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