What is the status of this pipeline.

Kind of a raw deal for the people on these lakes. It seems to be going very slow (or has it stopped).

Just curious....

2 years ago it passed the north end of ida. thats all i know

http://www.clrsd-mn.org/

Here is the website for the Central Lakes Sanitary District which Miltona and Irene are phase 3 of.

Raw deal???? I own property on one of the lakes affected with this project. We ALL had a chance to vote on it. It passed to do the project. Now some people are saying they don't want it. Of course not everyone voted in favor of it and I suppose some people have changed their minds. Cost to each lake lot varies. However in the long run I feel this is a good thing to do. Some of the sewer systems around the lakes are very poor and would not pass inspection. I heard at (or read) that around lobster lake that 60% of the sewers there would fail. This project would clean up the lakes. Who would not be in favor of that. It does however come with a price tag. Going to be over a 100 bucks for us a month for this project. Others with more expensive houses even more. Times are tough right now so it does impact a lot of people. Taxes have really gone up around the lakes, but so have values. This is going to be just one more large cost of living on the lakes.

Well said Pistol. I hear a lot of people are upset about it but how can you complain about something that will better the world we live in? I'm still paying for the pipeline that was put in around lake Mary. Ya it sucks when you're the one paying for it but in the long run it has to be worth every penny. I guess if someone doesn't approve of it there's not much they can do, other than move away from the lake.

We have a cabin on Ida. I think that the sewer around Ida
was completed 2 or 3 years ago. Given the fact that this will
make a great lake even better I think it a very good thing,
Even if I will be paying for it for a long time.














i think

It doesn't affect me, but I know of people that it affects.

How are you charged? Are you charged according to how many feet of lakeshore you have or how many buildings are on it?

I think it is a raw deal for people that did upgrade their septic system 5 - 10 years ago when the push was on to get it done. Now that money was wasted (in a way).

I also heard it was voted on and "passed", but the price tag has tripled since then. Also, if you didn't vote, you were counted as a "yes".

Rumors to me though. I guess I need more facts.

I am curious for if it comes to my lake where are family has over 2,000 feet of lakeshore...but no homes on the property...what will we be charged??

have a place on irene, will cost 10k upfront which you can get a loan for then about 100 bucks a month for 10 years or so if i remember right. Kind of mixed feelings on it, the cost sucks but the last 2 years around this time the lake gets pretty bad (right now water's green and clarity is about 2 feet) . If i knew the septic were the reasons would be for it 100% but if i spend all that money and it ends up not changing much because the water clarity was more driven off the run off that would suck.

Pistol Pete makes a good point. In the long run it may be a blessing for some individuals (small lots) as upgrades to non-compliant septic systems may have been mandated due to current regulations or mandated via special county regulations. A new system may lead to not having enough area to get a standard system installed on the individual property. Could be a whole mess of headaches.

If a new system has to go in there is a rather large expense with that along with the expense of upkeep (possible pump replacement down the road, pumping of tanks, etc...).

At the in-laws place on Ida they have a lift station to jack the effluent up to mainline. Had the alarm/light going off once (of course it has to be in the middle of the night). Instead of having to figure/change things out, just a simple call in and it's taken care of.

I guess in my mind it's one less thing to have to worry about at the lake when one should be enjoying themselves.

WW

I live on Miltona and have some problems with the sewer project. First, if a property owner's septic is not compliant, why can't the goverment force these people to fix their problem. Instead they are making the majority of people who are compliant to pay for the few who are not. Second. We had a new septic put in 4 years ago. It is located some 50 feet from our well water. We had our well water tested and it is of excellent quaility. So I have a hard time believeing a properly working septic affects lake water quailty. And third. Noncompliant septics are only a small part of the problem. Run-off, mercury, removeall of aquatic vegation, lake shore alteration, and farming practices are only some of the other factors. Right now the estimated cost of the project is over 52 million dollars. That kind of money could go a long way to restore wetlands, buy farm land next to the lake and many other projects that would have a greater affect on water quaility.

And, how does it help when someone who owned hundreds of feet of lakeshore...all undeveloped with trees and natural vegetation...had to sell out and the land is in the process of being developed...because he couldn't afford the upgrade?

It is getting to be that lakeshore is only for the rich...and only for small lots. More tax money for the county, I guess. But, they are destroying our lakes.

The development of natural lakeshore is killing the lakes. Bad septic systems are bad too, but these can be upgraded without affecting all. I believe runoffs from developed lakeshore and the removal of vegatation for docks and swimming areas is much much worse. Also, the removal of trees by the lake so people can "see the lake" causes a lot of errosion and problems.

It seems that people with no homes on the lake, but with lakeshore they like to use for "nature" and hunting are being punished and forced to sell.

It will probably happen to my land someday. I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime, for I couldn't handle it.

People who want to "get away from it all", only to bring it with them but developing nature to fit their needs are the ones killing the lakes.

I am pretty sure that sq ft to sq ft lake home owners are more guilty of run off into the lakes than the farmers.

Hey all, I don't live in the area, but have relation up there and have been vacationing up there for the last 8+ years and hopefully years to come. I work directly with the whole water quality issue with regard to recreational/astetic aspects all the way down to drinkability and we are going through a similar type problem with a lot of the rivers and creeks in our watershed right now. Not to add fuel to the fire, but as Hammer handle and others said, septics are a problem, but fixing those is not the magic bandade unfortunately. Others were right also w/regards to the surrounding land use and its direct affect on the lakes water quality. Lack of filter strip type areas, wether they are wetlands or just permanent grass, to reduce erosion and treat run-off from adjacent fields, farms and farming practices all combine together to be a much bigger contributor to the troubles you're all talking about. But its not just surrounding crop land or whatever, there are changes that can & should be made in regards to lake property/home owners as well -- its not just one thing. That is what we have seen in our area and is a common & growing problem getting attention across the state. Bringing septic systems into compliance should be done, but what pushed me to reply was the 52 million dollar pricetag and the comment that "That kind of money could go a long way to restore wetlands, buy farm land next to the lake and many other projects that would have a greater affect on water quaility." Not that it can be changed, but I would agree.

I'll quit, like I said, I'm not in the area, but have some experience with the issue & love it up there so I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

I know I said I was for it earlier, but I suppose that's because I don't have a say in this matter and I have been paying my portion for quite a while.

You guys do bring up great points. I'd have to agree that run off is one of the biggest problems. Not to completely blame farmers, they seem to catch enough grief the way it is, but it's true. Farmers are responsible for so many issues when it comes to water quality. Watershed groups battle with this all across the state, for ex; spreading manure next to water and tiling wetlands. Obviously this is a generalization and I know there are many good farmers out there that help wildlife more than they hurt it. With that said, a couple years back I was fishing in the spring on a local lake. It had slopped hills that drain into a small creek. I was out on the ice about 300yds from the mouth of the creek and I drilled a few holes to find myself scooping straw from the manure that was washing off the fields as the snow melted. The water looked like a manure pit. I'd like any farmer to tell me this doesn't hurt the lake. Maybe you guys are right, take that money and spend it on research. Which could then be used to help create some laws on fertilizing next to lakes and tiling under wetlands which naturally filter runoff?

I think this a great topic defiantly needs to be talked about more.

That is my point and why I started this conversation....

I fear for my land someday (not farmland, but woods) that will be lost due to a pipeline running through some day....

Why not "force" the people with outdated septic systems to get them updated? They are poluting, right?

Then, take the 52 million and invest it in other options for the lakes. Nature barriers and etc. Make the farm land near the lakes all CRP. As for the lake owners, if they leave a natural barrier on the lake, give them a better tax break. The ones without a natural barrier, charge them more.

As far as the septic tanks of today only last 20 years...I don't believe that.... Maybe the tanks of yesterday...but not the systems today.

There is a meeting on this subject this Saturday. I am interested to go to hear thoughts, although it will not be affected me at this time.