Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Worthington board reviews watershed plan to re‑meander stream and add off‑channel wetland; DNR says approach lowers safety and maintenance risks
Summary
The Worthington Public School District board reviewed a watershed remediation plan to re‑meander a stream and add an off‑channel wetland on district land west of the intermediate school. Engineers model a removal of about 106 pounds of phosphorus annually (≈11% of modeled inflow); the DNR said a naturalized approach is safer and requires less long‑term maintenance than a dam.
The Worthington Public School District board on April considered a proposed watershed project that would re‑meander an existing grassed waterway on property west of the intermediate school and construct an off‑channel wetland to slow flows and capture sediment.
Joel, the superintendent, introduced the plan and invited watershed and DNR representatives to present details and answer questions. Nathan, representing the watershed district, described a 3:1 side‑slope re‑meandered channel with a roughly 3‑foot‑wide bottom and an off‑channel wetland basin designed to capture silt and phosphorus before water rejoins the downstream channel. "A yearly total inflow of phosphorus on that property was modeled as 995 pounds," Nathan said, and "this current concept design removes 106 pounds of phosphorus modeled," which he characterized as about an 11% reduction compared with earlier designs that modeled roughly 326 pounds of removal.
Tom, a Department of Natural Resources official, said the DNR requires permits for such projects and that agency policy has shifted away from constructing dams in watercourses when naturalized designs can meet goals. "Every time you build a dam, there's always the concern that it could fail at some time, especially here near a school," Tom said, arguing the meander and wetland approach could deliver longer‑term reductions in maintenance and public‑safety risk even if modeled phosphorus removal is smaller than with ponding behind a dam.
Board members asked for details about land take, construction costs and the data behind modeled removal estimates. A board member noted the district already has spent money on prior designs; another member said roughly $303,000 has been spent on designing previous proposals. Nathan and other presenters said the current concept's estimated construction cost (excluding engineering and permitting) is about $324,105. Presenters warned that engineering and permitting costs remain subject to change and that the design will need full engineering before DNR permit approval.
Both watershed staff and the DNR repeatedly emphasized the value of pre‑ and post‑construction water sampling. Tom said accurate loading estimates require a full season of samples across low and high flows and peak events and recommended sampling before and after construction to verify modeled nutrient reductions.
Questions about acreage and easement boundaries focused on whether the new design stayed within a previously approved easement. The watershed representative said the current design would remain within the previously approved easement and likely use less land in production than earlier plans; the board indicated willingness to move forward if the plan remains inside the easement already approved.
The board did not take a formal final vote to fund construction at the meeting; members discussed whether formal approval was required if the easement area remained consistent with prior approvals and asked staff to return with finalized engineering and easement confirmations. The board heard that additional work remains on engineering, permitting and sampling before construction could begin.
