I previously wrote a few days ago about stumbling on the drawdown of Lake Glendale in the Shawnee National Forest on Christmas Day when we decided to take a walk around the reservoir - an about 3 1/2 mile walk.

It was obvious that much of the lake had been drained. We thought it was curious, because we have had the all time record annual rainfall year this year, and the ponds on our place are full. Why should Lake Glendale be really drawn down?

We bantered about theories as we walked around the reservoir, but settled on that it was being done probably with a justification that it is for control of aquatic plants. I guess at this point it needs to be explained that Lake Glendale has a "designated" swimming area. And, you can't just go swim there - you have to pay, sort of like you do in a swimming pool. There is building that you have to pass thru and pay to get to the artificial beach and swimming area. And there are large fences that block off a side run to the beach. Although the Forest Service has lots of employees, they contract out running that facility to a private concessionaire. They get to run the swimming area, and some campgrounds. They probably aren't getting rich with it, but they are likely making money.

So I sent the supervisor of the Shawnee and the planning officer, both of which I know, an email, and just asked them what the reason for the drawdown was. It took a little longer than normal to get an answer - over 24 hours, and when I did I was a little surprised to learn from the Shawnee planning officer "that the concessionaire at Lake Glendale is permitted to lower the lake level to aid in aquatic vegetation control in the swimming area. Engineering believes he is also going to be doing some work in the beach area."

While I do approve of using non-chemical treatments to try and control when absolutely necessarily, I'm not in favor of vegetation control on every whim. Nature isn't stupid in the long run and is a lot cheaper than what the agency often wants to do. But the government sitting back and letting a private contractor make decisions outside the normal decision making procedure that federal agencies have to follow on public land - that is a different matter.

I think this should have gone through some kind of environmental review process with public notification. I'm not sure how I will proceed in this. But drawing down a reservoir, even one that isn't huge but isn't tiny either, is a major endeavor. It affects a lot of creatures and humans. And it IS on public land (isn't it?). And, it seems odd to me that the supervisor and the planning officer didn't seem to know that the drawdown had even occurred. Can that be right? A private contractor can make major decisions about a public resource with no public notification? Can they?