Jack said that people are justifiably concerned about the tree loss around Silver, but he does not see that issue as the real problem.  He believes that people are just not aware of the severe and irreversible consequences of the high nutrient levels caused by the flooding. One environmental purpose of the wetlands that surround the lake is to leech and hold the nutrients from the lake water.  When the high water covered the wetlands, the nutrients stored there were released into the lake water.  Another source of high nutrient levels comes from the high water pulling the nutrients from the banks and yards around the lake. This abnormally high level of nutrients has caused an acceleration of the eutrophication of the lake by hundreds and hundreds of years.  Eutrophication is a term that is used to describe the aging process of a lake.  New lakes are fresh and clean and clear, but older lakes are dirty with a lot of algae and other growth.  The flooding of Silver Lake has caused abnormally high levels of nutrients, which has propelled the age of the lake forward by centuries.  Even when the lake level lowers, the damage from the accelerated eutrophication cannot be reversed. I think the people of the SLA need to know this information.  It makes a very compelling argument to take immediate action to lower the lake level. 

I talked to Jack Nedland of the Parks and Forest Committee this morning. Bill Carothers who owns the site of the plug dam has asked the County for a temporary hold on the dam. M. Ness has threatened to sue for seven acres by adverse possession. Bill has asked his lawyer to write Ness and give him a time limit to sue or not. Jack Nedland said that he hoped to haul in the rock and materials for the dam in maybe six weeks. He said the beaver dam is still holding back about four feet of water from lake Sylvan.

I asked Jack to keep me informed. I will check again in six weeks. I think it is important to get the plug dam built to keep Silver Lake clean. I will mail a copy of this to Ossie.

Engineering Firm?

Bob Filmore

Ozzie reported that he had talked to the county board and was told that we needed to be certain a majority of the lake owners wanted the county to be involved in some sort of a solution to the lake water levels. As a result, a petition is being circulated for all to sign requesting county assistance.

An engineering firm has told Bob that there is a way to drain off water from Silver Lake and has given Bob some of the details that would be necessary. They suggested it may cost about $100,000 to do the actual work but it may also cost about $100,000 to get the proper county and state approvals required. The Engineering firm contact suggested that we work through the county to get them to request bids for the project.

I did spend some time on the phone with Randy Books as suggested at our meeting, and also Jack Nedland. Randy told me that he was moving toward submitting a request by June 1 (although he seemed to be saying "if I can get it done by then"). He was somewhat negative on our expectations that this was in any way a solution to our problem. He re-enforced the fact that it was only a request for funds to build a plan and any plan would take multiple years to implement. I then spoke with Jack N. and he was quite negative about our ability (or need) to solve the lake level problem. I am summarizing his points and mine below: 1. The lake goes up and down and this is just a normal occurrence - it will go back down before we could ever fix the problem......My point to him was the lake has never been this high and real damage is being incurred by his county residents now. 2. Doing anything of the scope we are discussing (exit water to the south or stop input from the north) would take years to accomplish because of the required studies, approvals, etc. - Shell lake has had the problem for 10 years and although they have raised some funds, they still have no approval to do anything......My point to him was we have no assurance that the water will go down - only hope - therefore we need to assume it will not and get going on it. As taxpayers in trouble, we are looking for his support, ideas, advice, not resistance. 3. It is his belief that there is not a lot of water coming in from the north and a study they did last year suggested only a very few gallons per hour were moving in under the bridge. He talked about the beaver bridge not allowing water to pass......My point was any study done last year had to be done after the water had already risen to record level. (I have been on the beaver dam and am suspicious that the beaver dam held any amount of water back) 4. He is not personally interested in doing anything within his budget to help rectify the fact that the park is not usable today by county people. He first said it was not a county responsibility, but later amended that to saying he thought the water would come down and that would be a sufficient fix for the problem......My point to him was that "we are the county" and we want him to be concerned and to help us fix any park problem. I also told him that we pay incredible taxes with little or no services to match. 5. He told me our taxes are fare - based on the value of the property and are primarily used for school funding......My point to him is that most of us purchased the property when value and taxes were 1/5 of today, most will not sell the property and therefore the "value" is meaningless, and most of us have no kids in there school systems. We are not complaining about that, but then when we do ask for help, we do expect some consideration. (The county ought to be treating us as "most favored customers" and when there is an opportunity to assist, they should jump at the chance to help us) 6. He told me the only way to get any help was to present a proposal to the county board and none has yet been presented......My point to him was we did not know what to propose and would love some help in funding a small effort to assess the situation. Maybe the county would increase his budget (because of the park impact) and he could use that money to work with us to build a proposal. I told him that I would expect him to initiate that kind of request. (requesting additional funds to me would be a normal part of his job - protecting county assets) 7. He did tell me that the county is interested in closing the dam that has broken up north - but not for water volume issues, but for water quality issues. I am copying Jack on this note and by so doing, am soliciting his response or corrections if I have not interpreted his position correctly on any of the above. 

Dave, I did find a few statements to comment on, see below: point 3. My point on the beaver dam was that there was very little water flow through the diversion ditch all of last year not just after the lake had reached high levels, but also during the rise. The rise in Silver lakes level should not in any way be attributed to the diversion ditch. Not all of the water which flows into Sliver Lake at the culverts comes from the diversion ditch, there are normal drainages here also.Your assertion that the old beaver dam did not hold water is false. I have photos from last summer showing water being held. point 4. I have no money in my budget for any of the "studies' you are talking about. The way you get money into my budget or any other co. budget is to convince the Barron County Board to place the money there, departments do not create money for expenditures. You are right that you are part of Barron County, But remember that the Silver Lake "community" is only a small part of the county. Your assertion that you pay high taxes has no bearing on the operation of my departments. point 5. I said nothing about weather or not your taxes are fair - I said your taxes are appropriate for your evaluation as determined by assessor.  I do not set taxes and I will not argue as to their fairness. This needs to be done at the Township level.  Good Luck  Jack