Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nature Park Quarry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auburn council debates fixes for Nature Park quarry; staff advise extension consult
Summary
Council discussed a decade-long water-quality problem at Nature Park’s quarry, weighing low-cost remedies (dye, grass carp), targeted herbicides, hiring a mitigation firm, or converting the site; no formal action was taken and staff were asked to contact ISU Extension for recommendations and cost estimates.
At its first August meeting, the Auburn City Council devoted an extended discussion to long-standing water-quality and vegetation problems at Nature Park’s quarry, a man-made pond that staff and residents say has deteriorated in recent years.
City staff summarized the history of interventions — solar-powered aerators, introduced biological organisms and occasional fish stocking by the state — and said the city has spent “close to 100 grand in the last 10 years” on the site. Staff emphasized the pond has no natural spring or steady inflow, which complicates remediation and limits what treatments will achieve.
The discussion laid out several specific, practical options. Staff identified dyeing the pond and adding grass carp as relatively low-cost approaches (staff estimated dyeing and grass carp together “probably less than $5,000”); they noted dye gives the water an artificial tint and would require repeat applications. Staff also said targeted, environmentally friendly herbicides are available but would likely be a last resort because of impacts on wildlife and would require recurring treatments.
Hiring a professional mitigation firm was presented as a more comprehensive option — firms could dredge or otherwise remove decaying material — but staff warned that state agencies (DNR) limit certain activities and that contractors and permitting would add cost. Several councilors suggested consulting ISU Extension for a technical assessment and community education options; council members agreed the extension service could recommend feasible treatments and potential costs.
Residents’ use and values were central to the debate. One councilor noted the quarry “doesn’t generate any revenue,” raising tradeoffs with other parks priorities such as bathrooms and drinking fountains at busier sites. Other speakers emphasized the site’s value as a nearby natural feature where children once fished and people walked, and urged the city to explore low-cost, visible improvements first.
No vote or formal commitment to a remediation contract was taken. Councilors asked staff to contact ISU Extension for an expert recommendation, to collect cost estimates for specific options (dye application, grass carp, contractor dredging), and to return with that information before prioritizing spending against other parks needs.
