Battle lines are being drawn over a proposed ‘augmentation well? for Waumegah Lake, with both sides preparing for a Jan. 6, 2004 public hearing.
The lake which straddles the Springfield-Independence township border, has been a topic of debate ? and legal action ? since 1996, when a retention dam failed.
Since then, a number of lake owners have attempted to see the lake level restored. In the meantime, others believe the proposed augmentation well will threaten groundwater throughout the area for the benefit of only a few.
Springfield and Independence township officials have been barraged with protests in recent weeks, but note the issue is currently in the purview of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which will conduct the Jan. 6 hearing at 7 p.m. at the Springfield Township Civic Center.
In addition to signed letters of protest, anonymous flyers and at least one magazine article of unknown origin have been circulated to generate opposition to the plan offered by the Waumegah Lake Board.
‘There’s a small handful of people trying to agitate other people,? according to Louis Kirby, secretary of the lake board. ‘I think we’ve been prudent in how we’ve managed the process.?
Kirby said his group has ‘clear evidence? that the lake level was between 1,051 and 1,052 feet before the failure of the dam in 1996. Loss of existing water and lack of rainfall in recent years has led to a lowering of the level by more than three feet. A new dam in 1998 was not sufficient.
‘The lake just can’t regenerate itself fast enough,? Kirby said, and lakefront property owners have been denied full use of the lake. ‘By the end of July, you have to take your boat off of the lake or it will be stuck in the lake.?
Because of new construction, a 1997 court order established a ‘legal level? of 1,049.9 feet, and the lake board is proposing more berm work and the augmentation well to help reach that level.
Protesters say at least 128.9 million gallons of groundwater will be required to reach that goal, with at least 58.2 million additional gallons to offset seasonal variations.
‘Urgent. Your residential well may go dry,? reads one of the anonymous flyers.
‘If this augmentation well will affect the water table or my well water, I’m against one being installed in our area,? wrote Denise Mattuci to the Springfield Township Board.
‘The proposed well would be huge and would exploit the natural resources of hundreds of our neighbors to benefit a few lakefront property owners,? wrote Julianne Sweeney. ‘It would also upset the natural ecosystems and wildlife of the surrounding area.?
‘If we get a lot of rain, the lake is full. If we have a drought, it isn’t,? wrote Mary E. Torres. ‘Them’s the breaks. [Waumegah Lake property owners] should have checked out what kind of lake it was before they paid big bucks for the land.?
The fact that many of the letters quote the same statistics is evidence of a small group of naysayers who don’t understand all the facts, according to Mike Trout, president of the Waumegah Lakefront Property Owners Association.
‘We don’t want to do anything that will harm the environment,? Trout said. ‘We want to make the lake so everyone can enjoy it. We just want something that is fairly consistent.?
Admitting that it is a man-made lake, Trout and others contest the claim that Waumegah has never been much of a lake.
‘The maximum level has been established by a court that has looked at both sides,? Trout said.
‘We have every bit of evidence to back up what we say,? said Dr. Paul Haduck, president of the Waumegah Lake Board.
Kirby has compiled much of that evidence, including the history of other augmentation wells in Oakland County, including three on White Lake, one of which pumps 1,200 gallons a minute. The proposed well at Waumegah Lake would pump only 800 to 900 gallons a minute.
Further, the augmentation well would be drilled into a different layer of the aquifer, Kirby said, and test wells would have to determine that it will not have an impact on existing wells.
‘If there is significant movement [of levels] in the aquifer, they can’t use that aquifer,? he said, noting that he also depends on a well for his water. ‘If anyone’s going to be nervous about a well going dry, it’s going to be me.?
The protests aren’t coming just from individual residents. A letter from Heather Van Den Berg, education director of the Clinton River Watershed Council, urges the involved parties to seek a compromise.
‘A deep well augmentation is a temporary solution to low lake levels,? the letter said, also protesting plans to remove natural vegetation in the area.