grades, his theses....
They tell us to just BELIEVE that they've done the right thing ("we have to pass Health Care to find out what's in there") only to find what a disaster it is when we DO find out. Then they wonder why only the flaming liberals believe them.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 07 2011,7:55 pm
ALCitizen--I agree--not only have rural residents paid for the "latest and greatest" (for now) septic systems (which will probably change AGAIN in the next few years) but all citizens of the County have paid for the Watershed.Everybody wants clean water--but they would like to know where the money goes and whether it is working.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 07 2011,8:17 pm
Seems like a simple question, where does the phosphorous in the city come from?
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 07 2011,8:33 pm
(Liberal @ Jun. 07 2011,8:17 pm)
QUOTE
Seems like a simple question, where does the phosphorous in the city come from?
You must have missed it the first time, so I'll post it for you again.
QUOTE
Well, MAYBE we'll find out when you publish the easily obtainable water samples from the streams and throughout the lakes.
You DO have those easily obtainable water sample results, don't you? As I mentioned, I can't find them.
Maybe you could start by looking at the goose crap on the bottom of the lake--or do you subscribe to the "Blame Mankind for the Ills of the World" like Algore?
Do you REALLY believe that lakes only get green because of the actions of man? Those DAMNED Indians!
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 07 2011,8:54 pm
Seems like a simple question, where does the phosphorous in the city come from?
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 07 2011,9:14 pm
Sounds like a little kid--"Why"? "Why"? "Why"? See post #70.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 07 2011,9:25 pm
You can't seem to answer a simple question. We all know that farmers spread tons of phosphorous fertilizer in the watershed, and it's not legal to use it on residential land. So how are the residents of the city causing high phosphorous levels.Obviously you're not dumb enough to try to claim it's caused by goose droppings because the city residents don't control the geese and you've claimed many times that the residents of the city cause it.
In case you forgot...
QUOTE
For at least the 50 years I can recall, farmers blamed the city dwellers, and vice versa.
Are you going to try and pull a Sarah Palin now and tell us that geese are "city dwellers" too?
Posted by alcitizens on Jun. 07 2011,11:22 pm
(MADDOG @ Jun. 07 2011,7:38 pm)
QUOTE
Just talking or proving?
WATERSHED TECHNICIAN: We promote the protection of surface and groundwater resources through land use best management practices. For issues that concern wetlands and watersheds, contact: rachelc@co.freeborn.mn.us
< http://www.co.freeborn.mn.us/environmental/default.aspx >
What do WATERSHED TECHNICIANS do in the winter? Take snow samples or FAIL septic systems? I'm pretty sure they scratch their ass at least 6 months out of the year..
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 08 2011,6:22 am
So far, just talking then?
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2011,8:58 am
I guess The Jimmy is at home going through his household chemicals to find one with phosphorous so he can blame that. Of course that logic would only work if "city dwellers" poured the phophorous containing household chemical down the storm drains, since we've discharged our sanitary sewer South of town on the Shell Rock for 3 nearly decades now.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 09 2011,3:26 pm
Nah, Libbie--some of us have JOBS! QUOTE
We all know that farmers spread tons of phosphorous fertilizer in the watershed, and it's not legal to use it on residential land.
In the past, I questioned your comprehension capabilities. Now I question whether you can READ.Did you not see the explanation I cited that said that Phosphorus is not mobile--that it stays within an inch or so of where it was put down? How do you suppose that with filter strips and back grading that the phosphorus gets into the water supply? Animals tracking it in? Farmer terrorists building fertilizer bombs?
Did you not see the fact that the water flowing INTO the lake has less suspended solids than that flowing OUT?
Did you not see the fact that the water flowing INTO the lake has less phosphorus than that flowing OUT?
Did you not see the fact that the water on the UPSTREAM end of the lake has less phosphorus than the DOWNSTREAM end?
Did you not see the comment, made only partly in jest, that the best thing that could happen for the lake is for everybody upstream to turn on their taps and run MORE water into the lake--seeing as how the water entering the lake is cleaner than when it goes out?
Do you have ANYTHING to support your goofy ideas, other than "everybody knows"?
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2011,3:46 pm
QUOTE
id you not see the fact that the water flowing INTO the lake has less phosphorus than that flowing OUT?
Did you not see the fact that the water on the UPSTREAM end of the lake has less phosphorus than the DOWNSTREAM end?
Are you really not smart enough to even read a simple report? You keep trying to claim things about the South side of Albert Lea lake and then use the Glenville readings to back up your story? Do you think people are stupid, or do you just hope that by typing a lot of words nobody will really question, or probably even read what you've typed?
Of course I can see someone making an honest mistake once, but after you've been corrected you still try to push the disinformation. At some point people have to question the honesty of your statements.
QUOTE
Did you not see the explanation I cited that said that Phosphorus is not mobile--that it stays within an inch or so of where it was put down?
So the 40% that Wedge and Bancroft creek supply must come from the magic phosphorous fountains that is apparently an "inch or so" from the mouth of the creek.
It's a simple enough question, but you can't (or won't) answer. I'll try it again. How are the "city dwellers" putting phosphorous in the lake?
Of course we all know you don't have an answer, but you're going to stick to your beliefs no matter what the science tells you. Which is pretty much what I've said all along. You babble on about wanting scientific proof and then when the science doesn't support your delusion view of the world then you'll just ignore it.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 09 2011,7:41 pm
QUOTE
Do you think people are stupid
No, but I know at least ONE that is! QUOTE
You keep trying to claim things about the South side of Albert Lea lake and then use the Glenville readings to back up your story?
If you had REALLY been following along, you would know that the reference to water quality is Bancroft and Wedge Creek, and West Bays of FOUNTAIN Lake. There were no multiple stations on Albert Lea Lake reported, so I contrasted those upstream lakes with the water leaving the lake.Do try to follow along and keep up with the rest of the class.
QUOTE
How are the "city dwellers" putting phosphorous in the lake?
Nobody said they were "putting phosphorus in the lake." I just pointed to the data that the water quality deteriorated after ENTERING the lake--but I haven't heard you explain WHY that is (despite the fact that you haven't produced that easily obtainable information.) TELL us, Libbie, why do YOU think the water quality deteriorates as it passes through the lakes? I've even given you an out--that it can come from speedboats stirring up the bottom, or from the geese. You won't even acknowledge that in your argumentative state--though there is no doubt that the bottom IS stirred up, and that the geese DO crap in the lake. Are you denying those facts?
QUOTE
when the science doesn't support your delusion view of the world then you'll just ignore it.
I give you water quality studies, and YOU ignore them. You provide nothing to refute them--only your opinion.Obama had lots of opinions too--and he may even have actually BELIEVED in them--that didn't make them effective or true!
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 10 2011,1:00 am
So you really don't have an answer how the "city dwellers" are putting phosphorous in the lakes? QUOTE
TELL us, Libbie, why do YOU think the water quality deteriorates as it passes through the lakes? I've even given you an out--that it can come from speedboats stirring up the bottom, or from the geese.
That water quality doesn't decrease, if you think Bancroft and Wedge creek that supplies 40% of the phosphate in the lower lakes is cleaner than the water at the South dam then you're clearly not right in the head.
Do you realize how much phosphorous that is considering how big those two lakes are?
I'd say that the city dwellers can now safely point their finger at the farmers who put many tons of phosphorous fertilizer on their land. The farmers can point their fingers at the "city dwellers" and try to tell the sane people that goose crap and and motor boats cause the phosphorous problems.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 10 2011,11:24 am
From the libbie QUOTE
So you really don't have an answer how the "city dwellers" are putting phosphorous in the lakes?
ONE MORE TIME FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED--look back through the thread. I merely showed the figures for water coming into the lakes, and the increased turbidity and phosphorus as it flowed downstream.Since you ASK, though:
From the Watershed District
QUOTE
Keep Your Storm Water
Storm water is the No. 1 pollutant in the Shell Rock River Watershed. That’s because storm water picks up sediment (dirt), nutrients such as phosphorus, and contaminants such as oil as it drains off farm fields, streets, drainage ditches, lawns, parking lots and other surfaces.All the storm water drains to local lakes and eventually the Shell Rock River.
You can help by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs).
For rural land owners and farmers, than means putting in filter strips, rock inlets and other practices.
Call Jared Stricker, 507-377-5786.
For residents in town, that means planting a rain garden, leaving a strip of plants along shoreland, and not mowing grass clippings into street. For more information, call District Administrator Brett Behnke at 507-377-5785.
We all know that in rural areas, filter strips and inlets have been installed in over 95% of the area. What's been done in town?
"Rain Gardens"? NO--other than the catchment on the south side.
"Strips of plants along the shoreland"? NO.
"Not mowing grass clippings into the street"? NO
QUOTE
That water quality doesn't decrease, if you think Bancroft and Wedge creek that supplies 40% of the phosphate in the lower lakes is cleaner than the water at the South dam then you're clearly not right in the head.
By your own figures--40% going in--43% "lake load". YOU figure it out.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 10 2011,11:50 am
QUOTE
We all know that in rural areas, filter strips and inlets have been installed in over 95% of the area. What's been done in town?
For the better part of a decade phosphorous has been banned in lawn fertilizer? Are you really so stupid that you believe grass filter strips in fields stops fertilizer/phosphorous runoff, but if the grass is a lawn then it actually causes phosphorous?
Have you considered taking a highschool refresher? I'm guessing your third world education is making it difficult to understand.
I would guess that anyone that has read this thread to this point knows that you don't have an answer on how the city dwellers are responsible for the phosphorous, but you can't point your finger at the farmer because that would mean you've been wrongly defending your farmer friends for years, and like Sarah Palin you'd rather make a complete fool of yourself defending the indefensible than ever admit that you are wrong about something.
QUOTE
That water quality doesn't decrease, if you think Bancroft and Wedge creek that supplies 40% of the phosphate in the lower lakes is cleaner than the water at the South dam then you're clearly not right in the head.
Are you really that simple? The internal load is from years of you farmers pumping phosphorous into their fields. Then it runs off and gets in the lake where it causes algae blooms which for years have been killed with copper, which causes it to sink to the bottom and decay releasing the phosphorous back into the lake.
Have you considered maybe trying to get a partial American education, maybe even attend a college? Like they say, "You're never too old to learn something new", but you can be too stupid, or stubborn.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 10 2011,12:12 pm
QUOTE
By your own figures--40% going in--43% "lake load". YOU figure it out.
Do you really not understand how pollution works? I'll see if I can explain cumulative effect to you, for example say you were taking the anti-psychotic medication you so badly need. For the first couple weeks you'd still be a complete nutter because the drug hasn't been in your system long enough. Then eventually the medication will build up as your kidney are unable to process the entire dose of your medication. (it's called a cumulative effect).
Now even if you quit taking the medication entirely you'd still be sane for a while because of the cumulative effect of the drug. That certainly doesn't mean that your body is producing the anti-psychotic medication, it's just still processing the medication you so badly need.
Now if you've been able to follow along to this point then you understand cumulative effects and if you were sane you would understand the connection to the pollution in the lakes.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 10 2011,12:55 pm
Only in the land of the Delusional Donk are farmers still guilty of adding phosphorus to the lakes (despite the fact that the ditches have long been filter-stripped) but that people in the city do NOT have that liability tail because "phosphorus has been banned in lawn fertilizer."NEITHER has been common practice for 10 years--but you continue to blame farmers.
Only in the world of the Delusional Donk do they believe in the "cumulative effect" of pollution, but not the "cumulative effect" of purer water entering the basin flushing out impurities.
I guess that should be expected from the believers in the pseudo-science of "climate change"--(or as they like to call it, "Man-caused disasters"--blaming "others"--attempting to claim the high road--cherry picking facts. In the end, they believe it to be true, because after all--"Their s**t doesn't stink"!
Want clean water? Maybe the best solution is to blow out both dams and let the whole thing revert to a creek--no more finger-pointing.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 10 2011,4:16 pm
QUOTE
Only in the land of the Delusional Donk are farmers still guilty of adding phosphorus to the lakes (despite the fact that the ditches have long been filter-stripped) but that people in the city do NOT have that liability tail because "phosphorus has been banned in lawn fertilizer."
NEITHER has been common practice for 10 years--but you continue to blame farmers.
Common practice for the farmers, means that not everyone does it. That's a little different from a ban on phosphorous in residential fertilizer. Why don't they just out right ban it in farmer's fertilizer?
QUOTE
Only in the world of the Delusional Donk do they believe in the "cumulative effect" of pollution, but not the "cumulative effect" of purer water entering the basin flushing out impurities.
Purer water? What purer water? Do you mean the water from the city dwellers storm drains?
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 11 2011,5:49 pm
QUOTE
Purer water? What purer water? Do you mean the water from the city dwellers storm drains?
No. Urban storm water runoff is pollution--some of the worst kind.Better that we have MORE water flushing out the system--like that water coming INTO the lakes--better quality than that which LEAVES the lakes.
With Donks, you sometimes have to give an object lesson in terms they can relate to:
"There was this little Donk sitting in his bathtub. He pee'd in the water. His mother opened up the drain, and turned on the faucet to flush it out, but the little Donk developed a lifelong fear of bathtubs because he had pee'd in one years before (Maybe that's why hippie type libbies don't take baths).
The little Donk not only was afraid of bathtubs, but he blamed everyone except HIMSELF for his fear of bathtubs. He blamed his MOTHER for giving him liquids to drink. He blamed the person who drilled the well for making the water available. Being a libbie, he even sued the bathtub maker. Ultimately, being a good libbie, he even blamed God for making the water available and for and for causing him emotional stress.
And the little Donk wondered why nobody got within 10 feet of him for the rest of his life."
Not only was it the smell, but the fact that he tended to blame OTHERS for issues caused by HIMSELF. Let your Mother add fresh water to the tub, and be not afraid.
Look inward, young Libbie. As Shakespeare opined in Julius Caesar--"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 11 2011,10:41 pm
QUOTE
Better that we have MORE water flushing out the system--like that water coming INTO the lakes--better quality than that which LEAVES the lakes
You just keep peddling that story about Bancroft and Wedge creek being clean water and we'll just keep laughing at you. Like I said at the start of this topic, science means nothing to you. When you're presented with scientific data you read it, don't understand it, and then you draw your own preordained conclusion.
Funny thing is you can't even get maddog to agree with you on this one, and he's your yes man for everything. In fact nobody sane is going to side with you unless they own farm land North of town.
We all know you hate the watershed, and we all know that you've claimed for years that no silt/phosphorous comes in through Wedge or Bancroft creek. But when you're presented with actual proof that large amounts of it are coming into the watershed you want to still point your finger at "city dwellers" even though the watershed report doesn't even list urban runoff as a source of phosphorous, and those fools at the watershed board didn't even mention the geese.
Seriously how many people have you told the story of how your wife sampled the water one year and the creek that your ditch runs into was so clean you could drink out of it?
It's tough when reality intrudes on your delusions and makes you look like a liar.
Posted by jimhanson on Jun. 12 2011,3:37 pm
Libby continues to ignore the facts presented by the Watershed--40% phosphorus going in, and far more leaving the lake. No facts presented to support his delusion 
--but it MUST be true because he said it, and libbie "care". QUOTE
Funny thing is you can't even get maddog to agree with you on this one, and he's your yes man for everything. In fact nobody sane is going to side with you unless they own farm land North of town.
So now you demonize MADDOG? Have you been taking Obama lessons, "throwing people under the bus"? Do you HAVE any more expendable "friends"? "Nobody Sane to agree with me"? Just the Watershed, and the DNR water monitors!
QUOTE
We all know you hate the watershed
No question--I was an opponent of the Watershed when first enacted--but the current group of "regulators" has completely changed what the originators proposed--especially the practice of starting at the top of the watershed and working down, rather than focusing on the dam. The changes have been effective. Check back on my posts--I've given plenty of props to the watershed.QUOTE
and we all know that you've claimed for years that no silt/phosphorous comes in through Wedge or Bancroft creek.
Where did I say there was NO silt from the creek? A check back shows that I said the water visibility was BETTER AT BANCROFT CREEK THAN IN THE LAKE--and posted links to prove it. Again--nothing from the libbie to prove otherwise--only his opinion. On the other hand, I've previously posted about the silt stirred up by boats on the lake being a problem for suspended solids--see the attached photo--you can see the boat wakes, long after the boats have left.Libbie shows his true self with this quote
QUOTE
Seriously how many people have you told the story of how your wife sampled the water one year and the creek that your ditch runs into was so clean you could drink out of it?
Can you show me where I said that "it was so clean you could drink out of it"? You say that my wife didn't volunteer for water sampling? Look in the 2009 Water Monitoring Report under VOLUNTEERS. (You might consider looking at the suspended solids report for the creeks while you are there) null< My Webpage > No need to apologize to me--I know what you've become--but you ought to apologize to HER. She spent a lot of hours climbing up and down those ditches (with those awful toxins!)
only because she was interested and trying to do something good--and you ruin it by saying she didn't participate.Libbie--you have become deranged and despicable. You have embodied the Rules for Radicals method of attempting to destroy anyone that dares disagree with you. I might disagree with you, but I'll make my case--back it up with citations--and if you don't like it--that's fine with me--I'll simply continue to poke fun at you--the reason for the use of emoticons, lest it be misinterpreted.
You've crossed a line, Libbie. I would suggest that you follow your fellow libbie Weiner and run to rehab.
I'm taking a trip to Canada starting tomorrow morning--then annual check ride in the turboprop the week after. Maybe when I get back, you'll be feeling better.
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 12 2011,10:48 pm
(Liberal @ Jun. 11 2011,10:41 pm)
QUOTE
Funny thing is you can't even get maddog to agree with you on this one, and he's your yes man for everything. In fact nobody sane is going to side with you unless they own farm land North of town.
My past posts from this thread.
QUOTE
Since the original self-seekers left the board, the SRRWD has been working to clean the watershed from the beginning to the end at the Shell Rock. They are nearing the end of some of their projects leading to Fountain. It takes a long time to further their projects. If the County Board and the local landowner at the mouth of the river quit messing it up any more, they can hopefully get this job done. Remember, it will take years to complete.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were to go to the outlets of Pickeral or, say Bancroft Creek which feed Fountain, you would find that the water quality is near what it is coming out of your tap. Why? Because of what the watershed has done with the agricultural community and landowners in the upper portion of the watershed.
You want a beautiful Fountain Lake? How about if the watershed was able to have motorized boats banned on Fountain Lake? What if the shorelines were required to be seeded and then allowed to naturally be repopulated with shoreline grasses such as cattails and rushes? No more mowed boulevards?
They will have to put their boats back into the water to stir up the bottom. To destroy the clarity that has been created after dredging. But you can't have it both ways.
You don't realize that one of the major contributors to the pollution is geese. Yeah, geese and don't forget about those big white beautiful birds nearly everyone enjoys seeing soaring over the lakes.
I posted a few pictures in a different thread last fall showing the clarity of Pickeral with Secchi disks. When they first started monitoring the lake, the clarity was around 5-6 inches. Last year after much of their reclamation was completed, the clarity is nearing four feet. In fact if you look at the clarity of Fountain, last year it was the best on record at over two and a half feet due to a cleaner Pickeral.
In one major rain, more sediment can run off an urban area setting than in ten years of farm runoff anymore with the practices used in field tiling and drainage today. Stardust also doesn't take into account the miles of county ditches the water runs before it enters the lake where the water is slowed down. This allows the suspended particles to be captured in the ditches. Before it reaches the lake. Conservation practices today in agriculture ARE NOT lax preventative measures anymore.
Stardust forgets all the water running off parking lots, fertilized lawns or construction sites. The amount of oils, salts and debris carried into the storm systems. The watershed recommends the city residents maintain rain gardens, leave strips of vegetation along the lakes for filtration and not mowing lawn clippings into the street. Do they? How many residents blow their leaves into the street? Helck, I've watched city street employees doing it on their own property.
Dredging may solve a portion of the trade off problems. I haven't looked at the dredging plan as to what extent the plan is. If the final result is deep enough channels dug so when it "levels" out, the large part of the lake has enough depth, boating would be a lesser detriment to the bottom. Strategically placed islands from the byproduct of the dredging could also result in less wide open areas where these speed demons throttle up. Reduced speeds could be enforced in other parts of the lake. Regardless, there will have to be compromises made or it will all be for naught.
More depth also means the need for less aeration to sustain a fish population. Less open water, less geese.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were to go to the outlets of Pickeral or, say Bancroft Creek which feed Fountain, you would find that the water quality is near what it is coming out of your tap. Why? Because of what the watershed has done with the agricultural community and landowners in the upper portion of the watershed.
You want a beautiful Fountain Lake? How about if the watershed was able to have motorized boats banned on Fountain Lake? What if the shorelines were required to be seeded and then allowed to naturally be repopulated with shoreline grasses such as cattails and rushes? No more mowed boulevards?
They will have to put their boats back into the water to stir up the bottom. To destroy the clarity that has been created after dredging. But you can't have it both ways.
You don't realize that one of the major contributors to the pollution is geese. Yeah, geese and don't forget about those big white beautiful birds nearly everyone enjoys seeing soaring over the lakes.
I posted a few pictures in a different thread last fall showing the clarity of Pickeral with Secchi disks. When they first started monitoring the lake, the clarity was around 5-6 inches. Last year after much of their reclamation was completed, the clarity is nearing four feet. In fact if you look at the clarity of Fountain, last year it was the best on record at over two and a half feet due to a cleaner Pickeral.
In one major rain, more sediment can run off an urban area setting than in ten years of farm runoff anymore with the practices used in field tiling and drainage today. Stardust also doesn't take into account the miles of county ditches the water runs before it enters the lake where the water is slowed down. This allows the suspended particles to be captured in the ditches. Before it reaches the lake. Conservation practices today in agriculture ARE NOT lax preventative measures anymore.
Stardust forgets all the water running off parking lots, fertilized lawns or construction sites. The amount of oils, salts and debris carried into the storm systems. The watershed recommends the city residents maintain rain gardens, leave strips of vegetation along the lakes for filtration and not mowing lawn clippings into the street. Do they? How many residents blow their leaves into the street? Helck, I've watched city street employees doing it on their own property.
Dredging may solve a portion of the trade off problems. I haven't looked at the dredging plan as to what extent the plan is. If the final result is deep enough channels dug so when it "levels" out, the large part of the lake has enough depth, boating would be a lesser detriment to the bottom. Strategically placed islands from the byproduct of the dredging could also result in less wide open areas where these speed demons throttle up. Reduced speeds could be enforced in other parts of the lake. Regardless, there will have to be compromises made or it will all be for naught.
More depth also means the need for less aeration to sustain a fish population. Less open water, less geese.
What parts don't I agree with Jim on? I think you're arguing with Jim just to argue.
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 12 2011,10:53 pm
One more little thing. Part of an email I received from the SRRWD last week on this thread.QUOTE
Hi Brian,
Thanks for helping get the correct information out there!
Thanks for helping get the correct information out there!
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 13 2011,10:07 pm
My bad Lapdog, I clearly gave you way too much credit, before I read your post. After reading your post I realized that it's is a bunch of crap. Nobody in their right mind would claim that urban runoff produces 10x the amount of rural runoff. That's so stupid, you have to just laughQUOTE
I think you're arguing with Jim just to argue.
Of course you would think that, you've never disagreed with a thing the Jimmy says. Even if you did make up your mind about something you'd change it in a heart beat if it wasn't the same as the Jimmy's opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, can you think of one subject you don't agree with the Jimmy on?
QUOTE
Libby continues to ignore the facts presented by the Watershed--40% phosphorus going in, and far more leaving the lake.
40% going in from just two of the creeks that feed the lake. That 40% doesn't even consider Shoff creek, or the one on highway 13.
QUOTE
On the other hand, I've previously posted about the silt stirred up by boats on the lake being a problem for suspended solids--see the attached photo--you can see the boat wakes, long after the boats have left.
Do you have any idea how long the farmers' silt would have to remain suspended in the water to make it from fields near your house to Albert Lea lake
QUOTE
No facts presented to support his delusion --but it MUST be true because he said it, and libbie "care".
Facts? I posted the numbers straight from the watershed's most recent study, I've posted how phosphorous is banned in residential fertilizer and our dish soap and laundry detergent is discharged into the Shell Rock past Albert Lea lake. You have no facts, just the same old story about how farmers don't put phosphorous in the lake because they're careful where they put it down.
QUOTE
So now you demonize MADDOG? Have you been taking Obama lessons, "throwing people under the bus"? Do you HAVE any more expendable "friends"?
I'm not throwing anyone under the bus, I'm just pointing out that your lapdog doesn't seem to agree with you on this point, but that's before I realized he had posted.
QUOTE
Where did I say there was NO silt from the creek?
A check back shows that I said the water visibility was BETTER AT BANCROFT CREEK THAN IN THE LAKE--and posted links to prove it. You're either stupid, or have an issue with honesty. You posted the readings for Glenville and claimed it was the readings for the South side of Albert Lea lake. On the other hand we have the readings from several years ago and the water was 5 times clearer on the South Side of Albert Lea lake, as the North side of Fountain (where your ditch drains to)
QUOTE
Can you show me where I said that "it was so clean you could drink out of it"?
You say that my wife didn't volunteer for water sampling? Look in the 2009 Water Monitoring Report under VOLUNTEERS. (You might consider looking at the suspended solids report for the creeks while you are there) nullMy Webpage No need to apologize to me--I know what you've become--but you ought to apologize to HER. She spent a lot of hours climbing up and down those ditches (with those awful toxins!)
only because she was interested and trying to do something good--and you ruin it by saying she didn't participate.I didn't say she didn't participate you loon, I said that her names wasn't listed under the volunteers unless your wife's name was Wayne (:dunno:) because that was the only Hanson listed as a volunteer that year.
QUOTE
Where did I say there was NO silt from the creek?
A check back shows that I said the water visibility was BETTER AT BANCROFT CREEK THAN IN THE LAKE--and posted links to prove it. Again--nothing from the libbie to prove otherwise--only his opinion. On the other hand, I've previously posted about the silt stirred up by boats on the lake being a problem for suspended solids--see the attached photo--you can see the boat wakes, long after the boats have left.You've made the claim multiple times in the past. I would do a search for it but I'm sure everyone remembers your claim about "water doesn't run uphill, and my ditch is sloped uphill and it's always bone dry" and "there's no silt that comes in from Bancroft bay"
QUOTE
Libbie--you have become deranged and despicable. You have embodied the Rules for Radicals method of attempting to destroy anyone that dares disagree with you. I might disagree with you, but I'll make my case--back it up with citations--and if you don't like it--that's fine with me--I'll simply continue to poke fun at you--the reason for the use of emoticons, lest it be misinterpreted.
And you've either got senile dementia or you've got an issue with being honest. How many times do I follow your links only to find out they don't say what you claim. Everyone that reads your posts know that your idea of "making the case" involves talk radio lies and links to things that don't say what you claim, and you call me despicable?
You've gotten so bad about bogus links that nobody follows your links anymore. And if you think you're poking fun at me or any other liberal by spewing hate radio lies than you're even crazier than I thought.
Saul Alinsky? Are you really crazy enough to believe that all liberals read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals because Glennifer Beck and the drug addict told you we did?
QUOTE
You've crossed a line, Libbie. I would suggest that you follow your fellow libbie Weiner and run to rehab.
Right as soon as you follow your fellow conservative Limbaugh to rehab.
8 years ago I posted this when The Jimmy was claiming his ditch and Bancroft Creek wasn't responsible for phosphorous because it was always dry and it ran uphill.
QUOTE
The MPCA did the study to see how much phosphate is caused by dishwashing detergent. It just happens that it also proved my point that it's not the property owners in the city that puts the phosphates in the lake it's the agricultural runoff. Urban runoff accounts for less than 6% compared to the 26% being caused by agricultural runoff.
All the following information came from section 3.3 Summary of Phosphorus Loadings by Basin.
< http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/pstudy-section3-3.pdf >
The Jimmy has been making these same claims for at least 8 years and every time he's presented with data he discounts it just like this 8 yr old thread.
< http://www.albertlea.com/cgi-bin...;t=2397 >
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 13 2011,11:08 pm
(Liberal @ Jun. 13 2011,10:07 pm)
QUOTE
My bad Lapdog, I clearly gave you way too much credit, before I read your post. After reading your post I realized that it's is a bunch of crap. Nobody in their right mind would claim that urban runoff produces 10x the amount of rural runoff. That's so stupid, you have to just laugh
So now the name calling. Typical. I guess you don't have to give me all the credit for the entire post.
I stated,
QUOTE
In one major rain, more sediment can run off an urban area setting than in ten years of farm runoff anymore with the practices used in field tiling and drainage today.
From the < Shell Rock's website: >
QUOTE
Construction sites can be a major source of sediment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 20 to 150 tons of soil per acre runs off construction sites with rain water.
In fact, more sediment can run off a construction site in one rain event than off a farm field in a decade of rainfall.
In fact, more sediment can run off a construction site in one rain event than off a farm field in a decade of rainfall.
You said,
QUOTE
Facts? I posted the numbers straight from the watershed's most recent study
Apparently so did I.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 14 2011,12:22 am
Facts? Like The Jimmy you like to make claims that the facts don't back up.You claimed more sediments came from an urban setting as 10 years of a farm field. To back it up you post about construction sites. Construction sites are not the same thing as an "urban area". In case you weren't aware there are constructions sites all over the watershed in rural and urban settings.
Posted by alcitizens on Jun. 14 2011,7:02 pm
The USDA's 2007 data reported average soil loss on cropland in Iowa of 5.2 tons per acre per year, which is only slightly higher than what is called the "sustainable" annual soil loss of five tons per acre per year.Agriculture is not the only industry threatened by severe soil erosion. Runoff from cropland carries nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from sediment, fertilizer and manure into the Midwest's rivers and lakes. This runoff pollution enters the Mississippi River, and ultimately ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, worsening the Dead Zone, an area where there is not enough oxygen in the water to support fish, shrimp and other marine life.
The EWG report also recommends strengthening Conservation Compliance provisions when the Farm Bill is reauthorized in 2012, including:
• Require all producers participating in existing or new crop and revenue insurance programs to meet Conservation Compliance standards.
• Require vegetative buffer zones at least 35 feet wide between row crops and all lakes, rivers and smaller streams.
• Adequately fund USDA's technical staff so it can implement increased inspections and enforcement of conservation practices.
< http://www.wisfarmer.com/features/120363989.html >
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 14 2011,8:17 pm
The farmer apologists will tell you that we have to ban fertilizing our lawns within 500' of a lake because lawn fertilizer can apparently travel 500' through our lawns, but the farmers use magic fertilizer that is stopped in it's tracks by a 16' strip of grass/lawn near creeks, and ditches. That 16' strip of grass also magically stops the erosion of farm land.
Posted by nedkelly on Jun. 15 2011,5:13 am
(Liberal @ Jun. 14 2011,8:17 pm)
QUOTE
The farmer apologists will tell you that we have to ban fertilizing our lawns within 500' of a lake because lawn fertilizer can apparently travel 500' through our lawns, but the farmers use magic fertilizer that is stopped in it's tracks by a 16' strip of grass/lawn near creeks, and ditches. That 16' strip of grass also magically stops the erosion of farm land.
Filter strips are a good start but what about open tile intakes too? Most of them carry silt from their location right into wherever the farm tiles dump!..The faster the water flow the farther the silt can travel....
...ned
Posted by alcitizens on Jun. 16 2011,1:47 am
LOSING GROUND < http://www.ewg.org/losingground/ >
Posted by nedkelly on Jun. 16 2011,6:07 am
Seems as farms get bigger and bigger, less effort is made to conserve the soil...Larger machinery and fewer grass waterways...Seems as if a lot of soil conservation has gone by the wayside since the 1980's... Our topsoil has given us cheap food but at a future cost to all of our kids.... Only the smaller farmer can love the land enough to take the time to to establish waterways and contour strips, etc..... 
...ned
Posted by hymiebravo on Jun. 23 2011,7:57 am
Wasn't there some sort of municipal septic system running into Albert lea from Manchester? And speaking of the term residual:
What about the long term use of those lakes as garbage and raw sewage receptacles? What is the status of that black tar stuff on the bottom of Albert Lea lake?
Have any of the water testers jumped in and measured that? As long as it seemed to linger in there I can't imagine that it has disappeared. But maybe it did?
I'm not sure where they measure the outlet of Albert Lea lake but out at the Classic Rock Dam it has always seemed looked pretty good because the water moves so fast right there.
I looked at Pickeral a couple of weeks ago. It looked fairly good. But then it looked like it always has in the spring when the water levels are plump and abounding.
I did notice what looked like sections of corn stalks bunch up around the landing area right off the highway by the park entrance. Also I could see some green mossy looking growth starting right there as well.
Also for all the talk of rain barrels and keeping water out of the lakes. They never seem to look, or smell, better then after a good rain.
Posted by hymiebravo on Jul. 17 2011,8:40 pm
I wonder how much debris and silt found its way into area waterways after the deluge the other night. Those torrential events really seem to get the erosion and redistribution of various material, organic and otherwisel going.
Posted by stardust17 on Jul. 24 2011,3:20 am
You bet your bottom dollar. The 6 inch rain moved many many many tons of soil. I would predict a fair amount of phosphorous moved also. I work on a farm. The filter strips are a joke when more than moderate rain falls. Farmers are installing larger tile everywhere there footsies get damp. With less ponding, less marsh area, and less hay/ pasture to absorb or slow the runoff huge torrents of water hit rivers and lakes more quickly. Even the almighty U of M refuses to do indepth studies on massive tiling. Why?
Unfiltered tile inlets are sewer drains for all ag pollutants.
How often does someone check on farmers to see if they are compliant? And we pay these slackers "subsidies"(blackmail payments) so they won't be really bad boys and ruin their land and our water. "Stewards of the land"...horse manure. If no-till and other consevation practices weren't heavily subsidized, and a tactic for more profit, most would end the practice. Almost every method used in row crop large ag-land practices is degenerative. Their soil is compacting, becoming less productive. So they spread more amonia and other poisons on to keep their mono-culture growing.
Anyone who says phosporous is not leaving farm land is....well, others have commented on that. Farmers should spend less time in Las Vegas and more time learning real land management. Their backs don't hurt cuz they are working to save the land. Maybe they should stop patting themselves so endlessly on the back.
These huge confinements are some of the worst. Imagine the manure(phosphorous) runoff from pen areas.
A neighbor lets his sludge run into a ditch, then a drainage ditch, then into a swamp area near a lake where it is well diguised. Clever.
Along with the farmers(and all those turf fanatic yuppies of past and present) the ag corporations should be held libel for destroying lakes, rivers, land, and well water.
Posted by twingroves on Jul. 24 2011,7:55 am
JUST REMEMBER THOSE SLACKERS ARE FEEDING YOUR FAT ASS
Posted by Butcher on Jul. 24 2011,7:30 pm
(Stone-Magnon @ May 14 2011,8:03 pm)
QUOTE
Is it OK if I hand them my checkbook and they can just give me back what they don't need?
You got more time than money.