Delavan Township officials want lake property rezoned

Janesville Gazette

...Beers thought most people would be in favor of preserving lake quality over land divisibility. "I would think every resident, even those that live in Illinois, will say they do not like to increase density," Beers said.

Officials: Time is biggest factor in Lake Leota decision

Janesville Gazette

...As it is now, the lake is still too wet to be dredged mechanically. That may force officials into the slightly more costly option of hydraulic dredging, which uses machines to suck out muck while the lake is full.

Environmentalists decry rate of lakefront development

Janesville Gazette

...One current regulation calls for structures to be 75 feet from the shore's ordinary high-water mark, the highest point the water regularly reaches. But homeowners have resisted efforts to move that limit back, saying they would have less flexibility in renovating or remodeling their homes.

...One answer might be to expand the presence of natural vegetation to limit the amount of phosphorus that reaches the water, according to the research group. The group suggests that regulations should be expanded from calling for a 35-foot buffer to a 50-foot buffer.

Ist Place Perch

Open water fishing for this year's Bounty Hunt was fantastic - thanks to the higher water levels.

And thanks to both my guides, BK and Pladz. With their steady hand on the tiller, of the 3 legal 'Eyes boated, I took First in Boat -- but the money was collected at The Lamp, with my 11 3/4 inch, .79 lbs fat Perch.

Amazing what a little water does for the fishery.

From Lake Links RE: Bounty Hunt

Pladz:
Posted 04/23/06 10:22 a.m.
Fished yesterday with my friends Brad and Brian. We caught 30+ eyes with three legals, also three northern, two white bass, and one big perch. Caught almost all of the fish trolling fire tiger cranks around the rocks. Thanks to the organizers of the Bounty Hunt for providing a fun and beneficial fund raising event.

Post Hearing Hearing

At 4pm today, 4/22/06, all parties are convening with Judge Coleman to establish a calendar for summary briefs.

It is anticipated that the DNR will submit their summary first, followed at some point by the RKLD, and then wrapping-up with a DNR rebuttal summary to our submission.

More later on the actual outcome.

Owners of property with wetlands may receive tax break

DNR News
April 18, 2006

MADISON -Property assessment notices arriving in mail boxes across Wisconsin, and property owners with wetlands are encouraged to make sure eligible lands are properly classified to allow them to get a tax break.

Under a 2004 change to the Wisconsin property tax code, wetlands and other lands previously categorized as "swamp and waste" are now classified as "undeveloped lands" and are to be assessed at 50 percent their fair market value for purposes of calculating taxes on the land.

A free guide describing the tax treatment for undeveloped lands, including details on when wetlands should be classified as undeveloped lands, has been developed by the Wisconsin Wetlands Association and funded by the Department of Natural Resources.

"What Does It Cost to Own a Wetland" is now available at the association's Web site: www.wiscwetlands.org

Jeff Bode, who leads the DNR lakes and wetland section, hopes the tax guide can help Wisconsin protect and restore remaining wetlands. About 5.3 million acres of wetlands remain from the 10 million estimated at statehood, with more than 75 percent privately owned.

DNR has also been working with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and Wisconsin Wetlands Association to remedy a current situation that penalizes property owners who have restored wetlands or have implemented other conservation practices such as installing stream buffers, on land previously categorized as agricultural land.

Current tax law assesses agricultural lands at a fraction of their fair market value. Even with the 50 percent property tax reduction, lands in a conservation use are often assessed substantially higher than adjacent agricultural lands, making it financially less feasible for farmers to restore wetlands or buffers along streams or lakes, says Erin O'Brien, Wisconsin Wetland Association's wetland conservation and policy specialist.

"The 2004 tax break for wetlands is a step in the right direction for removing economic barriers to wetland protection and restoration, but if it's still three to five times more expensive to hold conservation lands than farmlands, farmers have no choice but to keep every square inch of their land in a use eligible for agricultural tax breaks," O'Brien says. "We think landowners should be rewarded, not penalized, for caring for these lands on behalf of their community."

Voters at the 2006 Spring Wildlife and Fisheries Hearings held statewide April 10 overwhelmingly agreed. They supported by a 3,345 to 674 margin a Conservation Congress advisory question calling on DNR to request a legislative review of farm conservation lands to "identify and implement sensible and fair solutions to these concerns."

DNR has been partnering with the wetland association in recent years to achieve the goal of reducing the property tax burden for wetland owners and to encourage wetland restoration and preservation through tax breaks and other incentives.

O'Brien and Bode encourage people who own wetlands to review the tax guide and carefully review the details of their notices of assessment to ensure their eligible lands were properly categorized and assessed. Previously, if someone's wetlands weren't properly categorized as "wastelands," it wasn't an issue because those lands were assessed at 100 percent of their fair market value, and taxed accordingly.
"Now, with wetlands or 'undeveloped lands' being assessed at half their value, there is good reason to examine the fine print on your property tax bill," Bode says.

Note About Wetlands' Testimony

Brian;
We are seasonal residents of the lake so we love the updates the site has posted.

I find it interesting that not only did almost all of the LKWA witnesses have direct involvement in the wetlands, either through ownership or club stock, but their attorney is also an owner.

Talk about a conflict of interests. Why in the world wouldn't they hire someone to support their beliefs that are experts without any connection to the lands/clubs - or couldn't they find any experts to support their assumptions?
John

We hope Judge Coleman did not miss that observation as well -- not one, not a single expert that testified on behalf of the RKLD, RRKA, or LKRA lives or owns on Lake Koshkonong/Rock River. And neither do attorneys O'Connor, Harrington, Peranteau, or Boyle.
BC

Key Moments Last Week

...Retired Rock County Deputy Sheriff, current Rock River Boat Patrol Captain and expert search and rescue diver Henry Sautin provided powerful testimony and tremendous first-account credibility of the difficulties of low-water navigation. Sautin outlined the dangers to public safety that artificial low water exacerbates.

...RKLD expert biologist Steve Hjort; Hjort's issue-areas were covered by testimony by 11 DNR staff experts. Hjort offered excellent first-hand knowledge of the lake system and was strong against the DNR's cross-examination.

...RKLD expert hydrologist Rob Montgomery; His testimony, accompanied by a PowerPoint, forced a concession from DNR that his conclusions about the behavioral characteristics and first-hand knowledge of the lake are indeed correct.

...Cathy Blesser, DNR expert on endangered plant species. She pulled her testimony back from the judge, acknowledging the wild orchid that has been a topic for several years now, is not threatened by current or RKLD's requested water levels.

...LKWA expert witness Linn Duesterbeck; His economic analysis proved to be far from expert, and Professors Kashian and Stockham for the RKLD provided real expert testimony that Judge Coleman surely recognized as much more accurate, and much less speculative.

More later on the public grants that DNR awarded to the LKWA; illustrating a bias against the RKLD and our grant applications at the time.

Shocking No More

Review here, here, here, and here.

Now this...

DNR & LKWA credibility took another blow last week when it was revealed that Scott Storlid, author of the NRC report on Floodplain Forests, and an expert witness in opposition to the RKLD's water level request, is also a stakeholder in the Carcajou Hunting Club.

Testimony from my perspective was very sketchy. Storlid either paid $10,000 for his share in the club, or his family had a past relationship with current or past club members, or his fees billed to the LKWA was paid with a all/portion of a share in Carcajou.

Either way, one has to wonder if an expert with the personal stake in the outcome of the case is more credible or less credible on what their professional opinions are based upon than the testifying expert that doesn't have personal stake in the outcome of the litigationn??

Contested Case Hearing Concludes

Judge Coleman concluded the contested case hearing at 2:20pm, Friday, April 14th.

Updates to follow re: a summary of testimony, and next steps in the process.

ASSEMBLY BILL 71

An Act to create 30.104 of the statutes; relating to: determinations of ordinary high-water marks by counties and by the Department of Natural Resources.
2005

02-01-05.
A.Introduced by Representatives Meyer, Gard, Friske, Gronemus, Montgomery, Krawczyk, Nass, Gunderson, Hines, Hahn, Stone, Musser, LeMahieu, Vos, M. Williams, Bies, McCormick, Albers, Mursau, F. Lasee, Van Roy and Moulton; cosponsored by Senators Stepp, Kanavas, Breske and Grothman.

02-01-05.
A.Read first time and referred to committee on Natural Resources
58

03-03-05.
A.Senator Brown added as a cosponsor 106

10-26-05.
A.Public hearing held.


2006
03-01-06.
A.Executive action taken.

03-02-06.
A.Report passage recommended by committee on Natural Resources, Ayes 10, Noes 5 878

03-02-06.
A.Referred to committee on Rules 878

03-07-06.
A.Placed on calendar 3-9-2006 by committee on Rules.

03-07-06.
A.Made a special order of business at 10:02 A.M. on 3-9-2006 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 51 932

03-09-06.
A.Read a second time 960

03-09-06.
A.Ordered to a third reading 960


03-09-06.
A.Rules suspended 960

03-09-06.
A.Read a third time and passed, Ayes 59, Noes 35, Paired 2 960

03-09-06.
A.Representative Newcomer added as a coauthor 960

03-09-06.
A.Ordered immediately messaged 960

03-10-06.
S.Received from Assembly 743

03-13-06.
S.Read first time and referred to committee on Natural Resources and Transportation 744

South Central Region: DNR Appoints Water Program Supervisors

News Release
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources South Central Region Headquarters - Madison
3911 Fish Hatchery Rd Fitchburg, WI 53711
Phone: (608) 275-3266
For Release: March 29, 2006
Contact(s): Steve Ales, Regional Supervisor, Fitchburg: 608-275-3310 Susan Josheff, Basin Leader, Fitchburg: 608-275-3305

FITCHBURG - Two veteran Department of Natural Resources employees were promoted recently to supervisory positions in the agency's South Central Region (SCR).

Steve Ales accepted the post of Drinking and Groundwater Regional Supervisor while Susan Josheff is now Basin Leader for the Lower Rock River Watershed.

Mr. Ales is now responsible for overseeing DNR staff that inspect public and private water supply systems in the 11-county SCR. Ms Josheff supervises the water management program staff covering storm water, animal waste, wastewater, lake management, monitoring, dam safety and floodplain functions in the Lower Rock River Basin of east central and southern Wisconsin.

A Madison native, Ms. Josheff earned a degree in civil and environmental engineering from the University of Wisconsin. She joined DNR in 1980 and has worked in both the field and at DNR's Madison headquarters in the floodplain program, as a dam safety engineer and most recently in the floodplain, dam safety and water regulation engineering functions in SCR, spending a great deal of her time resolving dam related issues.

Wednesday Update

Yesterday, Buck Sweeney, legal counsel for the LKWA, brought Linn Duesterbeck to the stand to rebut testimony offered by RKLD's witness Dr. Kashian.

The issue is whether land values on Beaver Dam Lake can be compared to land values on Lake Koshkonong, given the lakes' similar characteristics.

Dr. Kashian has documented that our values have fallen behind given the past threat of dam removal at Indianford, and the famously low summer water levels on Lake Koshkonong that limit recreation and navigation.

Art Harrington, legal counsel for RRKA & LKRA, will cross-examine Mr. Duesterbeck tomorrow, Friday.

Thursday Schedule

Judge Coleman has indicated his intention is to complete testimony from all Parties by COB tomorrow, Friday.

For the RKLD, Mike Dresen and Randy Weltzin testified last week -- Dr. Stan Nichols testified this week Tuesday -- Montgomery, Mickelson, Hjort will testify today.

For the RKLD supporting Parties, RRKA & LKRA, Dr. Kashian testified earlier this week and their portion of the testimony focusing on economic impacts (read his prefiled testimony here) will be presented tomorrow.

Thursday's Calender 4.13.06

A scheduling conflict kept DNR engineer Sue Josheff from testimony yesterday, so she will lead-off today's testimony. Ms. Josheff will be cross-examined by RKLD legal counsel Bill O'Connor.

Upon completion of Ms. Josheff's testimony, the DNR will conclude their witness presentations.

RKLD will return to our portion of the hearing with hydrologist Rob Montgomery (read more here)

And Montgomery's prefiled testimony here.

Dr. Dave Mickelson will testify for the RKLD's interests this AM as well. Dr. Mickelson is Professor of Geology and Geophysics, Geological Engineering, and Water Resources Management at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Steve Hjort will take the stand for the RKLD this afternoon.

Constituent Comment

Brian;
I was just talking to Jerry and he brought up a good point over Josheff's testimony over the dam not being operable for 20+ years. Seems strange they'd want to hang their hat onto testimony like that because it was the DNR'S job to inspect all dams to make sure they were in operable condition as well as safety issues, so she is either testifying against herself, Meg Galloway or the DNR in general. Hopefully O'Connor or Harrington crossed examined her on that subject.
Jack

Josheff Testimony

I watched an episode of Law and Order some time ago where settlement negotiations resulting in a plea bargain were ruled inadmissible.

Ms. Josheff's testimony about the DNR's 1991 negotiated water level order may not only be inaccurate, but also in a civil proceeding, would have been ruled out of order, possibly leading to a mistrial.

Stay tuned.

DNR Expert Testimony Excerpts III

DNR engineer Sue Josheff;

Read Ms. Josheff's prefiled testimony here

During cross examination by RKLD/Party attorneys, Ms. Josheff claims the 1991 negotiated water level order that resulted from litigation of the 1982 DNR water level order offered opposing parties each a small victory;

The wetlands owners were accommodated by removing the requirement of flashboards on the dam's spillway, and Frank Micale's group, RRKA, and riparian property owners were accommodated by moving the water level monitoring from the dam to the lake.

This is very noteworthy testimony from Ms. Josheff and RKLD/Party attorneys will be asking Ms. Josheff to return to the stand today, Wednesday.

Stay tuned.

DNR Expert Testimony II

DNR Regional Water Specialist Ken Johnson was brought back to testify again.

His prefiled testimony found here.

The purpose of his return was to revisit the 1979 OHWM study and reconstruct the survey notes from that effort.

Clearly, DNR felt RKLD's testimony and cross-examination was powerful in the eyes of Judge Coleman, and felt compelled to bring Mr. Johnson back the stand.

Read here and here.

DNR Testimony Excerpts I

DNR Forestry Expert Ted Pyrick

Read prefiled testimony here.

Basically, Mr. Pyrick opines that if the RKLD water level request is granted, all forested floodplains will be permanently flooded and certain species of trees will be drowned and killed.

He sources the NRC report (here) to reinforce his testimony

The resulting impact will be less board feet for harvesting from the floodplain forests.

Mr. Pyrick estimates the loss of revenue to be approximately $5,000.00 -- five thousand dollars -- over the next 100 -- one hundred -- years.

What's the Difference?

After conferring with RKLD legal counsel, I should clarify this previous post.

Judge Coleman is presiding over an administrative hearing, not a civil procedure.

The general court concepts of relevance and materialality are not applicable.

Thus, Judge Coleman is essentially allowing all testimony; he is letting everything in.

And because there is really no rules of evidence being applied, the judge is declined to grant objections, from either Party.

The result will be a mountain of data for the judge to review upon completion of the hearing.

Testimony Update: April 10-14th

The DNR is still "on the clock" in NFL Draft Day terminology.

This week's expert witnesses have included:

Sue Josheff, DNR water regulation and zoning engineer
Ken Johnson, DNR Regional Water Leader
Bob Hay, DNR Conservation Biologist/herpatologist
Cathy Bleser, DNR Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist
Ted Pyrick, DNR Forestry Area Leader

I must say, these are all really smart people.

Another DNR Contradiction

Water Levels/Drawdown:

The DNR wants to continue the winter drawdown on Koshkonong, which last till May 1. This drawdown decreases fish habitat during the most crucial time hampering spawning of many game fish species.

Yet they seem to dispute their own efforts on their web site: Posted March 23rd on their Outdoor Page.

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/news/or/

Water levels on the Rock and Crawfish Rivers have come up with the latest snowmelt. Backwater areas along the river are flooded hopefully providing spawning habitat for northern pike in the near future. All the ice is now off the rivers with some still remaining on the area lakes. Most of the ice remaining is only a couple inches thick and is rapidly disappearing. Anglers have been trying to catch walleye and northern pike on the Upper Rock and Crawfish Rivers in northern Jefferson County with very little success yet. It appears to be too early. A few dipnetters have been trying their luck off the bridges in Watertown catching a few smaller carp.

Note From Lake Puckaway

Brian;
Hi, my name is Paul Gettelman and I am the secretary of the Lake Puckaway Protection and Rehabilitation District. Not sure if my first email got to you so I thought I would try again....

The other day I was told that Lake Koshkonong has a commercial fisherman by the name of Steve Temy that comes in and seines the lake in the spring and fall. I was also told that he pays your lake district around $18,000 a year to seine the carp out. Hearing this via the grape vine has created some curiosity.

Lake Puckaway is similar to Lake Koshkonong in that it is a shallow lake with a river running through it and we also have a carp problem. Currently we have Steve Kallenbach from Stoddard seining the lake in the fall. For years we have paid the commercial fisherman to seine the carp. Currently we are paying $20,000 a year for him coming in once in the fall. Naturally hearing that you are being paid for your carp and we are paying to have them removed has created some interest to say the
least.

Would it be possible for you to share any information regarding your carp situation and if in fact your district is being paid for the carp? Have you had any problems with your commercial fisherman? How does the process work? How long has he being working with you and the Lake District? Any other information regarding the commercial fisherman and the carp seining on Lake Koshkonong would be greatly
appreciated.

As an aside, I must say your web site is extremely well done and very informative. You can check out our district’s web site at www.lakepuckaway.com

Any information that you may have and are willing to share you can send to me via email at getget@hughes.net or by calling me at 920-394- 3060.

Thanks for any assistance that you are able to provide and look forward to hear from you.
Paul Gettelman

Winter Draw Down Damage

Sediment Ice Heave photos


DNR claims it reduces shoreline erosion yet Steve Hjort has pictures and we all saw for ourselves during the winter tour (2003) with the DNR that the frozen exposed lake bottom pushes and heaves the same as ice on the shorelines.

Actually it has a greater erosion quality than ice because ice would be at a higher elevation than frozen lakebed, a frozen lakebed pushes directly into the root systems whereas ice - if lake levels are high enough - tend to slide or push over the tops of the vegetation.

Hydrology 4.12.06

Interesting, the discharge at Fort and Indianford is the same, which shows the lake level rise is attributed to the small streams also entering the lake and river below Fort.

During periods of normal to slightly above normal rainfalls, small stream flows contribute about 15% of the actual flows.

Constituent Questions

Brian; Is the hearing judge bound to choose between the DNR's existing operating orders and the RKLD's requested change in operating orders? Is this an "all or nothing" trial?

Judge Coleman may rule against the petitioner (RKLD) or in favor of the petitioner. A third option is he may issue his own water level judgment that then may be appealed by RKLD, or the DNR, or both, at the circuit court level.

Just wanted to know if we have tried recently to find a compromise on water levels with the DNR?

The RKLD has said repeatedly that the board would listen and consider any compromise either the DNR or the Wetlands Club presented. RKLD has stated we have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in research, and our water level request puts a number on the table. To date, no one has counter-offered our request.

We did have a brief discussion with DNR last month, before the contested case hearing started. DNR again suggested a periodic "summer drawdown" to be part of any negotiated package.

I did say it was a "brief" conversation, right?

RKLD Expert Witness Mike Dresen

This past week the DNR has been presenting its case against the RKLD's request for a change in the DNR operating orders.

A scheduling exception was granted by Judge Coleman that allowed RKLD expert witness and former DNR senior staffer Mike Dresen to testify this week.

Dresen brought immense credibility to RKLD's long-standing claims that the faulty 1979 OHWM and the subsequent DNR change in operating orders in 1982 -- and litigated to a negotiated settlement in 1991 -- caused lake levels to drop from previous levels.

(click Dresen name/link above to read past news accounts)

Dresen testified that he left DNR due to disenchantment with the agency in placing wetlands concerns above the concerns of the recreation/boating public.

It was Dresen who ordered that Rock County, as owners of the Indianford Dam, must place flashboards above the crest of the dam's spillway in order to maintain target water levels.

Times change, but the truth is the truth.

DISCLAIMER ON POSTING

TO ALL:
I have posted updates re: the second week conclusion of the Contested Case Hearing in Madison. The hearing has adjourned until Monday, April 10th, and the judge expressed a desire to wrap-up testimony by April 14th.

I find it a bit funny that the DNR has been monitoring the “Blog” section of the RKLD website.

In response, I have tried to tone down the rhetoric, out of respect for our institutions. And as always, my disclaimer is, if something posted is incorrect, I will fix it quickly. But we chose to post everything in an effort to be 100% transparent.

Brian Christianson

Observations: Fish Mgmt

DNR expert witness Don Bush provided thoughtful, credible testimony on the lake's fish habitat.

On cross, RKLD attorneys were able to demonstrate that the DNR winter draw-down does indeed limit carp habitat, as Bush testified, but also the record will show that the same conditions that deprive carp of habitat deprive game fish of habitat as well.

Side Bar:
The RKLD looks forward to working with DNR and Don Bush to improve the Bark River Fish Hatchery and make a significant investment in the game fish habitat once the water level conditions have been resolved.

Never Mind

After being awarded a $10,000 DNR grant, and making repeated claims to the contrary, the LKWA has been told by its contractor, Natural Resources Consulting (NRC), that the endangered wild orchids are not in danger.

From the Lake Koshkonong Wetlands Association website:

Wetland Plants / Orchid Study Update
Join us April 25, 2006 at 6:00 pm at the DNR office in Janesville. Jeff Kraemer from Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. will be giving an update on the Wetland Plant Community Assessment and Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Study. These studies have been ongoing around Lake Koshkonong and provide valuable insight into our local ecology.
The public is welcome!

The credibility of this study must now also be called into question.

UPDATE 4.7.06
We are clarifying this observation with others. LKWA may not have removed the endangered species orchid from thier roster of water level objections.

Shocking Testimony III

RKLD discovered that LKWA officer, Penny Shackelford, sent a letter to DNR supporting the illegal dyke/dam on the Buck Sweeney/Thibeau Hunt Club property.

The Shackelfords own the parcel adjacent to the Thibeau property, and stand to get "wet" from the effects of the illegal dam holding back water from naturally draining into Lake Koshkonong.

Why is this so relevant?

Among the many claims against the RKLD's request for a nominal increase in the DNR summer water level order, and an elimination of the DNR winter draw-down order, is the LKWA's claim that an endangered species of orchid was found on the Shackelford property.

LKWA claimed RKLD's request would flood the land where this endangered species was discovered.

Despite the joint RKLD/DNR OHWM study from 2001 proving the area of the wild orchid is far above flood waters, LKWA persisted with their claim.

Now, it has been revealed that the water closest and most threatening to the area of the wild orchid is water held by an illegal dam.

We will obtain the Shackelford letter and post it on the website in the near future.

UPDATE 4.7.06
We are clarifying this observation with others. Apparently, the letter did not "support" the alleged illegal dyke, but a letter was indeed sent re: the Thiebeau water levels.

Observations: Shallow Lakes

DNR expert witness Paul Cunningham presented his expert testimony on the characteristics of shallow lakes ecology. His testimony included a PowerPoint presentation.

His testimony was presented in a slow, deliberate, and methodical manner. RKLD co-legal counsel Mary Beth Perenteau conducted the cross-examination with an equal amount of deliberation - to what appeared as, a draw.

We will obtain the PP presentation and post on the RKLD site in the near future.

Observations: Aerial Photos

RKLD Expert Witness, Randy Weltzin of RSV Engineering, received rave reviews for his testimony debunking the aerial photos presented as exhibits by the Lake Koshkonong Wetlands Association.

LKWA's credibility must be near zero - given the Thibeau Hunt Club exposure to an illegal dam last week, and now submitting maps that are misleading, inaccurate and now, irrelevant.

Observations: OHWM

OHWM = Ordinary High Water Mark

The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) can be described as “the point on the bank or shore up to which the presence and action of water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark either by erosion, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or other easily recognized characteristic.” The OHWM is the boundary between riparian owned uplands and the publicly owned beds of natural lakes.

Posted here

The DNR's expert in this area, Dale Simon, admitted that today's process of determining the OHWM is more accurate than anything that existed in 1979.

This is crucial testimony because the DNR operating orders of 1982, that were negotiated after 10 years of litigation and resulted in the DNR operating orders of 1991, were based on the OHWM conclusions from 1979.

We all currently suffer from, and comply with, the DNR operating orders of 1991 - founded in the faulty science of the 1979 OHWM study.

Simon established his credentials with the hearing judge by - among other things - describing how he trains DNR staff in the science of determining OHWM.

On cross-examination, Simon testified that the training he referred to did not exist in 1979.

OHWM training did not occur until 1983.

DNR Showing-Up With Memos

Bureaucrats are famous for their love of paper, and this week's kick-off of Expert Testimony put that fact on display.

During the pre-trial hearing late last fall at the library in Fort Atkinson, ground rules were established for the Contested Case Hearing. All parties, DNR, RKLD, et. al, agreed to pre-filing testimony from their respective expert witnesses.

Scroll down here.

The intent was to save time. Witnesses would take their seat, agree that the testimony they had previously submitted was still valid and accurate, and then cross-examination could proceed.

The benefit to this process is/was, all parties would see testimony prior to the hearing and prepare their cross accordingly.

Cross-examination testimony was to be verbal responses, yet, the DNR Expert Witnesses have arrived with yet more written testimony; testimony that RKLD, RRKA and LKRA attorneys have not seen prior to the hearing.

The judge has ruled written presentations, even a DNR PowerPoint presentation, admissible.

DNR Introduces New Exhibit

With the start of the Expert Testimony portion of our Contested Case Hearing this week, the DNR introduced a new exhibit - the RKLD postcard that we sent to every parcel owner reminding them of the Public Hearing in Jefferson.

The postcard, illustrated with large font text of 7.2 inches, concerned the DNR so much that they felt compelled to include it, pasted to foamboard, and marked it exhibit yada, yada, yada.

I believe it is important for the RKLD Board members to keep our taxpayers informed, particularly when something as important as the Public Testimony is scheduled when it conflicts with the great many of our constituents' workdays.

Thank you all again for attending last week.

End of Hearing Week 2

Testimony this past week (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday) was reserved for Expert Testimony.

Updates and summaries will be posted soon.

The Hearing has adjourned until next Monday, April 1oth.