By 
Brad Johnson, a board member and past president of the Lake Kampeska Water Project District board, called the recently started Stokes-Thomas Lake City Park drainage project a “travesty” for Lake Kampeska.
But the City of Watertown disagrees.
The project which was recently set into motion by city council is projected to help reduce the amount of time the northern portion of the campsites at the park are flooded during the season, a prospect that could improve cost recouperation for the parks department.
Drain tile is to be used to help the standing water collect in a reservoir, which should automatically drain into the lake if the lake level is low enough according to Parks and Rec. Director Dusty Rodiek who briefed the council on the project at its January 5 meeting.
He also told the council there will be a pump that can be used to remove water should the lake level be too high for the automatic draining to work.
Johnson, who’s spent the last 30 years studying hydrology, or the study of the movement and management of ground and surface water, doesn’t think the project will work in the slightest.
“We think (the project) is a travesty,” Johnson told The Watertown Current. “It also shows huge disrespect to the environment of Lake Kampeska.”
Johnson cited a letter expressing concern sent to City Engineer Justin Petersen in February, shortly after City Council approved a bid award on the project .
That letter went unanswered for almost two months.
“By then the city council had pretty much passed it through,” said Johnson.
Johnson spoke about the irony of the situation from the board’s perspective.
“(Kampeska) is the city’s No. 1 asset,” he said. “We’re treating it like a dumping ground (just) to generate some additional revenue from about 20 camping spots.”
The primary concerns for the board, beyond the lackluster communication, are that the drainage from the campground will introduce more pollutants into the lake, and that it will not reduce flooding at all, according to Johnson.
It’s not fair to say the city has been silent on the issue, however. Officials actively disagree with Johnson’s assessment.
In a statement released by the city, officials said, “This project has been on two City Council agendas in the past six months, where residents, including members of the Lake Kampeska Board, were able to share input. Staff have also had direct conversations with several residents outside of those meetings.”
The statement continued:
“While some have expressed a preference not to do the project, the general consensus was the Lake Kampeska group would not stand in the way of the project.”
City Manager Alan Stager also had a meeting with Johnson and another former board member as well as city officials about two weeks ago where Johnson laid out his concerns.
Johnson said one of the main issues with the campground area is that the soil is rather “gravelly,” and that his own research has led him to believe it won’t take well to drain tile because the soil tends to clog it up.
“When there’s water standing in (the campground) it means the water table is really high,” he said. “When there’s standing water in there, it’s because the whole underground system is full of water. When you try and move it out of there, water’s just going to flow in from other areas. That’s the hydrological nature of Lake Kampeska.”
He said there was also talk about filtering the water before it was replaced in the lake. Even if it was filtered, the current plan involves piping filtered water from the campsite through a previously unfiltered culvert into the lake. The city said that method eliminates a former open drain pipe that has historically drained into the lake.
Though the culvert has been there before the project started, Johnson, said it creates a “point source” for pollution, regardless of filtration.
“I can guarantee the lake district will be taking water samples out of that and filing a complaint any time we see any pollution,” he said.
Those complaints will be passed on to the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, according to Johnson.
The city also devoted a paragraph in its statement to water quality:
“This project doesn’t introduce new water or pollution into the lake. It manages rainfall and groundwater that are already part of this system. By moving water through soil and allowing sediment to settle before discharge, the new system is more controlled than what has been done in the past. It is not expected to increase the amount of sediment entering the lake and will benefit the park and public use of the area. It reduces environmental disturbance, improves public health conditions, and corrects a long-standing drainage issue.”
Rodiek elaborated on the quality of the drained water, saying it would be no worse than what anybody else living on the lake would allow to drain into the water.
“There’s (also) really no chemical pollution on the site,” he said “There’s (also) no agricultural drainage to that site. … We are not introducing any new agricultural or chemical into the lake.”
He spoke about the pollution potential with the current filtration system versus not having one at all, which is the current situation, according to him.
“There’s way more chemical potential from the natural watershed drainage into the lake than what would ever be introduced by this system,” he said. “There’s literally nothing that we’re doing that would be any different than a homeowner (would do) with their yard. Many of (them) fertilize their yards. We do not.”
The digging extends across much of the park. Photo by Tucker Hermans, The Watertown Current.
The disappointing point of the meeting with the city, according to Johnson, is that city officials, including Stager, expressed the project as it currently stood was no longer a good idea, but work on it has begun anyway. That doesn’t match the city’s previous statement that the board wouldn’t stand in the way of the project, however.
Communication on the issue, even outside of the lake district, has been spotty at best.
Watertown Mayor Ried Holien said at the Water Project’s annual board meeting on April 23 that the project had been stopped, but at the Parks and Recreation board meeting on Tuesday, April 28, Rodiek said the project was under way. He also confirmed in a phone call that the project was, indeed, under way, and the city’s statement said the project was about 70 percent complete and would be finished by Memorial Day.
Regardless, when the digging originally began there was also no communication with the Water Project board, according to Johnson.
“That’s really unfortunate,” he said. “At least call us back. … The board president, Bret Holien, is the mayor’s brother so there should be some communication. It’s not like any of us are hard to find.”
On a larger scale, Johnson said the changing land use around the north side of Lake Kampeska along with drain tile, have been huge contributing factors to flooding.
“So, here’s the City of Watertown participating in the things that contribute to flooding,” he said. “It doesn’t set a good example. It doesn’t send a message that the city cares about Lake Kampeska. It sends the message that all they care about is generating a few extra dollars for the parks department.”
Johnson said Watertown ought to be doing things to enhance the water quality in Lake Kampeska.
“(The) city invests very little money in Lake Kampeska,” he said. “If we believe it’s our most important asset, then we need to start treating it like it, and not just like a cash machine.”
Rodiek disagreed on behalf of the city. He told The Current he believes the project will work, and that it will have no negative impact on the lake because of the filtration process.
“Does anyone really believe we would propose a project that would harm the lake?” he asked. “(Think about) how many open culverts drain into that lake (right now). … The Big Sioux drains into it, and it’s not filtered.”
Rodiek said the city would never propose a project that goes “in the wrong direction.”
“We’re (also) committed to doing periodic turbidity tests, and visual assessments of the water going in,” he said. “We’re trying to improve the water going back into the lake.”
