LETTERS: MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR NEW LAKE STUDY

To the editor:

On Sept. 17 and 18 I received a one-two punch on the editorial pages of several newspapers from Tamara Baremore and Joe Vermier of the Lake Facts Committee. In her letter, Ms. Baremore states that I do not live anywhere near the proposed lake site. Santa Claus has not delivered my GPS locator yet, but when he does I'll get an exact measurement down to the closest meter. As near as I can figure, my house is about one mile away from the western shore of the proposed lake. This was determined by using the maps provided by the original lake committee. I'm not clear on what is her definition of "nowhere near," but I am quite sure I'll be able to hear the sounds of the jet skis and the motorboats without much difficulty.

Baremore goes on to accuse me of being irresponsible and purveying inaccurate information. My letters contain exact wording from the Lake Facts Committee brochure and the feasibility study.

Furthermore, I question her motives when my information tells me that she has only purchased the property she stands to lose about four years ago. To my knowledge, save for one nearly all the members of the Lake Facts Committee and the Lake Landowners Association have purchased their property in this area after 1987, the year the lake site was finalized.

She ends her letter with a plea for a vote on the lake. A vote on something that should never have been an issue. A vote by a mostly urban populace to deny private property rights to those who have worked hard for it or inherited ancestral land. A vote on an issue that, defeated one, can be brought up again and again. There is no similar recourse for those opposed.

I call your attention to Joe Vermier's letter. Mr. Vermier is another spectator who purchased property in the proposed area about seven years ago. This was the time after the feasibility study was published and the lake appeared to some people to be a sure thing. Mr. Vermier cites my use of the Weber study as being incorrect and out of date. The Weber study is based on the original feasibility report, which was commissioned by the original lake committee, paid for by taxpayers and accepted by the county commissioners as gospel. The Domazlicky study appears to be nothing more than an updated feasibility study adjusted for inflation.

On April 19, 1996, Ronnie Lemons, the author of the feasibility study, stated that the construction of the lake had probably risen to $93 million to $100 million. This was due to increased costs and his omission of the Corps of Engineers' permit cost in the 1989 estimate of $73 million.

If any information is out of date, then the feasibility study is out of date, and we owe it to the taxpayers to commission a new study.

Vermier continues to misquote me in saying that I wrote the original purpose of the lake was only for recreation. The title of the feasibility study is "Feasibility Report on Proposed Recreational Reservoir." If it's a water source, then let's have a comprehensive study on that. If it's flood control, then let's have a comprehensive study on that. I thought the original lake committee wanted to stay away from flood control in order to keep the Corps of Engineers out of the project.

Besides, the word "constant" means to me same, stable, never changing. Last year, William Sandlin, consulting engineer to the RCGA, stated that the lake may have possible hydroelectric value to it. Once again, let's see the study.

I say again, those so-called affected landowners who want to see this project go through so bad should freely donate their land as a testament of their sincerity. The public should consider those who would make a direct monetary gain on this project and those who would not.

JAMES C. ROCHE

Jackson