DECATUR - On a sunny June day in 2004, city leaders smashed bottles against the sides of the city's massive dredge equipment to kick off the $25 million project to improve Lake Decatur.

Three years later, results of the dredging operation have fallen far short of expectations.

The city is not pumping out nearly as much silt as it expected.

And storage space for more water in Lake Decatur remains unclaimed.

The city's dredge crews have removed about 324,746 cubic yards of silt per year, far short of the 803,950 cubic yards per year estimated in 1999.

Mayor Paul Osborne called the results "somewhat disappointing."

The Decatur City Council and the Greater Decatur Water Commission in recent months directed city administrators to study options for accelerating the city's dredging project.

Dredge work currently is undertaken by city employees, and the city is studying options for improving its dredging performance.

Options could include directing city crews to work around the clock or hiring a private firm to dredge the lake. City leaders agree a more efficient method of removing silt from the lake must be found.

"With accelerated dredging, you're removing about the same amount, but we'd be doing it at a much faster pace," Osborne said. "You're talking now about 10 to 12 years, which you may be able to do in three to four years with accelerated dredging.

"That's certainly a very viable option."

The city's initial estimates for removing silt were "highly variable," depending on factors including the size of dredge and pumping equipment, characteristics of the sediment and the distance to the sediment storage pond, City Manager Steve Garman told council members in a March memo.

City administrators advised the city council in 2001 to have outside contractors dredge the lake instead of having the work done by city employees, the memo stated.

The city would not be able to complete the dredging work as quickly as an experienced contractor, which could have crews working around the clock, Garman said.

Administrators cited several concerns for having the work done by the city, including the city's lack of dredging experience and significant staff training required.

The city would be responsible for liability and equipment costs, and city employees would only operate the dredge for two shifts per day, five days per week.

"I believe one of the reasons the council decided to go in-house was they felt that we would have more control over the project as a whole if we were using our own staff exclusively," said Keith Alexander, director of water management.

So why have dredging results fallen short of projections?

City employees never have dredged before, and there was a "huge learning curve," Alexander said.

The city also has faced a high turnover rate of city employees working on the dredge. Some dredge employees have been transferred or promoted within the city.

"It is a cumbersome task getting those positions refilled," Alexander said.

"We also had a moderate amount of equipment breakdown challenges that we've been able to overcome," Alexander added. "But, of course, those always slow down production as well."

Councilman Shad Edwards said the council initially was advised by city administrators that the city could save money by having city employees do the dredging work.

Councilmen were led to believe the city could manage the project, Edwards said.

"I don't think the dredge has performed up to the standards the council has expected or to the standards the city told us the dredge can perform," Edwards said. "We'd all like to see the dredge capacity increased."

Alexander said the city council in 2000 considered three options: having the city do the dredging work, contracting out the entire operation or having union operation engineers do the work.

"When we did the number crunching back in 2000, it was slightly cheaper to use in-house labor than it was to use the operating engineers," Alexander said. "And the operating engineers, I believe, were slightly cheaper than contracting out the entire operation. There were a lot of pluses and minuses with all three of the options, independent of price.

"But in the end, in 2000, our council chose to go with in-house dredging."

Project leaders also are studying options for what to do with the silt removed from the lake.

One idea could be to dry the silt and recycle it.

The silt is among the world's best topsoil and could possibly be marketed as a soil enhancer or mixed with other materials as a potting soil, Alexander said.

The city also continues to study several ideas to provide more water for the community.

Project leaders are reviewing whether to build a new lake, accelerate the dredging of Lake Decatur and secure more water from Lake Tokorozawa.

Lowering water treatment plant intakes also could be a cost-effective way to secure more water, project leaders say.

Ultimately, a solution likely will include aspects of several ideas, Osborne said.

The city recently reviewed possible sites that would allow a portion of a new lake to be built within city limits and the boundaries of Decatur School District.

Building the entire lake within city and school district boundaries would require massive displacement of residents.

Project leaders are not identifying the exact sites, but the council reviewed several options.

"Location A" includes 127 acres inside city limits and 147 acres within the Decatur School District. Part of the lake also would fall within the Maroa-Forsyth and Argenta-Oreana school districts.

"Location B" has 64 acres in city limits and 76 acres inside Decatur School District boundaries. "Location C" has 48 acres within city limits but no acres within the Decatur School District. Portions of both of those projects also would be in the Maroa-Forsyth and Argenta-Oreana school districts.

Many options have been studied and dismissed in recent decades, including creating Lake Springer, building a reservoir at Big Creek and Long Creek, pumping water from Lake Shelbyville, raising the existing dam height, relocating the Lake Decatur dam, pumping water from new and existing wells, storing and recovering water from aquifers, pumping water from Clinton Lake, reusing wastewater, dredging deeper in Lake Decatur or storing water in borrow pits and gravel pits.

Problems for dismissed options include not being cost-effective, not yielding adequate water supplies or an inability to secure necessary environmental permits.

Reclaiming more storage space in Lake Decatur is critical in the effort to secure additional water for the community and its industries, Osborne said.

"We have a lake that certainly needs to be dredged," Mayor Paul Osborne said. "The lake is there, and removing (the silt) is important. Regardless of what else we do, that's important.

"It will be even more important if we can accelerate that and remove it at a faster pace."

Mike Frazier can be reached at mfrazier@herald-review.com or 421-7985.