Fountain Lake is green from an abundance of algae. It would cost $12,000 to treat the lake with copper sulfate, making it blue for the remainder of the warm months. What solution do you prefer?

Posted by nesaajr (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First impressions go a long way, so go ahead and let it be Green, Green, Green like Pea Soup.

It will look really pleasant to visitors and potential new businesses. Is this really the impression you want visitor to have of the City?

Would a CEO of a large company want to open a plant or move his company here with a lake looking like Pea Soup?

Your past City Leaders destroyed the wetlands that cleaned the water entering the lake by filling them for a short term solution of dredging the lakes.

The Watershed Board has the right long term solution in cleaning up the sources first. Getting ALL Septic Systems into compliance will be a great benefit.

Another good choice would be to recreate the Wetlands in Shoff Park between the Railroad tracks and Highway 13. Also on the West side of Highway 13 where you can create a large sediment trap, rather than letting it destroy Dane Bay any further.

The City could do a huge help by not mowing right up to the Water edges and insist the mowers blow grass away rather than into the lake. Encourage people to leave a native vegetation buffer along their lakeshores and to NOT Blow grass clippings into the Streets that then end up in the lakes.

In the meantime, think about a visitors first impression.

Posted by geokarjo (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This poll is not very useful. When adding the numbers more people are in favor of treating the lake however they cannot agree on who should pay for it.

Posted by metisman (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let the Watershed district spend some of its million+ dollars on hand to solve the problem. At least it would give the local taxpayer something tangible for the taxes collected by the district.

Posted by dinomac (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who said it would last the rest of the warm months? I heard that it only lasts a few weeks. I'm for the watershed taking care of it. They have the money. Green is not the color we want our lake.

Posted by dmontanosr (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another city that have treated the water with this chemical for along time are now discovering that they have problems with the Eco system. You can't just throw chemicals into a place where they don't belong and not expect to have serious issues. I know the water is an ugly green color, but first of all the city can not afford to pay the 12,000 dollars and we can not be fiscally sound by throwing away $12,000 every year. And second, we need to leave nature alone. It knows how to take care of itself. God designed it that way.

Posted by doubledutch (anonymous) on July 30, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, this again. Every year this topic pops up. There are really two issues here:
1) Should we put chemicals in the lake to clean up the algae?
2) If yes, who should pay for it?

Continually adding copper sulfate to the water is just masking the problem and possibly creating more problems. Why? So we can say, "Look at our nice clean lake"? Seriously, people are kidding themselves if they think cleaning up the "green water" will make the "brown water" look better.

Why throw money at a symptom of the problem when our resources would be better used solving the cause of the problem? Seems like good government policy to me.

I don't think we should add copper sulfate to cover up the problem so issue two is a non-factor to me.

Posted by DoubleD (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The watershed board and the county have to serve more than just Fountain Lake. It seems to me either the city should fund it or leave it alone.

Posted by nesaajr (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about a natural cure?

"Evidence has been accumulating since the late 1970’s that barley straw can be used to control nuisance blooms of algae in freshwater systems." Barley World. http://barleyworld.org/barleystraw.php

http://barleyworld.org/barleystraw/Barle...

http://ohioline.osu.edu/a-fact/0012.html...

http://ag.utah.gov/animind/aq_barleystra...

There have been a number of Cities in the Twin Cities region that have started using this as a method to control Algae in the numerous Storm Water Ponds.

Maybe the Watershed Board would consider this and run some trials to test the effectiveness of this method. Dane Bay would be a small enough area to give it a good test.

This would also be a boost for the Farmers in the County, another source to sell their products.

Maybe working together the Watershed Board, Freeborn County, City of Albert Lea and ALL Area Land Owners could cut the amount of sediment, chemicals, etc. from flowing into the lakes and streams to find a long term solution.

Create Buffer Strips (These could be beautiful, unfertilized gardens of perennials and native grasses) along all waterways, especially the City Streets/ROW and private yards.

Install Sediment Traps along ALL Storm Sewers leading into the Lakes and then maintain them.