DNR Proposed Rules Affecting Piers and Waterways
By James Klauser
former Secretary, Department of Administration
I am writing to oppose the proposed rules as approved by the DNR Board and any, if any, statutes on which they may be predicated. As a Wisconsin resident, lake-front property owner, taxpayer, and active voter, I ask that you consider my comments as you approach this issue at the state government level.
The proposed rules are:
- adverse to and will harm the environment;
- inconsistent with and violate the public trust responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources;
- adverse to handicapped, disabled, and senior citizens;
- a violation of the constitutional property rights of riparian owners;
- ambiguous and unenforceable;
- overreaching on the part of the state government-local governments should control; and
- an arbitrary limitation on the number of boats per property
There are an estimated 550,000 piers (owned by families) in Wisconsin's waterways. Most of these have existed for some while without any adverse effects, while affording millions of Wisconsin residents' access to Wisconsin's greatest resource. Industries (boats, motors) and jobs have been created and sustained in Wisconsin because of this access.
It is estimated that perhaps 20 percent or over 100,000 of these piers-families-do not conform. Eighty percent or 425,000 or more piers would require permits.
Now the DNR proposes to require permits, establish arbitrary standards, diminish local control while centralizing control in Madison, and limit the number of boats. Why?-unanswered.
What bureaucracy is going to manage this-a new "Pier Police"? On the other hand, if the DNR is not going to enforce the rules, the unenforced rules will create contempt and lack of respect for the DNR and the concept of law.
The rules were drafted with minimum public exposure and input with the help of a well-meaning seven (only 7) member stakeholder group. Few, if any, of the affected families are even familiar with these individuals.
The rules propose a standard pier length to three feet of water. As to motorboats, the more popular V hulls, either with outboard or inboard outboard drives, require about 27-30 inches of water depth. At the DNR standard, these engines would be churning the waterway bottom-adverse to the environment. This year, due to the significant rain shortage and general weather conditions, most lakes are a foot or more low, so these propellers would be hitting bottom.
Sailboats, which are probably the most environmentally friendly and benign, are discouraged under these rules. Sailboats require either a keel or centerboard-a 3-foot depth doesn't work. Sailboats land under wind power; they need an accessible pier in greater depth. I personally sail a boat that would require 6 feet of water to land safely.
The number of boats is limited by these rules. A property with 50 feet or less is limited to two boats. Personal A with a 50-foot lot is limited to two 8-foot prams (junior sailboats), while his neighbor with a 20-foot lot could have two 40-foot cigarette boats. This doesn't make sense.
One way around this effective limitation would be to haul the bars onto the shore via ramps or marine railways. Either way, the shore vegetation, including trees, would be adversely affected. In my area are many vulnerable, virgin, tall, stately oak and black walnut trees that would have to be cut down-a terrible environmental tragedy caused by these rules.
The rules allow but limit a "loading area" at the end of a pier. This limitation is inadequate to facilitate handicapped, disabled, and senior citizens-who require assistance in boarding a boat. Such an area, which will have a concentrated load when assistance is provided, i.e., others lifting someone into a boar, will require a substantial, strong, and stable platform.
Incidentally, by using the term "loading area," the intent of the drafters as well as the supporting documents shows that the area is not to be a "patio" or sitting area. Why not? Are pontoon boats which are "floating patios" next on the prohibited list?
While I am not an active fisherman, I enjoy a morning cup of coffee at the lake and often see fishermen come by in their trolling boats-close to the shore and in and out among the piers. On occasion a boat with a family in anchored at pier end-fishing with son, father, and granddad aboard. Clearly, this pier area is friendly to fish and not adverse.
These are only a few of my comments.
I would point out that my family and I have been "lake people" for three generations, as long as we have been in this country. I have lived on several bodies of water and am a past President of the Lake Mendota-Monona Property Owners Association. Presently, we reside on Pewaukee Lake in Waukesha County. We are active sailors.
While there may be some need to regulate in truly sensitive areas-as well as a need for prevent excavation of lake bottoms-this proposal goes too far. Let the local governments-who know their situation best-define things further.
No one wants his or her neighbors to develop a "marina." But why limit canoes, sailboats, etc.? Don't take away informed local control that in 99 percent of cases works for these 550,000 families with piers.
I appreciate your attention to my thoughts.
Sincerely,
James R. Klauser
P.S. Could someone from DNR demonstrate how to safely dive into 3 feet of water?
Labels: DNR, NR115
