State should pay for Lake Lucille dam, state rep. says

WASILLA — A proposal to replace a failing wooden dam on Lake Lucille is gaining traction with at least one local lawmaker.

State Rep. Wes Keller, a Wasilla resident who represents House District 14, said he supports a compromise that calls for the state to replace the dam and the city to take over responsibility for its maintenance and upkeep.

“It’s a relatively small project in scope and I believe calling it to everyone’s attention is a very good thing to do, because it will cause the different agencies to act,” Keller said. “It’s got to be done. To me, it’s just ridiculous to suggest (not replacing the dam). If I were living on the lake, I’d sure be saying I want this thing done as soon as possible.”

Built by the state Department of Fish and Game more than 40 years ago, the dam raised the level of the lake by about 2 feet, which made it suitable to incubate young fish and as a recreation destination, said James Hasbrouck, Southcentral Region supervisor for Fish and Game. He was in Wasilla Monday to discuss the problem with city council.

Over the decades, the situation with Lake Lucille has changed, Hasbrouck said. With the addition of fish hatcheries, the state no longer needs to maintain a higher level of water for the lake. Because of that and an opinion that Fish and Game doesn’t own the dam, he said his agency is recommending decommissioning the dam entirely and allowing the lake to go back to its normal level.

Now that the Lake Lucille area is much more residential, that option is unacceptable, Wasilla Mayor Verne Rupright has said.

It’s a position shared by Keller. That the city is offering to take the dam off the state’s hands after it’s replaced “makes real good sense to me,” he said. “That seems very reasonable. Local ownership and control certainly seems the best to me. As a resident of Wasilla, my opinion is to get it done, and I’d be surprised if ultimately that isn’t what happens here.”

That compromise sounds good in theory, but isn’t tenable for Fish and Game or the Dam Safety and Construction Unit (DSCU) of the state Department of Natural Resources. Both agencies say they don’t have the responsibility of replacing the dam and dispute owning it. Also, they don’t have the estimated $150,000 to $250,000 it would take to replace the dam, said Charlie Cobb, dam safety engineer for the DSCU.

“It’s probably going to take some sort of legislative action, because it’s going to be some type of budget or capital expense,” he said. “It’s not something that’s routine in a state agency budget, and all our budgets have to be approved by the Legislature. Somebody has to ask the Legislature for it.”

That someone seems to be the city of Wasilla, which has asked state lawmakers on at least three occasions over the recent past for money to deal with the dam, said Archie Giddings, the city’s public works director.

In 2008, the city asked for $200,000, and was denied. A $300,000 request in 2009 was also nixed. In 2010, the city went to the Legislature with a $1 million request that included money to replace the dam, for weed control and water quality improvement. Of that request, $125,000 for water quality was granted, Giddings said. That money is slated for a pilot project to redevelop some springs on the east end of the lake that are filling in with mud.

Since the dire situation of the dam was made public last week, Fish and Game has installed some gabion structures downstream from the dam to mitigate flooding in case the dam partially or totally fails before a permanent solution can be put in place. The city also is working to bring residents of the area together to inform them of the situation and gather input on what they may want done.

“We’re trying to organize a meeting specifically for the lake residents,” Giddings said. “There needs to be a follow-up meeting with them so we can get some more input.”

A time or location for that meeting hasn’t been set. As to the argument the state agencies have made that they shouldn’t replace the dam, Giddings disagrees.

“Absolutely it’s a state facility,” he said. “We think someone can find the money somewhere in the state budget.”

That’s an opinion shared by Rep. Keller.

“I will totally support the state paying for the dam,” he said. “It’s just common sense. If they put it in the first time, they should put it in again.”

Contact Greg Johnson at greg.johnson@frontiersman.com or 352-2269.