Effort to protect state rivers advances with appointment of statewide river coordinator

What you won't read in this article:

1) DNR Todd Ambs is the former Director of the River Alliance;

2) The River Alliance is a forceful advocate for removal of all dams;

3) "Conflicitng Interests" of water users will be repeated ad-nauseum at our RKLD contested case hearing'

4) "Broad Involvement" translates into the recruitment of additioanal pro-DNR groups;

5) The DNR fails to acknowldge statutorily created local governement entities, Lake Districts, among "River Group Users;"

6) The DNR hates dams so much that they want to challenge federal FERC permits and jeopardize the creation the clean energy alternatives of hydro-electric dams.

RHINELANDER – Efforts to bring together a statewide partnership focused on restoring and protecting Wisconsin’s rivers and streams have taken a step forward with appointment of a statewide river management coordinator within the Department of Natural Resources.

“We have 84,000 miles of rivers and stream in Wisconsin and it’s important we have a dedicated effort to protect, restore and enhance the health of these flowing waters,” says Todd Ambs, administrator of the DNR Water Division.

Ambs has appointed a veteran DNR staffer, Bob Martini, to the rivers team leader position that is charged with uniting diverse Wisconsin programs focusing on river issues and building a partnership of individuals, organizations and river users dedicated to protecting gains made in water quality and addressing polluted runoff, shoreline development and other continuing and new challenges.

The partnership effort will be modeled in many respects after the nationally-renowned Wisconsin Lakes Partnership, which involves DNR and University of Wisconsin-Extension (Exit DNR) working closely with citizens and lake communities, Ambs says. The state provides educational, financial and technical support to lake communities, and citizens provide local leadership and initiative.

Martini says that building a partnership around river issues will be challenging because there are so many different groups with conflicting interests. Anglers and paddlers use the rivers for recreation, industry and municipalities to discharge their wastewater, some utilities to generate hydroelectric power, and some farmers to irrigate their fields.

But he notes that the growing number of river organizations in Wisconsin can help this effort succeed. Where five years ago there were probably fewer than 50 organizations dedicated to specific Wisconsin rivers and streams, now there are more than 150. That growth has come in part because of a partnership between DNR and the River Alliance of Wisconsin to build and support river organizations; the DNR supplies grant money and technical support , and the River Alliance the organizational help.

“Because our river systems are so heavily used and so attractive to people, it’s all the more reason to get broad involvement from the broad spectrum of users,” Martini says.

Ambs notes that Martini is a 30-year veteran of river management and “has a wealth of background in river issues and is certainly one of the most knowledgeable folks in Wisconsin regarding rivers and streams of our state.”

Martini, who will be based in Rhinelander, has been involved with all aspects of river management issues since he started with DNR in 1976. He led the team for the cleanup of the Wisconsin River, which in the 1970s was a literal dead zone -- a place people didn’t want to be near let alone fish in or swim in. Now the river has been cleaned up to the point that it is well-known as a year-round walleye fishery and is attracting people who want to build along the river. He also helped write the nation’s first law to protect Wisconsin waters from acid rain, and has worked with owners of more than 60 hydroelectric dams to improve recreational access for citizens and habitat for fish and other aquatic creatures.

Ambs says the river team leader will focus on two key areas: building a partnership involving the broad spectrum of river user groups, river organizations like Trout Unlimited and River Alliance, and academic institutions like University of Wisconsin campuses and UW Extension with expertise in river
ecology , and coordinating the agency’s involvement in federal re-licensing agreements for hydroelectric dams operating on Wisconsin rivers.

“These citizen groups are coming together as the need for better river coordination
continues and grows,” Martini says. “We’ve had dramatic improvement in river quality since the Clean Water Act of 1972. Now, the goal is to protect those gains.”

Polluted runoff from urban areas, farms, roads and construction sites remain a big threat, and the pressure to develop shorelines is shifting from lakes, where much of the waterfront is already developed, to rivers with vastly improved water quality.

The other major responsibility will be for Martini to coordinate the agency’s role in advising the federal government on its relicensing of hydroelectric dams. About 130 large dams in Wisconsin are regulated by the Federal Energy Relicensing Commission, and required to get a new license every 30 years that sets the conditions for their operation. DNR is responsible for advising the commission on the conditions that should be included in the licenses to address the myriad of issues associated with large dams, everything from water levels on reservoirs and downstream reaches, to public access, to the presence of threatened and endangered species.

In all, each license requires 16 different plans and Martini will be involved in helping coordinate the local biologists, water management specialists and others
in helping set those conditions. More than 30 FERC licensed dams in Wisconsin were re-licensed under improved river management requirements through the 1990s.

“We have advisory responsibility to explain the best way to protect the public interest based on our expertise . It’s our job to help balance public and private interests in river management.”

Contested Case Hearing Set

Mark Your Calendars....

Public Participation/Testimony:
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thurday
March 28, 29, 30, 2006
Fort Atkinson, Location: TBD

Expert Testimony:
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
April 3, 4, 5, 2006
Monday through Friday
April 10 - 14, 2006
Madison, Location; TBD

Our day in court is fast approaching, please pass the word!

Thank You Dorothy!

Dorothy donated the money for the district’s original website before we ever collected one penny of taxpayer funding.

She voluntarily did that without anyone ever asking for help because of her great love for the area and for us “the district” to be able to better communicate to the district property owners..

Thank You Dorothy ! ! !

Jim

Good Luck Dorothy!

TO ALL:

Dorothy was/is one helluva supporter of the Lake District. We will miss her at our meetings and supporting the best interests of the lake; whether it was opposing the Town of Milton’s ridiculous no wake ordinance, or the Town of Sumner’s attack on events at the Sunset.

She always found time to show her face and defend equal rights for all lake users -- beyond the long hours required to run her business.

Sometimes, people ask, what’s in it for me? Not Dorothy. She always said, what’s in it for all of us.

Enjoy the 12 months of sun Dorothy. You have certainly earned it.

Brian Christianson

Keep shoreline zoning on track

NOTE: My comments appear in (para).

WI State Journal Editorial, October 23, 2005

Wisconsin should act with deliberate speed to protect the state's remaining unspoiled lakes and rivers. For that reason, the plan to update the way the state regulates the development of shoreline properties should quickly proceed.

Lawmakers and residents should not allow the process to become bogged down in a fight about the power government wields against private property owners.

(So government should minimize the concerns of property owners?)

Regulating shoreland development is not about infringing on private rights. It is about protecting clean water, natural beauty, and fish and wildlife habitat.

(To some degree, yes it does infringe on my rights)

And it is about protecting private rights - the rights of home- and
business-owners to enjoy their waterfront property.

(OK, at least property rights receives a token mention)

No one wants to live and work along water that resembles pea soup with noodles.

(Shoreline property owners take great care in protecting their investment)

Since 2002, the state Department of Natural Resources has been working on aproposal to update shoreline zoning regulations controlling setbacks, lot sizes,buffer strips, concrete surfaces and other property development issues. The proposal would chiefly affect land in rural parts of the state.

(Define rural. Rural as in the Willow Flowage in Oneida County, or rural as in Sumner Township, Jefferson County?)

Cities and villages, governed by their own zoning regulations, would be exempt.

Why only cities and villages? Why not include areas that are represented by statutorily created lake districts?)

Updating the state's shoreline protection standards, which have remained virtually unchanged since 1966, is vital to lakes and rivers threatened by development. In Dane County we have seen firsthand how the rapid expansion of homebuilding and commercial development contributes to increased runoff pollution that feeds weed and algae growth in our lakes and rivers.

(Indeed. Dane County is home to all the so-called experts; from the University to the DNR, from every state legislative agency to highly restrictive zoning from local politicians, and yet, the Madison chain of lakes still has its problems)

To be sure, the proposal's specific provisions deserve debate.

(Yes, it does deserve debate)

Indeed, they already have been debated.

(So do you want to end debate or continue debate?)

This month DNR staff members are poring over roughly 12,000 comments from the public. The DNR intends to modify the proposal based on what one administrator called "a significant number of good ideas" from the comments and from hearings conducted this summer.

(I am curious how many shoreline property owners are there in WI? How many lake districts? 12,000 comments seem mighty slim.

What is the position of the WI Realtors Assn? The WI Counties Assn? The WI Towns Assn? The WI Assn. of Lakes? And the dozens and dozens of other associations and local units of government that each have concerns about a mandated statewide law that then becomes riddled with exceptions that only the DNR can interpret)

The Ex "Co-Governor" Responds to Pier Rules

DNR Proposed Rules Affecting Piers and Waterways

By James Klauser
former Secretary, Department of Administration

I am writing to oppose the proposed rules as approved by the DNR Board and any, if any, statutes on which they may be predicated. As a Wisconsin resident, lake-front property owner, taxpayer, and active voter, I ask that you consider my comments as you approach this issue at the state government level.

The proposed rules are:

- adverse to and will harm the environment;
- inconsistent with and violate the public trust responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources;
- adverse to handicapped, disabled, and senior citizens;
- a violation of the constitutional property rights of riparian owners;
- ambiguous and unenforceable;
- overreaching on the part of the state government-local governments should control; and
- an arbitrary limitation on the number of boats per property

There are an estimated 550,000 piers (owned by families) in Wisconsin's waterways. Most of these have existed for some while without any adverse effects, while affording millions of Wisconsin residents' access to Wisconsin's greatest resource. Industries (boats, motors) and jobs have been created and sustained in Wisconsin because of this access.

It is estimated that perhaps 20 percent or over 100,000 of these piers-families-do not conform. Eighty percent or 425,000 or more piers would require permits.

Now the DNR proposes to require permits, establish arbitrary standards, diminish local control while centralizing control in Madison, and limit the number of boats. Why?-unanswered.

What bureaucracy is going to manage this-a new "Pier Police"? On the other hand, if the DNR is not going to enforce the rules, the unenforced rules will create contempt and lack of respect for the DNR and the concept of law.

The rules were drafted with minimum public exposure and input with the help of a well-meaning seven (only 7) member stakeholder group. Few, if any, of the affected families are even familiar with these individuals.

The rules propose a standard pier length to three feet of water. As to motorboats, the more popular V hulls, either with outboard or inboard outboard drives, require about 27-30 inches of water depth. At the DNR standard, these engines would be churning the waterway bottom-adverse to the environment. This year, due to the significant rain shortage and general weather conditions, most lakes are a foot or more low, so these propellers would be hitting bottom.

Sailboats, which are probably the most environmentally friendly and benign, are discouraged under these rules. Sailboats require either a keel or centerboard-a 3-foot depth doesn't work. Sailboats land under wind power; they need an accessible pier in greater depth. I personally sail a boat that would require 6 feet of water to land safely.

The number of boats is limited by these rules. A property with 50 feet or less is limited to two boats. Personal A with a 50-foot lot is limited to two 8-foot prams (junior sailboats), while his neighbor with a 20-foot lot could have two 40-foot cigarette boats. This doesn't make sense.

One way around this effective limitation would be to haul the bars onto the shore via ramps or marine railways. Either way, the shore vegetation, including trees, would be adversely affected. In my area are many vulnerable, virgin, tall, stately oak and black walnut trees that would have to be cut down-a terrible environmental tragedy caused by these rules.

The rules allow but limit a "loading area" at the end of a pier. This limitation is inadequate to facilitate handicapped, disabled, and senior citizens-who require assistance in boarding a boat. Such an area, which will have a concentrated load when assistance is provided, i.e., others lifting someone into a boar, will require a substantial, strong, and stable platform.

Incidentally, by using the term "loading area," the intent of the drafters as well as the supporting documents shows that the area is not to be a "patio" or sitting area. Why not? Are pontoon boats which are "floating patios" next on the prohibited list?

While I am not an active fisherman, I enjoy a morning cup of coffee at the lake and often see fishermen come by in their trolling boats-close to the shore and in and out among the piers. On occasion a boat with a family in anchored at pier end-fishing with son, father, and granddad aboard. Clearly, this pier area is friendly to fish and not adverse.

These are only a few of my comments.

I would point out that my family and I have been "lake people" for three generations, as long as we have been in this country. I have lived on several bodies of water and am a past President of the Lake Mendota-Monona Property Owners Association. Presently, we reside on Pewaukee Lake in Waukesha County. We are active sailors.

While there may be some need to regulate in truly sensitive areas-as well as a need for prevent excavation of lake bottoms-this proposal goes too far. Let the local governments-who know their situation best-define things further.

No one wants his or her neighbors to develop a "marina." But why limit canoes, sailboats, etc.? Don't take away informed local control that in 99 percent of cases works for these 550,000 families with piers.

I appreciate your attention to my thoughts.

Sincerely,

James R. Klauser

P.S. Could someone from DNR demonstrate how to safely dive into 3 feet of water?

Counties vs. DNR

OHWM Legislation

A bill by State Representative Dan Meyer (R-Eagle River) to convey to individual counties the final authority to make ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determinations is headed to a public hearing in Madison.

The Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 26, 10 a.m. The session is slated for the Capitol in Room 417-N. Under the proposal, in the event of a dispute over an OHWM location between the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and local zoning officials, the county's position would prevail.

…The bill has also garnered the support of the Wisconsin Realtors Association (WRA). Meyer has said he is simply trying to put into law what the Attorney General's office has already indicated is the prevailing law of the land. "This initiative simply clarifies existing state law to make sure there is no confusion on the part of the DNR when it comes to whose decision will prevail in OHWM determinations," he said when introducing the bill. Meyer's legislation would presumably limit the DNR's future authority to set the OHWM for state permits.

…"If the OHWM of a property changes, the amount and value of the land owned by the property owner also changes," Larson wrote in Wisconsin Real Estate Magazine last April. "For example, if a property owner has a deed indicating that he owns 40 acres of land along a lake, moving the OHWM five feet inland from where it is believed to be located can effectively convert a sizable amount of land (e.g., three to five acres) from private property to lakebed which is owned by the state." In addition, a change in the OHWM could transform homes into non-conforming structures, and could impact local governments by shrinking the tax base.

DNR Winter Draw Down Has Begun

TO ALL:

Just to let our electors know, on Friday 10/15, the first gate opening occurred to comply with the Mickey Mouse DNR operating orders.

A second gate was opened on Saturday.

From today (Monday), we must drop another 8.4 inches to reach the DNR winter level drawdown by November 1st. As you can see from the graph link, even after we reach the winter target level, and gates are closed, we will still lose water level, given the spillway’s elevation is lower than the winter target level.

Gate Log

Hope everyone had an enjoyable boating summer. As for me, I’ll stretch the boating out as far as I can, so long as I don’t tear-up my last prop.

Brian Christianson

Lakeland Times Pier Rules Editorial

New pier rules show why DNR can’t be trusted

...So with me the issue is not how wide a pier can be but about who is telling me how wide my pier can be: the lawmakers or the bureaucrats. After all, if we don’t like the laws, we can fire our legislators in the next elections. Try firing the bureaucrats at the DNR.

But not all the fault lies with lawmakers. Having been given an inch, the DNR has taken a mile with administrative rules, and the pier package is a perfect example. Let’s take a look.

...The new rules will be enforced almost solely on complaints from neighbors or other lake users, the newspaper paraphrased Mr. Todd Ambs as saying. There is no plan for wardens or other DNR officials to actively seek out piers that don’t comply with the new rules, the newspaper attributed to Mr. Ambs.

The goal of such a policy is to pit neighbor against neighbor, to encourage divisiveness in communities, and to turn state rules into weapons by which embittered souls can seek to inflict injury on those they dislike, whether or not their motivation has anything to do with the public’s rights in navigable waters.

Rest assured, however, Mr. Ambs statement is not at all accurate: the DNR has no intention of enforcing the new pier rules solely on the basis of complaints.

We have written extensively about the DNR’s pursuit of pier violations against Manitowish Waters resident Tom Baer, and as Mr. Ambs was speaking to the Sentinel, the DNR’s appeal on that matter was sitting in the Court of Appeals.

Again, as we have reported before and as the DNR has admitted, there was no complaint against Mr. Baer’s piers. So why would they have pursued him in the first place – why did a DNR agent actively seek out his piers – and why would they continue to pursue him if Mr. Ambs were telling the truth?

Indeed, in its briefs in the case, the DNR has specifically argued that its broad statutory enforcement powers trump a specific provision in the current pier rules preventing the DNR from pursuing a pier violation unless there is a complaint or unless the pier owner seeks information from the agency.

“If DNR learns of a possible violation of the statutes relating to navigable waters or a possible infringement of the public rights relating to navigable waters, and DNR determines that the public interest may not be adequately served by a penalty or forfeiture, the DNR may proceed…” the agency quotes state statutes in its brief in the Baer case.

In other words, right now the DNR is in court to preserve their right to take action against piers whenever they decide to do so, whether a complaint exists or not, and they are in the process of pursing a non-complaint driven action against a pier owner even when the current rules demand a complaint for such action.

DNR Pier Comment

Hi Brian,

Did you check out the new DNR proposed pier rulings that were voted on at the DNR Board Meeting on September 28th, 2005?

Kosh should have exemptions to some of the rules as Lake Geneva does for wave action. We should have an exemption for fluctuation in water depth.

The critical issue that I see is under hoists, lifts, & boat shelters... 'Lifts must be placed adjacent to a pier, wharf, or shoreline'.

If the DNR enforces their new rule, it pretty much puts the 'Ki-Bosh' on Kosh residents that place their lifts hundreds of feet out into the lake without an 'adjacent pier'.

We all know that the only reason Kosh residents do this is because they have to. How many people can really afford to purchase a $50,000.00 plus 500ft. pier? (which now, may NOT fall within the 'new guidelines' anyways).

Sure, its just another way to make the state money, by requiring pier permits ...but what was broke with the old DNR pier guidelines? Nothing.

It sure is amazing how the each segment of the DNR invents crap to protect their own jobs & paychecks at everyone else's expense! They are a shameless state agency.

After 103 Days, DNR acts

On Wednesday, September 14th, 2005, the DNR finally sent the RKLD's request for a Contested Case Hearing to the Department of Administraion for scheduling with an adminstrative law judge. The DNR granted our request on June 3rd, 2005.

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

REQUEST FOR HEARING

REQUEST
NO.: IH-05-08 DATE:
September 6, 2005

DOCKET NUMBER AND CAPTION:
In the Matter of the Amended Water Level Decision for Lake Koshkonong and
the Indianford Dam on the Rock River in Rock County, WI- Docket Number
3-SC-2003-28-3100LR

DNR COUNSEL:
Michael Cain

APPLICABLE STATUTES:
Sections 30.21; 227.42, Stats.

REQUEST DATES:
Fall, 2005

REQUESTED LOCATION:
Fort Atkinson

ESTIMATED LENGTH OF HEARING:
5-10 days

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PERSONS ATTENDING HEARING:
Initially, 75 plus

COMMENTS OR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
This amended water level order is locally very controversial. There will be
numerous parties, and potentially as many as 5 – 7 lawyers involved. A
pre-hearing conference to establish the parties, the timetable and the process
would be advisable. Dates that are currently available for the pre-hearing
conference for M. Cain and Buck Sweeney include: Sept. 29,29; October
4,6,10,11,12,24 and 25. We have solicited but not received dates from Bill
O’Connor and Art Harrington. We have not solicited dates from the other
attorneys on the list, including County Corp. Counsels.

ATTACHMENTS:
Water level order
Requests for hearing
Letter granting hearing
requests
Environmental Assessment
Mailing List (electronic and hard
copy)


_____________________________
AnnMarie Kutzke
Bureau
of Legal Services Liaison

Mailing List

DNR

Mike Cain,
Attorney
AnnMarie Kutzke, LS/5
DNR Calendar

OTHER INTERESTED
PARTIES

Koshkonong Creek Study

Dam Removal Bio Data Lacking

Dam removal is a potentially powerful tool for restoring riverine habitats and communities.

However, the effectiveness of this tool is unknown because published data on the effects of dam removal on in-stream biota are lacking.

We investigated the effects of a small dam removal on unionid mussels in Koshkonong Creek, Wisconsin (USA).

Removal of the dam led to mortality both within the former impoundment and in downstream reaches.

Within the former reservoir, mortality rates were extremely high (95%) due to desiccation and exposure.

Koshkonong Creek in south central Wisconsin is a fifth-order warmwater stream draining a 360-km2 catchment. The basin lies in a low-relief glacial outwash plain dominated by agricultural land use.

The Rockdale dam was first constructed as a rock and timber crib in 1848 to run a grain mill, and then was converted to a concrete structure in 1887. The most recent version,
a 3.3-m high concrete run-of-river dam with a fixed crest spillway, was constructed ca. 1925 and created a 42–45-ha impoundment in 2000.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources breached the Rockdale dam on September 12, 2000.

OHWM Issues

Lakebed Property Rights

...The state's placement of the OHWM would have moved the property boundary in some locations to as much as three miles from open water - a similarity to some lakebed determinations in Wisconsin - a fact the judge said defied logic and common intelligence.

...The case is important in Wisconsin not only because state lakebed actions have generally mirrored those of Florida - events in Florida have generally foreshadowed those here - but also because the judge's determination hinged on the basis for determining the OHWM, which has been similarly derived by natural resources agencies in both states.

...What is similar to Wisconsin's situation was the court-defined language of the OHWM, which was to be established according to a 1927 Florida decision, Tilden v. Smith. The OHWM would be determined, that decision stated, by "ascertaining where the presence and action of the water are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil of the bed a character distinct from that of the banks, in respect to vegetation, as well as respects the nature of the soil itself." That language echoes Wisconsin's definition, which the DNR states is "the point on the bank or shore up to which the presence and action of the water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark either by erosion, destruction of terrestrial vegetation or other easily recognized characteristic."

The Other Koshkonong

The First 100 Years
By Clara Williams

Mr. Hardy Shurron was the first settler in what is now known as Koshkonong. In 1880, he homesteaded land which is now owned by Shell Oil Company and Wesson Charolais Ranch.

Mr. Shurron built the first home in the vicinity. In 1882, he traded his homestead for $10 cash, a ham, and a side of bacon. The buyer was Serano Standley, a construction employee of the Kansas City, Ft. Scott, and Memphis Railroad (now known as the Frisco). At this time , the right of way for the railroad was being prepared for the laying of track.

The superintendent of the railroad, Mr. R.R. Hammond, named the town Koshkonong. It was named after Lake Koshkonong, Wisconsin, which was Mr. Hammond's favorite duck hunting place.

At this time there was a large pond just east of the townsite. This pond had tall grass growing around it. The word "Koshkonong" is an Indian word meaning "wild rice". Mr. Hammond named the streets after some of railroad officials. Among these names are Bingham, Lyster and Castor.

Serano Standley built a double log house which served as his home and also a boarding house, store and post office. Mr Standley became the first postmaster in 1882.