Parties disagree on Black Fork flooding solutions

Second of two parts

SHELBY - Everybody agrees something needs to be done to reduce flooding of the Black Fork.

Not everybody agrees on the solution.

The Black Fork, a branch of the Mohican River, has a history of repeated and extreme flooding in the Shelby area. Recent flooding occurred in 2007, 2011 and 2013.

The 2007 flood led to the demolition of 51 businesses and residential structures. Many farm fields were flooded, destroying crops.

In 2010, the Black Fork Subdistrict in the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District was activated with the hopes of coming up with solutions.

There are three scenarios being considered. All three involve dams, approaches not favored by many farmers. The costs of the projects range from $44.5 million to $67.9 million. Each involves five or six dams.

"This whole thing is a bad deal," Ambrose Metzger said.

Metzger has lived at his farm on Hummel Road since 1968. He and his sons farm corn, soybeans, wheat and alfalfa.

"We never thought the day would come that we would have to protect our land," Metzger said.

Metzger said most farmers want to avoid dams and believe cleaning the Black Fork's riverbed is answer.

"The Black Fork has never been cleaned in my lifetime. I'm 81," he said. "It's the way to go."

Proponents of building dams include Richland County Commissioner and former Shelby Mayor Marilyn John and Shelby projects coordinator Joe Gies.

"Retention areas (dams) would be strategically located to slow water before it gets to Shelby," Gies said. "That would allow the Black Fork channel to get rid of water. It lets it get out slowly.

"I do think this is the answer."

Gies said in each of the three scenarios being considered, initial logjam and debris removal are included.

RELATED: High-dollar costs, benefits weighed in Shelby flood plans

John first dealt with flood issues during her days as mayor. She estimates she has attended 60 to 70 meetings about ongoing problems.

"When I ran for mayor in 2009, it was the No. 1 issue of everybody I spoke to," John said.

She recalled one meeting with business owners in which a man stormed out with one edict.

"Just fix the problem," he said.

Metzger said he doesn't want the city to flood, but he and fellow farmer Gary Biglin vehemently disagree with dams.

"On the list of things from 1 to 10 to do to the Black Fork, building the dams would be No. 11," Metzger said.

Biglin's family has been farming on Ohio 61, south of Shelby, since 1902. He farms mainly corn and soybeans.

Biglin said he thinks dams would be "detrimental" to farmers. He said he thinks they will make the ground wetter for longer periods, which could cause farmers to plant their crops later.

"If they hold the water back and then let it through, our fields could be flooded for two or three days," Biglin said.

Biglin and Metzger also are concerned about assessments. They haven't heard how much they will have to pay.

Both farmers said they have been frustrated when meeting with officials. Metzger said the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District employees live 70 or 80 miles away from the area in question.

"When we go to these meetings, they have never once mentioned clearing the streams," he said. "It's all about building dams."

John points out the Black Fork meanders through numerous jurisdictions, which could make cleaning the waterway problematic.

"Watersheds don't follow political boundaries," she said. "You can clean out a township, but if the whole area isn't cleaned, how effective is that?"

John and Gies traveled to the Chippewa district a few years ago to see that community's dams.

"Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, they were experiencing a lot of flooding," John said.

She asked to see the district's photos from the 2007 flood that affected many areas.

There were no pictures.

"They got the rain, but the dam structures worked and held the water back," John said.

Gies added, "That was such a light bulb moment for us."

Biglin objects to putting dams on what he calls productive farmland.

"I'm kind of offended when they say it's undeveloped land," he said. "It's been developed for agriculture."

Metzger said he was offended at one of the meetings when the watershed officials were introduced as "experts."

"The experts are the guys who have lived a lifetime on the farm," he said.

But John and Gies said the watershed people who have come up with possible solutions have been dealing with flooding issues for decades.

Conservancy districts were set up in the 1930s in response to a major flood in 1913.

"They have authority and jurisdiction granted to them by the Ohio Revised Code," John said.

The commissioner said it's time to do something. She lives in the Black Fork Subdistrict but not in the flood plain.

Take the news with you. Download the Mansfield News Journal app on the Apple App Store  or Google Play .

"(But) water that goes off of my property could flood someone's pasture land," John said. "It could end up crossing a road, blocking traffic. It could end up keeping people from getting to work.

"If I'm contributing, I want to be part of the solution."

John said she empathizes with people consistently affected by flooding. She knows people who take anxiety medication whenever there's heavy rain.

"I've sat through meetings where I've had people say, 'Please do something. Please do something,' " John said.

mcaudill@gannett.com

419-521-7219

Twitter: @MNJCaudill

Upcoming meetings

•  Elected officials will meet at 9 a.m. Monday in Room 235 of the Richland Soil and Water Conservation District, 1495 W. Longview Ave.

• Landowners will meet in the same place at 1:30 p.m. Monday.

• ​The purpose of the briefing is to provide project information, discuss potential funding sources and the assessment process and get people's thoughts.

•The week of June 8, three additional meetings will be scheduled for the general public.