We all know that there is life in the lagoon, both pre and post restoration. That is a moot point.
The staff reports for the money allocated for this restoration clearly state that the monitoring requirements were to be done transparently. This is not the case. Thus the citizens who paid for this are justifiably unsatisfied.
The lagoon level management plan that would have achieved far greater circulation in the lagoon was ignored, leaving this restoration stagnant and algae laden.
The community is now fully aware that scientists and current studies alike have proven that the area in question will always have a natural nutrient problem causing algae blooms. If the intention for this restoration was for problem septics, then why was nothing added into the restoration to solve this problem? Simply stated, the bond money that was allocated for this project was not for cleaning up septics.
The proponents for this project used bond money specifically allocated for eutrophication and algae blooms. Now that the project is complete, the restoration is laden with a new algae matt. How is this bond money allocation justified?
For the advocates to now state that the algae is good misrepresent both themselves and this entire project.
This is why the ratepayers are furious. Misuse of public money has been the only transparent part of this project.
Wendi Werner