Like most Springfieldians I hear from, I really wish the city would make a decision on Hunter Lake one way or another. My operonal preference is for buolding the the lake. With water becoming an even more valualbe resource and having it as a buffer against drought, I think it makes sense. Having more recreation area also seems like a fine idea. But I’m not entirely vested in that opinion, so feel free to tell my why I should think differntly in comments (as if any of you need promting for that).
2 comments:
It's a good idea. All around the country municipalities are running into problems securing sources of water for their long term needs, and it will become a major - major - issue throughout the west, and eventually the Midwest in coming decades.
Not to build it now, and even to buy up some wells near the river, would be short sighted.
Springfield is what it is because of Lake Springfield.
Most of Hunter Lake will be a mud puddle for most of the year and not much use as a recreation area.
Selling the land to IDNR to create a nature preserve instead of building a lake would finally give Springfield a large hiking ground and recreational area that the city lacks. That will be an asset if the city is serious about attracting new businesses and residents.
Besides, there are very good reasons to believe that the EPA won't approve a permit to build. It would only take proving there's an alternative that's less damaging to the environment, such as the gravel pits.
Check out Austin's water efficiency programs to see how a city can grow dramatically while not increasing it's total water consumption.
Post a Comment