March 28, 2024

Setting the record straight

At the request for water supply projections by Clarke County Reservoir Commission (CCRC), the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) distributed a water supply summary at a December 2004 open house.

It provided two designs for site 4 on the Squaw Creek Watershed. One design was a water supply only at 359 acres and the other was water supply plus recreation at 834 acres. Each projected to supply a targeted need of 3 million gallons a day (mgd).

Sandy Kale’s letter on Oct. 22, 2015, admits early plans for a water supply lake included recreational use. That is true and agrees with CCRC’s mission statement declaring their goal of a large multipurpose lake.

S. Kale states correctly, “Iowa passed a law in 2006 to better protect private property rights that restricted the ability of water supply to use condemnation to acquire property if recreation was a use of that reservoir.”

But, the following S. Kale quote is a falsehood, “After passage of this law..., CCRC adapted to the new law and redesigned the ... reservoir to eliminate the planned recreational use.”

On page 61 of NRCS’ draft plan dated February 2009, an 884-acre lake provided 3 mgd and included recreation facilities. In the $42,945,900 cost is $5,851,100 for recreation as described “80 modern camping sites, 32 RV sites, 10 housekeeping cabins, day use areas, a concrete three-lane boat ramp, accessible fishing pier and swimming beach.”

Also planned were three additional boat ramps, parking and restrooms and nine fishing jetties.

This plan didn’t get passed the DNR. They sent CCRC back to the drawing board saying the lake was too big. So, CCRC paid more for engineer reports, more NRCS planning help and were rewarded with the revised draft plan dated December 2010. Page 31 describes an 816-acre lake for $41,166,800. It would provide 2.2 mgd, was a mere 68 acres smaller and still included $5,590,400 for recreation.

This revised draft plan became the final water supply plan — environmental impact statement of May 2011 with a price tag of $42,605,400, including $5,956,900 for recreation as recorded on page 32.

April 2011 revealed federal PL-566 funding was no longer available to cover half the cost as anticipated. CCRC maneuvered a way to keep the recreation-sized lake and creatively pay for it with, you guessed it — 13.1 million revenue bonds among other sources.

Because of spacing constraints, the second part of Kelly's letter to the editor will be run in the Nov. 5 Osceola Sentinel-Tribune.