Does it still matter?

 

A friend saw this article from the Star Tribune and sent me this picture from that short piece.The picture looks like it could have come from our old backyard. This isn't even close to the first time this issue has come up. One of the many motivations we had for selling that house was the constant abuse and disregard the city and state demonstrated for that small, historic lake; reclassified as a "watershed" to make the abuse "legal." MNDOT trashed the lake, first with total disrespect in the 1970s by "bridging the lake" with thousands of tons of dirt dumped on the frozen lake to be used for the freeway construction in the spring. That caused flooding in the lower houses on the east side of the new freeway, buried a good bit of the underground water supply for the lake, poured pollution into the lake, and quickly demonstrated the traditional European invaders' disrespect for anything held sacred by Native Americans. Just that act makes a feeble attempt to rename the lake for political correctness another addition of insult to the injury. 

While we lived on Lakeshore Drive, from 1997 to 2015, we saw countless demonstrations of how little the state of Minnesota and the city of Little Canada cared about that once-beautiful little lake. When we first moved into our home, which had been owned by a goober who used the backyard as a practice course for drunken Bobcat parties and who regularly plowed refuse from his "landscaping company" down the hill into the lake, there was still some life in the lake. My grandson and I built a small deck from our yard, out of fallen trees the previous owner had littered all over the shoreline, and we'd watch catfish, perch, and other small fish bob for pieces of bread he'd toss into the water. 

The city actually, illegally, hired a UofM prof and a pack of nitwits to poach Canadian Geese from the lake for several years before residents (loudly led by Ms. Day) embarrassed them into stopping that practice.

That first summer, the local high school maintenance department dumped a few hundred gallons of toxic chemicals into the school's drainage ditch, which made its way to the lake and killed hundreds of fish. Of course, neither the DNR, the Ramsey County Watershed District, or the state's EPA bothered to even reprimand the school's employees and no thought whatsoever was given to repairing that damage. From then until we left, the only fish we ever saw in the lake were minnows and few of them.  At least one business on the north side of our portion (west) of the lake regularly dumped manufacturing chemicals into a drain that kept that end of the lake coated with petroleum rainbows. 

In 2008, the Watershed District  engineers "designed" a new drainage system that, accidentally, lowered the lake level by at least two feet. As a demonstration of how "complicated" determining where that drain level should have been set, my 9-year-old grandson designed an experiment that we documented for his grade school using string, a level, and a tape measure.

MNDOT "designed" various freeway drainage systems that filled the lake with sand, salt, and roadway contaminates peaking (during our time there) with the 2010's expansion of the freeway and a drainage ditch from the south-going Little Canada Road freeway entrance that immediately filled the meager remains of the spring and turned the lake from a feeble remainder of a lake (that once had a "deep end" that exceeded 8') into a rapidly filling swamp with no spot on the lake that couldn't be walked across. Of course, the slackers who get paid way too much to prevent this kind of thing at the state's EPA, the DNR, and the totally worthless Watershed District bureaucrats were busy cleaning their fingernails or counting the money that appeared on their desks in unmarked brown paper bags as that all happened. (After 18 years trying to defend our backyard lake from all of those worthless deadbeats, I have no respect for any of those departments or their employees.)

 For us, the final insult-to-injury nail-in-the-coffin that convinced us to sell our beloved home was the pointless, overpriced, dysfunctional "noise wall" that served to prevent freeway traffic from seeing the eyesore our lake had become. There is no acoustical justification, even based on MNDOT's own guidelines, for a 15' wooden wall placed hundreds of feet from the nearest property it is intended to "protect." COVID did a far more effective job of lowering the health-endangering noise levels (averaging 91dBA in our backyard during the summer and fall of 2014) from I35E in our neighborhood by reducing traffic massively for 2 years. However, as the wall was being constructed MNDOT got serious about directing freeway contaminants into the lake and the south end of the west side of the lake rapidly filled in and became so overrun with sand, salt, and silt that one of our neighbor's dock was literally lifted out of the water. Waterlilies flourished as the lake level dropped.

One of the reasons we ended up staying in Minnesota for the past 28 years was my wife's dream of living on a lake came true when we found our Lakeshore Avenue home in early 1997 just before my promised transfer back to Denver was due. We kept a kayak and a canoe near our dock and used it regularly on that lake, even as it was being overwhelmed by pollution, invasive plants, and noise. We defended the migrating birds who visited our lake from neighbors and government officials. We regularly argued for the preservation of the lake and its wildlife, usually unsuccessfully. A few of our neighbors were also strong advocates, including Rocky Waite (the name change advocate in the Trib article) and a few were obviously oblivious to the lake and did not consider its existence to be of value. A name change is the least the state owes this lake and its history.

Is This Irony?

The Ramsey-Washington Watershed District has an entry about the botched-up drain they installed in 2003 and modified several times before getting it as close to right as they ever do anything: Savage Lake Outlet Improvement.They sarcastically claim, "Prior to the project, the outlet from Savage Lake was highly susceptible to plugging, which caused extended elevated water levels in the lake. City maintenance crews frequently removed sticks and other debris from the outlet.

"During the winter of 2003-04, we installed a new outlet structure that would operate at full system capacity even if 80 percent plugged. The outlet stabilizes normal water levels in the lake and allows flood levels to subside much sooner than before."

One of the advantages of getting to review your own work is that you don't have to even pay lip-service to facts or reality.

Postscript: 2018

We haven't been back to Little Canada, to our old neighborhood since we moved in 2015. Last Monday, after spending a day with friends and family, we decided to take a "tour" of the place we lived for 18 years; the longest period of calling a place home in our lives. A lot had changed, a lot stayed the same, and some of it was unrecognizable. Passing by our lake, via 35E at rush hour was startling. Traffic is almost exponentially greater, noisier, and dirtier. Clearly, either the increased lane-count has attracted commuters who once took a different route or development north of St. Paul is really ramping up. I have no idea when Google took the photo [below], but I can guarantee it was not on a Monday at 3PM.

The biggest reason we bought our home on Lake Shore Avenue was the lake; Savage Lake. We liked the yard and the privacy. I loved the giant garage. Elvy loved the weird layout of the house and the potential of the basement for workspace for her art. We both loved the idea of having a home with a lake in the backyard. I realize that Minnesotans discount bodies of water like Savage Lake as if they are just holes in which to dump sewage, but the rest of the country (especially west) has a different perspective on precious water resources. Not different enough to stop pissing, shitting, and wasting their water, but at least slightly more cognizant than Minnesota where we have so much water we delude ourselves into thinking it is endless. If you look at the past entries in this blog, you'll see that we spent almost as much time in our backyard enjoying our "lake" as we did inside hiding from winter. Before we moved to Little Canada, I had never thrown a party in my life. Because of Savage Lake, we had a wedding reception, annual Little Canada Days fireworks parties, sledding parties, a college graduation bash, and dozens of get-togethers in our backyard that always included some aspect of being on the lake in boats, skis, snowshoes, sleds, or just sandals or winter boots. We hiked the lake in the winter, boated it in the summer, and enjoyed it every day we lived in Little Canada. In the end, it was the thing we both knew we would miss the most about our old home. It still is.

When we lived in the Cities, we regularly compared our industrial noise neighborhood to friends' homes and our daughter's home in Dinkytown. Other essays in this blog talk about the unhealthy expansion of noise in our old backyard and I won't beat that horse more more in this essay, but if you are fooling yourself into believing that you can live with 85dBA-and-above-noise on a constant basis you already need medical assistance.  Today, there are four lanes (two in each direction) on 35E that didn't exist when we left the Cities. If traffic expands to fill the available space, as it usually does, that probably means the noise level in my old backyard has risen by 3-8dBASPL.

NOTE: You may not be familiar with the usual verbiage used in discussing noise levels. "dBASPL" means deci (1/10) Bells (a measure of acoustic loudness) A (A-weighted to approximate the sensitivity of human hearing to sound at various loudness levels) and SPL (sound pressure level, a necessary addition because decibels are used for a variety of energy measurements from electrical to light to touch and so on). Forgetting the weighting aspect for a moment, the threshold of human hearing is 0dBSPL and the generally accepted threshold of pain is around 120dBSPL. The aspect of this specification I want to point out here is the A-weighting. Our hearing mechanism is fairly insensitive to low and high frequency sounds at low volume. A-weighting is intended to compensate for human hearing nonlinearity for sounds below 55dB (unweighted). So, anytime you see a specification like "90dBA" you should understand the "A" is being abused for some reason. The reason, in the case of sound barriers, is that low frequencies pass through most of the barriers constructed today as if that barrier is insignificant. So, using A-weighting allows the person doing the testing to discount the irritation factor of loud low frequency sounds artificially. Also, most of the loudest vehicle noises are low frequency sounds. The appropriate weighting system to use at the noise levels presented in the Savage Lake neighborhood would be C-weighting, but that would expose the ineffectiveness of the noise barrier and the health hazard residents are exposed to. 

There are lots of technical articles written about noise barriers, but "Building the Wall" probably does as good a job as any at explaining how poorly those structures work for the majority of the neighborhoods they are supposed to help. This classic and simplified description of where that 3dB of noise reduction comes from should be startlingly and discouragingly illustrative of how useless those expensive walls are at any practical distance. Flexible barriers do absorb a little noise energy, but not enough to produce much noise reduction in practical terms. The 6dB justification MNDOT and lobbyists use to justify these installations is purely political and economic. The real argument is "would you rather look at traffic or a wall?" It's not my backyard now, so I can't answer that question. I do know that at least one of our neighbors moved away a year after we left, partially because the noise became intolerable for them.

When we lived in the Cities, we would often visit friends homes or our daughter's home in Minneapolis and enjoy the relative quiet of other parts of the urban environment. Today, even the quietest of those places seems almost intolerably noise to us and, I imagine, our old backyard would be deafening; and I'm not exaggerating. Exposure to noise levels of 85dBSPL and above is a known health hazard. So, while we miss the lake we loved and the neighborhood that was our home, losing almost 30dBCSPL of noise from our backyard was a necessary sacrifice. The reason I decided to add this comment to the long-neglected and nearly-abandoned Savage Lake Blog is that the only reason this human abuse happens is that people believe there is nothing they can do about it. That is not true, but humans/citizens will have to become involved in their local, state, and federal government to fix it. Trump and the Trumpanzees imagine they can turn back the clock to the 1950's and everything will revert to the "good old days." Good luck with that, dummies. Change and the future will happen, regardless of how often Fox News tells you it won't. The country can change for the better or worse, but it will never go back to what we imagined it was 60 years ago.

So Tired of Waiting

Approximately one month after submitting the application to the DNR and we're still waiting for their response. Since that slow-moving, dysfunctional bureaucracy has no actual function, except to burn taxpayers' money, we have no leverage on them. The DNR sat by and watched our lake turn into a mosquito breeding swamp and did everything it could to restrict any actions that might have saved Savage Lake.

Now that the city and lakeshore residents are trying to take that responsibility into their own hands, the DNR is doing what it does best: nothing. With an annual budget of "$835.1 million" you'd think they might be interesting in accomplishing something with that giant outlay. You'd be wrong. In one of his rare moves that I agree with, Pawlenty "unallotted $2.950 million for the biennium"2010-2011 from the DNR's budget. I'd recommend unalotting a whole lot more until the bureaucrats in the DNR realize that they have to earn taxpayers' money. Currently, they obviously feel they deserve that outlay simply because past DNR employees actually worked for a living.

Yeah, I'm disgusted. I was disgusted by the babble I've heard from DNR representatives at every Savage Lake meeting since 2004 and I'm even more disgusted with that collection of inert bureaucrats today. If any state representative or administrator wants my vote, all they have to do is promise to de-fund the DNR and I'm on their side.

June 25, 2008 City Council Meeting

The following is an exerpt from the city council's meeting notes. Obviously, some things are dramatically less detailed than what was presented in the meeting. A couple of things stand out from these meeting notes and past statements lake shore owners have heard:

1) The DNR and the Watershed District do not use science, historical records, or justifiable information in making decisions on issues like lake levels. A "finger in the wind" appears to be sufficient information for their pronouncements. If the DNR is the ultimate arbitrator of the lake level and they are not competent to perform that task, it appears that the city and state is practically daring property owners to challenge their decisions in court.

2) However, the buck is constantly being passed in this regard. The "lake," according to the council and the Watershed District, is not a lake, but a watershed. The DNR passes the buck back to the Watershed District, they pass it back to the DNR, and the city pretends their hands are washed of all responsibility.

3) The city is not aggressively investigating or monitoring lake pollution, if they have to be shown pictures of trash, clippings, and old tires before they decide to act on a citizen's complaint of business pollution in the city's lakes.

4) Claims such as "the Public Works Department’s use of salt and eliminating sand usage, coupled with better sweeping practices would go a long way toward water quality improvements" perfectly describes how little the city administration understands the concept of "water quality."



SAVAGE LAKE MEETING RECAP


McGraw recapped the Savage Lake meeting that was held on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 with residents in the Savage Lake drainage area. He noted that Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District did a very good job of presenting a lot of information. McGraw felt that the biggest issues the neighbors have are the high water mark for Savage Lake, how and when it was set, its impact on the lake, and the water lilies that have taken over the west side of the lake. McGraw indicated that most of the neighbors present want the water level raised and want the water lilies gone.

McGraw reported that Aichinger gave the property owners some encouragement on how to accomplish both through the DNR. Aichinger indicated that if that avenue was not successful, the City’s legislative representatives would need to get involved. McGraw pointed out that the treatment of the water lilies would be at the property owners’ expense. While the DNR has approved some treatment of the water lilies, McGraw felt that more was warranted given that there had never been water lilies on West Savage Lake in the past.

Blesener noted that Aichinger made it clear that Savage Lake is classified as a wetland and not a lake.

McGraw further reported that the Watershed does not test water quality of wetlands. However, they have done testing of Savage Lake and committed to continue to do testing. The result of the testing is that Savage Lake is not polluted.

McGraw reported that the issue of the School District dumping into the wetland system. It was determined that latex field paint was being dumped, which is not hazardous. The School District has been informed to cease this practice or they will be fined.

With regard to water quality, McGraw reported that discussions focused on treatment with the City Engineer recommending that rain water gardens be installed in the Savage Lake drainage area to provide treatment. It would not be possible to put a rain water garden at the end of the culvert that runs directly into the lake near the Day property, however. The City Engineer indicated that he would work with property owners in this drainage area to determine the level of interest in both having the gardens in yards as well as maintenance of the gardens. With regard to the culvert, it may be possible to install a system for collecting trash and debris before it gets into Savage Lake. This would have to be cleaned frequently to prevent blockage and flooding.

The City Administrator indicated that there are still roles that the City can plan relative to concerns about Savage Lake. He noted that the City is trying to get good historical information on the lake level. He pointed out that many people who live on Savage Lake have been there for many years and can provide information. The Administrator also pointed out the Watershed’s willingness to contact the DNR to request a re-evaluation of the ordinary high water mark. The Administrator noted that before an adjustment in that level would be possible, it is likely that a flood study will need to be done to determine if there would be any negative impacts as a result of higher water levels. He pointed out that one property owner on East Savage expressed opposition to having the water level raised. With regard to water lilies, the Watershed has indicated it will assist in working with the DNR on a more extensive eradication plan. The Administrator noted that the Watershed has indicated that property owners can request their Board to provide funding to help defray the costs.

McGraw felt that the property owners had a legitimate argument for the removal of the water lilies from Savage Lake given that at one time there were none on the lake. McGraw felt that if the property owners and the Watershed presented the information in an organized fashion, the argument for total removal of the water lilies would be stronger.

Keis asked about the street sweeping discussion, and asked if the City can justify the cost of a sweeper. The City Administrator felt the issue was not one of economic payback to the City, but rather issues of aesthetics and water quality. He noted that cities typically sweep three times per year. Little Canada has been sweeping only once per year, given timing issues with fall sweepings. The Administrator felt that the purchase of a sweeper should be looked into, noting that the City will get some additional LGA funds that could be used for the purchase. There are additional issues related to operating costs, and the Administrator suggested it may be possible to hire a person part-time to do sweeping. The other issue is what to do with the materials that are swept up. Under the contracting arrangement, the contractor must dispose of this material.

The Administrator felt that the Public Works Department’s use of salt and eliminating sand usage, coupled with better sweeping practices would go a long way toward water quality improvements. Additionally the installation of rain water gardens and collection of trash at catch basins will help the lakes. Further, the Watershed has indicated their assistance with the DNR relative to the Savage Lake water level and water lily eradication.

Montour felt that a lot of good things came out of the neighborhood meeting. He suggested that an action plan be put together so that it is clear who owns which tasks and establishes a timeline for when action items will be addressed. McGraw stated that it is his understanding that a Savage Lake Homeowners Association will be formed, which would take on tasks at hand with the assistance of the Watershed and the City.

The City Administrator indicated that he could put together an action plan, but noted that there will be a lot of variables depending on DNR reaction to raising the ordinary high water mark for Savage Lake as well as additional water lily removal. If the DNR does not support these actions, legislative action will be needed. Montour indicated that having a document outlining the action steps and responsibilities would be helpful.

Elvy Day, Lakeshore Avenue, indicated that it will take the cooperation of all parties working together to move forward on the issues. She thanked the City for any help they would provide.

Blesener pointed out that a lot will depend on the DNR, and it could be that they will not be supportive of raising the ordinary high water level or additional water lily removal. Day pointed out that there are other environmental groups that could be solicited for help.

Rocky Waite, Lakeshore Avenue, appeared before the Council to clarify a few issues from the last meetings. He indicated that when he brought the issue of the School District’s dumping into the storm sewer system, it was not latex field paint that he noticed, but another substance which appeared to be anti-freeze. The City Administrator indicated that the City did contact the School District on the occasions that Mr. Waite reported the dumping, but the substance was not tested. He further reported that the Watershed has contacted the School District to cease this practice, or they will be fined.

With regard to the Gopher Electronics property, Waite showed pictures of existing conditions. He indicated that the original building plans for this site call for a sediment pond, and noted that the pond has not existed for a number of years. The City Administrator reported that the pond was originally put in but has eroded out. He has talked to the property owner and is trying to get voluntary cooperation to clean up and repair this pond.

Waite pointed out that at the May 28th meeting Council Member Montour indicated that Gopher Electronics was not dumping into Savage Lake. Montour indicated that what he said was that Gopher Electronics was not dumping pollutants into the lake.

Waite presented pictures showing discarded old tires on the Gopher Electronics property as well as broken concrete and asphalt near the lake edge. He also showed piles of leaves dumped on this property. Waite contended that these materials would be considered pollutants. Waite indicated that he wanted to show that he did have documentation for the issues that he raised relative to Savage Lake.

Blesener indicated that the City will contact Gopher Electronics and request that they clean up their property.

Waite reported that in researching the ordinary high water level (OHW) for Savage Lake, he found that in 1964 when the freeway went through that level was at 899.5. Blesener pointed out that the OHW is currently at 895.1 as established by the DNR. Allan noted that the flood level is 896, and pointed out that an OHW of 899.1 would flood properties abutting Savage Lake.

Blesener indicated that he was in the back yards of the Freeman and Smith properties, and noted that the lake level is currently 18 inches below the top of the concrete wall in the Smith back yard. The water level is about 3 inches below the top of the weir. Blesener indicated that to raise the water level to 899.1 will put water in people’s basements on East Savage Lake. Blesener indicated that the Watershed discussed with the DNR as to how the OWH is determined, and they indicated that they look at the vegetation around the lake as well as historical water lines. The DNR indicated that it is their opinion that the OHW is within 3 inches of its historical levels.

Waite again indicated that the OHW was 899.1 in 1964. Allan pointed out that different base lines have been used over the years.

Waite referred to 1979 minutes in which Roy Nadeau referred to the high water level for Savage as the highest point in the freeway culvert. He indicated that that elevation is 899.2. Blesener again pointed out that an 899.1 elevation will flood some homes.

Keis stated that he could not prove whether Waite is right or wrong, but indicated that the bottom line is that the City does not determine the ordinary high water line. It is the DNR that makes this determination. Keis suggested that Waite bring his arguments to the DNR.

Waite stated that he wanted the City Council to provide support for this effort. McGraw pointed out that this is a difficult situation given the impact that an 899.1 elevation would have on East Savage Lake properties. McGraw indicated that he has lived in Little Canada since 1971 and reported that he has never seen the yards on East Savage Lake flooded. McGraw pointed out that while property owners may not like it, at some point it has to be accepted that it is the DNR that sets the OHW level.

Waite indicated that he has been researching the City’s records for the 1960’s and believes that it was the City that put in the gate system that managed the Savage Lake level. He noted that he found minutes in which comments were made by the then City Attorney relative to maintaining Savage Lake at its highest level and preventing the lake from becoming a swamp.

Allan pointed out that it will be up to the DNR hydrologist to determine if the 895.4 OHW level is appropriate. She pointed out, however, that an 899.1 level will not be approved as it will flood people’s backyards. Allan noted that there were people at the June 17th neighborhood meeting who oppose an increase in the OHW. Allan pointed out to Mr. Waite that it is apparent in looking at the lake that an increase of a foot will cause flooding.

Waite stated that he realizes an increase to 899.1 will not be approved, but felt that the lake could be raised by 1 ½ to 2 feet. Allan again indicated that the DNR will make the determination, and will likely do a flood study as part of their review. Allan again pointed out the impact to abutting properties.

Waite stated that he did not want to flood anyone out. He suggested another solution may be to cut off the pipe joining East and West Savage. That would allow the level of West Savage to be raised.

Blesener felt increasing the lake level 1 ½ feet will put water in people’s back yards. An increase of 4 feet will put water in basements.

The City Administrator stated that he would put the Savage Lake action plan together, outlining options as well as responsibilities.

5-28-2008 Little Canada City Council Meeting Notes

The following are notes taken by Ms. Kathy Glanzer, the city clerk, at the 5-28-2008 Little Canada City Council Meeting. You can obtain your own copy by emailing her to join the city's emailing list at kathy.glanzer@ci.little-canada.mn.us.

Rocky Waite, Lakeshore Avenue, appeared before the Council to discuss the issues of water level and water quality in Savage Lake. Waite noted that he addressed the Council on these issues in April, and just learned yesterday when he stopped in the City Center to request to be on this evening’s agenda that a meeting with the Watershed has been scheduled for June 17th. Waite indicated that he was hoping for quicker action, and stated that someone could have notified him of the meeting.

Allan indicated that the delay was in getting schedules coordinated and reported that it was just last Friday that the June 17th date was set.

The City Administrator reported that notice of the meeting is being included in the upcoming issue of the City’s newsletter. Mailed notices will be sent out as well. He reported that the Watershed will conduct the meeting, and that the City Engineer and the Public Works Superintendent are gathering information for the meeting.
Waite reported that in April the Public Works Superintendent indicated that the meeting would occur in a week or two.

McGraw indicated that the delay in getting the meeting scheduled was his fault as he asked the Watershed, Council Member Allan, and City Staff to work around his schedule. McGraw stated that he wanted to be a part of this meeting.
Blesener noted that the meeting is scheduled for June 17th and that information for this meeting is being put together by the Watershed, City Engineer, and Public Works Superintendent. He noted that the Council has no information to provide Mr. Waite this evening, and the discussion of water levels and quality will have to wait until June 17th.

Waite pointed out that water going into Savage Lake is not being treated and is polluting the lake. The City Administrator pointed out that when Lakeshore Avenue was improved, there were no water quality standards in place, and the street improvement project was done properly. Part of the information that is being gathered will include options that can be pursued at this time to improve water quality.

Waite pointed out the City’s sump pump program that required property owners to disconnect sump pump systems from their sanitary sewer and divert this water into their yards. He also noted the many many hours that the City is spending trying to get Ryan Industrial Park cleaned up. Waite felt attention was needed in addressing Savage Lake. He pointed out the increase in the amount of lily pads on the lake. Blesener noted that this will be addressed by the Watershed on June 17th.

Waite asked if Gopher Electronics would be allowed to continue dumping into Savage Lake. The City Administrator pointed out that there were no water quality standards in place at the time the Gopher Electronics site was developed. The Administrator noted that part of the study will identify options for improving water quality. When those options are known, the City can ask Gopher Electronics for voluntary compliance. Montour clarified that Gopher Electronics is not dumping into Savage Lake. What Mr. Waite is addressing is storm water run-off from the Gopher Electronics property into the Lake. Montour suggested that Mr. Waite have some proof or documentation before making comments such as this.

Waite asked what happened to the proof that he brought in last year relative to the Roseville Area Middle School. The City Administrator noted the distance from the Middle School to the lake, and pointed out that the Watershed contacted the School about this. The Administrator noted that resolution of the issues will not occur this evening as the Council does not have all the information or answers tonight. The meeting is scheduled for June 17th.

Waite noted the comment that Mayor Blesener made in April relative to his son using the lake some years ago. Blesener noted that that usage occurred 30 to 35 years ago, with his son indicating the shallowness of the lake at that time. Blesener also pointed out that lily pads are not native to Savage Lake but were brought in by boats.

The City Administrator reported that the Watershed will be taking core samples of the lake to determine if lake levels have changed. The City Engineer will also be providing survey and elevation change information. The Administrator noted that this will not be a full blown water quality study, but will identify practical things that can be done to improve water quality. The Administrator indicated that if Mr. Waite has new concerns, that he should identify those so that staff can be prepared to address them on June 17th.

Waite asked about the additional run-off from I35E. The City Administrator reported that it is his understanding that freeway drainage into the lake has been discontinued as part of the freeway project. The Public Works Superintendent is verifying this information.

Waite asked about water quality improvement efforts relative to the St. Jude Project. The City Administrator replied that the St. Jude Project has been required to provide extensive ponding and meet pretreatment standards.

Waite felt that the City should stand up for Savage Lake and do what is right. Blesener pointed out that sometimes it is difficult to make such improvements after the fact simply because there is no room to install treatment ponds, etc. The City Administrator noted that no piping has been added in the last 10 years, and a freeway pipe has been removed. The Administrator also pointed out the ponding improvements for Twin Lake through the freeway system. The Administrator noted that the City is taking whatever steps it can to improve water quality as the opportunities arise. The Administrator indicated that there still may be some things that can be done, and those options will be discussed on June 17th.

Waite noted previous comments made by the City that the DNR sets the high water level. Waite reported that he obtained a document from the DNR indicating that there is no high water level for Savage Lake. Waite reported that there currently is an artificial lake level on Savage. Allan asked for a copy of this document. The City Administrator stated that it is his understanding that the DNR sets the high water mark. Waite commented that in September of 2004 the water elevation was 895.4.

Blesener pointed out that a lot of questions have been raised, and it is hoped that the Watershed and the City will have the answers on June 17th. The Administrator again asked Waite if he had any new issues to raise so that staff can be prepared to provide answers on June 17th. Montour suggested that Waite put his list of questions in writing and submit them to the City Administrator. In that way the proper research can be done prior to June 17th.

Waite stated that he would like to see the lake level up so that Savage looks like a lake again. Otherwise the people living on Savage should be recognized as living on a storm sewer pond and their taxes adjusted accordingly. The Administrator pointed out that the Watershed is doing core sampling of the lake bottom, and the City Engineer has done some testing to determine the depth of the deltas at the inflow pipes. Waite reported that he has called the City Engineer who does not respond to these calls. He also reported that he has looked at maps provided by the City Engineer and the DNR, and the lake levels are not the same. The Administrator asked if the elevations were correlated. Waite pointed out that water depth was easy to compare, it is either a specific depth or it is not.

Blesener again noted the June 17th meeting to be held at the City Center at 7:30 p.m. There will be representatives from the Watershed, two City Council Members, the City Engineer, City Administrator, and Public Works Superintendent present at that meeting. The Administrator stated that notices will be sent out approximately two weeks before the meeting, and a notice has been included in the City’s newsletter. The Administrator stated that he is working with the Watershed to determine what area drains into Savage Lake, and notices will be sent to those property owners within this drainage area.

Waite indicated that he would put together a list of questions prior to the meeting. He indicated that his goal is to make Savage Lake look like a lake rather than a mud hole.

Tom Day, Lakeshore Avenue, suggested that the City take a different approach and obtain information from the people living around the lake to determine what actually has happened. He noted that some people have lived on Savage Lake for the past 30 years and know that lake well. It is those people who should tell the Watershed what is going on.

Allan noted that this is one of the purposes of the meeting. Blesener indicated that he has looked at the outlet three or four times since April, and water has not been running over. Blesener stated that to him the lake appears to be at a normal level, and indicated that he viewed lake levels from the Freeman and Smith properties as well.

Day indicated that they have lived on the lake for the past 11 years and have seen dramatic changes. He also noted that it is not just boats that bring in lily pads, but birds as well. There were some lily pads on the lake 11 years ago, but they increased around the lake. Day indicated that lily pads would not grow if the lake was consistently deeper than four feet.

Blesener stated that the City will have some answers at the June 17th meeting, but pointed out that these answers may not be what Waite and Day want to hear. Blesener also noted that the City has very little control over the water level issue. The Administrator also pointed out that water quality treatment standards have dramatically increased over the last few years.

Getting Started

Savage Lake has received the short shrift from the Little Canada city government and the state of Minnesota for so long that the lake is practically dead and gone. The long history of this body of water deserves more respect and this website is an attempt to begin a process of organizing lake shore property owners to begin the process of restoring the lake to recreational and scenic beauty.