Ramifications of pier rule are significant - action is needed now

To the Editor:
Despite the disingenuous media blitz on the part of the DNR which attempts to assure everyone that they aren't affected by the revised rules, an examination of the rules shows that the revisions are as intrusive and as onerous as the original.

These rules will continue to affect many thousands of families. They continue to be harmful to the environment and unnecessary excessive restrictions. The rules perpetuate the three-foot water depth standard. How does a churning propeller inches from the bottom enhance aquatic life? It doesn't; it is harmful.

How many teenagers diving into that shallow water will be injured?

No one quarrels with limitations on structures which interfere with navigation or which are, in fact, harmful to aquatic life. This rule over does it. It overkills with a lot of collateral damage. It's like taking an Abrams tank into the woods for deer hunting; you might get the deer, but you will do a lot of damage.

One has to wonder what the true intent of the DNR is; remember this agency in the past has attempted to prescribe pier color as well as limit the colors of boat hoist canopies.

The limitation on the number of boats you may have doesn't take into account the size, whether motorized or not; it's arbitrary and capricious. A 20-foot lot could have two 30-foot cigarette boats with dual engines; the neighbor with a 50-foot lot would be limited to two eight-foot non-motorized pram sailboats. Does that make sense? NO.

The DNR Board did extend the time period for compliance to three years to eliminate "excessive" pier platforms (some of which, according to the DNR secretary, have been around 20 years). BUT the rule was so urgent that they couldn't delay to allow time for the public to review and comment on the hastily-contrived revisions.

How many piers are affected? How many piers are there? Does DNR know? They say they do. When the rule was first proposed, DNR estimated that there were 550,000 piers. Less than 1 percent would be affected. After objections were raised, DNR determined that there were 187,000 piers and that less than 1 percent would be affected. Hmmm ... the public has not been given any time to review this either.

From the DNR's own numbers (they randomly selected 35 out of 15,000 Wisconsin lakes to determine impact) we find that 20 of 35 lakes would have greater than 1 percent requiring permits. Some lakes would have greater than 50 percent in noncompliance, most would have 10 to 20 percent requiring permits.

Under the new proposal, nearly everyone would have to register their piers. On Pewaukee Lake in Waukesha County, my home lake, I am advised by two knowledgeable and independent sources (one from the sanitary commission and one from the town government) that more than 50 percent of the existing piers are out of compliance. This is just the start of regulation. Once you're registered ... next they'll want to register guns (so you can prove your ownership; we don't need that help).

Why is this necessary to eliminate navigational obstructions? DNR has the authority now to remove navigational obstructions or obstructions harmful to aquatic life. If a structure is otherwise "objectionable," let the local folks, through enhanced local zoning authority, take care of it.

The problem is compounded by the fact that DNR managed to get some of their new pier guidelines codified in the state statues in a recent revision to their permitting process. That revision overall was good, but the Legislature and Gov. Doyle weren't quite as vigilant in reviewing the ramifications of the "fine print."

What to do?

The Legislature and governor should move quickly to: • Suspend the rule; • Amend existing law to provide that all existing piers which do not materially interfere with navigation or adversely affect (materially) aquatic life are in fact grandfathered. Any registration would be voluntary; • Amend the law so that piers may be constructed to the maximum of sufficient water depth, low water, for a boat kept there or three feet, which ever is greater. • Amend the law to define the "boat slip" limitation to apply only to motorized craft, not including non-motorized craft (this would make sure that water "toys" - sail powered only boats, canoes, kayaks - are not counted against the boat slip limitation); and • Amend the law to strengthen local zoning powers.

I could go on at greater length. This proposal from the DNR and its board is one of the worst overkill proposals I have ever seen come from state government. The ramifications, the restrictions imposed, will really be felt in coming years. It is not necessary.

The DNR Board has failed the public; they seem only to listen to the sycophant organizations that can hire people to regularly attend their meetings. I hope the governor and Legislature will act.

James R. Klauser
Pewaukee
December 27, 2005

Read October post