Giant Lake between Omaha/Lincoln

Proposed Development Projects that got Minarded.

Moderators: nebugeater, Coyote, Omaha Cowboy, Brad

icejammer
County Board
Posts: 3595
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby icejammer » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:37 am

It was only a matter of time before we heard about this "minor" problem with the proposal...

A new lake called peril to wellfield

A massive lake proposed along the Platte River near Mahoney State Park would flood wellfields for Lincoln and Omaha, resulting in enormous costs to reconnect those water supplies. The impact could be enough, some say, to scuttle the lake proposal.

"The lake as configured in the (newspaper) is not going to happen," said Tom Wurtz, president of the Metropolitan Utilities District in Omaha.

"You can't say you're going to take one-third of the water supply of Omaha and all of the water supply in Lincoln and say you're going to have economic growth - that's not going to happen."


MUD would lose the $350 million it is investing in a new wellfield and nearby treatment plant, Wurtz said.

The wellfield has been built and the treatment plant is scheduled to begin operating in 2008. The project was designed to meet the Omaha area's water needs for decades to come, accounting for one-third of MUD's total capacity.

Steve Huggenberger, assistant city attorney in Lincoln, said the cost of replacing Lincoln's wellfield and treatment plant, if both were flooded, could reach $1 billion. Virtually all of Lincoln's water comes from the wellfield that would be flooded. A nominal amount comes from another site.


Lake water, Wurtz said, is not a suitable substitute for water from an aquifer.

For one thing, pumping by the cities would affect the lake's level, lessening its attractiveness for recreation, he said.

For another, MUD would be trading a "very pure" water source - the aquifer - for surface water subject to contamination by human activity. Indeed, Wurtz said, reservoirs built for drinking water often restrict human access.


I'm still pegging the chances for this project at about 0.05%.
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan

HskrFanMike
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:40 pm
Contact:

Postby HskrFanMike » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:18 pm

Swift wrote:
HskrFanMike wrote:
Swift wrote:someone should pass out some information to the residents of ashland regarding how much money they would stand to make from the increase in their property values.

:shock: :shock: :shock: How much is underwater property worth these days??? :shock: :shock: :shock:

The other towns are all in favor of it because their property becomes lakefront property. But Ashland loses their property.


They will (most certainly) be compensated to move their homes out of the lake's way. They would have to rebuild their homes and everything, but I'm sure monetarily they would come out ahead.


My expectation is that people will be paid what their property is currently worth, which is based on a rural area. Sure, they may have the opportunity to purchase new property in the "new" Ashland, but the prices will go up because it's now prime lakefront property.

Then, they will be compensated based on the value of their existing buildings, not the replacement cost of those buildings. If you have a 50 year old house, it will cost MUCH more to rebuild than the house is probably worth.

How's Frankie Pane doing these days? The city and their lawyers are only willing to pay him what his building was worth, not what it will cost to rebuild his building.
Blog:  http://huskermike.blogspot.com

adam186
Planning Board
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:29 am
Location: Omaha

Postby adam186 » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:21 pm

HskrFanMike wrote:My expectation is that people will be paid what their property is currently worth, which is based on a rural area. Sure, they may have the opportunity to purchase new property in the "new" Ashland, but the prices will go up because it's now prime lakefront property.

Then, they will be compensated based on the value of their existing buildings, not the replacement cost of those buildings. If you have a 50 year old house, it will cost MUCH more to rebuild than the house is probably worth.


I don't believe that will be the case at all. They're talking about relocating an ENTIRE town. I would like to believe that the state and county will largely fund the redevelopment of the new town and purchase their property they currently own to lessen the burden of Ashland residents. One reason for believing this is because the back lash the state will get if they leave the residents high and dry (pardon the pun) and provide no incentives for the move. I'm sure if Ashland gets paid off well and the residents come off ahead then that will reduce, not eliminate, their negativity.

User avatar
Swift
Planning Board
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: NYC

Postby Swift » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:59 pm

Just curious, but how is it possible to "flood a well field"?

Is it similar to "my stock account made me too much money!"

Or... "my diamond shoes are too tight!"

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:12 pm

This is the kind of project I would LOVE to see happen. It brings to AMAZING sceneries to our area and could create a HUGE tourist base. It could definately generate more revenue that it would cost (as opposed to a tower to the moon that will "put is on the map").

Finn
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1414
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:54 pm
Location: DC

Postby Finn » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:52 pm

Just curious, but how is it possible to "flood a well field"?

Is it similar to "my stock account made me too much money!"

Or... "my diamond shoes are too tight!"


No, it's similar to polluting a natural water course by running the sewage line to it!

The aquifer holds water that has been filtrated through a natural process through layers of soil, sand and rock. Dredging the land closer to the top of the aquifer removes some of the natural filtration layers and contaminates the aquifer. Thus, the purified aquifer is contaminated from the lake water (boat fuel, pesticide runoff, roadway runoff, etc.).

adam186
Planning Board
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:29 am
Location: Omaha

Postby adam186 » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:02 pm

Finn wrote:No, it's similar to polluting a natural water course by running the sewage line to it!

The aquifer holds water that has been filtrated through a natural process through layers of soil, sand and rock. Dredging the land closer to the top of the aquifer removes some of the natural filtration layers and contaminates the aquifer. Thus, the purified aquifer is contaminated from the lake water (boat fuel, pesticide runoff, roadway runoff, etc.).


And that is exactly why they are spending $3 million to study the enviromental effects. For the reasons Finn has pointed would explain why the study is so expensive and the project will cost so much.

I can't argue about the pollution that would come from the lake, but I don't think there will be too much dredging. I believe most, not all, of the lake will be formed by topography mostly. Kind of like a huge natural reveen(sp?).

Finn
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1414
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:54 pm
Location: DC

Postby Finn » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:11 pm

True. But, now that the water will be pooled, it will filtrate directly below the lake rather than slowly filtrating at points all along the water course. Thus, concentrating the polution/runoff.

Calibraskan
Home Owners Association
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Calibraskan » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:07 pm

In most cases, the aquifers being tapped by well fields are at such depth that the recharge from added surface reservoirs do not necessarily 'pollute them'. The river is already there, carrying substantially the same water that would be in the lake. My guess is that effects on the aquifer itself are not as big of a problem as the locations of the infrastructure accessing it.

Comments related to these specific well fields are needed by experts familiar with the hydrology specific to them. This 'Wurtz' from MUD insinuates that the Reservoir would replace the well field as a source of potable water which I'm sure would not be the case. In other words, comments are flying around that do not even appear to be relative to the specific problems the lake may, or may not cause.

Like most others who would not have to be relocated....I say - GO FOR IT!!
Ashland mayor: :evil:
The other million or so out having fun on the lake:
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
All of the potential problems have a solution: MONEY!! But where is it going to come from??

I'd like to see the (relatively puny) Washington County reservoirs being filled up before everyone starts hyperventilating about this one!

redfield
Library Board
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Old Market
Contact:

Postby redfield » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:49 pm

Wow. Between this proposal and all the smaller lakes proposed north of Omaha, we'd become a pretty fun town for people who love water.

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:01 pm

I was talking with a girl at work today who has lived all over the country what she thought about Omaha. She actually liked it but her one complaint was having more water based recreation.

A few years ago when I was talking with a guy that moved here from Chicago and he said he misses having a large body of water. He was talking about Lake Michigan namely. I'm not into that sort of things so I don't know what's out there, but having the largest body of water btwn the Great Lakes and ______(whatever it is out west) would be a great asset to attracting and retaining people. Now can we build some mountains and we'll have it all covered.
Image

eomaha
County Board
Posts: 4273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:29 am
Location: West Omaha

Postby eomaha » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:26 pm

I already miss our boat, which I sold because the rest of the family no longer seemed interested in going out to Manawa/Carter Lake/Branched Oak/etc.

Image

And since, it was just totalled earlier today, I'll mention some of the money from the boat sale went to getting my daughter 'the car' my parents never got me as a teenager. :(

Image

User avatar
OmahaJaysCU
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:00 pm

Postby OmahaJaysCU » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:31 pm

I'm shocked no one posted this yet, but the proposed lake would flood two MAJOR wellfields that supplies a substantial amount of water to the Omaha and Lincoln areas.
"You can't say you're going to take one-third of the water supply of Omaha and all of the water supply in Lincoln and say you're going to have economic growth - that's not going to happen."

Steve Huggenberger, assistant city attorney in Lincoln, said the cost of replacing Lincoln's wellfield and treatment plant, if both were flooded, could reach $1 billion. Virtually all of Lincoln's water comes from the wellfield that would be flooded. A nominal amount comes from another site.

"If the question is 'Could we move?' We could probably move," Huggenberger said. "But I don't know if the state is willing to spend that much money to have us move."


The rest of the article: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1638&u_sid=2103641

eomaha
County Board
Posts: 4273
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:29 am
Location: West Omaha

Postby eomaha » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:38 pm

I wonder where the Platte West water treatment plant that's currently under construction sits in relation to the lake as 'well'. That's a several hundred million dollar project most people are unaware of... looks like of funny with 3 big tower cranes out in the middle of nowhere.

edsas
Human Relations
Posts: 801
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:47 pm
Location: La Vista

Postby edsas » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:25 am

adam186 wrote:Ashland vows to fight lake idea

How many people live their? I'm not saying they're not important or anything, but isn't it under 1,000?


2,500 actually. Much bigger relocation project than those other towns mentioned.

Calibraskan
Home Owners Association
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Calibraskan » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:20 am

Jhuston:

That's a nice little sandy beach you had the boat parked at.....which lake was that?

Calibraskan
Home Owners Association
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Calibraskan » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:58 am

[quote="icejammerI think Mr. Wurtz has a far greater understanding of the problem than any of us here...[/quote]

I'm sure he does.....and I am not questioning whatever expertise he has. According to what I've read so far, the well fields, among MANY other things would have to be relocated. I was just surprised that he was talking about the problems of the lake water itself as replacing the well fields as a source of municipal water, which I don't think is part of the proposed scope of the project.

I agree with other's comments about water recreation in the Omaha area...we could use a lot more. It would be highly utilized and in terms of 'feasible amenities', would serve to keep, and lure, economic growth in the area about as much as anything I can think of. Even some kind of quality man-made beach area of a much smaller scale would be great.

North of Ashland, the Abels have some (relatively) large active sand pits I've been to (clandestinely) with friends for 'a day at the beach'. We would refer to it as 'going to Hawaii' (its more like a mini-Cancun!!)....beautiful sand and crystal clear water. Because the lakes and beach are new and fresh, they are MUCH nicer than Linoma or Lousiville Lakes. I've often thought it would be great if the state or some other entity would acquire this area and turn it into some kind of public beach development. As has been done with many other areas like this, I'm sure its destined to eventually become a housing or cabin development like the nearby 'Thomas Lakes'.

icejammer
County Board
Posts: 3595
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby icejammer » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:09 pm

Calibraskan wrote:I'm sure he does.....and I am not questioning whatever expertise he has. According to what I've read so far, the well fields, among MANY other things would have to be relocated. I was just surprised that he was talking about the problems of the lake water itself as replacing the well fields as a source of municipal water, which I don't think is part of the proposed scope of the project.


Gotcha. While it might not be part of the proposed scope thus far, I think that is more an indication of the "qualifications" of the group putting forth the idea, which does tend to color one's views as to how well thought out this whole plan is.
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan

FatGuy
Home Owners Association
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:03 pm

Postby FatGuy » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:45 pm

The Osage River was flooded to form Lake of the Ozarks.

User avatar
Swift
Planning Board
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: NYC

Postby Swift » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:53 pm

You'd think they could move the darn site so as not to disrupt Ashland.

Finn
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1414
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:54 pm
Location: DC

Postby Finn » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:46 pm

The Osage River was flooded to form Lake of the Ozarks.


True, but there were not two large municipalities drawing water in the area and the Osage does not lie above an aquifer. Different set of circumstances.

MTO
City Council
Posts: 7816
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Postby MTO » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:12 am

Ashland fights lake study bill
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1636&u_sid=2108498

I say build it move the Ashland residents to Omaha and call it Lake Ashland. :twisted:
15-17, 26, 32

adam186
Planning Board
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:29 am
Location: Omaha

Postby adam186 » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:35 am

pkiphd wrote:I say build it move the Ashland residents to Omaha and call it Lake Ashland. :twisted:


Move them to the Wallstreet Tower Omaha. That would be a nice upgrade. :D

User avatar
Swift
Planning Board
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: NYC

Postby Swift » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:57 am

This is so going to get national attention.

loyalomahan
Library Board
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:37 am

Postby loyalomahan » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:15 am

This project will never happen. Not because of the people of Ashland, but because of the well fields which it threatens. Lincoln and MUD have estimated it would cost upwards of $1 BILLION just to relocate these.

Big E
City Council
Posts: 7767
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Postby Big E » Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:18 am

If the people of Ashland wanted to be REALLY smart about this (fat chance), they would allow every study possible in there with some minor concessions by the state. By the time it came close to actually DOING any of this (which I agree has about a .001% chance of happening), there would be an infinite amount of free national publicity and so many little pork belly add-ons to these bills that each one of these residents would have lakefront property to do with as they please, a solid gold house and a solid gold rocket car. Of course, this all might require a little bit of planning, patience and vision... oh wait.

-Big E
"The above statement was not intended to be factual."

icejammer
County Board
Posts: 3595
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby icejammer » Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:46 am

OWH wrote:Luebbe said area residents should not make the mistake of assuming the study will not go through.

"There's a lot of big money behind it, and there (are) some ignorant people that are behind it," he said.

"I am not going to let an Omaha senator or anyone else tell me what's best for my family and my future," he said. The crowd applauded.

"I will not let anybody water-ski over my house," he added. Cheers and laughter roared through the audience.


At least they have a sense of humor....
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:42 am

OWH wrote:"I am not going to let an Omaha senator or anyone else tell me what's best for my family and my future," he said. The crowd applauded.



-Translation: We ignorantly think Omaha is a bunch of big bad power mongers. There is NO possibility that anyone outside of Omaha could possibly support this.

adam186
Planning Board
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:29 am
Location: Omaha

Postby adam186 » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:30 pm

joeglow wrote:
OWH wrote:"I am not going to let an Omaha senator or anyone else tell me what's best for my family and my future," he said. The crowd applauded.



-Translation: We ignorantly think Omaha is a bunch of big bad power mongers. There is NO possibility that anyone outside of Omaha could possibly support this.


That's fine by me. I would rather be a big bad power monger that wants development and money than a small town making a big deal about something that will probably not happen. Here's to OMAHA, THE BIG BAD POWERHOUSEImage.

adam186
Planning Board
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:29 am
Location: Omaha

Postby adam186 » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:34 pm

One more thing, why the heck are the fighting the study and not the actual project? The way I look at it, the study doesn't affect them, but the project itself will. Ahh, that's Ashland for ya :roll: . Feel free to disagree, I promise I won't make it a big deal. I'm chill :lol: .

User avatar
Omaha Cowboy
The Don
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:31 am
Location: West Omaha

Postby Omaha Cowboy » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:35 pm

It must be a slow news day..Even fellow forumers are sparking up the old North Downtown name debate on another thread..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace
Go Cowboys!

adam186
Planning Board
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:29 am
Location: Omaha

Postby adam186 » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:42 pm

Omaha Cowboy wrote:It must be a slow news day..Even fellow forumers are sparking up the old North Downtown name debate on another thread..


Agreed, it's been slow for a little while now. Can't wait till spring until Wallstreet Tower Omaha begins demo on the old UP building and other projects are announced. Should be an interesting summer :wink: .

omahastylee459
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 4:48 pm
Location: Nashua, NH
Contact:

Postby omahastylee459 » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:46 pm

why was the name of this thread changed to "Official"? That makes it sound like it has been approved. What is so official about this project?

adam186
Planning Board
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:29 am
Location: Omaha

Postby adam186 » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:12 pm

I changed it because it's the "OFFICIAL" THREAD for this project.

Makes it easier to search for down the road. Just type in official and you get all the official threads. No duplicates or anything.

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28161
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:16 pm

Makes it easier to search for down the road. Just type in official and you get all the official threads. No duplicates or anything.


I like it when people give their threads normal names, it makes it much easer to search. When people use initials like QC for Qwest Center(example) in the name of their thread, it makes the search harder to search.
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member

omahastylee459
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 4:48 pm
Location: Nashua, NH
Contact:

Postby omahastylee459 » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:23 pm

would this cover two rivers state park? Im not sure if I would be for this lake if it covers the nice forests we have in that area, I dont think the loss of habitat would be worth it.

icejammer
County Board
Posts: 3595
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby icejammer » Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:35 am

It sure looks like the upper end of the lake would cover Two Rivers State Park.
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan

MTO
City Council
Posts: 7816
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Postby MTO » Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:57 pm

That’s the way it goes kill a millions acres to save a few subdivision in a 100 year flood.
15-17, 26, 32

omaproud
Home Owners Association
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:28 am
Location: NORTHWEST OMAHA

Postby omaproud » Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:46 pm

Did you all see ex-King Daub promoting the new lake at the NE legislature today on the t.v. news?

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28161
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:58 pm

Did you all see ex-King Daub promoting the new lake at the NE legislature today on the t.v. news?


King Daup is very foward thinking (convention Center/arena, Marriot, not the hilton, and he was in office during the entire DTO boom. He is right, it will be a excellent thing.

Its too bad the NE "Old Timer" legistlature killed this bill today (bastards)

They showed people from Ashland on the news today, theese people need to wake up and smell the coffee, it would do wonders for your town's groth IN THE LONG RUN.

Nebraska needs another tourist destination and this is our chance, not to mention water for irrigation and "CLEAN" electricity.
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member


Return to “Projects Never Built”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest