Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 25 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
photo by Tim Engstrom
A sign on the 86-year-old Jugland dam says, “Private Property: No Trespassing.” It is signed by David Palmer.
Commissioners reject plan to build Albert Lea Lake dam with bridge
Many members of the public spoke in favor it plan
Published Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Freeborn County commissioners Tuesday shot down a plan to build a new dam for Albert Lea Lake in coordination with the replacement of the bridge on Freeborn County Road 19 over the Shell Rock River.
After long and heated debate with much public input mostly in favor the plan, the commissioners voted against it on a 3-2 vote. Commissioners Mark Behrends and Christopher Shoff voted for it. Commissioners Dan Belshan, Glen Mathiason and Jim Nelson voted against it.
The dam is in Nelson’s commissioner district, and he faces re-election this November. He remained quiet through the debate, not speaking until he voted “no.” Mathiason also is up for re-election in November.
About 60 people attended the meeting.
Greg Jensen, who owns land adjacent to the dam and claims ownership of the dam, was not present. Members of the Shell Rock River Watershed District board were. So was District Administrator Brent Behnke. After the meeting, he said the district will have to go back to the drawing board.
Photo by Tim Engstrom
An old metal plate with numbers measures the Shell Rock River’s height during high waters at the Jugland dam.
There also was talk among people in the hallway after the meeting — and also among some officials at the site of the “Extreme Makeover” being done on a home in Hayward Township — about waiting until after the November election and trying for the joint bridge-dam plan with a possible new set of commissioners in January.
At the end of last week, Belshan and Mathiason had told the Tribune people can expect to hear a report on the details of separate negotiations happening between them and Jensen on the dam. Mathiason said a plan had been sent to the watershed board. However, Tuesday at the meeting Belshan said the negotiations still are taking place.
Some details came out because of debate, but there didn’t seem to be the public report that had been announced previously.
The Shell Rock River Watershed District board approved the plan in August on a 4-3 vote. The plan calls for the $2.4 million construction of a joint bridge and dam at County 19 and the removal of the 86-year-old Jugland dam. The timber pilings on the bridge over the river are rotting, prompting concerns over the condition of the bridge.
Photo by Tim Engstrom
Rocks and chunks of concrete hold up the eastern portion of the 86-year-old dam on the Shell Rock River near the outlet of Albert Lea Lake.
After the bridge-dam plan was rejected, the commissioners began discussion of plans with County Engineer Sue Miller for replacement of the bridge.
There were times when the meeting was tense. One moment came when watershed district board member Clayton Petersen, standing at the podium, had an exchange with Belshan.
Belshan said with moving the dam the public will lose the small bay that exists between the County 19 and the present dam. It is a popular fishing hole.
Miller, in her report, had mentioned an environmental assessment worksheet would be part of the due diligence done on the project to determine environment impacts.
Petersen said an EAW is not difficult to perform—he did one for the Wedgewood Cove golfing community — and he noted that because the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has dedicated $250,000 to the dam’s repair, it is an assurance that DNR officials know the environmental factors of moving the dam.
Petersen then said the public should know the details of the negotiations going on between the commissioners and Jensen.
Belshan retorted that Petersen is asking about land negotiations. Mathiason said all the details are not ready.
Petersen repeated that people should know what’s going on.
There’s more
Look for a story on comments made during the public hearing in Thursday’s newspaper.
Belshan then spilled some details.
“You’re grabbing something in negotiations and making it public,” he said.
Belshan then said Jensen would donate land to the county on the west side of the Shell Rock River for public fishing. He said it could have picnic tables, and people can reach the dam. He said a new dam might have decks for fishing atop it.
Mathiason added that there would no parking lot but the county would seek a wider shoulder on the road.
Petersen questioned the safety of roadside parking and the ability for people to use the river as a public waterway.
“It looks like Greg Jensen has made a deal with you that is not acceptable to the public and the Shell Rock River Watershed District board,” he said.
The plan the commissioners rejected Tuesday called for a joint bridge and dam, and it called for a parking lot to the east of the river and a canoe launch so people can access the river. Public use of the state-owned waterway seems to be the big sticking point for Jensen, and eminent domain is the big deal for commissioners who oppose the plan.
The watershed district had been in negotiations with landowner Lloyd Palmer about buying some land for the parking lot and for land adjacent to both sides of the river near the Jugland dam for fishing and canoe launching. The Gregory D. Jensen Retirement Plan & Trust in May bought Palmer’s 27 acres for $151,720, according to records at the Freeborn County Recorder’s Office.
Shoff’s comments often received applause. He said it is obvious the public supports the plan, said the bridge and the dam need replacing, said there has been years of work to reach this point and said the commissioners need to show leadership.
“We are treading water right now,” he said.
Behrends said people will remember how the commissioners vote on the matter.
“This is probably one of the biggest decisions we will make as commissioners,” he said.
One of the other debates during the meeting was on having a variable-crest dam. It would be used for killing Asian carp and cleaning the water quality of the lake. However, it would only be lowered every 20 years or so.
Mathiason said it is wasteful to spend money on a variable-crest dam.
“You are going to spend a lot of money for something that could be used very little,” he said.
Belshan said the DNR says people need to have access to the river by going around the dam, but he added he wants an answer on the matter from the state attorney general.
The issue of using eminent domain to get the land has been part of the dam-bridge debate.
Mathiason said he has concerns about using eminent domain.
“That to me would be the wrong attitude to take.”
Shoff said eminent domain is another issue and is separate from the plan before the commissioners Tuesday. He said just because the plan is approved does not mean the county would use eminent domain.
It now remains to be seen what happens with a $250,000 grant the DNR gave the Shell Rock River Watershed District for the new dam if the watershed district chooses to pass on the dam improvement because the county rejected it. Some board members, including Petersen, say the county has wasted about $220,000 of county, watershed and state money by rejected plans and funding it had supported unanimously in January 2007. And he said the county likely has cut itself off from the DNR funding because that grant belongs to the watershed district.
Mathiason said the county still could receive the state grant dollars for the dam.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by CACTUS (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What is the county doing?
The dam is the county's responsibility since the county owns it, they will have to rebuild a dam anyway even if it is down the road. But it sure would be cheaper to do it all at once.
If their plan is to give the county dam to jensen there will still have to be a safe access for the public to use the river.
Posted by ALgirl (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If there was much public input "mostly in favor of it" then what does that say about our elected officials? Are they really serving the interest of the public or the interests of a few?
Posted by Outsider (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In a word, NOPE...Bye Bye Nelson
Posted by CACTUS (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The county commissioners that voted against the dam project should resign.
This is their (the county's/public's) dam why would they not want to fix it now? Are they skeered of a court battle with jensen?
Spinless !
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Question: I have read 2 different things one says county owns it. One says it is owned by Jensen. Which is it?
Next are you mad because they are not spending money or that they are not able to give access? If they voted not to spend tax payer money than why so mad? If it is about access than the question is do you want the county to have the right to take your land anytime they wish? Wasn't there a court case on this issue already?
Finally: Do we get to elect members to the watershed district? If not why are they making policy? If so why do we need another arm of the government? I know a lot of questions but these do need to be answered.
Eminet Domain has become a popular way to redistribute the weath. It should not be used as a policy tool. This country was founded on the idea of private property and my right to own it and do with it as I see fit. We have been to quick to give up this right.
Posted by Outsider (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought they were looking at doing the dam and bridge on South Shore Drive and not messing with his dam. That is what should happen,
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For now, the county voted the right way. This gets things moving forward without doing something dumb.
I don't know where the Watershed Board handles the purse strings or makes policy. I would question the legality of them holding any purse strings when their not elected. I would think they would be mainly advisory, but nowadays who knows.
Posted by mrthunder (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
truth
you have my vote. you should run for office at least you think before you speak
this whole water shed what a joke.
my vote would be start where the water begins clean down word
drain the lakes and clean the muck up. Albert lea lake would bring in so much needed revenue. yes we are talking thousands of dollars but the long term would out way tis short term job your doing know. your not fixing the quality of the water for long term. and the depth of the lake needs more then an average of 5 feet
there should be spots 120 feet deep.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm all in favor of dredging the lakes, especially Albert Lea Lake. After all, it was mainly the town and the packinghouse that messed it up. You mess it up you clean it up!
Posted by tengstrom (Tim Engstrom) on October 7, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No name calling. Period. Thank you to everyone who can keep healthy dialogue civil. — Tim Engstrom, managing editor
Posted by MrFlamewolf (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well it going to another delay in the new dam that was surpose to be put in 2 yrs ago. How many more years before it is built. What a major blow to the restoring of the two lakes without the new dam no deeping of the lake will take place. I wouldn't be surprized the money the DNR put in gets revoked. Heres a idea have no dam seal it off raised the shoreline 6ft and make it deep that way no dam no fighting on both sides.
Posted by allake (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Truth,
You might want to brush on you court cases. In Kelo V New London the Supreme Court upheld eminent domain rights. Many states have passed laws to make it harder to use, but for commercial use. New London took private property and turned it over to a developer. That is not what is being talked about here.
I wonder how much Commissioner Belshan cost us on this one? I can't believe Glen feel for this. But I think Commissioner Nelson is at risk.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Could someone answer Truth's questions? I can't but they need to be answered in order for this to be resolved.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way you are going to see the same Rail Road job on monday when the city council votes on the rental housing ordianace.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why can't they make a bridge and dam combination like they have on Bridge?!
Posted by allake (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What question. He or she does not seem to understand eminent domain very well. Redistribute wealth. It is not cheap in most cases, so unless Truth is trying to say that it takes from the poor and gives to the rich the comment makes not sense.
Not spending money? We already have. The County owns the dam, but even that is not that important. The DNR controls it. Take to the folks who live on Lake Chapeau.
Yup, public access is important. If not, why not take out the access to the lakes? That would serve the owners of the lake shore but not the public in general.
Watershed Board member are appointed by the County Board. They set policy because they are given the power to do so by the State of Minnesota.
Posted by allake (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a link to a site that is a strong supporter of property rights. Note the public purposes and just compensation. The Founding Fathers were not anti taking of private land for a public purpose, with just compensation.
http://www.minnesotamajority.org/OurPrin...
Posted by allake (anonymous) on October 7, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wildbill, that is the plan that was voted down.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
allake, I understood it was the variable-crest that was voted down. I would say that it's a good thing we have elections coming up, but we say that every election.
Posted by allake (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It was a dam bridge plan, pun intended. The plan called for a variable crest, but they could have changed it to a fixed crest.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Truth,
Were you asking about the court case that covers this damn or domain? I read it as you were asking about this damn. If so I too thought there was a case that was written about this damn in the paper. Are we wrong?
When talking about enimant domian the Suprem Court over stepped it's bonds. The problem is fair value. The person taking the property gets to say what it is worth. Big step into our freedoms. Like it or not if this guy owns it than he should have the right to sell or not.
The watershed board is just another creation of big (government) brother. It just says that the people are to stupid to manage their own affairs. I don't buy it. It is time for less government not more.
Posted by taxpayer (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree 100% that cleaning up the lakes should be our #1 priority. I also realize that the cost is great but feel that it would pay for itself in a relatively short period of time. My family and I love to utilize Fountain Lake for watersports but we have to make sure that we are on and off the lake early in the day because by mid to late afternoon it is far too dangerous to be on the lake. Most of the time we just go to Clear Lake instead to avoid the hastle. Dredging Albert Lea Lake would not only provide more room, it would also open up the opportunity to develop around the lake. I really can't see any negatives to dredging Albert Lea Lake. It is such a beautiful lake. It is a shame that it cannot be utilized.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
taxpayer, I agree 100% with you.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Refresh my memory how does this make the county unable to clean the lake up? Can't they dredge it with or without the damn? I say dredge baby dredge....
Posted by allake (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL
Are you referring to the case mentioned in a letter to the editor? A) not sure if that is true b) The DNR would have the control of the dam not matter who owns it. This was in a news story in the paper.
How did the Supreme Court overstep it's bounds? They were saying that eminent domain does not violate the constitution. This caused most states to tighten up their laws.
The person taking the land does not get to just say what it is worth, the have to pay the appraised value. Government tends not to use it because the costs of using it, land price but law suits are high.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)