capitol lake debate

I have always sat on the side of a true estuary chooser when it has come to debates like this, for the estuary is best for the wildlife and the humans. For instance fish use estuaries as streams to travel through to get to nesting places and streambeds; also it helps humans by keeping away evasive species that just seem to inundate the world. I am not tricked into a different view by the mind-twisting flood of words from the groups that set their life to ruining your thoughts, and forcing you to the side for the lake. Why do people wish to keep a lake when the lake has terrible water quality, and many evasive species such as purple loosestrife, New Zealand Mud Snails, etc? The estuary will still serve us the same, and in the research I made it says that it costs less to pay for an estuary then to pay for a lake even with the creation of a new bridge, the removal of the dam, and the new walkway. Also the dredging of the estuary costs less than the dredging of the lake. An estuary also still will reflect the capitols image and will be full with water 80% of the time, which is during the day. People are also not sure about the smell, but the thing is the smell back then was not the tide flats but the sewage, because it was untreated and dumped in the estuary but now it is treated and not dumped so therefore the estuary wouldn’t smell. People also are afraid of taking away the bats habitat but they too are evasive species to that area for a bat does not live near salt water.  In all of the circumstances the estuary is the obvious best choice.