Norem, Enoch A

English

The Palimpsest

The Clear Lake Outlet Feud

Iowa Research Online

Masthead Logo The Palimpsest
Volume 24 | Number 6 Article 2
6-1-1943
The Clear Lake Outlet Feud
Enoch A. Norem
Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/palimpsest
Part of the United States History Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the State Historical Society of Iowa at Iowa Research Online. It has been accepted for
inclusion in The Palimpsest by an authorized administrator of Iowa Research Online. For more information, please contact lib-ir@uiowa.edu.
Recommended Citation
Norem, Enoch A. "The Clear Lake Outlet Feud." The Palimpsest 24 (1943), 173-185.
Available at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/palimpsest/vol24/iss6/2
The Palimpsest
E DIT E D BY J O H N  ELY B R I G G S  
Vo l . XXIV I s s u e d  i n  J u n e  1 9 4 3  N o .  6
C O P Y R I G H T  1 9 4 3  B Y T H E  S T A T E  H I S T O R I C A L  S O C I E T Y  O F  I O W A
The Clear Lake Outlet Feud
For half a century the settlers around Clear 
Lake argued and fought over what should be the 
proper level of the lake. Some wanted the water 
level high in order to make their lakeshore proper­
ties desirable, while others protested against the 
flooding of their lowland meadows. The existence 
of a natural outlet on the east side of the lake, 
consisting of a narrow and easily altered embank­
ment, was the center of the controversy.
Almost from the time the earliest pioneers set­
tled in the vicinity in 1853, the outlet had been 
tampered with until no one knew what its original 
level was. W hile the feud for the most part was 
confined to disputation, there were times when it 
threatened and even partook of violence. In the 
early days some settlers were accused of taking 
rock out of the outlet for the foundation of their 
cabins. At one time in the pioneer period a storm 
tore cut the embankment and precipitated one of 
the most exciting episodes of the community’s his-
173
174 THE PALIMPSEST
tory. Those who rebuilt the shore somehow never 
were able to agree on the amount of embankment 
that should be raised to return the outlet to its 
orig inal prehistoric, undisturbed level. This ques­
tion of the height of the w ater was not settled 
until the Supreme Court of Iowa stepped in on 
M arch 9, 1910, and like a reincarnated King 
Canute said to the w aters “so high you shall go, 
but no h igher/'
T he fight between those who wanted the lake 
preserved in its pristine beauty and those who 
wished to make use of the flooded lowlands 
reached such a state of commotion at the turn of 
the century that in 1903 the county supervisors, 
A. A. Crosley, B. A. Brown, and W . V . Crapser, 
built a concrete sluiceway at the outlet, by which 
they hoped to set a permanent w ater level and 
stop the warfare. But instead of settling the diffi­
culty this act was like a red flag to both factions. 
T hat the board was justified in taking some action 
there was no doubt among those of the county 
who maintained a neutral attitude, for there was 
ample evidence that the outlet was being tampered 
with continually. But singularly enough both 
sides objected to the permanent sluiceway. The 
farmers with w ater in their pastures argued that it 
was too high, while vacationers and cottage own­
ers contended that it was not high enough.
THE CLEAR LAKE OUTLET FEUD 175
In the spring of 1905 low-water advocates tried 
to blow up the south end of the concrete barrier, 
but inflicted little damage. W hen the summer 
vacation season opened, an injunction was filed 
against the Clear Lake board of supervisors on 
June 7, 1905, by twenty-two cottage owners and 
two companies. They claimed that the board had 
unlawfully constructed an outlet from “ 18 to 24 
inches below the natural level of Clear Lake.“ 
The owners of the cottages finally persuaded the 
supervisors to add two heavy planks on to the 
sluiceway which raised the water approximately 
twenty-six inches above the concrete base.
In the early morning hours of October 25, 1905, 
an explosion rent the air, awakening Clear Lake 
residents who had been peacefully sleeping. 
Noise of the blast had come from the outlet, not 
far from town. Upon investigation it was discov­
ered that “the cement banking and board apron of 
the outlet were ripped to pieces.“ Because the 
dynamite had been poorly placed, the retaining 
wall was not completely destroyed.
Though there was little evidence to show who 
had attempted to blow up the outlet, the board of 
supervisors immediately began a search for the 
culprit. It was rumored that the board knew who 
had wrecked the sluiceway but had insufficient 
evidence to bring the guilty person to court.
176 THE PALIMPSEST
An action was later filed asking that the board 
be enjoined from interfering in any w ay with the 
outlet or the flow of w ater through it. A demurrer 
to the petition was sustained, but plaintiffs were 
permitted to bring in other parties as defendants. 
T he State of Iowa filed a petition of intervention, 
alleging the ownership of the bed of the lake and 
asking that it be authorized to erect and maintain 
a permanent embankment, bulkhead, headgates 
and sluiceways for the purpose of retaining the 
lake at a high-water level. The supervisors forth­
with stepped out of the case. An answer was 
filed, praying that all obstructions be removed 
from the outlet and that it be safeguarded in its 
original condition.
By the time the trial got under way the case of 
H. A. M errill et al. vs. the board of supervisors 
et al., with the State of Iowa as intervenor, had in 
it on one side or the other all the landowners about 
the lake, seeking either to raise or lower the level 
of the water. In their claims concerning the level 
of the w ater these two opposing groups were four 
feet apart, one side contending the w ater should 
be thirty inches above and the other a foot below 
the concrete sluiceway. The law firms of Cliggitt, 
Rule, Keeler, and Smith and Blythe, Markley, 
Rule, and Smith of M ason City represented the 
plaintiffs, while Glass and McConlogue, Robert
THE CLEAR LAKE OUTLET FEUD 177
W itwer, and Ira W . Jones represented the de­
fendants. H. W . Byers, A ttorney General of 
Iowa; Charles W . Lyon, Assistant A ttorney Gen­
eral, and J. E. E. M arkley of M ason City repre­
sented the State, the intervenor.
This trial did a number of things besides fixing 
the water level of Clear Lake. One of the out­
standing achievements was to put on record the 
entire history of Clear Lake, including the rise and 
fall of the waters and the occasional efforts of the 
settlers to regulate this. Men who were among 
the first to see the lake lying like a mirror in the 
midst of endless prairies and who later came to 
know all its moods and caprices, who saw it when 
it was kind and friendly and when it was cruel 
and relentless, took part in the trial. They were 
outdoor men who knew all of the lake s shallows 
and depressions, its bars and adjoining swamp 
lands, and who constantly watched the rocks and 
other marks which told the story of its swells and 
the periods of depression. The trial showed 
further that there grew up between these old 
timers and the clear, sparkling lake a bond of af­
fection that came to a test when there was danger 
that what they considered grasping mankind was 
meddling with the outlet that controlled its level.
The testimony of these men showed the lake 
had regular cycles of high and low water. From
178 THE PALIMPSEST
1857 to the time of the trial there were three pe­
riods during which high levels were recorded. 
The first of these began in 1857 and reached the 
highest point about 1860. The second period 
reached the high point in 1878 and 1879. The 
third began to manifest itself in 1903, reaching its 
maximum level in 1906, when the trial started. 
Between these high w ater periods there were cor­
responding intervals of lower levels, one of the 
worst of which caused O scar Stevens to abandon 
his gristmill at the outlet in 1887.
Testimony in the case was started in 1906 and 
all the old settlers about the lake put in their ap­
pearance, most of them testifying in behalf of the 
plaintiff in contending the lake level should be 
raised. The evidence was full of discrepancies, 
for who can remember accurately a thing that hap­
pened a half century ago? Attorneys for the two 
sides used these inconsistencies in constructing 
formidable arguments in support of their respec­
tive theories.
The general question sought to be settled in the 
trial was: at w hat level was the outlet in 1853 be­
fore man disturbed the lake banks? And because 
this was the question, considerable weight was 
given to the notes of the men who surveyed the 
lake in 1853. These notes indicated that the water 
was six inches below the outlet at that time. Then
THE CLEAR LAKE OUTLET FEUD 179
the problem was to establish whether the lake was 
at high or low water at that time and at what level 
the outlet was originally compared with later 
periods when the bank was tampered with.
One of the storm centers of the fight was a fish 
trap established by James Sirrine in 1858 about 
three hundred feet north of the outlet. Practically 
all the old pioneers testified that when the water 
ran out at the outlet to a depth of about eight 
inches it was about two or three inches deep at the 
trap, indicating the trap was from five to six inches 
higher. The plaintiffs then presented testimony to 
show that the sluiceway established by the super­
visors would have to be covered by thirty inches 
of water before it would run through the fish trap, 
which trap, they argued, was at the same level 
now as fifty years before, having a large stone 
base which had not been altered by man or the 
elements.
The defense, however, contended that the rea­
son water did not go out of the fish trap at the 
time of the trial was that the trap had been filled 
in. The argument of the defense on this point to 
the Supreme Court was to a large extent an elab­
orate fortification of figures based chiefly on the 
level given by the surveyor of the fish trap. In 
rebutting this the plaintiff admitted the surveyor 
must have been wrong on this one point.
180 THE PALIMPSEST
One of the contentions of the plaintiff was that 
the natural bank of the lake at the outlet had been 
tampered with. O ld settlers testified that the pio­
neers took rock out of this place for use as founda­
tions for their houses, a practice which tended to 
lower the bank. In 1860 the lake tore out part of 
the embankment and a millrace. T he fear that the 
entire lake would pour through the embankment 
down W illow  Creek and flood M ason City, ten 
miles down the stream, led the entire male popu­
lation of the community to rush to Clear Lake to 
aid in rebuilding the bank. T he evidence in the 
trial was that the bank was “put back where it 
w as“ . In 1891 R. S. Young, then mayor of Clear 
Lake, strengthened the bank at the outlet. This 
caused considerable criticism and led to more tam­
pering with the embankment.
T he history of an old camp meeting association 
at Clear Lake also entered into the trial. The 
ground for this project was platted in 1867 and 
two pools called Siloam and Bethsaida included. 
W itnesses testified that at the time of this reli­
gious development one could row from the lake 
into these pools. Plaintiff witnesses testified that 
since 1900 there had never been a time when a 
boat could be rowed into these pools. Hence, 
they contended, the w ater level should be raised.
There was also evidence presented that the
THE CLEAR LAKE OUTLET FEUD 181
Charles Grimm slough, south of the lake, was 
covered with water in the early days so that it was 
possible for sail boats to go in. During the sixties 
a ditch was dug through a hill to what was 
called Crovell’s slough, draining the water into the 
lake when the lake was low and thus keeping 
Grimm s land dry. W hen the lake rose again, 
however, in its periodic swells, the ditch caused 
the water to spread over this lowland. Conse­
quently, Grimm and others similarly situated were 
interested in a low outlet.
Much confusion and apparent inconsistencies 
occurred in the testimony because of the con­
stantly recurring water level cycles. Oscar Ste­
vens, the gristmill operator, was the chief witness 
on the water cycles. “Every fourteen years the 
lake goes up and comes down without any varia­
tion,” was the way he put it. Stevens had come 
to Clear Lake in 1855 and his testimony had much 
bearing on the case. He testified that he operated 
a sawmill at the outlet in 1856 and a gristmill from 
1870 to 1887. After 1887 he ran a line of boats 
on the lake. It was his opinion, he told the court, 
that the then existing outlet was not as high as the 
original one. This also was the testimony of Fred 
Sirrine, son of James Sirrine who was one of the 
original settlers at Clear Lake. James Sirrine 
came to Clear Lake in 1853 and lived within a few
182 THE PALIMPSEST
rods of the outlet. It was he who operated the 
much-discussed fish trap.
Then there was Edwin Nichols, who came to 
the lake in 1856. H e said the w ater was higher in 
1857, before men tampered with the lake banks, 
than he had seen it since. L. E. Crowell, who had 
lived at the lake since 1857, said the lake at the 
time of the trial was twelve inches below the high- 
w ater mark. Harrison Hayden, who came in 
1861, thought there was six inches difference.
Dwight Palmeter, who first saw the lake in 
1863, told the court he had seen it from four to six 
inches higher. Dr. J. B. Charlton, who came in 
1861, admitted he too had seen it higher. A. H. 
Green, who started in the boat business at Clear 
Lake in 1874, testified the sluiceway was put in 
two feet below the original level.
John C. Sherwin, a Supreme Court justice, was 
also a witness in the trial. He said he came to 
M ason City in 1876 and that he had been at the 
lake a large part of the time since. He maintained 
that part of the embankment in front of the sluice­
w ay had been taken away. W illiam Gilmore, 
who contended he knew all of the depths and 
shallows, shores and bars, said the water was not 
as high as it was formerly, judging from the level 
register at Dodge s Point, which was opposite 
from the town of Clear Lake.
THE CLEAR LAKE OUTLET FEUD 183
W . S. Colby, county surveyor, testified that the 
spillway was three feet below the old bank. John 
Gilmore, who came to Clear Lake in I860, corrob­
orated the testimony of the other witnesses in 
maintaining that there had been a lowering of the 
water level. The water in the upper part of the 
lake, he said, did not reach as far as in the old 
days.
W itnesses for the defense consisted chiefly of 
farmers from this upper-lake section, where the 
water was shallow, who owned the land that was 
submerged in high-water periods. These almost 
invariably contended the lands they used for pas­
ture in the old days had in later years become 
flooded. How these observations could be har­
monized with the contentions of the plaintiff w it­
nesses was one of the mysteries of the trial. 
Among the defense witnesses were Edwin Green, 
who came in 1876 and had a dock at the camp 
grounds, and H. Hathron, who came in 1874 and 
who testified at the trial that the lake in 1906 was 
the highest he had ever seen it.
D. H. Campbell, who at that time was superin­
tendent of schools, stated that the water had be­
come so high in later years that the ice had pushed 
out trees and even sidewalks. Jeno Frandson, 
who lived on a farm in Hancock County, on the 
west end of the lake, said his land was under
184 THE PALIMPSEST •* • •
water, adding that "the land has never been under 
w ater before that I know of." He had owned the 
farm twelve years, he said. E. J. Scherf, of V en­
tura, also owned a farm at the head of the lake, 
which, he said, was covered with w ater at the time 
of the trial while it was dry at the time he bought 
it in 1873. Chauncy Thomas told the judge he 
thought the lake was four feet higher than when 
he came there in 1871. }. B. W ood, resident at 
the lake since 1855, said the lake was a foot higher 
than he had ever seen it before. Michael Calla- 
nan came to the lake in 1853 and was certain the 
lake was higher than in the old days.
Shortly after the conclusion of the trial, Judge 
J. F. Clyde announced his decision, holding that 
the level of the county supervisors’ sluiceway was 
the correct one. An appeal to the Supreme Court 
was taken and, after a hearing, the high tribunal 
of the State in 1910 handed down the decision 
ordering the outlet raised a foot.
"An examination of the record leaves no doubt 
but that the ground surface of the outlet as it for­
merly existed was considerably above the eleva­
tion decreed by the court," was the opinion of the 
Supreme Court in which the decision of Judge 
Clyde was modified and affirmed.
The high court held that witnesses who testified 
concerning the height of the water at the outlet,
THE CLEAR LAKE OUTLET FEUD 185
nearly all of whom were for the plaintiff, had the 
decided advantage over the defense witnesses, 
most of whom testified concerning water flooding 
their lower pastures, due to the fact that they had 
an opportunity to compare the height of the water 
‘ with other objects".
"A separate examination of the record has con­
vinced us that the elevation of the outlet as com­
pared with the datum bench mark at the southeast 
corner of Clear Lake park should have been fixed 
at 190.23 instead of 189.23, and as so modified 
the decree will be affirmed", the Supreme Court 
judges continued. The statement was added that 
Judge Sherwin of M ason City, who was one of 
the witnesses in the action, took no part in the 
Supreme Court proceedings.
Almost immediately after this decision the su­
pervisors built a new sluiceway twelve inches 
above the old one. For over thirty years now the 
water level has stood where the Supreme Court 
ordained it. No one has tried to dynamite the 
new outlet which the high tribunal ordered to be 
constructed. The disgruntled farmer has tilled 
what he could and fished on the remainder of his 
land. But the cycles of high and low water 
continue.
Enoch A. N orem


https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2409&amp;context=palimpsest

The Clear Lake Outlet Feud

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The Palimpsest

Iowa Research Online