WOWT.com on Demand
  • 6 On Your Cell
  • RSS Feeds
  • Desktop Alert
  • Text Alerts
  • Daily E-News
  • What’s on 6
  • Children's Programming Changes
    YouCast - Submit Pics and Video
    "Picture Perfect" Contest
    Watch NBC Shows Online
    6 News Features
    On Your Side
    Don't miss the latest On Your Side segments.
    McKnight Investigates
    Catch all of McKnight Investigates here.
    Heartland's Most Wanted
    Catch all of Heartland's Most Wanted here.
    Product Recalls
    Check for threats that might be in your home.
    Family Health
    Don't miss the latest from Family Health.
    MarketPlace
  • Restaurants
  • Go Green!
  • Auto Map
  • Business Connections
  • Financial Advice
  • Legal Advice
  • New Home Listings
  • Your Home, Your Investment
  • Entertainment
  • Recipes
  • Jobs
  • The Wedding Planner
  • Martha's Tip of the Day
  • Advertise With WOWT
  • More Papio Creek Dam Sites Needed Save Email Print
    Public updated at forum on flood threat
    Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com

    A | A | A

    A public forum was held Saturday to update the flood risk along the Papillion Creek, which could affect homes and businesses in Douglas and Sarpy counties.

    It covers about 400 square miles and includes one-third of Nebraska's population. The Papillion Creek watershed includes parts of Douglas, Sarpy and Washington counties.

    Tributaries of the Papio Creek start north and west before joining together to run through Douglas and Sarpy counties. For decades, flooding has been a major concern along the Papillion Creek watershed.

    "We've been quite fortunate over the years that we haven't had a 100-year event," says the Natural Resource District’s John Winkler. To reduce the threat, a series of dam sites were built along the creek, but not every point along the creek is addressed.

    At Tahazouka Park in Elkhorn, the land has been left unchanged. There is ongoing concern of flooding. The question now is what to do about it?

    The public forum discussed how to effectively manage water flow. The Papio-Missouri Natural Resource District says there is no comprehensive plan in place, but the NRD is leaning toward a combination of additional dam sites and low impact development such as parks.

    "We don't have a specific number of this, how many reservoirs and this level of LID, but we're getting to that point," says Winkler.

    Who pays for it and who benefits? Shawn Melatz says the partnership between the NRD and developers squeezes out the taxpayer. “Stop building in the flood plain, stop building up in the flood plain, so if you no longer have houses in these areas, you won’t have the threat of flooding to these people."

    The NRD says that's changing. "Any of these structures from now on will have public access and shore access all the way around," says Winkler. "You will not see houses built right up to the edge of the shore line."

    Pamela Dayley is angry that the NRD uses tax dollars to get the results they want. "It's like a pharmaceutical company that pays a physician to come up with the outcome they want and everyone is very skeptical of that kind of research. The difference here is pharmaceutical companies use their own money to pay for that research, here the NRD is using taxpayer money."

    "You either build these all on the public dollar and we can only take what land we need for the project, the developer will buy the land around the reservoir anyway and put up houses, or we can make them foot some of the bill,” says Winkler.

    Others say flooding along the Papio is greatly exaggerated. Winkler says better safe than sorry. "I don't want to be sitting in a room full of people that I told, yeah, our structures are adequate and we do get that event and they’re flooded and they've lost lives and they've lost property and they look at me and say you knew this."

    The NRD says each city along the Papio, including ones in Douglas and Sarpy counties must have a storm water management plan in place by 2009 to meet EPA requirements.

    More Stories
    Husker Fans Keeping The Faith

    Unmarked Police Car Shot At

    Fight Between Brothers Ends In Gunfire

    Papillion Man Critically Injured In Crash

    Running From Omaha To Lincoln

    Home Rebuilt, Ranger Returns To Little Sioux Camp

    Rendezvous Leads To Robbery

    Suspect Sought In Stabbing

    Post Your Comments
    First Name:
    Location:
    Enter Comments: characters left
    Email (optional):
    Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
    Read Comments
    Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
    Posted by: David on Mar 4, 2008 at 03:36 AM
    "Low impact development stratagies would take care of this. This public has been duped into believing that LAKES are needed." Sorry, but this is a bunch of retoric that I'm quite honestly tired of hearing. Like it or not, your low impact buffers WILL NOT work! And if Washington County signs this agreement with Douglas County that each county will handle its' own storm water runoff, then watch out. Washington County will get stuck footing the bill for the same dams that NRD is willing to build now with no taxes. Wake up people.

    Posted by: Jennifer on Feb 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM
    To Anonymous: Lakes?? at the EXPENSE of whom? So are you saying that you should get to ski and fish on a lake that will be taken from ME AND MY FAMILY under the GUISE of flood control??? These lakes are not needed. If you want to fish and ski - there are plenty of options out there. As far as the "flooding problem", Low impact development stratagies would take care of this. This public has been duped into believing that LAKES are needed. They are not. They are very intrusive and would destroy the homes, businesses, and lives of those who would have their property condemned just so you can FISH!!! Why do you think you have the right to demand have access to these lakes that will be built on my property? Is private land now up for the taking? What a waste of taxdollars. You my friend have been fooled.

    Posted by: Anonymous on Feb 3, 2008 at 09:39 PM
    No more public money for private projects!!!! Omaha needs a new lake for the PUBLIC, not for private use. We need a lake to water ski on, as well to fish.

    Posted by: S on Feb 3, 2008 at 01:45 AM
    how about we just dont build so close to creeks and keep a 100yd buffer on each side for floods, trails, parks, etc.

    Posted by: J on Feb 2, 2008 at 05:30 PM
    Let's take a look at Bennington Lake and Newport Landing, built with $3 million dollars of taxpayer money. Signs at all of the entrances say no public entrance, no public fishing. BUT, there's one public fishing dock and 4 miles of *public* trail around the lake. Hmmm, do we believe the NRD *THIS* time when they say the public gets access to all new developments? Yes, they built Prairie View across the way from Bennington Lake as a sediment control lake and it's public access, but the Newport Lake people use it as their dog park and bathroom, since the public trail at Newport Landing says they must pick up their waste, and Prairie View has no such signs. Goes to show you how the public is really treated.

    Media Partners