Facts, history support lake option for downtown

There is much debate regarding the destiny of Capitol Lake and the desire of many to remove the Fifth Avenue Tide Gate that creates Capitol Lake, and turn the waterway back to its former estuarial condition. As a longtime Olympia resident, I have watched as studies have been completed, reports developed, community formats convened, suggestions proposed and the compilation of studies sent to the Legislature for further analysis and recommendation. It seems to go on and on and with solid proposals on both sides of the issue. In the end, I love the lake, the “reflection pool” of our beautiful capitol building, but I also know there exist environmental issues that we as stewards of the land are charged with protecting. But in the end, are we being provided all of the correct information; I have read many articles and I have not been convinced.

Then I read with interest the letter to the editor by John De Meyer in the June 4 Olympian. Due to De Meyer’s past involvement as the manager of the Aquatic Lands program for DNR, I take seriously his concern that the CLAMP (Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Plan) determination was “… well-orchestrated political efforts. Good science was strategically cherry-picked to mislead the public.” Since Mr. De Meyer attended most of the meetings between 2005 and 2009 and his knowledge of the area in general and Capitol Lake seems to me to be extensive, his information should not be ignored. He suggests the CLAMP proposal was less than objective and should be of concern for us all. He also believes the CLAMP process was “structured and administered to produce a recommendation that would result in the removal of the Fifth Avenue dam…” .

Another letter to the editor suggests that the mud flats resulting from demolishing the dam would not be that offensive and point to other local flats where they feel the smell is natural and clean. However, my mother, transplanted here from South Georgia since the late ’40s would argue that should the dam be taken away in downtown Olympia, the smell in the estuary would be terrible. She and my dad purchased a house on Capitol Lake in the early 1950s. Damming the lake was already in motion or they would never have purchased the home. The mud flats had a “terrific odor”, she relayed and “to jeopardize the Capitol city of Washington state by returning the lake to an estuary would be a travesty”. We do not want to be the Capitol city in the nation that is known for a stench that would be comparable to Tacoma’s past odor. It would further the implosion that is already affecting the downtown area of Olympia, negatively impact tourism and make the reasons to visit our port city all but disappear.

We need to seriously consider what De Meyer has to say, and what “The Percival Creek Rechanneling Project” of CLIPA (Capitol Lake Improvement and Protection Association) reports. The proposal summary endorses the Pioneer Park Fish Hatchery “…while retaining the State Capitol Campus and Olympia Waterfront for cultural, environmental, economic, and historical design benefits for all Olympia, Thurston County, and Washington State citizens.” It basically keeps Capitol Lake as part of the project.

And something that has not been brought up much are the property owners on the lake. They bought “lake front”, not tide front; big difference.

I am keenly aware there are two sides to this issue; the safeguard of the environment, and the aesthetics of our Capitol campus and surrounding area. But I am also concerned when the conclusion of a report, by someone knowledgeable in the aquatic lands management, is considered to be orchestrated to mislead the public. It is my hope those working on these proposals view all aspects in their true light and draw the conclusion for the management of this area from correct information.

This story was originally published June 21, 2017 at 8:32 PM with the headline "Facts, history support lake option for downtown."