Lake Watery group urges county to back multi‑year algae treatment; outlines costs and partners

At the March 11 Kershaw County Council meeting, representatives of the Lakewatery Association outlined a proposed, multi‑year program to control lyngbia (a filamentous cyanobacteria commonly called Lyngbya) in Lake Watery and described a funding and governance structure that would involve multiple water utilities and regional partners.

Thomas Fort, chairman of Lakewatery Association, said the association has collected water‑quality samples in partnership with the University of South Carolina and volunteers on a “water watch committee.” He told the council the samples give regional regulators higher‑resolution data for modeling and response.

Randy Kelly, chairman of the Lakewatery Association’s water watch committee, described the algae problem in stronger terms. “It’s bad stuff,” Kelly said. “It’s ugly. It’s nasty. It’s potentially toxic, especially to pets if they swim in it and ingest it.” He said the county’s samples showed the presence of lyngbia expanded markedly between a 2021 survey and field work done in 2024, from roughly 19 identified sites in 2021 to dozens of sites found in recent sampling in one area alone.

The presenters said complete eradication of lyngbia is not achievable, but control is possible and less costly if begun early. They outlined a treatment model used on other regional lakes: monthly applications during the warm season (April through September), with field crews using submersed application techniques and survey equipment to apply EPA‑approved, visible algaecides targeted at algae living on the bottom rather than surface mats. The presenters named retired Clemson professor John Rogers as the program administrator the group has asked to oversee prioritization, and identified Aqua Services (an applicator that uses airboats and submersible application) as the planned contractor.

Fort and Kelly compared Lake Watery to other lakes to convey scale and likely cost: Lake Watery was estimated at about 60 acres of lyngbia in 2021; Lake Gaston’s 2022 estimate was about 1,285 acres and that lake’s control program spent roughly $718,000 in 2022 and has since grown toward annual budgets in the mid‑six figures to more than $1 million. Lake Norman recently discovered lyngbia at far fewer sites and spent far less in early years. The presenters said Lake Watery’s program costs would likely fall between the smaller and much larger examples, and they described the effort as a multi‑year commitment rather than a single season.

On governance and finance, the group said the Catawba Water Resources Management Group would serve as financial administrator for contributions and disbursements. They also reported initial, small contributions or support from state and corporate partners: the state fisheries/parks fund (DNR) has allocated $30,000 annually for algae work, and Duke Energy historically contributed small, project‑level amounts (the presenters said Duke offered $5,000 to plans in the basin). The presenters said they had informal interest from nearby municipal water systems and counties and encouraged a collaborative, basin‑wide funding approach.

Council members asked for follow‑up information. Councilman Thomason and others asked about downstream and upstream effects and requested comparative data from Lake Gaston and Lake Norman on outcomes. Fort and Kelly said the group would provide updated survey results and recommended a funding workshop for stakeholders; Brad Busey of the Catawba group offered to organize the workshop and asked staff to coordinate dates and locations.

Vice Chairman Russell Bridal said the lake is “a very important natural resource” and that council would consider the proposal during the budget cycle. No formal appropriation was made at the meeting; council directed staff to receive the proposal materials, circulate the presenters’ slides and data, and help schedule a stakeholder funding workshop.

The presenters emphasized that treatment is safest and most effective when applied early and that costs rise the longer the problem is left unaddressed. They said the chemicals planned for use are EPA‑approved and designed for irrigation, fishing and swimming safety, and that the program would prioritize treatment sites objectively based on ecological criteria rather than property lines or ownership.

The presentation closed with the association offering to coordinate with county staff on next steps and to return with more detailed cost estimates and updated survey maps.