On June 10, only 37 days after it started, a public comment period ends on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study to assess potential impacts of frequent flooding along the public-private shared boundary on Beaver Lake. A recent press release from USACE seemed to indicate that it would be beneficial to private property owners for the government to purchase their land that is flooded during periods of high water.
But more than 500 property owners along the lake could end up losing ownership and control with what some people consider one of the most valuable parts of their property, the shoreline.
ASACE states that when land was originally acquired for Beaver Lake in the 1950s, the plan was to purchase property around the inundation area up to elevation 1,128 ft. mean sea level.
“However, funding and resource issues limited the government’s ability to do so,” USACE wrote. “This limitation has resulted in private property being flooded during periods of high water as Beaver Lake fulfills its authorized mission as a flood-control reservoir. To address this long-standing issue, USACE has received funding to study the problem, formulate alternatives, and if acquisition is approved, begin acquiring some of these low-lying areas.
“In many locations on Beaver Lake, normal operation, including flood storage, inundates land that the Corps neither owns nor has acquired easements necessary to occasionally flood. Purchasing land and flowage easements, in accordance with the original acquisition strategy utilized when the lake was constructed, will address these gaps in ownership/easement. These acquisitions help assure capability for long-term operation of the lake for all project missions. It’s essential that the flood storage capacity of the lake is preserved and that no structures are placed within the flood pool that could impede USACE’s ability to operate the lake as originally designed.”
There is no public hearing scheduled, and people who comment are not being allowed to see what other people are saying about the proposal until after the comment period ends. David Harper, who recently purchased property on the lake, is critical of USACE’s failure to hold a public hearing and what he views as a lack of transparency about how the proposal could adversely impact property values and enjoyment of lakefront property.
“On USACE property, everything you do is monitored and restricted,” said Harper. “I recently purchased 36 acres on that lake that has 1,700 feet of shoreline that is privately owned that is underwater at normal full pool. When the water goes down, I can clean up the dead trees and debris and end up with a beautiful beach. If the Corps takes that property, I would not be allowed to do that, and it would reduce the value of the remaining property.”
Jay Woods, USACE spokesman for the Little Rock District, said that Eminent Domain through condemnation is authorized. However, he said it will only be used if negotiations through other means are unsuccessful.
Harper argues that the USACE has presented no evidence that people are building in the flood zone. Such construction would not be able to be financed by a bank or insured. And recently when the flood gates were opened at Beaver Dam after the lake reached the top of the flood pool, USACE said no homes were flooded.
“What is the USACE going to do differently if it indeed acquires the private land?” Harper asks. “You currently flood the land at will, or as needed, don’t you? What will change in USACE actions once the ownership changes? I suspect nothing. What are the private landowners doing now that is interfering with the USACE’s ‘ability to assure capability for long-term operation of the lake for all project missions?’ Sounds like the USACE is trying to speak in long-winded generalities because they don’t mention anything specific.
“What USACE missions are being adversely affected by the privately-owned land? Is there any evidence documenting problems caused by the private landowners? If so, where can we find these documented problems? What problems specifically is the private ownership of this land causing? They did not identify problems in any of their answers to my questions. How many structures (exact number and addresses) on the entire shoreline have been built on private property that affect the flood storage capacity or flood pool that are preventing the USACE’s ability to operate the lake as originally intended?”
Harper maintains with all of the beach erosion it appears that the lake has to be filling with the eroded shoreline soil. He asks if USACE is doing anything to stop some of the obvious causes of beach erosion.
Harper said most lake property owners are likely not even aware of the impacts of the proposal.
“The government is going to come after their land, but the fact is the property owners I’ve talked to don’t want to give up their land,” Harper said. “The Corps says it will buy it, but most people won’t like the prices. It will be valued low because it floods when losing that land would lower the value of the entire piece of property.
“If you have ever dealt with the government, it is not easy,” he said. “The Corps now claims, after 55 years, it doesn’t think it is right to flood individual’s property. The individuals I know don’t care. They know the lake is going to flood. It is not going to stop flooding regardless of who owns it. If people want to sell, fine. People who don’t want to sell shouldn’t be required to sell. Our land is sacred to us. We don’t need the protection. On my property hundreds of dead trees make the beach impassable. I take my chainsaw out to clear a path on the beach, but I wouldn’t be able to do this if it was owned by the USACE.”
Woods, in an email, wrote that the USACE will work with landowners concerned about routine flooding and offer them fair market value for their property. “The impacted areas will be appraised by licensed, non-government appraisers that are trained and ethically bound to offer their opinion of fair market value,” Woods wrote.
But Harper has talked to appraisers who say it would be very difficult to determine fair market value due to lack of comparable sales and the uniqueness of the situation.