ST PETER — The differing parties agree that Lake Hallett in St. Peter is a community resource worth preserving.

But how to best tend to that is where their roads fork.

“I think the city should divert storm water away from the lake. Why not divert it to the east side of the lake, where there’s a storm sewer?” says Lake Hallett Association President Trudy Olmanson, who worries that pollutants in the lake pose health perils.

But such a diversion plan costs money the city doesn’t have, says St. Peter Public Works Director Lew Giesking. Besides, he says the lake’s water quality over the long term has gotten high marks.

“We’re cited as really bad guys, but we’ve been told it’s one of the cleanest bodies of water in southern Minnesota, so we must be doing something right,” Giesking says.

At issue is fecal coliform pollution counts in the lake, a naturally occurring phenomena exacerbated by heavy rains and, last March, spiked further by a spill of partially treated sewage from the city’s nearby wastewater treatment plant.

Olmanson and other association members question whether the city has done enough to abate the problem.

Giesking says the spill was properly tended to and the city is working on minimizing recurrent storm-water leakage into the lake through an aging storm-sewer pipe.

The pipe, installed in the early 1970s, has corroded to the point of pinhole leaks, Giesking says.

“The pipe is too thin to and fragile to seal properly. It allows a thin stream of water into Hallett. Not a lot, but it’s continuous.”

Giesking says the pipe is scheduled to be replaced this fall.

Meantime, fecal coliform counts remain higher than acceptable state standards, a fact no one denies.

Olmanson, one of two residents on the lake, takes water samples each week as a volunteer tester through a bacteria-monitoring project at the University of Minnesota.

A recent laboratory-verified test result showed an e. coli count of 1,400 CFUs (colony-forming units), which is above the acceptable standard of 1,000 CFUs.

The test was taken after recent heavy rains. City tests also showed high counts were storm water enters the lake.

“There are always high levels after surface rains, so this doesn’t surprise me,” says Barb Liukkonen, who heads the university’s monitoring project.

But Liukkonen also is concerned about the steady leakage of storm water into the 14-acre body of water on the city’s north end, and Olmanson fears for the health of swimmers, though there have been no reports of anyone becoming ill.

The lake is used by anglers, and although swimming in it is prohibited, there’s a beach of sorts where people swim illicitly.

Association member David Hoehn of Le Sueur thinks the city is too easily dismissive of the pollutant counts in the lake.

“The city’s response is, ‘We have ‘no swimming’ signs posted,’” says Hoehn, who believes the city is two-faced about the lake — claiming to care about it when it really doesn’t.

Giesking says he can’t do a lot about people’s perceptions.

“The claim of caring gets down to: What are you doing to take care of it? And if that means we aren’t doing what they desire to bypass (divert storm water away from the lake) it, then I guess someone can say that we don’t care,” Giesking says.

The city has plans to turn the lake perimeter into a nature trail area. Water clarity in the lake remains excellent; the bottom can be seen to a depth of 10 feet.

“I very much appreciate the concern for the lake, and we’d very much like to see it developed into a recreation area,” Giesking says.

“It’s a valuable resource, and we want to do the right thing for the people.”