|
|
Fountain Misinformation Two
Please indulge me while I add one more piece of research.
1. The Enclave has arranged for a contractor to treat the lakes for algae, etc. (Perhaps you've seen him out in the lakes in his boat.)
2. The total cost from May-November of last year was $3,250 or $464/month.
3. With the fountain in the first lake, we might want to ask the contractor to treat only the second lake for half the cost.
4. This would save the Enclave $2,784 or $232/month that would offset the $102/month cost for operating the fountain.
5. It would also save us approximately $130/month or $1560 per year. Thus, in 3 to 4 years the fountain will have paid for itself!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarification
I am confused. Does the fountian eliminate the algae problem or not. If so, no discussion needed and the fountain was a great idea. If not, then saying it will save us money is confusing and leads to misinformation. Please clarify.
By Brad Spicer
|
|
|
Late reply to clarification
The question of whether or not the fountain controls algae appears to have different answers depending on who is asked. A Texas Parks and Wildlife biologist told committee members that fountains will not control algae. When The Lake Doctor (installer of the fountain) was informed of the biologist's comment, he concurred. He was a very forthcoming gentleman who answered our questions without trying to pressure us. Based on research that Aubrey had done, I was initially in favor of fountains as a more natural way to control algae than chemical treatment. Aesthetically, I was opposed as I prefer a more natural look. After doing more research, and getting the opinion of professionals that fountains don't control algae, I definitely did not want fountains in both lakes. However, since there was a strong sentiment in favor of fountains, I felt that installing one instead of two was a good choice. The question of whether or not it will control algae is yet to be answered. I hope that it does and that we will be able to cut back on chemical treatment. That would be terrific. I still do not want a 2nd fountain. In asking for opinions about a 2nd one, I felt that the board was circumventing our committee's recommendation which we had spent months considering. That is why my initial response was more negative than intended. Believe me I stand with the Landscape Committee and know that a lot of effort and discussion was put into this recommendation. I don't think everyone on the committee will always agree, but once we vote. That's the decision we'll stand by. Marjie Burditt
By MBurditt
|
|
|
I'm For a Second Fountain
As a member of the Landscape Committee, I believe that Marjie is correct about running this by the committee first. We decided to hold off on recommending a second fountain until we knew how people felt about the first fountain. I would disagree about the fountains not preventing algae. Two ''experts: told the committee that it wouldn't help. However, Greg Swalwell and I visited a pond that was half the size of ours, and the fountain helped tremendously. I would prefer to go with firsthand observation than opinion. I'm for another fountain.
|
