Delaware County crowd decries Mounds Lake Reservoir project

The proposed 2,100-acre reservoir would extend from Anderson to near Yorktown at a projected cost of $450 million. Supporters tout the project as a economic development boon that would boost local real estate rates, draw tourists and create jobs while generating a water supply for the future of central Indiana.

Opponents decry the reservoir as a financial boondoggle that would harm the environment, destroy a stretch of the White River and threaten historic areas.

The crowd at Monday night's public meeting at the Delaware Fairgrounds agreed vehemently with the opponents of the project.

The Delaware County Council has not scheduled a vote on the formation of the Mounds Lake Commission, which would determine whether the reservoir project is viable and would oversee a Phase III environmental study.

Members of the Delaware County Council said they are awaiting a May 28 vote by the Anderson City Council on whether to join the commission.

About 250 people attended the Monday meeting, applauding each criticism of the project enthusiastically. About a third raised their hands when asked how many were property owners in the reservoir footprint.

When asked by the council how many in the room were supportive of the project, only two people raised their hands.

“We’ve read the Phase II study and the Ball State Peer Review,” Council President Chris Matchett said. “We’re here to hear from the public.”

Jim Arnold, president of Citizens of Delaware County for Good Government, said the county council should pass an ordinance in opposition to the Mounds Lake Reservoir project, rather than merely voting against joining the commission.

State lawmaker Sue Errington (D-Muncie) said state tax dollars had already been used on the project and added that more state revenue would likely be spent on the reservoir if the project moved forward.

“We already have a stake in what happens,” she said. “I would encourage the Anderson CED (Corporation for Economic Development) to look for alternatives to damming the river and consider a greenway from Muncie to Anderson.”

Muncie resident John Craddock said he has spent the past 31 years working to clean up the White River. He noted that the number of fish species in the river has increased from 30 to 60 during that time.

He expressed several concerns about the project, citing a second sediment dam planned for Delaware County, impact on drainage field tile and the destruction of wetlands.

“No one wants to sign a contract to purchase the water,” Craddock said, casting doubt on the CED's intention to sell water from the reservoir for use across central Indiana.

Muncie resident John Blackburn called the reservoir a solution in search of a problem.

“The project was proposed by young people as bringing enhanced economic development to Anderson,” he said. “Now the reason for the project is that there is a need for the water, but there is no proven need.”

Blackburn said the dam would do nothing for flood control upstream of Anderson and might make it more difficult in Delaware County.

Anderson resident Doug Zook said he is the largest owner of private property along the White River in Union Township and owns the only property with remnants of two canals.

“Delaware County can stop it by voting no,” Zook said. “You can stop Anderson and let them know how people on the end of the project feel about it.”

Geologist Tony Fleming said the area around the reservoir is laced with channels of sand and gravel and speculated that the project might not hold water.

“The White River is at base level, and all the ground water flows into it,” Fleming said. “The reservoir will raise the water level in the entire area. It is an issue that has not been addressed in the feasibility studies.”

Muncie resident Joshua Brewer said he is opposed to the reservoir but would support a cost/benefit analysis.

“It would weigh the costs,” he said. “Look at the impact on the environment, natural resources and real benefits for people.”

Brewer said the economic benefits of the project have been overstated and that there would be hidden costs.