Newville - STH 59 & I-90

Newville Interstate Alterations Expected

NEWVILLE—State officials next week will unveil a few new plans in how traffic flow and business access could change at the Interstate 90/39 interchange at Newville.

On tap for a DOT public forum Thursday in Janesville: a proposal to reconfigure the Highway 59 interchange with an emerging state Department of Transportation specialty—roundabouts.

Also up for discussion at the forum are emerging plans to add a park-and-ride commuter parking lot and to build a frontage road that would link traffic from one of three planned roundabouts to a gas station and to the Culver's restaurant at 571 E. Richardson Springs Road. 

Thursday's forum, which will be held at Janesville's Marshall Middle School, will include a general discussion on the entire I-90/39 expansion from the Dane/Rock County line south to County O.

DOT Project Manager Derek Potter said the public forum will highlight new and developing plans on how interchanges along the entire section of the project could be altered.

The forum will offer residents and business owners a chance to ask questions and voice concerns about the Interstate expansion plan, which is set to start in 2015 and will expand the Interstate to six lanes between Madison and the state line. The Interstate will be eight lanes through Janesville.

One major change at the interchange would be three roundabouts on Highway 59, Potter said. Under DOT plans, two of the roundabouts are designed to coordinate traffic on and off east and west lanes of I-90/39 without stoplights, according to DOT plans. 

The interchange would be reshaped from its current design of a double-looped, half-cloverleaf to a diamond-shaped interchange, according to DOT plans.

Potter said a third roundabout on Highway 59 east of I-90/39 would funnel traffic to a McDonald's, a gas station and a specialty cheese and wine shop along Goede Road.

He said the way that the lanes are structured, southbound vehicles on Goede Road could have to negotiate the roundabout and double back to access some of the planned entrances on the south side of Goede Road.

The roundabout also would link to a potential park-and-ride lot to the north.

An earlier proposal by the state to place a park-and-ride lot near Newville met resistance by the Rock County Board and the Fulton Town Board, and the plan was scrapped, according to a 2004 Gazette report.

The DOT will unveil a proposal Thursday for a new spur of East Richardson Springs Road that would run from the eastern-most of three roundabouts to Culver's and Newville Travel Center, 581 E. Richardson Springs Road.

The two businesses are among dozens along 59 at the interchange which serve as a commercial hub for boating and tourism at Lake Koshkonong and the Rock River.

Potter said plans are still being hashed out, but the DOT is considering placing a raised median at the intersection of Richardson Springs Road and Highway 59.

He said the median would allow motorists emerging from Culver's or the gas station to turn south onto Highway 59, but it would prevent motorists from driving straight east across the highway to Mallwood Drive. 

That plan, Potter said, addresses concerns about safety and traffic congestion by residents and town of Fulton officials.

Culver's owner Scott Mallon said the DOT is working closely with Newville business owners on an interchange design that doesn't cut off access to businesses.

Mallon said some businesses are concerned the rate of traffic on the planned roundabouts could make it difficult for customers to peel off to area businesses.

“It's going to be a change—it's something that's going to have a lot of adjustment. We don't know what to expect. Mainly, we don't know what it'll do to affect traffic flow,” Mallon said.

Another change near the Newville interchange is a plan by the DOT to remove the Goede Road overpass, which crosses west over the Interstate north of Highway 59 and build another frontage road west of the Interstate. 

Removing the overpass, which is long and angled, would save the state replacement and maintenance costs, Potter said.

The new frontage road would connect to Highway 59, extending from Hemenway Road north to the current section of North Goede Road that lies west of the Interstate.

Potter confirmed that the access road is in a “planned right of way” that would split part of a parcel along Hemenway Road that houses a dog kennel and K-9 training facility.

2013 Annual Newsletters Have Landed

We will post the newsletter here;

Scroll Down to mid page

But know that the newsletter began landing in mailboxes on Saturday and should be completely delivered by today.

The address RKLD must use is the same address where you receive your December WI Property tax bills.

Please email me if you have not received your newsletter - and please don't discard it, thinking it was junk mail, and then claim it was never received.  We have the master list of all addresses and can confirm that it was indeed labeled by our mail house in Edgerton.

Annual Meeting is Saturday August 10th, and the agendas and budget is being printed in the local newspapers as well.

How did last summer's drought affect groundwater levels?

Just Ask Us: How did last summer's drought affect groundwater levels? : Wsj

“I went back through 100 years of data. Overall aquifers have rebounded 10 to 12 feet higher than where they were 10 years ago,” he said
.

Record (high) LOW Temp for July 27

A warmer day predicted Sunday, but not by much : Madisondotcom

The high temperature hit just 61 degrees at the Madison airport on Saturday, setting a record for the July 27 calendar day.

Buckhorn Lobster Boils

Favorite Supper Clubs - Buckhorn

Best WI Supper Clubs

The lobster boil at the Buckhorn Supper Club in Milton is not to be missed. The lobsters are fresh caught and flown first class (so I've heard) from Maine the day before, placed in a kettle of boiling water, and served up after the big flame-over finale. With a beautiful view of Lake Koshkonong it doesn't get any better than this.

Good article on Erosion and Property Values

From Coast to Toast

Now this has some serious ECONOMIC impact.....

Who WIll Be on the Ballot on August 10th?

At the Aug 10th  RKLD Annual Meeting, two board seats are up for election.

Board of Commissioners

The 3-year term currently held by Ray Lunder expires, and an election will be scheduled on the agenda.

Also, newly appointed board member Joan Hudepohl will face her first election.

If you wish to be a candidate and have your name appear on the pre-printed ballots, please notify any board member at the link above.

We are preparing both the annual newsletter and the ballots and intend to mail the newsletter on or near the end of the month. If you wish to have your name and a bio appear as a candidate in the annual newsletter - which is mailed to 4,000 parcel owners -- please prepare and submit to any board member ASAP.

As in every year past, we will also accept nominations from the floor the day of the annual meeting.

Who can Vote August 10th?

All district resident electors who are U.S. citizens, 18 years of age or older. 

This includes resident property owners, renters, children 18 years and older whose residence is in the District…

But not campers to the extent their permanent residence is not within the District.  

Ownership of more than one parcel does not entitle a property owner to more than one vote.  One eligible voter = one vote.

Non-resident property owners 

This includes a person whose name appears on the tax roll, as well as a person who owns title to property even though the person’s name doesn’t appear on the tax roll.  

However, it is up to the would-be voter to produce evidence to the District that they are an owner of property or designated representative of an organizational property owner…

i.e. trust, foundation, corporation or other organization

…such as a letter on organization letterhead that clearly authorizes that person to vote on behalf of the organization.

Summary 

• No absentee ballots or proxies
• Resident property owners (both husband & wife, if joint tenants)
• Non-resident property owners (husband and wife, if joint tenants)
• Corporations, government bodies and other organizations, i.e., clubs 
• (treated as single owner, with single vote of authorized representative)
• Renters, age 18 and older, residing within District
• Children, age 18 and older residing within District

No ABSENTEE BALLOTS CAN BE CAST

From the WI State Statutes;

33.30 Annual meeting of district.

(1) Every district shall have an annual meeting. Each annual meeting shall be scheduled during the time period between May 22 and September 8 unless

scheduled outside those dates by majority vote of the previous

annual meeting.

(2) (a) The annual meeting shall be preceded by written notice

mailed at least 14 days in advance of the meeting to all electors

within the district whose address is known or can be ascertained

with reasonable diligence, to all owners of property within the district

at the owner’s address as listed in the tax roll, and to the

department. The district board of commissioners may substitute

a class 2 notice, under ch. 985, in lieu of sending written notice to

electors residing within the district.

(b) No absentee ballots or proxies are permitted at the annual
meeting.

Endangered Orchid No So Endangered....

8 years ago, RKLD was accused of flooding and killing this orchid should the courts rule in favor of our 7.2 inches of added lake level - then, the Wetlands Club and DNR pulled back their testimony after RKLD was forced to spend time and money collecting data and evidence that proved otherwise.

__________________________________

Endangered orchid shows it has an attitude

   “This (the white-fringed orchid) is one of the most beautiful wildflowers in a prairie. Rejoice should you discover one or two plants in bloom.”

   So says a website describing Illinois wildflowers, and indeed, the eastern whitefringed prairie orchid is not only attractive, it’s uncommon enough to be on Wisconsin’s endangered species list (as well as Illinois’).

   I’ve written about this rare plant in the past, describing how there was land near us where these scarce orchids were not only growing, but flourishing. Every year, when they came into bloom around the Fourth of July, we would do our annual orchid count, flagging the flowers and keeping tabs of where they were concentrated. With each census, the numbers grew until the flood of 2008.

   After weeks of hard rains that year, I could have canoed from my deer stand in the woods bordering the orchid field all the way to Lake Koshkonong. For months the field was under several feet of water. When it finally subsided about the time the plants should have been blooming, there was nothing but rotting vegetation littering the ground.

     Evidently the orchids were resilient. A few years later they were back—not in the numbers they had been, but enough to raise hopes that they soon would be.

   Then there was last summer’s drought. Since prairie orchids require moist ground to grow in, they were especially vulnerable to the endless weeks of searing sun and cloudless skies. By July, when they should have been flowering, there was no trace of them other than a few shriveled stalks.

   To add insult to injury, for several weeks this spring, much of the field was again under water. After taking a double whammy in a single year, there wasn’t much hope.

   Against all odds, last week I found three flowering plants. When I returned with flags to mark them I ran into 39 more.

   Equally as remarkable as their resiliency to extreme weather changes is the history of the field they grow in. When we moved to the area, it was used to raise corn.

   Since the orchid requires undisturbed land, the yearly plowing and planting made conditions impossible for it to take hold. Even when the field was set aside in CRP, it was sprayed on a fairly regular basis to eliminate brush and reed canary grass—another big no-no on the list of things prairie orchids don’t like.

   During those years we used the field for hunting, tramped around on it, cut native grasses down for duck blinds, plowed firebreaks and even ran a road down the middle of it. Then, amazingly, after doing just about everything you’re not supposed to do to encourage this endangered plant (which we didn’t even realize was in the area), one summer a few orchids took root and bloomed.
   Probably one of the reasons for their appearance is the fact that each March the field gets burned (at least when it’s not under water), keeping invasive, non-indigenous and native flora at bay. The white-fringe likes open sunlight, and there’s plenty of that.

   Then, too, there must be something unique about the pH of the soil in that area, as well as the presence of a particular fungus it needs to propagate, making the field ideal.

   One thing I’ve learned from the ongoing neighborhood orchid saga is how tenacious this plant seems to be. When you hear the word “endangered,” you often associate the term with some wimpy snail or little fish that can’t seem to make it on its own without some help.

   True, this fussy flower is pollinated only at night by hawkmoths and requires special soil. In spite of its little fringy blooms that give it the look of some kind of botanical French poodle, it’s one tough customer.

   You can cut it, spray it, flood it, starve it for water and ignore its needs and it will fight to come back. It’s a plant with an attitude!

   D.S. Pledger is an outdoors columnist for The Gazette. Email him at maus16@  centurytel.net  

Lake Koshkonong ruling ‘epic’: RKLD

By Kevin Murphy, Special to the Daily Union | Posted: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:27 am

MADISON — A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against the state Department of Natural Resources in a case relating to the water levels on Lake Koshkonong.

The decision could set a precedent for how much power the DNR has over setting water levels on lakes affected by dams.

The high court, in its 4-3 decision, said the DNR does not have the authority under the public trust doctrine, contained in the state constitution, to consider the impact of water levels on private wetlands above the ordinary high water mark. Instead, the court said, the DNR has broad authority to protect those areas under other state laws, not under the constitution.

Extending the doctrine to non-navigable wetlands would eliminate the very rationale for the doctrine, which is to protect, preserve, and promote Wisconsin’s waters, Justice David Prosser wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Pat Roggensack, Michael Gableman and Annette Ziegler.

“The ramifications for private property owners could be very significant,” he said.

Justice Patrick Crooks, writing the dissent, said the ruling attempts to undermine the public trust doctrine.

“This represents a significant and disturbing shift in Wisconsin law,” stated Crooks, joined by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh-Bradley.

He attacked the majority for needlessly bringing the public trust doctrine into the case when it could have been decided on a state statute. He noted that the majority constricts the doctrine, which has been part of the state’s “long and robust history” of protecting the public’s rights to Wisconsin’s waters.

“The economic evidence admitted during the ten-day contested case hearing was sufficient to discharge the DNR’s duty to ‘protect ... property,’ and the excluded evidence was not relevant or required. The DNR has a difficult job to do under this statute, and in this case, the DNR did it well,” Crooks stated in his dissenting opinion.

The case dates back to 2003 when the DNR rejected a request from the Rock-Koshkonong Lake District to raise water levels 7.2 inches on Lake Koshkonong, a 10,600-acre lake five miles southwest of Fort Atkinson. It is the sixth-largest inland lake in Wisconsin, with 27 miles of shoreline in Jefferson, Dane and Rock counties, but it has an average depth of just seven feet.

The lake district wanted to raise water levels during low periods in the summer, which supporters argued would help bolster tourism, lake access, and the value of property around the lake.

The DNR agreed to raise the winter drawdown level by six inches, but argued that raising the summer levels would worsen shore erosion and cause a loss of wetland habitat at the lake.

There are 12.4 miles of wetland shoreline at the lake containing diverse species of wildlife and vegetation.

The Rock-Koshkonong Lake District said the DNR was overstepping its legal powers in setting the water limits, and that it did not properly consider the economic effect of its decision.

Challenging the decision, the district brought the case before an administrative law judge, who upheld the DNR a year later. The findings in his decision were not contested by the district as it appealed the adverse ruling to the Rock County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Dillon.

Dillon also ruled in favor of the DNR.

In July 2011, in upholding Dillion’s earlier ruling, the District 4 Court of Appeals concluded that the DNR is “not required to consider the economic effects of its water level determinations on residential property values, business income and tax revenue,” Judge Paul Higginbotham wrote in the 25-page opinion.

Instead, the appeals court interpreted state statutes to give the DNR the authority to establish water levels for impounded lakes based on the public’s interest in promoting safety and protecting life, health and property.

On Tuesday, the state’s highest court sent the case back to the Rock County Circuit Court with orders that the previously excluded testimony be considered when deciding whether the lake levels should be raised.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lake district and said the DNR wrongly excluded most testimony on the economic impact of lower water levels for residents, businesses and tax bases at and near the lake.

“The DNR’s exclusion of most economic evidence was inconsistent with its acceptance of competing economic evidence that helped sustain its water level decision,” Justice Prosser wrote for the court.

Brian Christianson, chairman of the lake district, praised the court’s decision, saying he believes consideration of the economic data will lead to the court allowing the water level to go up during summer.

He referred to the decision as being “epic” and suggested that it vindicated the district’s claim that the DNR overstepped its constitutional authority and harmed property owners in keeping the lake levels low.

“You need to take that into account,” said University of Wisconsin-Whitewater economics professor Russ Kashian, who presented some of the economic data that was rejected. “You just can’t say it’s good for the ducks. Ducks are important too, but you have to weigh all of the consequences.”

“The case is epic because had the court ruled that the public trust doctrine in the state constitution applies to non-navigable private water beyond the ordinary high water mark, it would give the DNR unlimited authority to regulate private property adjacent to public waters,” Christianson said.

He further noted that the state constitution makes no reference to the DNR.

“Their creation as an agency comes 120 years after our constitution and the public trust doctrine. RKLD’s victory strengthens the public trust doctrine and tempers the power of DNR,” Christianson said. “The Supreme Court majority put the constitution back in its proper place.”

Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce praised the ruling as “significant win for property owners and the rule of law.”

“This is an important ruling that correctly limits the DNR’s regulatory authority as it relates to the public trust,” WMC Vice President for Government Relations Scott Manley said in a prepared statement. “The state argued for a massive expansion of the DNR’s regulatory jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with the law.”

Manley said he thought the Supreme Court appropriately limited the application of public trust doctrine in the Wisconsin Constitution.

“We hope today’s decision is a first step toward continued clarification of this ambiguous area of Wisconsin law by the high court and the Legislature,” he concluded.

Attorney Charles “Buck” Sweeney said he expects the lower court will uphold the DNR’s original decision even with the additional economic evidence.

Sweeney represented the Lake Koshkonong Wetland Association and the Thiebeau Hunting Club, which supported the DNR’s ruling because they believed it would protect wetlands adjacent to the lake.

Sweeney also predicted that the case, which is eight years old, will drag on for years more as appeals are filed to the next decision by the circuit court.

Bill O’Connor, the attorney for the lake district, said it was too soon to tell what would happen next in the case, but he agreed that resolution could still be years away.

DNR spokesman Bill Cosh said the opinion was being reviewed and that the agency will work with the attorney general’s office on the next steps when the case goes back to circuit court.

Several environmental groups, including Clean Wisconsin, Wisconsin Wetlands Association and Wisconsin Lakes, supported the DNR’s process for protecting wetlands when making decisions about lake water levels.

Elizabeth Wheeler, the attorney for those groups, said the ruling unnecessarily narrowed the DNR’s authority to regulate non-navigable waters through the public trust doctrine, but it also bolstered it by saying the agency can regulate those areas using other laws.

Over the years, courts have given the DNR power under the doctrine to protect water quality; however, Tuesday’s decision limits that to below normal high water mark, she said.

“The public trust doctrine has been broadly interpreted by the Supreme Court by extending it to wetlands and shore lands, but this decision attempts to narrow that when wetlands are concerned,” Wheeler said.

“It’s not a clear-cut win or loss,” she concluded.

Slow/no wake lifted on northern portion of Rock River

"Slow/no wake lifted on northern portion of Rock River" by Latest News -- GazetteXtra

Slow/no wake lifted on northern portion of Rock River


Rock County is temporarily suspending a slow/no wake speed restriction on a stretch of the Rock River from the northern Rock County line to the Indianford dam because water levels have dropped.County ordinance allows for change when the river falls below 8 feet. A U.S. Geological Survey gauge on Lake Koshkonong found the river’s depth is 7.99 feet, according to a release from the Rock County Sheriff’s office.The slow/no-wake restriction downstream, from the Indianford dam to the Beloit-Rock Townline Road bridge, will remain until the Lake Koshkonong gauge falls below 6.5 feet, the release said.The Sheriff's Office previously removed slow/no wake restrictions on the southern portion of the river from the Townline Road bridge to the southern county line because levels fell below 8.5 feet.

Link to Madison TV Coverage

NBC TV-15 Coverage of Supreme Court Victory

PRIVATE Wetlands receive PUBLIC tax breaks

Did you read this about PRIVATE Wetlands?

From April 2006

More News Coverage of RKLD Victory

UPDATED Tuesday, July 16, 2013 -- 10:30 p.m.
Reporter: Phil Levin

The DNR tells NBC 15 they are still examining the decision and have not decided whether to continue to contest the petition originally filed in 2005 in court.

Rock-Koshkonong Lake District leaders expect they would challenge an additional dispute.

"With Lake Koshkonong being such a shallow pie plate on its lake bottom, just a few inches, we're talking about a nominal 7 in. of additional water in Lake Koshkonong, which means much shorter piers, much safer navigation," said Chairman Brian Christianson.

________________________________

POSTED Tuesday July 16, 2013

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled against the state Department of Natural Resources in a case that could set a precedent for how much power the DNR has over setting lake water levels.

The case began in 2005 when the DNR rejected a request from the Rock-Koshkonong Lake District to raise water levels 7.2 inches on Lake Koshkonong, a 10,500 acre lake near Fort Atkinson.

The DNR argued raising the levels would worsen shore erosion and cause a loss of wetland habitat at the lake.

But the Supreme Court said Tuesday in a 4-3 decision that the DNR wrongly excluded testimony on the economic impact of lower water levels at the lake. Many in the area argued higher lake levels would increase tourism.