Letter to the Editor - Anderson: Wetland enhancement is not a wise plan
Like many a situation, one needs to really begin at the beginning. What did the public really hear at the meeting on the “Plan to enhance wetlands area on Brandon’s eastside?”
The particular wetland is approximately two miles in length we were informed. The original purpose of any drainage or wetland is to handle run-off from a watershed, in this case, the Brandon Town Watershed. The land developers approached the county and Brandon Town Council about permission to build houses on land the developer purchased next to the town’s city limits. The council approved the building project, and immediately changed the use and tax codes so a portion of the property tax would then go the town rather than the county. The damage to the existing watershed may or may not have been part of the negotiation with the developer (as) many issues are.
Did the real estate broker inform you of the Brandon drainage and flood control programs and how that would affect your new property? This watershed drainage is now an important issue and was discussed at the public meeting recently held at the golf course.
It appears the Brandon Town Council has a watershed water/flooding problem at the Brandon eastside wetland. The real estate developer is no longer legally liable once the property was sold. The title of the designated wetland property is the town of Brandon.
At this time, there are several Brandon property owners who border the wetland. These owners have to absorb all the excess water that comes off this altered watershed when the flood water approaches from the wetland up to their property’s east side.
The statement was made that the Corps of Engineers can correct all the excess water/flooding problems with the IMEG “enhanced wetland” plan. Those with farming background are familiar with the USDA (Department of Agriculture) and its relations with farmers and designated wetlands. The previous farmer owner of this wetland understood that he was to maintain the wetland as a natural occurring part of his property and to use its natural function for handling runoff from the cropland “the watershed.” Failure to do so would cause USDA to proclaim this farm site and crop acres as out of compliance.
The Corps of Engineers, as expressed by Karrie Johnson, of IMEG, has jurisdiction of “navigable water” of the U.S.A. When has anyone seen a barge in this wetland in to pick up grain crops at a local grain elevator? This wetland is an intermittent stream, at best, at the wettest periods in a year.
Who does have the proper interpretation of the wetland, the USDA or the Corps of Engineers? Would we like to see these two “deep state” federal behemoths explain how either of them will relinquish authority over wetland? Wetland jurisdiction is tax dollar work plans and jobs income for USDA and the Corps of Engineers. There was no representative of the Corps of Engineers present at the meeting to inform the public of how they would interact with IMEG on a proposed enhanced wetland plan.
I’m sorry, Mr. Savage, but your comment in the Journal on my being satisfied with what I heard from Karrie Johnson is not correct. I spoke to Tim and AJ of the Development Foundation. These two fellows actually listened to me and understood my recommendations for the future development of the wetland. I also heard them out as to why the Development Foundation is involved. They were two of the most open-minded persons I spoke with.
The Development Foundation has a great deal of money to spend. The Town Council is faced with decisions and problems that may well arise with its approval of the housing projects that damaged the original natural watershed and now must be handled by the Brandon wetland. I’d estimate that the streets, sidewalks, driveways and house roofs cover 50 percent of the original watershed acreage. Those solid surfaces make the water move very rapidly, does it not? The Town Council approved the building permits that damaged the natural watershed but needs the Foundation’s $2 million-plus to cover up, or is it mitigate, its damages with OPM (other people’s money).
Caution to the Development Foundation: Be careful on what financial and outcome responsibilities may befall the Foundation for financing the proposed Brandon Enhanced Wetland Plan. Your willingness to pay for this wetland project may legally implicate the Foundation in the future, even though it has good intentions.
The Town Council has to be considering the Foundation as the Brandon Wetland bailout. Those who received the invitation to attend the Foundation plans meeting will recall the “no cost to you” listed in it. Now we know how that phrase came about.
… On my arrival I presented Ms. Johnson a list of questions I would like to have her answer. … She took the page, without reading, and threw it on the end of her table and proceeded to explain how important she is being a certified environmentalist and a graduate of the University of Wisconsin.
Mr. Savage, did you hear her address any of those questions on that paper? The page of questions I gave to Ms. Johnson requested that the answers be sent to the Journal. Did you receive them Mr. Savage? Tim of the Foundation thought there was confusion. Yes, Tim, there was confusion. Tim, AJ and the Town Council, what you witnessed is a “sales job” by Ms. Johnson for IMEG and the Corps of Engineers for a “make me work” plan for them. This seems like easy pickings when the Foundation will pay all the bills.
Ms. Johnson was not in Brandon because she “cares” about the property owners or the Town Council. The Corps of Engineers nor IMEG produce anything tangible; they are service outfits. These outfits need OPM to function. When the Foundation – or whoever contacted IMEG – presented the “easy-pay” process the Foundation had, the lightbulb went on in Ms. Johnson’s head. Big job and easy money from a bunch of naïve city dwellers. Be assured, Brandon property owners, that mid-American folks like us are more familiar or as familiar with the great outdoors or environment as Ms. Johnson. To make a “sale” is the purpose of the meeting. As I would perceive it, IMEG and the Corps of Engineers are to be considered a “cut above” the property owners of Brandon and the Town Council. Their words and plans are to be accepted as fact, so Brandon, all you folks need to do is pay up and comply.
I reiterate, I think this a sales job looking for an easy victim to reward their wallets with. Does the Town Council actually expect the Corps of Engineers or IMEG to come to Brandon’s rescue on legal problems in the future? The Town and the Foundation will sign off on this project absolving both IMEG and the Corps of Engineers of any further legal responsibility. The IMEG plan is a plan for Brandon money to leave Brandon, not what the Foundation wants, I assume.
My recommendation to Tim and AJ of the Foundation was to contact SD Forest Service and they would assist the Foundation with a good selection of hardwood trees to plant on the up-land away from the wetland zones. This then would develop into a hardwood forest in due time. If you like a variety of wild birds and animals, plant hardwoods. Ash, oak, aspen, maple, basswood, hackberry and others. Your tax dollars are already invested in the SD Forest Service. This organization will assist Brandon in enhancing the wetland and will not be offering to dig more holes in an existing wetland and calling it an “enhancement.”
Trees on the upland will beautify the area and provide a mix of grass, sedge and hardwood trees. All of these would go a long way to reducing erosion and use the excess water from seasonal runoff, exactly what this wetland can perform. Treat this wetland as it was intended, runoff control, not elimination, beautifying the wetland would be a side benefit.
A talk of a trail was mentioned at the Foundation meeting. Some of the discussion was on how wide and how long would this trail be and how close to the backyard of resident houses. Regulations then entered the conversation; that is what we need, more regulations. All plans are fine as long as it is some other property owners’ problem. There are many homeowners whose property bound the wetland. Mayor and Council, you have a big problem if these owners’ problems are not addressed and cured.
I think this wetland walk about would not be used by the public as much as one may imagine. If the local public went for a walk here more than twice a year, that would be good use.
Some farm property owners were present that live on the south side of Aspen Road and receive a high volume of runoff water from the Brandon wetland. Their concerns were similar to the Brandon property owners whose property bounds the wetland. How much of Brandon’s excess runoff must I contend with? My thought is the Town Council and the Development Foundation be prepared to expend mitigation funds for those farmers as well. Will the Council or the Foundation inform IMEG and the Corps of Engineers that they are to serve these federal taxpayers also, particularly the Corps of Engineers? How far south of Aspen Road does this argument go?
Perry Anderson
Brandon
