ANDERSON — Sheryl Myers says a Ball State University peer review of the Mounds Lake Reservoir Phase II feasibility study only confirms what she's thought since the project was unveiled two years ago: It is ill-conceived and would be costly and environmentally damaging.
A Ball State professor, however, cautioned that such peer reviews are designed to be critical to ensure that important questions are addressed. He stressed that the peer review doesn't necessarily suggest that the project be abandoned.
But Myers, of the Heart of the River group, hopes the university's independent review will help sink the project before work proceeds on a far more costly Phase III study that would include design elements, technical reviews and a full environmental impact study.
"It will be a monumental waste of time and energy," she said. "A project of this sort should be a problem in search of a solution. This is a solution in search of a problem."
She was alluding to several studies that argue a new reservoir isn't needed to meet metropolitan Indianapolis' water needs. Moreover, Citizens Energy, the region's largest water utility, has not publicly endorsed the project.
Fourteen Ball State University professors, representing anthropology, archaeology, biology, economics and urban planning, examined separate aspects of the proposal and found plenty to criticize in their review released last month.
The review team concluded that environmental, cultural and economic elements covered in the CED study "represent significant gaps in data analysis regarding the Mounds Reservoir proposal."
"We believe that neither the rigor of the methods of evaluation nor the detail of the information presented in both the Phase I and Phase II studies are sufficient for the public to evaluate the degree of adverse effects or the financial feasibility of this proposal," according to an executive summary of the peer review.
Michael Hicks, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State, said the peer review is not intended to provide ammunition for opponents or to offer opinions about whether the reservoir should be built.
Such reviews seem harsh because "the goal is to identify what's wrong with a study, not what's right with it," he said.
The proposed $450 million reservoir project would stretch seven miles from Anderson to Yorktown and create a 2,100-acre lake. It is being promoted by the Corporation for Economic Development of Anderson and Madison County.
"Without a doubt, there are questions that need to be answered," said Rob Sparks, executive director of CED. Those issues will addressed in the next phase, he said.
So far, $750,000 has been spent advancing the project, including the Phase II study. "If money was no object, we would have had considerably more detail," Sparks said.
The next step would be formation of a Mounds Lake Commission. Selected elected officials from Madison and Delaware counties and the municipalities of Anderson, Chesterfield, Daleville and Yorktown would be appointed to the committee by their government units. None of those entities has yet voted to join the commission.
If the commission is formed, it would oversee the Phase III feasibility study and would hold the power to negotiate contracts and obtain property. That work would eventually lead to the permitting process.
Sparks estimates that next phase of the project would cost $28 million over three years.
"I don't have a funder today ... And we can't afford to do this locally," said Sparks. He said he would seek foundation and grant money to finance that phase.
Peer review findings
Ball State's inquiry team made these broad findings about the Mounds Lake Reservoir Phase II study:
• The impact on plants and animals in the affected area are not sufficiently detailed, and mitigation costs were not explicitly considered.
• There was no engagement with communities that might have legal, historical or cultural links to the Mounds sites. Affected communities might include federally recognized tribes in Michigan, Kansas, Oklahoma, and tribal citizens living in Indiana.
• The potential impact "on cultural resources and traditional cultural landscapes is repeatedly minimized in the current report." There's no estimate on the number and types of archaeological site that could be partially or totally eliminated.
• The effect of environmental hazards and their impact on the reservoir's feasibility have not been adequately evaluated so that remediation costs of industrial properties can be estimated.
• Discussion concerning geology, hydrology and groundwater resources in the study are understudied and, in some cases, based upon incorrect data.
• Cost analysis for acquiring land to mitigate the loss of wetlands is "unrealistically" optimistic.
• There is no evidence of demand for water at this scale. A statewide water plan commissioned by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce does not identify any unmet need. "Without clear evidence of unmet water demand, there is nothing to counterbalance the adverse effects of the proposed project, nor are there sufficient revenues to fund the project without significant public sector investment," the review says
• The Phase II study acknowledges the potential for only minimal cost overruns, although large projects like Mounds Lake typically experience cost overruns of 20 percent or more. An average cost overrun (using the low-end estimate for large transportation projects) would make the project unfeasible under current assumptions in other areas.
Source: Preliminary peer review of Mounds Lake project by Ball State University