Residents in path of proposed lakes seeking answers

Resident: ‘I know how to farm; I don’t how to run a bait shop.’

By Wally Kennedy

wkennedy@joplinglobe.com

ASBURY, Mo. — Maps started circulating a month or so ago among those who live along Little North Fork Creek.

They depict what will happen if a dam is constructed north of the Medoc community to create a reservoir that would extend from Jasper County into Barton County.

“It has been the big buzz around here lately,” said Brant Barley, whose family has farmed along the creek since 1904. “This would be a pretty big deal for us. Some people are negative toward it, but you can’t stop progress. I’m sure Joplin will grow and need more water in the future.

“If they compensate us for the value of the land, it would be OK. But it’s more than just the value of the land. This is how we make our living. How will be compensated for that?”

Construction of a dam to create a reservoir could be decades away — if ever. Design work, land acquisition, environmental-impact statements ... all must be done before a shovel is turned. There’s the prospect of eminent domain for those who will not sell their land, and there’s the issue of cost and who would pay for it. Federal sponsorship in the form of an earmark to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required.

Barley and members of his family say residents of the area realize time is on their side, but they also know that ideas can become reality.

“They said the Truman Reservoir would never happen. Well, it did happen,’’ Barley said.

The Barleys joke about the notion that their farm may some day be lakefront property. After looking at a map of the proposed reservoir, Brant’s brother, Jon, said: “I’m going to put up a ‘No Fishin’ sign tomorrow.’’

Brant added, “I know how to farm. I don’t know how to run a bait shop, but I guess I could learn.’’

The brothers recently used the farm’s global-positioning system (GPS) to pinpoint exactly where the lake might be in relation to the farmhouse. If the larger of the proposed dams is built, it would flood 15,800 acres and their farmhouse would be underwater. If a smaller dam is built, it would flood 7,400 acres and their farmhouse would offer a view of the lake.

Their neighbor, Jeff Brooks, who has built a new house not far from the creek, wants to know more.

“I mailed the map to seven or eight of my neighbors,’’ he said. “We know something is going on, but we don’t know that much about it. I know that I really don’t want a lake on top of my new house.’’

Brooks obtained a copy of the reservoir map from the Web site maintained by the Tri-State Water Resources Coalition, at tri-statewater.org. The coalition, a collection of governmental and corporate entities, formed in 2003 after a water study commissioned by Missouri-American Water Co. indicated that the area could face an uncertain water future, especially during periods of extreme drought. Missouri-American provides drinking water to Joplin residents.

Site No. 1

A reservoir on Little North Fork Creek is Site 1 of 11 sites identified in a study released this summer by an engineering firm retained by the coalition. The study’s objective was to find suitable places where reservoirs might be built in Southwest Missouri to meet water demand for 2050. The study broke the region into two areas.

The eastern side, which includes Greene, Barry and Lawrence counties, needs an additional 70 million gallons of water per day by 2050, according to the coalition. The western side, which includes Barton, Jasper, Newton and McDonald counties in Missouri, Crawford and Cherokee counties in Kansas, and Ottawa County in Oklahoma, would need an additional 54 million gallons per day by 2050.

Two sites — one on Shoal Creek upstream from Neosho and another on a tributary to the James River near Springfield — were initially identified by the coalition as preferred reservoir sites. Still, coalition members backed away from the new reservoir alternative. Instead, they said they would prefer to get water from an existing lake, such as Table Rock or Stockton in Missouri, or Grand Lake in Oklahoma, rather than build a costly new reservoir that would displace people and consume productive land.

Watershed

That idea was favored until the Missouri Department of Natural Resources indicated it would not support that approach, even though abundant water is available from Table Rock. The DNR opposes the transfer of water from one watershed to another. Much of Southwest Missouri is in the Spring River or Elk River watersheds; Table Rock is in the White River watershed.

The DNR opposes the transfer because of a battle being fought over water outside of Missouri. The state opposes a plan that would transfer water from the Missouri River basin to the Red River basin to provide more water for farming in eastern North Dakota and three cities in Minnesota.

The state’s position was spelled out in an Oct. 20 letter from Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon to Ken Salazar, U.S. secretary of the interior. Nixon said the proposal “would set a dangerous precedent for inter-basin water transfers’’ that would cause substantial changes to the Missouri River downstream. Nixon warned Salazar that Missouri would take legal steps to prevent the diversion.

Bob Nichols, a Webb City resident who chairs the coalition, said the state of Missouri can’t effectively argue against the transfer of water there if it permits the transfer from one watershed to another within its own boundaries.

“The DNR opposes moving water from one watershed to another. On the western side, there is no other existing reservoir available to us other than Grand Lake. We can’t get Oklahoma to talk to us about letting us have water. Local citizens there have told us that politically, it will never happen,’’ he said.

The coalition plans to meet with water officials within the DNR on Dec. 21 at Jefferson City. Nichols said he hopes the meeting will spell out the state’s position.

The construction of a reservoir in Southwest Missouri, which had been discounted, was put back on the table as an option after coalition meetings in October and November. After a meeting with officials from Lamar and Pittsburg, Kan., the coalition decided to take a closer look at Sites 1 and 2, which are nearby on Duval Creek. A contract is being negotiated with the engineering firm to provide more information about costs for those sites.

Lynn Calton, city manager at Lamar, said, “We wanted additional studies for those two reservoirs because we want to know what it’s going to cost. We want to know whether it would be cheaper for us to go ahead with a reservoir or do something different.’’

Nichols said Site 1 or 2 could provide supplemental water to Lamar, Pittsburg, Kan., and to a rural water district in Barton County. It also could provide water to Joplin and Carthage. Both sites are in the Spring River watershed.

Duval Creek

Site 2 would result in a dam on Duval Creek that would flood 3,800 acres. It is just to the east of Site 1 and also straddles the Jasper-Barton county line. The village of Cossville, which has about 15 houses, would be flooded. Jerry Oertle, the mayor of Cossville, said, “If they give me enough, I’ll move.’’

Pete Rauch, water superintendent at Monett and head of the coalition’s technical committee, said: “When the wheels came off the Grand Lake notion, we had to look at the other options. We’re looking at Sites 1 and 2, but nothing is imminent. We’re looking for water now for future generations.

“We’re still in the homework stage to make the best decision. We’re looking at as many options as we can to make the decision. We’ll come up with two or three options given all conditions, and we’ll have fallbacks in case those do not work,’’ he said.

At the same time, another coalition committee, chaired by Gary Gipson, with City Utilities in Springfield, is developing a strategic plan that will help make one of the preferred options a reality.

Rauch said, “Technically, we can make this happen. It’s the political side that will be the challenge.’’

Said Nichols: “We’re at a crossroads. We’ve got to either fish or cut bait. We have got to do something.’’

Text Only