Recently, the Daily letters column has been filled with debate over the precise meaning of the ancient word “arsenikoitai.” But judging from the front page article of the March 2 issue, the editors of the Daily seem to be a bit confused about the meaning of ordinary English words such as “restoration.” Here’s the actual definition of restoration: to return something to its previous state.

The proposed project to modify Lake Laverne is NOT a restoration. It isn’t even a natural lake. To truly restore it, you’d have to fill it in and turn it back into a prairie (which I am not suggesting).

“Beautify” was another word used in the Daily article. Beautifying the lake and increasing people’s ability to enjoy it is a worthwhile endeavor. The proposal to install benches, so that people can sit by the lake and enjoy it, is a good idea. Actually, making it more beautiful is a great idea. The lake currently looks pretty much like a rock-lined puddle in a lawn, with a few nice trees and shrubs alongside it. These plants are nice, but they don’t relate to the lake in any way; they’re just more of the standard plants you see around campus. There aren’t any of the plants that would normally be found in or around a lake, like water-lilies, cattails, arrowheads, rushes and sedges. This is probably the reason that I’ve never seen any wild water birds there; there’s no shelter for them. The only water birds I’ve ever seen there are Lancelot and Elaine, and they only stay because they’re surrounded by a fence, and they each have half a wing amputated so they can’t fly away to a better lake somewhere else.

Beautifying even a very small patch of land can attract wildlife. A friend of mine saw a pheasant flying out of the Science II prairie, and that’s a tiny patch of beauty surrounded by buildings and parking lots. When was the last time you saw a pheasant on central campus? Beautifying a larger area, like Lake Laverne, would create an oasis for wildlife and be a real showpiece for ISU.

So, I was delighted to read that the lake would be beautified. I thought that meant more beautiful plants would be planted to attract more beautiful birds, so people could sit on benches and look at something more interesting than a puddle in a lawn. The lake might even be made beautiful enough to keep Lancelot and Elaine content, so they wouldn’t feel the need to keep wandering away in search of a better lake. Apparently not. “Beautify,” according to the article, means to cover the land with a concrete path, and a paved plaza inscribed with the names of rich people. Lovely. (That was sarcasm.)

How does paving the land around the lake make it more beautiful? That’s just changing the lake from a puddle in a lawn to a puddle in a parking lot. Does anyone really think that concrete is beautiful? Perhaps the Daily is misusing the word “beauty” as well as the word “restoration.”

Sometimes concrete is necessary, but it’s not necessary here. I quote the article: “The paved path will cover the muddy shortcut between Welch and Stanton Avenues… Get out your campus maps, everybody, and look at this area. This is NOT a shortcut. The fastest way to get from Welch to Stanton is to walk along the perfectly adequate sidewalk along Lincoln Way. Anyone who wants to walk on concrete can walk on that sidewalk. Anyone who wants to walk the long way around on an unpaved path can walk along the south side of Lake Laverne. There’s a choice of paths, so we can pick the path we like. Everyone’s happy. Why waste money, reducing our choices, paving a path parallel to the existing sidewalk along Lincoln Way? That’s just redundant. Yes, the lake path is occasionally muddy, particularly after a rain in spring, but this is not a problem, because people who don’t want to get their shoes muddy can walk along Lincoln Way, and suffer no inconvenience. If GSB wants to improve the lake path, a simple layer of woodchips would make it much less muddy, and have less of an environmental and visual impact.

Rick Fox, a landscaper here at ISU, was kind enough to talk with me about some landscaping projects on campus. He said that the concrete path next to College Creek, east of the Memorial Union parking ramp, is causing problems with drainage in the soil uphill from the path. They’ve improved the problem slightly since they’ve replaced the path with one of a different design, but the drainage problem still exists. Water can’t run past the concrete to the creek, so it stagnates in the soil. This drowns many plants. Walk by and check it out. There’s just bare dirt there, no plants at all, although Fox plans to plant some plants that are tolerant of waterlogged soils there. If concrete is causing such a problem alongside College Creek, why install more of it by Lake Laverne? Won’t this cause more of the same problems?

If the GSB really wants to beautify the area, they should install things which are actually beautiful, like beautiful native water plants which will attract beautiful native wildlife. If they really think that concrete is beautiful, then they should just pave the entire lake and create a beautiful parking lot.

Melissa A. Kacalanos is a graduate student in genetics.