Crystal Lake City Council Fails to Approve Watershed Manual

I’ve got to tell you, when I went into the Crystal Lake City Council chambers Tuesday night, I felt that the watershed manual would be approved before the meeting was over.

It wasn’t.

The consensus of the council sometime between midnight and one was that maintenance, enforcement and how to finance them had to be a part of any ordinance that would be enacted.

Score one for the McHenry County Defenders and others who were activated by recent flooding, which Mayor Aaron Shepley said was a “136 year rain event, based on the mosquito people’s data.”

This is just my opinion, but I think the Defender’s analysis of that manual and McHenry County College’s “Hush, Hush, Hush; Rush, Rush, Rush” zoning petition for a baseball stadium are the reasons that the manual was not approved and probably won’t be until October.

City officials withheld the manual itself from environmentalists and, when released after the filing of a Freedom of Information request, it wasn’t even the manual being considered by the city’s Technical Advisory Committee.

That is but one indication in the city’s and MCC’s lack of transparency that led more than me to believe that a lot is happening that is not on the table.

The Defenders marshaled experts who made technical suggestions, many of which were incorporated in the latest version of the manual that Gary Schaefer’s company, Hey and Associates, has presented.

(As an aside, I think that an essential role that the Defenders have played since spinning off from the Fox Valley Defenders is providing technical advice to folks throughout McHenry County when growth issues have threatened to completely overwhelm common sense. That, plus the all-important lobbying of public officials by members of the Defenders.)

The talking of knowledgeable members of the Defenders with city councilmen and women was certainly evident last night.

In addition to what was said at the public comment section of the city council meeting last night at previous meeting after previous public meeting, Defenders pointed out what became the all-important sticking point:

How would the manual to be enforced?

George Boulet, not a member of the Defenders as far as I know, but a member of the city’s own watershed Technical Advisory Committee, probably put it most succinctly:

“I have no fundamental issues with the technical issues in this manual.

“My problem is how do you get it enforced?”

This most important part of the meeting did not start until 10 PM, 2½ hours after the scheduled staring time of 7:30.

Excuse me if I think its placement on the agenda was to minimize public participation.

I got home at 1 AM. Not many people who are working can afford to lose that much sleep.

First, Schaefer made what is the third presentation I have heard on his two years of work.

I don’t think I will be doing a disservice to summarize that Schaefer said the proposed rules would keep the quality of water in Crystal Lake constant (and it has not deteriorated over the last 30 years), but increase the flow into the lake.

Then there were public comments.

First was Timothy O’Neill, president of a North Shore property owners association with 160-165 homes. He was concerned about flooding, pointing out the city had allowed houses to be built that it should not have. One has cattails 5 feet high in its back yard.

“We really never had that problem until we cut down all the willows and ask that soaked up a lot of water, even in the winter,” he added.

“The more we build in the watershed, it’s going to come down there near the lake. It always has and always will.”

Barbara Day, President of the Defenders, then read a letter that is worth reproducing here, even though it is quite long:

Crystal Lake City Council members should:

1) adopt a moratorium on all development petitions in the Crystal Lake watershed
2) NOT adopt the Crystal Lake Watershed Stormwater Design Manual in its current form

Reasons:
1) the latest draft of the Crystal Lake Watershed Stormwater Design Manual was made public on Friday, Aug. 24. It was discussed at the Technical Advisory Committee on Tues. Aug. 28. While improvements have been made since the Defenders first got a draft at the end of June, the manual is still not adequate as a guide for all future development in the Crystal Lake watershed. It is lacking in the following areas:

—no guidance given for how developments should be designed to limit their footprints
—no requirement that developments provide a complete plan for how the quality of groundwater will be maintained before a variance to allow a greater footprint is granted.
—no requirements that developers demonstrate upfront the effectiveness of planned water quality practices using computer models
—no requirements included on pollutant source control for new developments (control of polluting roadsalts, fertilizers and pesticides are needed.)
—no requirement for stormwater volume reduction for all development categories
—no requirements for monitoring of the quality of stormwater before it is infiltrated into the ground or for groundwater monitoring to detect failures of water quality practices
You can find the manual at www.crystallake

2) The City of Crystal Lake is well aware that the Crystal Lake Park District has requested a moratorium to allow them time to hire and have an independent consultant review the Stormwater Design Manual. If the city council acts now, they will have limited the park district’s input into a decision that affects their responsibilities as steward of Lippold Pond and Crystal Lake.

3) for a document as important to the future of Crystal Lake as the Stormwater Design Manual is, the city should hold a special meeting to receive public input.

4) the recent storms should give everyone pause. The City should take a step back and reassess the assumptions that have gone into the Stormwater Design Manual, namely that more impervious surface in the watershed is fine because combined with engineered stormwater management practices, the city will be able to get more water into the ground, into to the tiles and to the lake. While this seemed like a good idea while the main concern was low lake levels, the recent flooding problems raise serious concerns about what will happen in the future if extensive pavement and rooftops cover the Crystal Lake watershed. Where will that water go?

Linda Gaska, who lives on Nash Road, warned,

“Repair costs once the watershed is compromised probably will be more costly than any revenue that will be obtained from that development.”

She citied how New York City’s drinking water had been contaminated by overdevelopment of its watershed.

Gaska added that she had heard that Lippold Park was at 100% capacity, making it impossible to filter water from the drain tile system the way it should be.

Nancy Williamson, a member of the McHenry County Conservation District board and Crystal Lake resident since 1974 delivered this observation:

”In my years with the city, I don’t think I’ve ever been so disappointed with the opaqueness of this process.

“The college’s plans were first mentioned with no mention of the watershed footprint.

“In the June meeting (6-26) we found out there was a draft manual,” she said, pointing out that when she finally got it—after an additional 7-day delay—it was the October, 2005, draft. She then discovered that the Technical Advisory Committee members were “looking at a completely different manual.”

“Suddenly, in less than a month and a half, we are going to deal with this engineered manual,” Williamson said.

“We are not addressing the lake issues, the watershed issues.

“What is your hurry?

“Who is benefiting?

“Is this going to benefit the citizens of Crystal Lake (or somebody else)?

“This is a pretty good manual, but it’s not a watershed plan.

“Where are the plans for the greenways?

“Where are the open space organizations who should have been called in?

“This whole process has been very strange for a city as sophisticated as Crystal Lake.

“If we use this to open the flood gates, we will be dealing with this (for many years to come.)”

Jane Collins spoke, representing the Alliance for Land, Agriculture and Water—A-LAW for short.

“Where is your organization based,” Shepley interrupted.

“We have a post office box in Woodstock,” Collins replied before she pointed out, “People don’t function well this late at night.”

She asked if the Bauer Report was accurate in saying that Crystal Lake “renews itself every 2½ years.”

Schaefer thought it might be “a little less than that.”

Collins wanted to know whether there was a recharge map.

Schaefer said the topographical map was similar, that a recharge map would be “very expensive.”

Collins pointed out that the State Water Survey and the State Geological Survey could be of assistance and were willing to be involved, as was the McHenry County Soil and Water District.

Schaefer said that the late 1990’s water table map from one of the state survey organization was included in the manual and had been found to be accurate to about a foot.

And, after the public had had its say, that was echoed again and again by member of the city council.

More on that tomorrow.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *