Illinois Times has published guest opinion columns opposing construction of a second lake for Springfield. Over the years that the project has been under consideration, IT has published several articles and letters from Reg Davis in support. Here is his commentary on the latest lake proposal.
About 15 years ago I attended a Springfield Chamber of Commerce meeting with a friend and was asked: What would you do to help promote the Hunter Lake project? My answer was simple: Educate people on the issue, because if folks know how much it will benefit Springfield in the future, there is no one that has Springfield’s best interest at heart that could possibly be against it.
This issue has now come farther than it ever has before. A lot of the credit should go to Springfield’s last two mayors and their 12 years of combined support. Besides solving our supplemental water supply problem and giving Springfield enough water to grow and prosper, this project has no equals when it comes to the economic return to Springfield from all the recreational and tourism opportunities it will create, the quality-of-life issues it will bring to our community and the environmental improvement it will make to our area.
The north end of the project (the dam) would be located just about a half mile south and east of the Henson Robinson Zoo on East Lake Drive and wwould border our city limits. The whole 7,983 acres that encompasses the project will in essence be a state park when completed. Springfield already has a 2015 signed agreement with the Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources to manage and help develop it. “This is a great opportunity for the IDNR to get in on the ground floor of a project and develop it the right way,” said IDNR Director Wayne Rosenthal, as quoted in the agreement. Another part states the project would be “ensuring the best use for the area for maximum recreational opportunities.”
One University of Illinois study projects that after Hunter Lake is built there will still be over five times the unmet aquatic recreational (lake) demand in our area. An excerpt from an article in the State Journal-Register about seven years ago also reported that “the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau released the results of a visitor survey. The survey of more than 500 recent and potential visitors to the capital city showed that many tourists think the area lacks recreational and outdoor activities.”
Another U of I study projects that the economic impact to Springfield from just the aquatic aspects of the lake alone will be $7.2 million per year and could be as high as $11.6 million per year. With inflation the numbers would be higher now. Surprisingly, this doesn’t include the economic impact from the outdoor activities that would be created from the 5,000 acres of ground that would surround the lake.
CWLP’s latest estimate of the cost to build the project is $143,242,000. So how long would it take for this project to pay for itself in economic return to Springfield? Going by the numbers above, one would think it could easily pay for itself within 15 years and most likely less.
Building this project would turn over 3,400 acres of cultivated land, hay lands and pastures into tallgrass prairies, forested lands and wetlands. By comparison, the area of the lake is 2,649 acres. “Total annual load reductions from all CWLP best management practices are estimated at 573,432 pounds for total nitrogen, 60,538 pounds for total phosphorus, and 58,621 tons of sediment.” This would be a huge environmental improvement by anyone’s standards.”
Springfield presently has the lowest water rates in the state, and Chatham’s rates are about 4.4 times higher – $14.80 compared to $64.84 for the most common residential customer. Assuming this project would be paid for by a water rate increase, what would it cost the average CWLP residential customer? To calculate it exactly depends on the interest rate and term of the bonds at the time of issuance, but going by the information I have gathered I believe at this time a best estimate is somewhere around a 50% to 60% rate increase, or a $7.40 to $8.88 per month increase. It is hardly an amount that would adversely affect almost anyone. These numbers absolutely show what a superb job the past and present managers and engineers at CWLP have done managing its Water Division.
Congress recently passed a huge infrastructure bill, and every state budget has funds for community infrastructure needs, tourism and economic development. I would be shocked if this project would not qualify to receive some of these funds. Grants could then lower the amount of the water rate increase needed.
Considering what Springfield stands to gain by building the project, and for the relatively miniscule water rate increase it would cost us to pay for it, I will never understand how anyone that has Springfield’s best interest at heart could possibly oppose it.
Reg Davis is a lifelong resident of Springfield. Six generations of his family have and do live here. He is a retired captain from the Springfield Fire Department. Before that he was an engineering technician with the Sangamon County Highway Department and worked on numerous road and bridge construction projects all over Springfield and Sangamon County.
This article appears in Marijuana money mistakes.
Why hasn’t this been done already? Who are the opponents to this project? What is their issue? Are they enemies of Springfield?
As a concerned citizen and former Springfield employee , Mr Davis has always had the best interest of Springfield in the forefront. Hunter Lake will be an asset to this community and the city will have Mr Davis among others to thank.
I mean, we already one lake that we’ve completely neglected and is no longer safe to consume the fish. Why not a 2nd one? We could even make it so only people making over 200k/yr can have access to it. To keep those low income workers, that continue to suffer under the seemingly constant incompetence, from having access to it.
Maybe the prices wouldn’t continue to rise with the amount of pollutants present that need removed?
Well said Reg! You always live in to solution never the problem or negative !
I think the ayes have it. Let’s get busy on this project.
Once again, a shill for CWLP pushing false narratives. First, cost. CWLP told the public it’s $153 million, not $143 million. That leaves out all but $147k/year in operating/maintenance. Despite Davis’s claim that IDNR is picking up the O & M costs for free, there’s no agreement from IDNR to do that, and real costs are about $1 million/year – cheaper than Lake Springfield but 9 times higher than what Davis claims.
The reason it’s cheaper than Lake Springfield is that the only “recreation” included in the actual plans is 75 or so boat trailer/vehicle parking spots, 3 pit toilets, and 2 kayak launches, the latter located south of 2 in-lake dams that will contain toxic levels of phosphorus and nitrates. Real nice, huh?
The operational plans state it will be drawn down 6.5 feet on average every year. Query how many miles of mud flats, and what it does to fish breeding? In dry years, 9-12 feet. In a drought, 20 feet. Really nice, Reg.
CWLP admits the true costs are $258 million, and net present value is $359 million – more than any other water alternative, if any is really needed.
A third of the claimed water “needed” is to supply the ephemeral Pawnee gas plant 12 times the amount of water the private equity capitalists agreed in writing they’d pay for, to run an out of town gas power plant that will compete against Dallman 4, which already struggles to stay operational. On what planet does this make sense? In Reggie’s world, I guess.
There’s 30 percent more water in Lake Springfield than there was when this stupid boondoggle was proposed, plus another 6 million gallons a day that can be accessed today that couldn’t be accessed then, thanks to retirement of the old coal generators. Another 4.8 if Lake Springfield is dredged. Any fool can see there’s no need.
Davis claims it’ll all be practically free because, you see, Biden’s infrastructure bill is going to pay for it. Utter, complete fairy tale, that bit.
You want recreation? We the people own 8000 acres to which CWLP refuses all public access. It’s hard to imagine what kind of recreation could NOT be practiced there: hiking, mountain biking, hunting, ATV riding, dirt bikes, kayaks, horseback riding, etc.
Well researched move foreword stop the debate just prolonging what’s eventually going to happen
Reg Davis is as knowledgeable on this as anyone. He has been a proponent for years and has done extensive research. Should be built now.
Hanrahan, rather than accept Reg Davis statement that he supports Hunter Lake because he believes that it will be a great asset for the community and reap benefits for generations to come, instead impugns his motivations and personally belittles him. Who or what are you shilling for Donald? You are obviously a Hunter Lake antagonist, yet you lament the fact that CWLP does not currently allow public access to the property site acquired for the lake construction. So, you want the public to be able to use the property, but, only as you deem appropriate. Any fool would know that Donald knows what’s best, right? The fact is that we really won’t know if we need the additional water source for a growing community until we do. Although it may be extremely hard to imagine being incorrect concerning the costs and long-term benefits to the community from the project, there are valid, good faith arguments being made in favor of moving forward with it and to pretend otherwise is foolish. As are base personal attacks on those with whom you disagree.
We have known about the Hunter Lake proposed project for 15 years and have listened to both sides of the controversy. We have always come back to the argument that the property in question has not been put to good use by the city. The Hunter Lake project seems to be a compromise in bringing long needed revenue to Springfield, a new clean area for recreation and tourism as well as a wildlife sanctuary area.
We hope that the Springfield public servants will deem this project essential for building the city’s water source and economy. Get to work on that grant money, everyone !!
Anyone can believe anything. But when it comes to facts, proponents never seem to have anything but smoke and mirrors, and repeating discredited past statements. Because somebody “believes” doesn’t make facts go away.
Isn’t it true that a third of the claimed need is for a gas plant that will compete with CWLP? I didn’t make that up. It’s what CWLP told the Army Corps. Isn’t it true that retirement of three old coal plants left almost 30 percent more water in Lake Springfield (9.9 millions gallons a day during the worst drought)? Isn’t it true that because of the plant closures we can take Lake Springfield down another 8 feet, yielding 5.9 million gallons a day in a drought? These are facts.
Recreation facts: their own study says 70 percent of people are happy with water based recreation as is. And of those who want to engage in more water recreation, the primary obstacle is lack of time, not lack of lakes. Look at the design: three boat trailer parking lots, three pit toilets.
There is no documentary proof that IDNR agreed to spend a million dollars a year managing and operating Hunter Lake. They merely agrred to help design the three parking lots, pit toilets, and 2 kayak launches. Go ahead, ask them for proof of the agreement. We did. There isn’t any. Zip.
In short, the facts I state come straight from CWLP, its contractors, and the data and studies given to U.S. Army Corps. Not enough space to describe the awful misrepresentations of fact, omissions, obfuscations, and deceptions advanced by CWLP and its Hunter Dam supporters.
I respect Reggie for all the work he has put into this project. Let’s quit all this going back and forth, to his right or wrong, and get on with the show for all future generations to enjoy a good investment.
Arnie D.
Mr Hanrahan states all these facts but shows no supporting proof. Just saying “ isn’t it true “ does not make it true. As the Springfield and surrounding areas population increases having another water and recreation resource just makes good sense now and for future generations. Isn’t it true?