Residents press county and state agencies over Mud Lake control-structure permits and costs

At a joint commissioners and drainage-board meeting, state and county staff described the status of permits and engineering for a proposed permanent control structure at Mud Lake while residents urged quicker action and raised questions about cost and liability.

Lydia Gibson, the project file manager with the state review team, said the permit files ("33627" and "DR593") are currently with fish-and-wildlife, hydraulic/hydrology and geotechnical reviewers and that those reviews "typically have about 30 days" to complete and may issue deficiency notices that pause the review clock. "A DNR permit is active for two years and can be renewed," Gibson added when residents asked about permit validity.

Engineers described the plan as a sheet-pile weir-type control structure. Seth Farmer, an engineer with the state division of water, said the design includes sheet piling driven into the ground with a cutout to allow fish passage during flood events while holding the lake nearer its historic elevation. Staff noted plan elevations shown in the sheets — one reviewer referenced "853.4" and the engineer mentioned an "850 max" value — and said they would verify current water elevations in the field.

County project staff told residents that IDEM has already issued a permit and that the Army Corps of Engineers had returned comments that county contractors addressed on March 9; Joe Abkowski of county environmental services said Corps response times are typically "about 30 to 45 days." Lydia Gibson said the state review could take up to 90 days in total and that the file was roughly 55 days into the process at the time of the meeting.

Landowners pushed back on the need for an extensive engineering approach. David Hackworth, a long-time resident, questioned the expense and said, "We're already going over $100,000" in engineering and worried the county could spend "a quarter million dollars on this thing." Hackworth argued the lake had historically held water and that re-filling the ditch would be a less expensive fix.

Larry Hunter, who identified himself as a primary landowner around the ditch, told officials the lake's elevation had historically been dictated by a beaver dam and that cleaning the ditch caused the lake level to drop. "When that happened, the county came back in and saw the temporary dam," Hunter said. He warned that leaving a temporary earthen dam in place could continue to flood adjacent property and urged the county and agencies to act, offering access and soil for repairs.

State staff and engineers countered that temporary earthen fixes are not a long-term solution. "We would not allow a temporary measure as a permanent fix," Christy Stanifer, who said she had been involved since the violation stage, explained. Engineers and DNR reviewers said placing muck or previously removed material back into the channel changes its composition and would not meet required standards for a durable control structure.

Residents also raised questions about liability for the deeper-than-allowed digging that preceded the current condition. One resident asked, "Did the county tell him to dig it that deep? If not, then it should fall back on the excavator's insurance." County staff said they had contacted the county insurer, which had declined coverage for the event, and that pursuing the excavator's insurance or other legal remedies remained an open question.

County accounting staff reported outstanding invoices: Luke Johnson said he saw five invoices outstanding totaling about $31,000 on what participants elsewhere in the meeting referenced as an approximately $108,000 contract. Officials said remaining engineering billing would be separate from future construction material and labor costs, which had not been estimated at the meeting.

No formal decision or construction contract was approved. Commissioners said they called the meeting to get answers and agreed to pause further payments until they receive clearer information from reviewers and engineers. "We're not writing any more checks until we get some answers," a county speaker said during the meeting.

Next steps from the meeting: Lydia Gibson said she would follow up with the geotechnical and engineering reviewers and touch base with the assigned engineers; county staff said they had submitted responses to the Army Corps and were awaiting the Corps' reply. The meeting ended without a construction contract being awarded; a motion to adjourn carried by voice vote.

The county, DNR and other agencies scheduled to complete or continue reviews; residents asked to be notified when permit decisions or site visits are scheduled.