INQUIRY TO SAFEGUARDING

Sent to:

Texas Township Planner (August 12, 2025)

Despite the millions invested in both short- and long-term pumping infrastructure around Eagle Lake, there remains no dedicated section within the Clearzone ordinance that explicitly safeguards this investment or ensures the protection of public welfare and private property. This omission poses a serious risk—not only to residents, but also to the Planning Commission and Township Board, who may rely on the Clearzone for guidance during emergency response or future planning decisions.

As the designated Township Planner, I’m formally submitting a set of questions seeking your guidance on how we can address this gap. Our goal is to establish a clear, enforceable framework that:

  • Protects the integrity of public infrastructure investments

  • Ensures resident safety and property protection

  • Clarifies roles and responsibilities between the Township and the Drain Office

  • Prevents residents from being caught in bureaucratic ambiguity should lake levels or infrastructure fail to perform as expected

 My request is twofold:

  1. Begin responding to the enclosed questions to inform future planning decisions.

  2. Initiate the drafting of a designated Clearzone and General Ordinance section that explicitly addresses lake-adjacent infrastructure, emergency protocols, and long-term public safety.

This is a proactive step toward safeguarding our community and ensuring that township governance evolves in step with environmental realities and development pressures. While the enclosed questions are framed primarily around Eagle Lake, they speak to a broader imperative: protecting the entire watershed—regardless of lake, neighborhood, or vulnerable parcel involved.

The concerns raised encompass not only surface water management, but also the risks posed by groundwater influx from swollen lakes, compromised drain basins, and damage to sensitive wetlands. These are systemic vulnerabilities that demand coordinated planning, clear ordinance language, and infrastructure safeguards that extend across all hydrologically sensitive areas within the township.

Lake-level instability may result from a range of contributing factors, including pump performance issues, inadequate infrastructure capacity, and cumulative development impacts. When compounded by climate variability, these vulnerabilities may lead to emergency situations.

To protect residents and uphold public trust, it is essential that accountability does not dissolve into bureaucratic deflection—especially if lake levels rise and the response shifts blame solely to climate, infrastructure limitations, or unforeseen emergencies. These factors may explain the symptoms, but they must not excuse the lack of foresight, coordination, or adaptive planning. Residents deserve clear, proactive governance—not a reactive maze of agencies and excuses.

The Township, Drain Office, and all approving bodies must establish and communicate transparent lines of responsibility—so the public knows who is answerable, what safeguards are in place, and how decisions are made, monitored, and revised. Without this clarity, even well-intentioned planning efforts risk collapsing under confusion, delay, and institutional finger-pointing—leaving residents exposed and confidence eroded.

Please consider sharing the concerns and expressed need with the planning commission and township board.

Thank you,

Blaine

Growth-Responsive Pumping Capacity: Strategic Questions for Township Accountability

 1. Integration of Future Development into Pump Rate Calculations

  • How was anticipated development around Eagle Lake factored into the determination of the 500 GPM rate?

    • Was build-out potential modeled to account for increased stormwater runoff, reduced infiltration, and altered groundwater recharge?

  • What is the projected increase in impervious surface areas from approved or anticipated developments?

    • How will this expansion affect peak inflows and long-term lake elevation trends?

 

2. Floodplain Standards and Development Approval Criteria

  • What floodplain elevation standard is the township using to evaluate development impacts on Eagle Lake?

    • The long-held generational benchmark of 901.6 ft?

    • The Prein & Newhof 2018 recommendation of 903 ft for new construction?

    • The EGLE 2022 recommendation of 904 ft?

  • Is this standard consistently applied across both the Planning Commission (under clear-zone review) and the Township Board (under general ordinance)?

 

3. Cumulative Impact and Infrastructure Adequacy

  • Has the township conducted a cumulative impact analysis of all lake-adjacent parcels?

    • Are there thresholds beyond which the current pumping infrastructure becomes inadequate?

  • What margin of safety is built into the 500/800 GPM rate?

    • Is it calibrated only for current conditions, or does it include buffers for extreme weather, climate variability, and future development?

 

4. Contingency Planning and Infrastructure Scalability

  • What is the township’s plan if lake levels exceed legal limits despite pumping?

    • Is there a scalable infrastructure strategy (e.g., additional pumps, higher capacity, enhanced stormwater detention)?

    • Are adjacent properties and neighborhoods being evaluated for groundwater influx risks due to swollen lake conditions and swollen stormwater drain basins?

  • What budgetary provisions exist for funding infrastructure upgrades if the current pumping strategy proves insufficient?

    • How is public safety and welfare being prioritized in fiscal planning?

 

5. Governance, Oversight, and Developer Accountability

  • Who is responsible for reassessing the pump rate as development progresses?

    • Is there a formal review schedule or adaptive management protocol in place?

  • Will developers be required to contribute to lake management infrastructure?

    • Is there a policy mechanism—such as impact fees or stormwater mitigation requirements—to ensure growth pays for its hydrological footprint?

  • How is the township ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with development approvals?

    • Is there a moratorium or conditional permitting process tied to lake level stabilization?

 

6. Resident Engagement and Oversight Mechanisms

  • How can residents participate in decisions regarding future pumping rates and infrastructure upgrades?

    • Is there a functioning citizen advisory board, such as the Safety Committee, which has not met since February 2023?

  • Are residents aware that development approvals may occur through two distinct avenues, the Planning Commission and the Township Board?

    • How can public input be effectively directed to both bodies to ensure a comprehensive review?

    • Who serves as the designated point of contact for residents seeking to raise public concerns during the approval process, particularly when development proposals are reviewed or shuffled between the Planning Commission and the Township Board?