Newville Events

Winter Wonderland
February 18th, 2006
Anchor Inn
Downtown Newville

World Famous...
Break in the Weather
April 8th, 2006
Anchor Inn
Downtown Newville

DNR Pier and Boat Limitation Rules; Assembly Bill 850

By James R. Klauser

“No diving. No swimming. No fishing. Piers are for access to a boat, that’s all.”

That is the answer I received from a high ranking DNR official when I asked about the 3-foot water depth limitation for the length of a pier. How can a person safely dive into 3 feet of water? (Note that high school swimming pools are required, for safety, to have a depth of greater than 5 feet if they are to be used for competitive swimming.) Piers, according to DNR, aren’t for diving or swimming or fishing. (See George Meyer’s testimony summarized in the minutes of the September DNR board meeting.)

This rule is NOT about the environment. DNR is using the non-transparent cloak of the “public trust doctrine,” just as Harry Potter uses his cloak of invisibility. Behind this cloak the aesthetic engineers who wanted to mandate the color of piers and boat canopies have given way to the DNR social engineers who seek to “dictate” how the “public,” home and cottage owners in this case, may use their properties and the public waters.

Please understand that I strongly support restrictions that eliminate structures which truly interfere with navigation or the marine habitat. That authority exists.

Consider this--

Today’s boats with inboard-outboard drives--often built in Wisconsin-- require about 36 inches of depth; by establishing a 3-foot standard, the propellers are churning the bottom. By what theory is that beneficial to the environment? IT ISN’T. It is terrible for the environment. But that’s what the DNR standard provides. For the environment’s sake, you want to get the out-drives away from the shore, not closer.

Another major failing of this rules is that it fails to acknowledge the differences among lakes. A lake of 20 acres is treated the same as a lake of 2,000 or 10,000 acres. There is no distinction between boats, types of boats, motorized or non-motored boats.

A larger lake will, by its nature, have larger waves and, because of its exposure, greater wind forces. Consequently, larger and more substantial pier structures are required to safely dock probably larger boats than a small lake. The pier will have to be higher off the water to accommodate water level changes and wave action. The so-called “loading platform” performs the important function of stabilizing the pier--which in fact is nothing more than a scaffold which rests on the bottom of the lake. A larger platform is essential to stabilize the pier and accommodate the mooring/docking of larger boats on larger lakes.

The rule treats an 8-foot non-motorized sailing pram the same as the 35-foot cigarette boat with three engines. A very badly conceived element of this rule and Chapter 118, Laws of 2003, is the limitation on the number of boats/boat slips. A property with 20 feet of lake frontage may have two boats. These could be two 35-foot cigarette boats while his neighbor could only have two 8-foot sailing prams. This is an arbitrary and capricious limit. A way around this provision is to pull boats up onto the pier or pull them up on shore, where there is no limit, at least now. This would result in destruction to shore vegetation and the probable loss of trees. In my case, I would lose several venerable oak trees…. So much for DNR’s balanced environmental “sensitivity.” By the way, I will never cut those trees down.

I have talked with pier installers on several lakes. They all tell me that they haven’t installed any piers that meet these standards. That raises a question: how many piers are there and how many will be affected? How many living room piers are there? Don’t ask DNR, you will get many different answers. These rules were adopted by the DNR Board when they were told there were 550,000 piers. Now there are fewer. Even the inadequate DNR impact study tells us that on the larger lakes many if not most piers do not meet these standards. What DNR totally fails to show is what is the problem? They don’t like living room piers.

They don’t like you sitting on your pier. But what is the problem? When I become a senior citizen, I’m getting closer; may I have a pier if I don’t have a boat? May I sit on that pier to watch the sunset?

On Pewaukee we don’t have “living room” piers. But probably, based on estimates from members of the Pewaukee Lake Sanitary District and members of the Town of Delafield Board, most piers would not conform. Our town board wouldn’t allow obtrusive “living room” piers whether they interfere with navigation or not.

This is best left to local control.

The process used in developing this rule leaves a great deal to be desired. They are based on the confusing and inadequate pier planner concepts. A stake holder group of seven people was established, somehow. No hearings were held in the lake country. I am advised that public participation was discouraged. I experienced that myself.

DNR touts the “public trust doctrine” but seems to forget more important, more controlling doctrine: the American Doctrine which protects individual liberty and RIGHTS, including property rights. This rule’s indirect eminent domain exercise must be done in a scalpel like way and may not bludgeon property rights.

The comments I hear in our local water holes are sad; DNR is coming to mean the “Department of No Respect.”

Restore DNR’s reputation; and protect the environment’ protect the right to swim, the right to dive, the right to fish from piers, for my grandchildren and yours.

SUSPEND THIS RULE.

PASS AB 850.

DNR Reworking NR 115

Read More Here

Toni Herkert, the DNR's shorelands management team leader, said they will make substantial changes to impervious surface limits and mitigation sections in the rewrite of Chapter NR 115 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

She said the department is about one year away from going to the Natural Resources Board for final approval.

Determined through studies to be outdated and not entirely effective at protecting water quality and lakefront wildlife habitat, NR 115 is being revised for the first time since its inception in 1966.

“We could get rid of nonconforming if we regulated structure placement in the shorelands area with impervious surface limits,” said Herkert. “It makes more sense than worrying about conformity because impervious surface is more directly linked to runoff and sedimentation — the key environmental factors we are trying to address.”

Herkert said they also want to take a closer look at mitigation to provide more flexibility than just forcing people to re-establish a natural 35-foot buffer along the waterfront.

“At Lake Geneva, where everyone basically has a lawn that goes down to the water, we might have to look at some options,” said Herkert. “Conservationists might say we are talking about giving up too much, but we can't force everyone to have a natural buffer.”