Rest Lake Comment

Anybody that thinks the DNR knows what the heck they're doing ought to think very hard about what stupidity the DNR is capable of.

Drive by the removed 130+ Rockdale Dam site and look at it today, a willow tree swamp and virtually 100's of acres of destroyed wetlands above it.

Now they want to virtually destroy 70+ years at the Rest Lake by lowering the water level one foot.

James

Natural Resources Board takes up Rest Lake Dam

From the Lakeland Times
HERE

..."This year, the DNR has proposed making the minimum level [on the chain] 7 feet and 6 inches, at least one full foot lower [than in the past 70 years]," King told the board members.

DNR Opponent --

"We experienced that level in 2005 when insufficient snowmelt and non-existent rain left our chain so low that many people never got their boats into the water and wetlands adjacent to the water simply dried up," said King, who is president of the Manitowish Waters Lakes Association, which has joined with the town of Manitowish Waters, the town chamber of commerce and the Manitowish Waters Alliance to fight the DNR's proposal to increase flows over the Rest Lake Dam during the spring and early summer in hopes of establishing natural sturgeon spawning downstream and of enhancing wildlife habitat along the Manitowish River.

...The complaints issued by King on behalf of the coalition group included a strong indictment that the DNR has made no attempt to study the potential ecologic and economic impacts of dam operation changes on wildlife and people above the dam and that the agency cannot prove that sturgeon have ever successfully spawned on the river below the dam.

DNR Supporter --

...Holt went on to explain that several threatened species (the pugnose shiner and the greater redhorse) depend on a healthy river ecosystem and that wild rice beds downstream of the dam need an adequate water supply to flourish.

Summary --

..."There was a great deal of discussion about the cost of doing an environmental study," said Mike Fitzpatrick, a lawyer representing the coalition of opposition groups, who attended the meeting with King and also had a chance to address the board. "The board also seemed very interested in the impacts on navigability of the chain and the lack of scientific studies the DNR has done concerning impacts on ecosystems above the dam."

Koshkonong Lake District to appeal water level ruling

From the Janesville Gazette
HERE


By Stacy Vogel/Gazette Staff

LAKE KOSHKONONG-Advocates of raising the water levels in Lake Koshkonong are taking the battle to circuit court, but residents of the lake district will no longer foot the bill.

...DNR representatives said they were disappointed but not surprised by the lake district's decision.

Can opponents in lake dispute sail forward together?

A Janesville Gazette Editorial
From Friday, Dec 8, 2006

We can understand the frustration of Lake Koshkonong residents who gaze out their windows and see mudflats off their property or have too little water to launch their boats.

That frustration only builds when they receive property tax bills that are inflated because they own waterfront land.

...The lake district could sink another raft of money into its fight. Or it could work with the DNR to find other ways to improve Koshkonong. These might include habitat and other ecology projects, more fish stocking and better public boat launches.

Wonder if the Gazette will editorialize that we are not sinking another raft of money into the fight?

Don't hold your breath - they still think we are trying to recreate Lake Koshkonong into a version of Geneva Lake.

Our lake is bigger, and more diverse, than the urban Geneva Lake. And some say, better now and more future potential than Geneva.

Pro-Bono Circuit Court Appeal (O'Connor)

We have considered it an honor to represent the Rock-Koshkonong Lake District for these past several years and we are proud of the work we have done to assist the District in ensuring the restoration and transfer of the Indianford Dam, supporting wetland restoration and working to establish a water level order that reasonably balances the competing interests of boaters, shore owners, and owners of recreational wetlands.

We are troubled that the significant investments made by the District and its taxpayers have not resulted in a reasoned ruling on the two critical legal issues discussed above.

For that reason, our firm is prepared to appeal the ALJ’s determination on these issues to the circuit court without additional attorneys’ fees to the District.

Such an appeal would be limited to these legal issues, which we believe factor importantly in the ALJ’s affirmance of DNR’s water level order.

From Legal Counsel Bill O'Connor Part II

In addition, the hearing examiner failed to address the Joint Petitioners’ arguments that the wetland standards established as DNR administrative rules in ch. NR103 are not applicable to water level proceedings.

As the Joint Petitioners pointed out in their briefs, the chapter of the Wisconsin Statutes that authorizes DNR to promulgate those standards expressly excludes proceedings involving the regulation of dams from their application.

We were greatly disappointed that the hearing examiner failed to address the NR103 argument at all and gave only superficial analysis to the significant question concerning the scope of property rights that are protected in water level proceedings.

From Legal Counsel Bill O'Connor

In contrast to the ALJ’s detailed factual findings, the decision devotes relatively little attention to the legal issues that are at the foundation of this proceeding.

All of the parties and the Administrative Law Judge agreed that Section 31.02(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes governs DNR’s Indianford Dam water level order authority.

That section empowers DNR to establish water level orders “in the interest of public rights and navigable waters or to promote safety and protect life, health and property.”

Although all parties accepted that statutory standard, the ALJ interpreted the protection of property interests under Section 31.02(1) very narrowly.

Specifically, the hearing examiner excluded from his consideration of protected property interests, extensive testimony and evidence relating to the economic impacts of DNR’s proposed water level order on public revenues, property values and business activity.

Circuit Court Approved

The RKLD Board approved unanimously to proceed to circuit court. The December RKLD Board meeting was attended by over 25 taxpayers. After extensive public comment, the board accepted both the public’s desire to continue and the legal team’s pro-bono offer to present the legal matters that the ALJ failed to consider.

Minutes will be posted on the website

Good Words

Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year. Hang in there, it's not over yet. Let's not show defeat.

Pat

A vote to keep going

Brian,

Let's not give up the battle. Simply said, if we do nothing, we have lost. But if we take the next step, we may win the war.

Pat Tonning

More email

Brian:

Unfortunately, I can not attend Wednesday's meeting due to a prior business commitment. My feeling is that we go forward. If we do not finish out what we have started, we will always be left wondering....what if??? I understand that it does not make sense to change attorney's at this point, however, is it worth bringing in outside consultation with more experience on the matter?

Steve

Consituent Email

Wow Brian, I'm really sad about this loss, I thought for sure common sense & reason would prevail. Do you think FEMA had any input on stopping our legal battle to raise the lake levels. I can not believe that fifty years of poor management will be aloud to continue "stay the course".

Thank you so much for all your hard work, this really is a sad day for Lake Koshkonong & all it's residence. There are so many that are truly passionate about cleaning up an improving this entire watershed & a small few including the DNR have ruined it for all us once again. Thx you again for all your help, hopefully we can keep up the fight & good will prevail against evil. rbh

We did in the past bring up a proposition of dredging 5% of the lake annually & creating wild life refuge islands for birds though out the lake, maybe this has to be the next step. Pls try & have a Happy Holiday.

What About Negotiations?

I am curious about your earlier post about negotiating. Why couldn't a negotiated agreement be reached - what was RKLD afraid of? We could have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by negotiating with either the LKWA or DNR.
Name Witheld

Each and every meeting regarding negotiating a settlement prior to the Contested Case Hearing hinged on RKLD's acceptance of a "summer drawdown." Both LKWA and DNR demanded a periodic summer drawdown (whether every 3, 5, or 7 years was open for discussion.)

A summer drawdown was the poison pill that the RKLD would not, could not, agree to.
Brian

December Meeting

Next Meeting is:

Wednesday, Dec 20th
6:30pm
At Tallgrass Restoration
CTH N & STH 59
Formerly known as the Kidder Farm

Disclose your Memberships

Brian
Be careful in giving too much weight to those who say enough is enough - I note that the recent entry by Mr. Burpee is a member of Carcajou and owns a cottage there.
Jack

A Vote to Continue

Brian,
First, thank you for all your efforts during a difficult and lengthy process. Allowing yourself to be in the position of point man throughout this legal fight is I'm sure a trying and wearing experience. You have shown, by your entries in the blog, and steady leadership, a balanced and even countenance, and a grace under pressure that not many (myself included) could have achieved.
I would like to weigh in publicly on the decision about whether to continue the legal fight. It seems to me that we should continue. If we had prevailed in the CCH, the other side would certainly have appealed the decision, so we would be in the position to have to take it to the next level anyway. So it seems to me that once we started this process, we should have been prepared to see it through to its conclusion.

Sincerely,
Stephen Brown

Comments continue

Brian-
Will the Wetlands fight us if we prevail in circuit court?
Sam

Sam-
Most likely, the LKWA has been recieveing pro bono legal services - so nothing gives us reason to think they would stop the legal effort.
Brian

What about negotiations, as the Gazette editorial instructed?

RKLD tried on several occassions to negotiate with DNR/LKWA long before the CCH was launched, and again just days before the CCH began in the Jefferson Library.

RKLD Response

Thanks Dick –

We are doing something very similar to what you are suggesting. However, any attorney will want to be compensated for his time to review the thousands of pages of transcripts, so we can’t re-run the entire hearing, but several attorneys have given me their opinion – namely some prominent local attorneys currently battling the DNR in circuit court (and have won).

Brian

Another Public Comment

Brian-
If the Board is contemplating an appeal they should first get an opinion from another ,unbiased, firm that is familiar and experienced in this type of litigation.

Not the same firm that we have been using all along. Our current firm has a vested ($$$$)interest in prolonging the battle even though the chances of prevailing are slim.

Thanks Dick Burpee

Public Question

Brian,

I sent you a message recently asking you what the total legal fees were for the contested case hearing. Just wondering why you haven’t gotten back to me. Thanks

Eric Ganser

Eric
Not sure I saw your orig.
Here is a link to answer your question
MASSIVE
UNDERTAKING

Brian

More Public Comment

Hey, I really feel sorry for Mrs. Schmidt.

The bill are “ hers” and “ours” ( Lake District) not yours.

What ever we do now we will have to live with for a long time.

Ted

RKLD Response

Mrs. Schmidt;
Thank you for your email. You are not alone, however, when the law is misapplied, as it was when NR 103 trumped state statute 31, careful consideration must be given to insure the DNR is not allowed to make new law all on their own.

Stay tuned to the website for regular updates.
Thanks again
Brian Christianson
http://www.rkld.org/

More Emails

Mr. Christianson,

I believe we have fought the good fight, but unfortunately we lost. There has been an enormous amount of taxpayer money spent so far. I can barely pay my bills, and am looking forward to the return of the $25 fee (I wish it were even less). The $75 savings can pay my electric bill for three months.

Please consider those residents who do not have a lot of money to throw around. Taxes are already high and I really could use that money - which I rightfully earned - to pay my own bills, not yours.

Respectfully,
Anne Schmidt

Public Comments

Brian,

Every person I've talked too wants us to APPEAL except one -- Set up the meeting and lets appeal if our attorneys think we might get at least some relief.

Jim

More CCH Comments

I agree we got took, but money is only part of the equation, if we stop now we ruin the chances of anyone ever fighting this fight.

I for one don't want to be the person responsible for that happening and I doubt if you want to be remembered for it either.
Jack

More Input From Electors

Brian,

I feel that the Board (through our lawyers) has done a very good job of communicating our view and needs as a body of lake and river property owners in the contested hearing. All sides have been heard in a clear and fair manner. I also believe that the ruling was not correct. I believe we have had our "day in court" and even though the ruling was not to our liking, we should move on to improving the conditions of the Rock river through other efforts. Here are two ideas:

Inability to control river and lake levels:
Our own Engineer has stated that the Indian Ford dam has very little or no ability to properly control the river during flooding conditions, which almost always happens every Spring. I believe that if the dam structure were to be altered to provide additional, movable gates (perhaps the entire length of the dam) that the result would be to minimize or perhaps eliminate Spring flooding, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for flood insurance. Flood insurance is not obtainable through private insurance, but instead, is only available through FEMA. The cost to homeowners is around $1000 to $1200 per year for a residence assessed at $150,000. If even half of this yearly insurance cost were put toward improving the dam, we could have the flooding problem corrected and paid for within 5-8 years. In addition, more consistency in controlling the water level would result during low flow conditions during drought periods.

Dredging the lake:
I believe this has merit with one main hurdle to overcome. Much of the area surrounding as well as within the lake bed was used by the Indians as sacred burial grounds as well as containing many Indian artifacts. This type of a project is very political in nature and may be doomed before it it even attempted. If all parties would agree to the dredging, then apply rip rap as a base, dredge the lake bottom, and deposit the dredged material on the rip rap. This would create 2 or 3 islands which would then aid in boating safety during lake storms. These islands could even be turned into township,county, or state parks, resulting in increased revenue for the area. The lake would also be deeper as a result.

Whatever we do from this point forward, we should consider the most cost effective and economically sound direction. Even though the Janesville Gazette editorial page of December 10th stated that the city, township, county, and state governments have all done a good job in keeping taxes down, I believe this is untrue! I take exception with the rate of taxation by Blackhawk Technical College and Rock County with both spending out of control. At the past and present rate of increase, these two tax areas will exceed the cost of all of the other taxes we pay by 2010. Unless these two tax rates are reduced, I believe that sufficient monies may not be available for either of the above suggestions.

Again, thanks for your efforts!

Thanks,

Bill

Asking For Elector Input

Bill
You will not be charged $100 again next year. It will be a lower amount, as determined by electors at the annual meeting.
How do you feel about the NR 103 vs Chapter 31 application?
If I could negotiate a fee cap with the attorneys, would you have an opinion whether we should pursue a real court opinion from circuit court?
The Board has not reached a decision on next steps, so we welcome rational input

Brian Christianson
608-884-9444

Good Question

Brian,

What exactly do you mean by "NOTE - RKLD would NOT raise the per parcel special charge to pay for the circuit court appeal -- if pursued,."

Will the yearly charge go back down to $25 per parcel or do you mean that we would again be charged $100 per parcel, but that it wouldn't be above the $100?

Bill

A Few Questions Are Answered

Unlike the CCH, the appeal would be limited to legal arguments.

There would be no evidentiary hearings or additional evidence.

For that reason RKLD is much better able to estimate time and cost for the appeal, which would consist largely in the preparation of written briefs.

As Coleman interpreted the law, DNR order stands.

Maybe a Rock County Circuit Court Judge would disagree. However he or she rules, there could be an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

NOTE - RKLD would NOT raise the per parcel special charge to pay for the circuit court appeal -- if pursued,.

Another Voice of Concern

At first the winter drawdown was out however I am having second thoughts that. As for warmer weather I still believe that we should get the 7.2 inches. Below is a copy of a letter that I intend to send to the editor. There is one more weapon in our arsenal and that is to circulate a petition for the voters to decide.

Lake level to stay the same (Gazette story Dec. 5th front page)
I believe that the hearing examiner erred in his decision and that it will be in the public interest if it is overturned and soon.
Who wants to live by a mucky swamp or shoreline? Property values will suffer. The matter should be appealed in the required 30 days and heard in open court.

Water level was more normal this past year due to a more normal rainfall pattern. That should gives us an idea as to actually how much higher water levels will affect us. The effects are, well there are no differing effects.

What is contested is the not normal from the past drawdowns of water that has resulted in fish kills and low water levels. Turtles, clams, and other amphibians suffered when the mud froze due to the water receding from the original shoreline by several hundred feet.

Nesting birds are also affected by these not normal drawdowns. In fact they will nest in lower ground, and if nominal flooding occurs the nests will be inundated anyway because they nested too low.

This drawdown will decrease the number of acres in wetlands. Receded shorelines in the warmer weather results in boats not being able to get to the docks and in some cases by several hundred feet. These properties have been in existence for decades using their boat docks and this has all changed now.

What’s astonishing is that these conditions have existed only since the DNR started these drawdowns, or during extreme drought.

There are only a few landowners wanting the lake level low while several thousand landowners want the level of the water to be what it was in the past.

It’s obvious that lowland owners want to restrict excess to the backwaters by claiming their land is high and dry, whereby denying fishing and hunting privileges by using the water access rules to their advantage.

When they acquired their lands these conditions didn’t exist. It is no accident that some of the most vocal proponents of the drawdown are hunt club owners whom charges large fees to belong to their clubs. That is if it is even possible to join some of these clubs.

One landowner tiled a field near the low level drawdown claiming that it will affect his property. The land is in a low-lying area subject to flooding anyway. It is doubted that he got a permit and if he did it should have been contested.

In conclusion the fact is by lowering the lake level not only will the backwaters dry up; there will be less not more aquatic animal habitat. Natural flooding brings the lowlands to extremes in water height. By raising the lower end of the water level just 7.2 inches will not harm a thing but will increase the volume of water in the lake by 10 to 15 percent from the now enforced drawdown level. This will keep the water clearer and safer for navigation like we had before the drawdowns. The backwater area to which potential developers, hunt clubs included, and some others want will harbor more aquatic life not less. This won’t affect nesting birds and mammals because the spring flooding makes them nest on higher ground anyway.

I can see how complicated this issue is and that there are no simple answers, but the bottom line is higher water on the lowest end of the lake level will not effect anyone except a very few and their motives are of suspect to me.

The DNR has not explained their reasoning enough to convince me that the drawdowns are necessary. Whatever the final outcome is, I hope that cleaner and deeper water will result. Finally! Lower property values will result in a lower tax base that could result in a loss of millions in revenue.

Robert King
384 E Riverdale Dr.
Edgerton, WI. 53534-8455
Phone 608-868-4407

More Input re: Circuit Court

It seems ths DNR has it's mind made up.

Fighting the good fight is one thing but spending all that money and lining the lawyers pockets is another.

If we can't get the water levels we want lets see if we can make the lake deeper
by dredging, ( WHAT A CONCEPT!)

Just my view. What do you think?
Kim

Another Question RE: Circuit Court

Brian
What would the appeal look like?
Charles

DNR Press Release

DNR News

Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesSouth Central Region Headquarters - Madison3911 Fish Hatchery Rd Fitchburg, WI 53711Phone: (608) 275-3266 TDD: 711
For Release: December 7, 2006
Contact(s): Ken Johnson, Regional Water Leader, Fitchburg: 608-275-3243Sue Josheff, Lower Rock River Basin Supervisor: Fitchburg: 608-275-3305

Lake Koshkonong
LAW JUDGE UPHOLDS WATER LEVEL & WINTER DRAWDOWN

FITCHBURG – An Administrative Law Judge has denied a request to raise water levels and end a winter drawdown on Lake Koshkonong, the Department of Natural Resources announced today.

The decision upholding DNR’s denial of a petition to raise the summer water level 7.2 inches and eliminating the winter drawdown on the 10,460 acre lake “hopefully puts this matter to rest and all parties, publics and citizens will now work together on improving the lake’s water quality,” said Ken Johnson, water leader for the agency’s South Central Region.

DNR’s decision and order is “necessary to protect the public rights in navigable waters and reasonably balances and accommodates….the promotion of safety and the protection of life, health and property,” wrote William S. Coleman Jr., in his 32-page decision dated Dec. 1. The parties have 30 days to appeal.

Mr. Johnson noted “it is obvious that many people care deeply about Lake Koshkonong and its management. This is a matter of great interest to many parties who live near the lake and who use it and the Rock River for active and passive recreation.”

“Like so many issues involving the use of public waterways, the Department must perform a balancing act between what’s best for the wildlife and fisheries resources, habitat and recreation,” pointed out the water leader.

The Rock River Koshkonong Lake District (RKLD) and the Rock River Koshkonong Association (RRKA) had filed a petition with DNR on April 23, 2003, requesting the changes in the agency’s water level order for Lake Koshkonong and the Indianford Dam.

DNR issued a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in Dec. 2004, analyzing the proposed water level increase and held a public information meeting attended by about 150 people in Jan. 2005 to gather comment and answer questions.

After DNR denied the request, the RKLD and RRKA appealed the agency’s opinion to the state Division of Hearings and Appeals. A contested case hearing lasting 10 days was held in the Division’s Madison office in April, 2006, with the proceedings highlighted by about 600 exhibits and five sets of briefs.

Continued loss of valuable wetlands and harm to aquatic plants and wildlife were the principle reasons why DNR denied the petition, according to Mr. Johnson.

“The most important ecological change for Lake Koshkonong over the years has been the loss of wetlands and submerged aquatic plants. This loss has resulted from the maintenance of higher water levels, increased nutrient loads from the watershed and the introduction of common carp,” pointed out Mr. Johnson.

Average summer water levels of Lake Koshkonong have increased about 1.5 feet over the last 70 years and the “history of wetland loss in conjunction with rising water levels indicates (that) if the summer target water level is raised (by 7.2 inches), there would be a further loss of riparian wetland,” he added.

Lake Koshkonong is a natural widening of the Rock River, located about six miles upstream of the Indianford Dam in Rock County. The lake’s water level is managed by operation of the dam.

Most of the lake is situated in Jefferson County.

More Comments on Appeal

Brian,
So what will it cost to go to the next level and the important question is can we win there?
Do we need a special meeting to do that?
I think the decision is bad but wonder if we can even get a fair shake is the State of Wisconsin. Ed

A Message From Chair Emeritus Jim Folk

To All,

I’ve been giving careful consideration on whether or not we should appeal the ALJ decision.

The first thing everyone looks at is the costs, which were way above what was presented to us by the respective legal firms for the CCH.

Was it worth it?

Arguments pro & con but one has to remember that since day one of forming this Lake District there has always been only two points of interests, which were mandated by our constituents, one was saving the dam, which we did at costs considerably higher than what was projected to taxpayers and two was to raise the lake water levels.

After carefully considering the above I firmly believe that if we don’t appeal the ALJ decision we will not be full filing the mandate given to us/you as elected board members.

Win or lose I doubt if our constituents would want us not to continue, we fought to hard not to finish what the constituents have mandated.

My final points are:

Going into this I’ve always had the belief and discussed this with some of you, and that is we would lose at the CCH.

Why?

Everyone except the wetland owners were all State Employees, meaning an ALJ will always side with another State Agency on close issues and case history has proved that over and over.

Individuals, farmers, businesses and even municipalities, who have ever taken the DNR to tasks; most always end up in Circuit Court before prevailing.

We have only 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal; a meeting of all parties and legal counsel should take place to discuss this ASAP.

Jim Folk

Appeal or Not Appeal?

Do you think that the Lake District will appeal the ruling that the hearing examiner made?

Bob King Edgerton,WI

Votes Come In

I say charge on!!!! To quote that famous historian Dale Ferguson "We have not yet begun to fight."

Happy Holidays to you and your family.

Steve Proud

Read the ALJ Decision And Email Us!

PDF FILE of the ALJ Decision Against the RKLD

HERE

Lake's level to stay the same

From the Janesville Gazette
HERE

...The district has 30 days to appeal, but its attorney, William O'Connor, said he does not know if his client will take the case to circuit court.

...The battle has become an emotional one for environmental advocates, shooting clubs and local property owners. In July, lake district members voted to double their special assessment to $100 to help cover legal costs in the push to raise lake levels.

...O'Connor said the hearing examiner ignored residents' interests, favoring hunting advocates instead.

"The hearing examiner … and the DNR just put an overwhelming emphasis in this case to those wetland hunting clubs and just gave such short shrift, such low weight, to the interest of the property owners," O'Connor said.

Water flow changes could affect residents' floodplain status

From the Janesville Gazette

...The current maps were adopted in the mid-1980s, Kuklenski said. But nature and new storm water management systems have changed water flow. The rate of infiltration can change, as well

See earlier post here

Lake Nagawicka Dredging

Brian
There was an article in the Journal Sentinel about a group studying the restoration of Lake Nagawicka and the need for substantial dredging due to impediments to navigation. See attached PDF of the article.

I have provided you with the city web site that contains the relevant studies and Chapter 30 permits for the project. This certainly seems relevant to our case.
Kevin

City of Delafield

DNR, stakeholders move closer to Rest Lake Dam compromise Manitowish Chain may be lowered six inches instead of 12

Vilas County News Review
Debbie Munson Badini
Sports/Outdoors Editor
Wednesday, November 29, 2006

After debating proposed Rest Lake Dam operation changes for the past three years, members of the Manitowish River/Rest Lake Dam Work Group have taken steps toward drafting a compromise, which if approved, could help group members avoid a court battle with the state Department of Natural Resources.

At stake is an estimated six inches of water elevation that members of the Manitowish Waters Lakes Association want to keep in the Manitowish Chain during the summer boating season, and which the DNR has proposed taking in order to increase the amount of water flowing over the dam to aid in a sturgeon restoration project downstream and improve wildlife habitat along the river.

The DNR's original proposal could have lowered water elevation on the chain by an entire foot, which was vehemently opposed by the lakes association members, who say lowering the chain by 12 inches would impede navigation on the chain, lower property values by an estimated $60 million and wreak havoc on the local tourism-based economy.

Locked in a stalemate

But with representatives from Friends of the Manitowish River strongly supporting the DNR's proposal to lower the chain by up to one foot, for reasons including better control of fall flooding and improved habitat for fish and wildlife downstream, it seemed the group would be locked in a stalemate, forcing the DNR to draft a rule mandating the changes, which could then be challenged in an administrative court.

But Manitowish Waters town chairman John Hanson ended that deadlock at the most recent work group meeting Monday by proposing the DNR lower the chain by only six inches in the summer, and in exchange, reduce draw down on the chain by six inches in the winter.

"If we could reach this kind of compromise, we would be able to avoid the process of a long protracted battle here," Hanson told the group members. "If you keep six inches in the summer and six in the winter, then that equals the foot of water they want downstream."

The lake association members had previously resisted keeping more water in the chain over the winter, fearing damage to permanent piers and other structures along shore. But Hanson said six inches would be more palatable for winter storage than an entire foot.

"I think small increments of six inches could be sold [to those opposing the changes]," he said. "Those small tweaks could solve the rest of the issues."

Compromise will be drafted

Hearing a lack of objections from both sides of the table - where representatives from the town, the lakes association and the Manitowish Waters Chamber of Commerce sat facing representatives from Friends of the Manitowish River, the Turtle Flambeau Flowage Association and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, among others - DNR water resource specialist Jim Kreitlow, who has led the creation of the proposal for the agency, said he would draft a letter detailing the compromise and how it would affect the dam proposal.

According to DNR regional water leader Tom Jerow, the stakeholder groups will then have 30 days from receipt of the letter to voice their support or objection to the possible compromise before the DNR will decide how to proceed.

"[Being able to lower the chain] six inches would go a long way to helping out in the process," Kreitlow said. "I'm not objecting to it, because one foot was always a target. This is a way of starting somewhere and then being able to evaluate it over time."

Agreement not assured

However, attorney Mike Fitzpatrick, who represents the Manitowish Waters Lakes Association, said he does not believe his clients will approve of the proposed compromise once it is in writing and its power is fully explained.

"The problem is that the DNR can determine what the chain elevation fluctuations may be with the increased flows, but their proposal gives hierarchy to the amount of water flowing over the dam, not the elevation of the chain," Fitzpatrick said in an interview. "So, if the chain is near that eight foot mark, but flows are under what they want for the sturgeon, they can keep increasing the flow, dropping the chain even further. Flow trumps elevation in their proposal."

Among a host of other concerns, Fitzpatrick said the lake association is primarily worried about the economic impacts lower water elevation may have for area businesses and property owners.

"With more than $600 million in property values on the chain, if values went down even 10 percent, which is a conservative estimate at best, that is a loss of $60 million," Fitzpatrick said, adding that the agency should not move forward with their proposal without conducting a thorough environmental assessment, which would include an economic impact study of the proposed changes on the area.

However, Jerow said at the meeting that an environmental assessment would not be required unless the DNR writes a formal order mandating the dam operation changes.

"And even if there is an EA (environmental assessment) or an EIS (a more intensive environmental impact statement), which will include an economic study, the results will be informational only. They will not drive the decision-making process," Jerow said.

Economic impacts not proven

Members of the Friends of the Manitowish River also expressed some disappointment with the compromise Monday, but said they would be willing to get somewhere.

"If this doesn't work, they will have to increase flows again in the future [when the project is reevaluated in five years] which may lower the chain further," said John Bates. "I beg of you to consider just doing one foot now and making a one time adjustment to it."

Besides leaning toward the one-foot drop in elevation rather than the six-inch drop, Bates also said he is not sure concerns about diminished property values are realistic.

"Why do they assume their property values will go down?" he asked the group. "Values didn't go down last year during the drought, so why would they go down from this? They are making a lot of strong statements about 'economic disaster,' but there is no evidence to prove any of this."

Though not all members of the group left the meeting happy with the compromise on the table, Jerow said the agency would proceed with drafting the letter and waiting for stakeholder response.

"If we can, through this process, do what's best for the entire resource," Jerow said, "then I have to believe we are also doing what's right for the economic interests as well."

Impervious surface standards may eliminate 'nonconforming'

From the Vilas County News Review

HERE

...Instead of basing regulations on how, when and where a structure was built near the water, as is currently the case, the recommendations call for regulating structures based on their potential to harm water quality, habitat and impact natural scenic beauty given their size and the amount of paved areas,” said Herkert.

She said it would no longer be important to label any properties as conforming or nonconforming because the rules would apply anytime permits are sought for construction or additions.

The spin-off work on impervious surface requirements and improved mitigation standards comes four years into the process of revamping the state’s 38-year-old minimum waterfront zoning standards.

Will RKLD Pursue Circuit Court?

Brian
Is dredging the lake an option or is it too expensive and are we done fighting the dnr or can we keep going? We are new to the lake but have attended the last two general meetings and are very proud of the work you and the board have done. Thanks for all the good work
Kevin Wiltjer

Flood Risk Open House

Rock County Planning and Zoning, WDNR, and FEMA are hosting an open house at --

Marshall Middle School,
25 S. Pontiac Drive
Janesville (adjacent I-90)

Wednesday, Dec 6th, 2006
6:00pm

Rock County floodplain maps are being updated. So if you own shoreline property, you will want to see how the new federal flood maps may impact your insurance rates.

Call 608-757-5587 for more info.

NR 103 vs. Chapter 31

From the WDNR
Water Quality Standards for Wetlands
NR 103

From WI State Statutes
REGULATION OF DAMS AND BRIDGES AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS
Chapter 31

Discussions with RKLD Attorneys Ongoing

As we prepare to post the ALJ Decision on the website, our board and the attorneys are beginning to digest the decision against the RKLD.

2 items jump off the page - the ALJ's decision ignores the economic impact of lake levels, and, it appears the ALJ mis-applied the law, favoring the DNR's arguement that NR103 trumps State Statute Chapter 31.

Hearing Examiner Issues Decision

Friday Morning, December 1st, the Adminstrative Law Judge issued his decision.

With absolutely no suprise and as our attorneys expected, the ALJ ruled against the RKLD.

We will be posting the decision on the Contested Case Hearing Page shortly - and begin to post discussions about future actions of the RKLD.

This is a Flattering Sign

The Edgerton Chamber of Commerce has placed this sign on the interstate -



Perhaps Jefferson, Fort, and Milton would consider identical signs - we are indeed that important to the local tax base...