DNR Update

Today I spoke to the Assistant DNR Commissioner I met with last week. He received the mini-survey of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members I sent him and is waiting for a report back from staff members who are analyzing the results in light of the request to grandfather existing (Legacy) docks. I reiterated that I thought incorporating the concept of Legacy Docks into the permitting process made the most sense. He is not (yet) in a position to make a commitment but did not dismiss the proposal out of hand. We are scheduled to meet next week. He is going to set something up once he hears back from the folks researching issues raised in our meeting last week.

Our plan is to reach a resolution relatively shortly or, in the alternative, be prepared to protect P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members' interests before it's time to install docks.

As always, I'll keep you posted.

Strib Weighs In

This morning's Star Tribune carried an article on the dock platform issue. I have issues with the tone of the article, whose most extensive quotes were from Sen. Mary Olson and aquatic biologist Dann Siems, both outspoken critics of dock platforms.

According to Siems, the DNR "caved in to the wishes of the well-heeled few and compromised its mission to protect the public waters." This, of course, is not the case and Siems knows it. He sat on the Dock Advisory Committee where, according to another member (who also spoke to the press but was not quoted), Siems came with his own agenda opposed to any expansion of the 2002 regulations.

From a political point of view, couching the dock platform debate in terms of class warfare makes it easier to rabble rouse and generate support from elected officials who don't want to be seen as allowing the "well-heeled few" to divert the DNR from protecting Minnesota's natural resources enjoyed by the less-well-heeled many.

Siems next provided the Strib with a history lesson and a bit of sleight of hand that the reporter did not pick up on:

"Twenty years ago lakeshore owners typically had a narrow dock that could accommodate one or two boats. Today it's not uncommon for wealthy lakeshore owners to have a fishing boat, a pontoon, a speedboat for waterskiing, and a couple of personal watercraft, some or all of them covered by canopies."

Once again, it's the "wealthy lakeshore owners" threatening all that's right on the lakes. More subtly, Siems lays down the argument for limiting lakeshore owners' use of their property. Nothing in the 2008 General Permit prevents property owners from installing docks to accommodate a fishing boat, a pontoon, a speedboat for waterskiing, and a couple of personal watercraft. The 2002 DNR regulations also allow sufficient dockage to accommodate such a fleet, with canopies. But, as with the injection of class warfare into the "discussion", Siems chooses to promote his agenda for significant government intrusion into lakeshore owners' use and enjoyment of their property by disparaging the lakeshore owners' perceived success. The Strib should have called out Siems on the fact that nothing on the table now, regarding dock platform sizes, has anything to do with the number of boats or length of dock (less than 8 feet wide) lakeshore owners are allowed. Even the "aquatic impact area" written into the 2008 General Permit was offered only as a suggestion and is not mandated.

While I appreciate Siems' efforts to add credence to the mission of P.O.P.U.L.A.R., which has been warning that restricting dock platform size is merely the first step to significantly cutting back on lakeshore owners' rights, I wish he and others would ignore the temptation of engaging in intellectual dishonesty and preying on base instincts like jealousy as a means of generating support.

We know that, on the merits, any suggestion that the request for dock platforms wider than 8 feet is based on the desire for "party platforms" is nonsense. A quick review of the comments to this blog or the e-mails submitted to the DNR's Dock Advisory Committee makes it clear that safety and reasonable access are by far the most cited reasons for needing a larger dock. It's also clear that this is an issue that cuts across a wide range of economic lines. P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s willingness to negotiate a permit for Legacy Docks, and require future development to comply with more restrictive configurations, addresses the concerns that there will be a major proliferation of "mega-docks".

If only 5 percent of the state's dock platforms are not in compliance with the 2008 General Permit (most, it is likely, by only a few square feet), as cited by DNR waters division director Kent Lokkesmoe in the Strib article, then acting now to allow Legacy Docks will address the concerns of Sen. Mary Olson, Dann Siems and others in a timely fashion.

I intend to send a letter to the editor of the Strib addressing these concerns. I also expect to have my follow-up discussions with Assistant Commissioner Kramka early this week. I'll keep you posted on both. Feel free to express yourself to the Strib. You might also want to comment on Dann Siems' blog and let him know that this is not about rich vs. poor. Remember to keep it accurate and to keep it civil. Finally, Rep. Denny McNamara, also quoted in the Strib article, has been very supportive of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s efforts and you should drop him a line and show your appreciation.

Calling All Evil-Doers

It's confession time.

I do not own lakeshore property. I am in the class of people who find it more convenient to have friends who own lakeshore property than to be bothered with opening and closing the cabin each season, struggling with the installation and removal of unwieldy dock sections in nearly frozen water twice a year, contemplating the installation of a revolving door to accommodate the flow of family and folks like me, spending more on beer for my refrigerator than on hay for my horses or commuting weekly to "Up North" in traffic jams that rival the weekday experience on I-394 at 5:00 p.m.

With this point of view in mind, a point of view that admires the commitment P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members make to their lakeshore properties, notwithstanding the suffering I choose to avoid, I am shocked, shocked!, to discover that I am representing the interests of hundreds of scofflaws, Hell bent to flaunt an illegal lifestyle by covering up a patch of water wider than 8 feet during 5 months of the year.

I'm not sure how this happened. Typically, my clients all wear white hats, attend church or synagogue regularly, pay their taxes, and use me to pursue claims or resolve issues that they would unashamedly describe to their 80 year-old grandparents at Thanksgiving dinner. Apparently, that's changed.

Senator Mary Olson, in a letter to a P.O.P.U.L.A.R. member explaining her opposition to dock platforms, declared her belief that it would be an inappropriate to condone illegal behavior by grandfathering in dock platforms that violated the 2002 regulations limiting dock width to 8 feet.

In response to a February 15th editorial in the Becker Tribune that called for the allowance of dock platforms, Henry V (not the former king of England; "V" is the first initial of his last name) commented:

Intersting. (sic) The editorial totally failed to mention that large platforms are illegal under the law. They are not allowed. The DNR's general permit grants amnesty for illegal activity. Issuing general permits to change the law is no way to regulate activites (sic) that can have negative impacts on aquatic resources. We do not raise the speed limit because cars can go faster, we do not make zoning ordinances more liberal because people can place buildings closer to the lake or build higher that height requirements. Just because we can put up large platforms does not mean that we should change the law to accomodate. (sic) We are talking about placing private structures in public waters owned by all citizens. If we need to change the law then there is a proper way to do that.

Dan Siemms, an aquatic biologist from Bemidji who publishes a blog and served on the DNR's Dock Advisory Committee last year, expressed his disapproval of the issuance of the 2008 General Permit as a contravention of DAC recommendations, particularly as it legitimized illegal behavior by lakeshore owners:

In the first paragraph of our final report, we “expressed significant reservations about the wisdom of re-issuing another general permit for dock platforms, feeling that doing so might be considered an after-the-fact variance for platform docks.” Such patio platforms are illegal under existing DNR rules. A majority of DAC members felt that recommending “any sort of General Permit for platform docks would make them complicit in the degradation of aquatic habitat, the further destruction of the natural shoreline character, and the erosion of the ‘public’ nature of Minnesota waters.”

As a relevant aside, I should point out that I've tried to be extremely accurate as I generate information in support of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s issues. I do not want the substance of any argument to be undermined by relying on erroneous information to form its basis. I have asked the DNR to correct me if they read anything written by me that is inaccurate in any way. In light of this cautious practice, I feel justified identifying flaws in opponents' logic, especially when that logic itself relies on a misstatement of the facts.

Dan Siemms, for example, cherry-picks language from the DAC final recommendations in making his point in his blog. While it's true the introduction to the final recommendations noted that most members of the DAC were against a new permit, the document went on to outline consensus recommendations, which included parameters for a new General Permit should the DNR decide to issue one. The introductory caution was, for the most part, a reflection of the anti-dock platform stacking of the DAC and should not be construed as the official recommendation of the DAC.

Given my conviction that my clients wear white hats, attend church or synagogue regularly, etc., I knew there had to be flaw in the claim that P.O.P.U.L.A.R. consisted of a large group of law breakers. The flaw lies in the inaccuracy of describing dock platform owners as knowingly engaging in illegal behavior under 2002 (and still current) DNR regulations limiting dock width to 8 feet if outside the scope of the General Permits of 2007 and 2008.

The vast majority of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members have had their dock platforms since before 2002. One member sent me the DNR brochure entitled "Work That Can Be Done Without a Permit" published prior to the issuance of the 2002 rules. In other words, the brochure represents the official communication by the DNR Division of Waters to, among others, lakeshore owners looking for guidance on limits the law imposes on their ability to install dock platforms. Here's what the brochure says about "Seasonal Docks" (a temporal distinction eliminated in 2002):

"These projects will not require permits from the DNR provided all listed conditions are met.
Project Restrictions
. . .
Seasonal Docks and Floating Structures
•Removed from water on a seasonal basis (before winter freeze-up)
•All components removable form lake or stream bed by nonmechanized means
•Will not be a hazard to navigation or endanger public health and safety
•Site is not a posted fish spawning area
•Will not include fuel handling or sewage facilities
•Is not used or intended to be used for human habitation, as a boathouse or as a marina
•Allows for free flow of water beneath it"

That's it. Nothing about size restrictions. No admonishment against configuring dock sections for anything other than accessing navigable waters and boarding a boat. Short version might be "Take it out in the winter and don't use it for a bathroom". Future members of P.O.P.U.L.A.R., law abiding citizens all, built platforms and used them for years (decades in some instances) in full view of the DNR and local hydrologists without interference or other challenge.

To now baldly assert, in support of eliminating the structures, that all dock platform owners have been engaging in illegal activity and should not be legitimized, ignores the reality of pre-2003 law. Since the 2002 regulations were issued at the end of the 2002 season, the 8 foot restriction was only in effect in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 before the 2007 General Permit allowed platforms of up to 170 square feet.

Minnesota is celebrating it's 150th year of statehood this year. This means a few things. It means I'm getting old because I remember hearing about the centennial celebration in grade school. It also means that dock platforms have only been "illegal" for 2.7% of the time Minnesota has been a State. Finally, it means that dock platform opponents who oppose formulating a solution to the dispute that incorporates grandfathering in legacy docks because of their so-called "illegality" are engaging in smear campaigns for the lack of a substantive, accurate argument.

As a member of P.O.P.U.L.A.R., you should take the time to respond to unfavorable editorials and published comments of opponents. You should continue to contact your legislators and other public officials and make your position known. Names and addresses of legislators can be found by clicking on the "Who Represents Me?" link at http://www.leg.state.mn.us/. You should continue to hold public servants accountable for being accurate in their discussions on this issue.

I'll follow-up in a few days with a report on my next discussions with the DNR. I've had brief initial discussions with other attorneys in the group about litigating to stop enforcement of the size restrictions should we fail to reach agreement with the DNR. We cannot expect much help from the legislature as everyone seems to be trying to "out green" one another and we'll be sure to see environmental advocates line up against us (ironically, against the REAL stewards of the lakes).

P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members with dock platforms that were first installed after 2002 should take heart. I think of you as white hatted, God-fearing members, too. You'll just have to be the subject of a subsequent blog, "What if They Passed a Regulation and Nobody Enforced It?"

P.S. Thanks to those who have forwarded nice comments about our efforts. It makes it easier to keep typing past midnight.

Feb 19 Meeting with DNR

As noted in an earlier post, I had the opportunity to meet on Tuesday, February 19th, with Assistant Commissioner Larry Kramka at the DNR to discuss the issues concerning P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members. Prior to the meeting, I sent Assistant Commissioner Kramka a copy of all of the comments posted on the P.O.P.U.L.A.R. blog and he had familiarized himself with the information prior to our meeting.

At the outset, both of us made it clear that there was no point in meeting just to pay lip service to one another's point of view. By the end of a frank, two-hour discussion, I left with a commitment that the DNR would review the 2008 General Permit to find a solution to help the DNR manage appropriately for P.O.P.U.L.A.R. AND the with the broader values of the State in mind. I received no promises. But Assistant Commissioner Kramka ended the meeting by stating, "the challenge is coming up with a (dock platform size) number that makes sense at all levels and we may not be there now."

Here's what happened in between.

Assistant Commissioner Kramka reiterated that the General Permit did not change existing regulations on dock sizes. Rather, from the DNR's point of view, it enhanced entitlement from 8 feet maximum width to up to 170 square feet of space. After acknowledging that there needed to be better communication with DNR staff encouraging special permitting where warranted, Mr. Kramka thought that lakeshore property owners with a need for a dock platform larger than the General Permit allowed should be furnished with qualifying criteria, given a sense of the likelihood of receiving a special permit and, if appropriate, issued special permits. Qualifying criteria would include the existence of ADA issues, shoreline configuration that precluded lake access absent a platform, legacy docks in place (annually) for an extended period of time and others yet to be determined.

Mr. Kramka also identified several issues that the DNR would need to address in modifying the 2008 General Permit.

1. What is the justification for setting a new maximum size beyond the current 170 square feet? Would the DNR just be picking another number out of the air? Justification is important because the change has to be defended and there are already rumblings from the legislature that the DNR should not have "legalized" even 170 square foot dock platforms.

2. How can the DNR administer a new regulation that grandfathered in pre-existing dock platform structures (which I referred to as "Legacy Docks")? One of the purposes changing the regulations on docks in 2002 and of issuing the 2007 and 2008 General Permits was to take the DNR out of the permitting business. A new regulation that allowed Legacy Docks would have to include some way of verifying entitlement without being overly cumbersome.

3. How do the regulations on dock platforms tie into concepts of lakeshore management? Senator Mary Olson has been making the point that the DNR should not allow lakeshore owners to trade decks on land that lack adequate setback for "decks" over the public waters.

With respect to #1, I had proposed language for a Legacy Dock Permit that would allow lakeshore owners with dock platforms of up to 250 square feet installed before January 23, 2008, to retain the right to install the same sized dock platform and pass that right on to subsequent owners of the property. The language also mandated that persons with a legitimate need for a larger platform be issued a special permit. Unless I get to make the decision, we're never going to get anything larger than 250 square feet included under the umbrella of a general permit. I pointed out that by expanding the base entitlement to up to 250 square feet, most dock platform owners would be included within the scope of the Legacy Dock Permit and reducing the need for permitting.

With respect to #2, I suggested that applications for a Legacy Dock Permit be accompanied by a photograph of the previously installed dock platform configuration. Nearly everyone has one; those who don't can certify that the legacy dock qualifies. We take citizens at their word on a number of issues; I see no reason not to do so with respect to the Legacy Dock Permit.

The lakeshore management issues Mr. Kramka expressed concern about (#3) need more study. While I understand that there are those who would put more restrictions on riparian property owners' allowed impact on the shoreline in exchange for an enhanced presence over the public waters, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are adamant that the government not be allowed to increase regulatory impact absent a demonstrated need. I made it clear that one of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s main concerns is over the perception that there is incremental encroachment of lakeshore owner rights, as evidenced by the inclusion of the (thus far) voluntary Aquatic Impact Area in the 2008 General Permit.

Assistant Commissioner Kramka and I spent a lot of time describing the justification for grandfathering dock platforms larger than allowed in the 2008 General Permit. I indicated that I thought the minimal publicizing of the adoption of the 2002 regulations and the subsequent lack of enforcement undercut the reluctance to "reward illegal behavior" by grandfathering dock platforms installed since 2002. Mr. Kramka felt that the DNR's efforts to include the public in rules changes had been adequate, but was not concerned about prior conduct in determining the propriety of grandfathering.

In response to questions about the scope of the problem, I committed to undertaking a survey (some of you will receive an e-mail from me on this subject) and to working with the DNR to address the difference between the DNR's anecdotal evidence that only 10% of the docks exceed the limits of the 2008 General Permit and P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s estimates that 60%+ of the dock platforms will be non-conforming. I also used the opportunity to point out that if, in fact, it's a 10% problem, then grandfathering should be no big deal since there wouldn't be enough dock platforms to have any aggregate negative impact.

We agreed that this is a bi-partisan issue and not one of haves and have-nots. We discussed the propensity for some lakes to have a proliferation of dock platforms and others not. We discussed the issue of property taxes as it relates to limiting the use and enjoyment of lakeshore property. I argued, using two 8.5 x 11 pieces of paper (one turned sideways), that two identically sized lots with identical residences properly set back will have different tax assessments based on the amount of shoreline owned and based on the longer shoreline is allowed more access to the lake. If the DNR imposes regulations that limit use and enjoyment of the lake so that the two properties in my example have the same amount of shoreline available to each of them, the property taxes on the longer shoreline ought to be reduced. I stated that since property taxes would never be reduced, the restrictions should not be imposed. Mr. Kramka argued that the longer shoreline resulted in more valuable property because of the privacy benefits it afforded the owner.

Enforcement was also discussed. While the county attorney in Crow Wing County has yet to respond to many inquiries from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members about his intent to prosecute "violators," the Cass County prosecutor's office has notified the DNR in writing that it will fully enforce the dock regulations in existence and prosecute any violators identified by the D.N.R.

Throughout the meeting, Mr. Kramka expressed a desire to find a way to "dial back" the emotions engendered by the public's awakening to the regulation of dock platforms. As noted above, he was not in a position to promise anything specific and awaits the results of a survey I agreed to conduct. He expressed a desire to have the matter resolved prior to the start of the 2008 dock season. We agreed to speak at the end of the week and determine if specific middle ground can be arrived at.

Watch for an e-mail from me asking you answer some survey questions. If you don't get one, don't worry. We're looking for some particular information on the impact of the 2008 General Permit that doesn't apply to most shoreline owners.

P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s Viewpoint is NOT Universally Accepted

Inevitably, the public outcry among P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members will generate a response from individuals who do not agree with our goals. There are those who believe that any attempt to minimize the restrictions placed on lakeshore owners' use and enjoyment of their lake property is an inappropriate attempt to exert undue control over public waters.

Senator Mary Olson, whose district ranges from Bemidji to the Nisswa area, strongly believes that the DNR's decision to issue the 2008 General Permit allowing any dock platforms poses a threat to the health of Minnesota's lakes and should be repealed.

On Sunday, February 3, the Bemidji Pioneer published the following editorial:

The state Department of Natural Resources late last month issued a new five-year general permit which lakeshore owners can use in constructing or legally maintain their docks.

The issue is contentious as the decision allows people with platforms at the end of their dock to remain, under the conditions that the section of dock reaching out to the platform doesn’t exceed 5 feet in width, and that the platform not exceed 170 square feet. Those with such docks are mostly located on higher density lakes, especially around Brainerd/Nisswa and Lake Minnetonka in the metro area. Mostly wealthy lake homeowners, many say they pay enough in taxes that they should be able to do what they want in a dock, and the dock actually protects the shoreline and serves as fish habitat.

Those who oppose the new general permit call the larger docks “party platforms” and an eyesore to the public waters, and we underscore public. A landowner’s riparian rights are quite limited once the activity is in public waters, no matter how much they pay in property taxes. And, say opponents, studies do show environmental damage and unwanted vegetation growth.

Minnesota used to restrict docks to six feet in width until 2002, when docks could be up to eight feet wide. No permit was needed to construct them, but the rules made no provisions for large sections or platforms at the end. Some people, however, skirted the rules by building a proper width section perpendicular to the end, like a “T”. In early 2007, pressure was felt from dock owners worried that the DNR would soon crack down on “party platforms” which were illegal but which the DNR had been until then lax in enforcing.

Instead, the DNR issued a temporary permit allowing most platforms with a goal of educating the public of the law, and giving owners time to comply. That’s why is surprised many when the DNR apparently caved in to special interests in issuing a permanent, five-year permit allowing the platforms.

Sen. Mary Olson, DFL-Bemidji, is one of those, and is mulling legislation to overturn the DNR rules, hoping to avoid the rule creating party platform docks all over the state where they aren’t now. Also, she believes the DNR skirted the formal administrative law judge process by holding too few public hearings, not following procedure in gaining scientific input and even going against the recommendations of its own selected advisory task force.

While Sen. Olson would negate the rules, we’d like to put them on a neutral track that takes the decision out of the DNR and into the hands of experts. Sen. Olson’s bill should roll back the dock rules to conditions prior to the temporary permit — allow an eight-foot-wide dock but no platform — and then mandate the DNR to enter into a formal environmental impact statement process.

The EIS process, governed by the state Environmental Quality Board, provides a structured in-depth analysis that will probe the social and economic influences, as well as environmental impact, and look at alternative ways to proceed.

An EIS, backed with public comment and science from multiple disciplines, should scope out the best policies for docks that recognize landowners’ needs but not to the detriment of the health of the lake. (Published with permission from the Bemidji Pioneer)

Note that the newspaper's call for an environmental impact statement process is not unlike P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s call for hearings and more information to serve as the basis for any regulations. Unlike the Bemidji Pioneer and Senator Olson, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. believes there should be a roll back to before 2002 when, as noted in the editorial, there were no rules regarding dock platforms. As noted in the editorial and, apparently acknowledged even by Senator Olson, the DNR received insufficient public and scientific input before issuing the 2008 General Permit.

We need to continue to send correspondence to the DNR, Governor Pawlenty and legislators, like Senator Olson, and, politely, let them know that the concern over DNR regulation of lakeshore property is not limited to Gull Lake, Lake Minnetonka and the Whitefish Chain. We need to make clear that this is not about having "party platforms" but that significant safety issues are at stake for many P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members. In many cases, the nature of the lakeshore means that the dock platforms are the only way to enjoy the lake. Finally, while we acknowledge that the lakes are public waters, the docks and platforms are placed where no one other than the property owner typically utilizes the lake.

If we can generate a few hundred letters, it will become apparent to our public servants that P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s concerns are shared by individuals from every political persuasion and from a wide variety of economic levels. If we don't make ourselves heard, the DNR, and elected officials taking cover behind the DNR's agenda, will pursue policies, like the Aquatic Impact Area in the 2008 permit, that increasingly limit property owners' use and enjoyment of their lakeshore. The DNR will do so even though no scientific studies have demonstrated a need for greater restriction. The DNR will do so in pursuit of a vision of pristine shorelines, even on lakes like Gull and Minnetonka, that ignores the realities of having already traded development rights for tax dollars.

DNR Meeting Next Week

As a result of my meeting with the governor's office last week, a meeting has been arranged for Tuesday, February 19, with Larry Kramka, DNR assistant commissioner. Mr. Kramka is willing to discuss the issues of concern to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. with an eye towards avoiding unnecessary confrontation. While he has not made any commitments with respect to modifying the 2008 General Permit, our frank discussions resulted in an understanding that there was reason to meet.

One of the issues that continues to arise among proponents of greater restrictions on dock platform size is the actual scope of the problem. Both Senator Mary Olson and the DNR have opined that (only) roughly 10% of the properties on the lakes are not in compliance with platform regulations. On the other hand, we have been asserting that on many developed lakes, e.g., Gull Lake, 65-80% of the platforms are not in compliance with existing DNR regulations.

I believe the dichotomy results from discussing apples and oranges. When Senator Olson and the DNR refer to 10% non-compliance, I believe they are measuring the number of non-conforming platforms as a function of overall lakeshore property ownership. When we discuss 65-80%, a number reached by several dock installers and members of the 2007 DNR Dock Advisory Committee who did an informal survey from the lake, we are measuring the number of non-conforming platforms as a function of the total number of platforms. In other words, if you include properties that do not use platforms in the equation, you arrive at the lower number.

I made the point to Assistant Commissioner Kramka that if the DNR numbers were right, and that in the overall scheme of lake management there were not a horrendous number of non-conforming platforms, then that would allow grandfathering in non-conforming platforms (up to a point) without significant detriment to the aquatic environments. Moreover, even if the 10% figure touted by the DNR is accurate, 10% of an estimated 250,000 lakeshore owners still represents a significant number of "hooligans" and justifies addressing the issue now to avoid wasting DNR and judicial system resources on enforcement of a senseless regulation.

Senseless? I believe it makes no sense to impose the restrictions contained in the 2008 General Permit when:
a.) the parties agree that there was no relevant scientific study identifying the need;
b.) many parties, including Senator Mary Olson, believe there was insufficient public input prior to the issuance of the permit;
c.) since the concern is the "cumulative effect" of an increase in the number of over the water structures, but admittedly no demonstrable harm from the status quo, leniency towards pre-2008 platform owners is warranted;
d.) the 2002 regulations that established the 8 foot maximum dimension that platform opponents point to when dismissing requests for such leniency were neither publicized nor enforced as consumers proceeded to install "non-conforming" dock platforms;
e.) many of the dock platforms that are now jeopardized by the 2008 General Permit were in existence prior to 2002 when the regulations did not address their size or installation;
f.) Governor Pawlenty (pictured above addressing supporters at a Gull Lake home in August, 2005) repeatedly assured constituents concerned about dock regulations that there was nothing to worry about and that there would not be any changes to lakeshore owners' use and enjoyment of their property vis a vis the dock platform issue in a Pawlenty administration;
g.) concerns about lakeshore owners "intrusion" on public waters are misguided insofar as the platforms are located over waters not generally utilized by the public;
h.) assuming that one governmental entity or another, likely eager to trade virgin shoreline under their jurisdiction for an increase in property tax revenue, allowed lakeshore development in the first place, we believe that the installation of docks and platforms to replace natural shade and habitat, actually enhances the fish population; and
i.) finally, for now, it makes no sense to divert DNR resources from more important endeavors, like implementing stringent measures to prevent and/or control invasive species on our lake environments, in order to pick a fight over an issue that the DNR has felt no need to regulate in the past.

If you've read this far, thank you for your indulgence. I will repay you with homework. I invited Assistant Commissioner Kramka to subscribe to this blog in order to better understand our concerns and, frankly, call me out on any inaccuracies. Civility and accuracy are of the utmost importance in this fight.

Here's your homework: Click on the "post a comment" button at the bottom of this blog entry. Write a comment. You don't need to identify yourself to the point of self-incrimination. But I would like you to indicate what lake you're on, whether you have a dock platform larger than 120 square feet (excluding the last dock extension) and why you feel a larger platform is necessary. If you want, comment on how long you've had the now "non-conforming" configuration. (The first comment is mine, instructing you how to post your comment AFTER you've clicked on the "post a comment" link.)

I'm going out on a limb as it's not clear how many of the hundreds of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members will read this entry to the end or bother to comment. On the other hand, it will be immensely helpful and demonstrative if I walk into Tuesday's meeting with Assistant Commissioner Kramka with many, many comments and a smile on my face. There's only two rules: keep it civil and keep it accurate. Thanks in advance.

2008 General Permit for Dock Platforms Issued

I thought it might be helpful to provide some additional background for lakeshore property owners and other interested parties who are just becoming aware of the newest DNR regulations and P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s efforts to curtail their impact.

On January 23, 2008, the DNR, in theory responding to the recommendations of the Dock Advisory Committee it established to study the issue of dock platforms on Minnesota lakes and to advise the DNR on how to address the proliferation of structures that technically violated the 2002 regulations on dock size, issued a new general permit addressing the issue. The general permit applies to dock structures on lakes with General or Recreational Shoreline Development classifications.

Any dock platform on such a lake that does not exceed the dimensions in the new general permit (and complies with other standard conditions such as not interfering with navigation) can be installed without a permit. All other dock platforms that exceed 8 feet of width need a special permit.

The 2008 general permit sets forth a number of conditions, including recommending adherence to the concept of an "Aquatic Impact Area", within which any impact on the public waters by a lakeshore owner is to be limited to an area equal to the lesser of 50 feet or 1/2 the length of shoreline owned wide out to 4 feet of depth. At this point, adherence to the guidelines of the Aqauatic Impact Area is NOT mandated, merely suggested.

At the end of last month, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. distributed a lengthy memo discussing the 2008 permit and my meeting with Tom Hovey at DNR to discuss the same, as well as an executive summary. These documents are posted below for review and easier access and distribution.

Crow Wing County residents should be aware that County Attorney Don Ryan has been asked by a number of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members if he intends to prosecute violations of DNR dock size regulations when cited by the DNR. Mr. Ryan's response is that his office is formulating its position and will be meeting with the DNR. The fact that the office is unable to merely acknowledge that it will assist in enforcing the new law by prosecuting violators gives some sense of how overwhelmed the office anticipates being if enforcement is pursued and, hopefully, a recognition that there are higher priority issues that it should address with its limited resources. We'll keep you posted on developments with that office.

Also, on Thursday of this week, I met with Josh Gackel, the Pawlenty Administration's policy advisor on DNR issues, to discuss our concerns. Mr. Gackel indicated that the governor is well aware of the level of concern in the community over the new DNR regulations. He agreed with me that this is a non-partisan issue, affecting Minnesotans across the board regardless of political persuasion. Discussions are continuing and I'll post more information as anything more concrete develops. Legislative leaders I spoke to believe that our attention should first be directed to the DNR but were open to further discussion in the event that legislation was introduced impacting our position.

We are working on a form of correspondence that P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members can use to express their concern over incremental DNR encroachment on the use and enjoyment of their lake property. We believe the impact of the volume of correspondence we hope to generate will negate the fact that the communications will be similar in substance. Please be sure to send the address of this blog (http://protectlakes.blogspot.com) to everyone you know who is concerned about these issues and may not as yet be receiving P.O.P.U.L.A.R. materials. Additional members from lake areas north of Gull and Whitefish would be helpful in order to show statewide support for our efforts.

Thanks again to everyone who has communicated with their representatives and with the governor's office and, in advance, to all who will.

--Sam

Here are copies of the correspondence circulated from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. on January 28, 2008:

Executive Summary

Accompanying this executive summary memorandum you will find a rather lengthy letter describing the January 23, 2008 General Permit issued by the DNR (No. 2008-0401), an overview of my January 24th meeting with the DNR’s Tom Hovey and a call to action. I urge you to read the correspondence in its entirety, along with the General Permit itself.
In the meantime, please consider this memo a shorthand version of the information in the January 23rd correspondence for those of you in need of a quick read.
1. The General Permit allows dock platforms of no more than 120 square feet, not counting the last dock section extension. It applies only on lakes with General or Recreational Development shoreland lake classifications. Property owners on lakes otherwise classified will need to obtain a separate permit from the DNR if their dock/platform exceeds 8 feet in any dimension.
2. The General Permit replaces last year’s permit that allowed dock platforms of up to 170 square feet and is in response to the recommendations of the DNR’s Dock Advisory Committee. The 120 square foot limit represents the lowest end of the recommendations.
3. The General Permit includes a number of conditions on permittees if they rely on the General Permit to install a platform wider than 8 feet. These include granting the DNR access inspect the dock/platform and establishing an “Aquatic Impact Area” intended to minimize the shoreline property owner’s impact on the lake.
4. The “Aquatic Impact Area” is, in and of itself, merely a suggestion and not a mandate. However, Condition 11, in which it appears, does mandate that “docks and dock platforms shall be the minimum size necessary to meet the water related needs of the permittee.” There is no assurance that future rulemaking will not mandate the imposition of the Aquatic Impact Area. There is some concern that DNR may use the minimum size language to cite property owners with larger than “necessary” dock structures.
5. DNR will require permits for any non-conforming dock structure for property owners who can demonstrate a need and/or other justification. However, DNR is unable to provide assurance that permits will be available in any greater quantity that they were previously.
6. DNR will be stepping up enforcement of dock regulations but cannot adequately regulate all properties. DNR acknowledges that its past failure to enforce regulations has led to a situation where property owners invested in dock structures that were technically non-conforming but were ignored and used without incident for years. Enforcement will take the form of cease & desist orders, tickets and/or warnings.
7. DNR expects legislation to be introduced to modify the General Permit by both sides of the regulatory issue. DNR does not have current plans, absent a legislative directive, to engage in future rulemaking.
8. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. will continue to organize opponents of the regulations and seeks sympathetic legislators to assist in controlling DNR’s attempt at regulatory expansion. Please read the Call to Action at the end of the January 28, 2008 letter to learn how to help!

January 28, 2008 Letter to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. Members

Dear P.O.P.U.L.A.R. Supporters and Other Interested Parties:

I am writing to update you on developments in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources efforts to control dock and dock platform sizes and to “protect Minnesota’s shorelines” and assure “minimal impact on public waters”.

On Wednesday, January 23rd, the DNR issued General Permit 2008-0401 (the “General Permit”), which replaces last year’s permit addressing dock platform sizes and sets the standard until “November 30, 2012 or when new regulations regarding structures in public waters take effect.” The General Permit was issued in response to the work of DNR’s dock advisory committee (the “Committee”), including public comments assembled by the Committee, and recommendations from the Committee.

Everyone on P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s e-mail list received a copy of the General Permit and DNR Waters Director Kent Lokkesmoe’s accompanying correspondence on January 23rd. Hopefully, you have had a chance to read it. If you haven’t, please do. Here are the salient points.

• The General Permit is designed to provide exceptions to existing DNR regulations governing dock/dock platform sizes that limit the width of any dock to 8 feet.

• The General Permit applies only to lakes with General Development or Recreational Development shoreland classification. If you live on a lake otherwise classified, you need to obtain a separate permit from the DNR to install a dock/dock platform wider than 8 feet in any direction. Shoreland lake classification information can be found on the Web at mndnr.gov/waters.

• The General Permit allows installation of a dock platform that is no more than 120 square feet, exclusive of the access dock, or no more than 170 square feet, including the access dock, which cannot be wider than 5 feet. Effectively, if you are using 5x10 foot dock sections to create the platform and relying on the General Permit, the platform can only be 10x10, or 100 square feet exclusive of the access dock, because a platform encompassing 3 5x10 sections would amount to 150 square feet, 30 more than allowed under the General Permit. To get to the fully allowed 170 square feet, you would need to use 3 4x10 sections (120 square feet) plus a 5x10 access dock.

• The General Permit adopts the concept of an Aquatic Impact Area as a condition of the General Permit, intended to give guidance, but not mandate, the manner in which a shoreline owner’s impact on the lake can be minimized. Condition 11 reads as follows:
"Docks and dock platforms shall be the minimum size necessary to meet the water related needs of the permittee. Docks generally should not extend to water depths greater than 4 feet. Typically, all structures and shoreline modifications (including docks, platforms, boat lifts, canopies, sand blankets, and aquatic plant removal) should be completely contained in an Aquatic Impact Area, defined for this general permit, as an area up to 50 feet wide along the shoreline or one-half the width of the lot, whichever is less, and extends waterward to a 4’ water depth so that lateral and lakeward encroachment into a Public Water is only necessary to achieve water-oriented recreational needs. The structures must not obstruct navigation." (emphasis added to illustrate items that are mandated as opposed to suggested under the General Permit)

• The General Permit conditions its use on the agreement by the permittee to “grant access to the site at all reasonable times during and after construction to authorized representatives of the Commissioner of Natural Resources for inspection of the work authorized” under the General Permit.

• The County Board of a Lake Conservation District may adopt a resolution prohibiting application of the General Permit in the District. Information regarding Districts that adopt such resolutions will be available at mndnr.gov/waters. Without the ability of the General Permit in a particular Lake Conservation District, shoreline owners could find themselves faced with having to abide by existing DNR regulations and the 8-foot width limitation.

• Again, please read the terms and conditions of the General Permit in their entirety. If you did not receive a copy from P.O.P.U.L.A.R., you can read a copy at mndnr.gov/waters. It’s the first link under the “New Information Concerning Docks” section.

Meeting with the DNR
As luck would have it, prior to the issuance of the General Permit, I had scheduled a meeting with Tom Hovey for Thursday, January 24th. Mr. Hovey is the DNR employee who headed up the work of the Dock Advisory Committee. The plan was to meet, address some concerns that Mr. Hovey had expressed about the accuracy of previous P.O.P.U.L.A.R. communications and, from our point of view, let him and the DNR know how passionate P.O.P.U.L.A.R. was about the need for reasonableness in DNR regulations. With the issuance of the General Permit, we had additional items to address during our two-hour meeting.

The wide range of issues Mr. Hovey and I discussed during our meeting are summarized below.

Aquatic Impact Area
I asked Mr. Hovey how DNR could impose the requirement for an aquatic impact area (“AIA”) without going through formal rulemaking. Mr. Hovey pointed out that because the language is advisory, “should” not “shall” establish the AIA, the DNR felt it was not necessary to engage in rulemaking. According to Mr. Hovey, the advisory on restricting impact to the AIA resulted from a desire by people on “both sides of the issue” to minimize the impact of development on the lakes. Apparently, there was considerable discussion during the Dock Advisory Committee meetings that merely addressing dock platform sizes would not provide adequate protection to the aquatic environment without restrictions on docks, boatlifts, canopies, boats, etc. Including the suggestion to establish an AIA was an effort to address those concerns. The 50-foot maximum length was intended to mirror existing sand blanket regulations.

Mr. Hovey acknowledged that the DNR could decide to make the AIA mandatory but would have to go through the rulemaking process to do so. As noted below, he does not believe the DNR will engage in any new rulemaking in the next several years. In the meantime, the DNR cannot force shoreline owners to limit the AIA to the dimensions referred to in the General Permit.
Dock Platform Size
The General Permit does not change the regulations that had been in place since 2002. There is no permit needed if no dimension of a dock exceeds 8 feet. The General Permit allows dock platforms in excess of 8 feet wide up to the 120 square feet described above. A special permit will be needed from the DNR in order to be able to install a dock platform that exceeds 120 square feet in size.

A permit can be applied for in case of non-conforming use. Mr. Hovey believes, but cannot assure, that the DNR will be more open to issuing permits based on individual circumstances. He used welded docks that cannot be reconfigured as an example. Mr. Hovey also thought that property owners who wanted to continue to use a platform configuration that had been in place since before 1978, when regulations first went into place, should be able to get a special permit.

Enforcement
DNR’s enforcement division signed off on the General Permit. According to Mr. Hovey, more attention will be paid to enforcing existing regulations and compliance with the General Permit. Mr. Hovey acknowledged that the DNR’s lack of past enforcement contributed to the current situation in which shoreline property owners felt entitled to install non-conforming docks and platforms. While insisting that there will not be “dock cops”, enforcement will vary county by county, as some county attorneys have refused to prosecute dock size violations. Mr. Hovey expects enforcement to be in form of orders to cease & desist, tickets or warnings. However, the DNR’s limited resources preclude strict enforcement. Mr. Hovey felt that the DNR would start by first citing the most “egregious” offenders with the largest dock platforms.

Need for Regulation/Grandfathering
Although there has not been significant enforcement in the past of the DNR’s regulations regarding impact on the public waters by shoreline property owners, Mr. Hovey believes the growth in the size of boats, docks and population mandates regulation now to protect the future status of lakes. Lakes are becoming more cluttered giving rise to circus like appearance with proliferation of dock slipcovers. Mr. Hovey acknowledged that there is no scientific evidence that any particular structure negatively impacts the aquatic environment or the health of a lake. However, the DNR is concerned that the cumulative effect of all structures must, as a matter of logic, contribute to the declining health of the lake.

This led to a discussion of grandfathering in existing structures since the concern for the future seemed to be about what might develop, not what exists per se. Mr. Hovey thought that allowing pre-1978 (i.e., pre-regulation) dock platforms to have a special permit makes sense. He entertained my suggestion that, possibly, there could be some changes to the General Permit to allow grandfathering where shoreline owners relied on non-enforcement (part of “plenty of blame to go around” scenario). This might serve as justification for a special permit. Stricter enforcement would be imposed on new structures.

Property Taxes
I told Mr. Hovey that it was disingenuous to deny that shoreline property owners were being taxed based on their perceived, by assessors, access to their lakeshore. Mr. Hovey argued initially that the mere access to public waters generates the higher tax assessment.
However, when I used the example of two identical homes properly set back on two lots with different lengths of shoreline but equal total square footage, he agreed that, everything else being equal, merely owning additional shoreline would result in higher property taxes. Accordingly, imposing identical limits on each property owner (e.g., a fifty food wide AIA), ought to result in a reduction in property taxes for the higher taxed property since the owner’s effective ability to access the public waters was being curtailed to the level of the parcel with less shoreline.

Tailoring Regulations
Mr. Hovey was clear that the State of Minnesota lacks the resources to regulate lakes individually and, therefore, cannot modify regulations based on the nature and use of each lake. He said, however, that the DNR might accept lake management plans developed from local lake associations (a lake improvement district) that proposed specific regulations for individual lakes. These could be used to modify restrictions based on the character of the individual lake.

Additional Rulemaking
As noted above, Mr. Hovey doesn’t anticipate rulemaking this year. He said that the DNR is tied up with Wild & Scenic River and Shoreline Management regulations. Information on these rulemaking procedures are on the DNR’s website. According to Mr. Hovey, the DNR’s limited resources preclude engaging in additional rulemaking at this time. Mr. Hovey also expressed his opinion that P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s concern about the adoption of highly restrictive regulations is misguided. He believes, for example, that it would not be possible to regulate the number of watercraft a shoreline owner was allowed to keep on his or her property. However, he acknowledged that there are some proponents of significant additional restrictions and that he cannot say for sure to what extent they might be ultimately successful.

Mr. Hovey had heard that proponents and opponents of dock platform regulation had both planned to have legislation introduced in the next session to support their respective position. Legislation, if passed, would have the effect of directing the DNR to take one action or another. Accordingly, even though the DNR has no current plans to engage in new rulemaking on the dock platform or lake impact issues, pressure from the public and actions by the legislature, could change those plans.

Call to Action
In less than a month, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. has been able to raise shoreline owner’s awareness of the DNR’s intent to more vigorously regulate the use and enjoyment of the lakeshore. Moreover, the outcry from shoreline owners in the past month has been in marked contrast to the general silence that met the DNR’s announced study of dock platform and aquatic impact issues early in and throughout 2007.

We believe that there are reasonable compromises to be had between the DNR’s proposed limits on dock platform sizes, which may or may not lend themselves to the issuance of special permits, and regulations that address the individual needs of lakeshore property owners and take the historical use of lakefront property into consideration.

P.O.P.U.L.A.R. intends to identify sympathetic legislators who will work with us to draft legislation directing the DNR to modify its newly imposed restrictions and keep the DNR from imposing any additional restrictions, particularly as they might be applied to current shoreline property owners. In order to demonstrate the breadth and depth of the public’s concern on the issue, it is imperative that all P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members let their respective state senators and representatives know that this is an issue of concern to more than the “hundreds” who made their concerns known to the DNR prior to the issuance of the General Permit. By some accounts, there are more than 250,000 shoreline owners in Minnesota. Not many of them had been clamoring for an increase in the DNR’s regulations of the use and enjoyment of their respective lakeshore.

To be a part of this movement, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. needs you to:
• Send a copy of this correspondence to everyone you know who has an interest in limiting the DNR’s regulation of lakeshore. Make sure members of your lakeshore owners association are aware of the General Permit and determine the level of support for an effort to modify the General Permit so that it is less restrictive.

• Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Make the point that while some regulation might be justified, the vast majority of shoreline owners are better stewards of the lakes than the visiting public and have a vested interest in the ongoing health of the public waters on which their property lies. Point out that any attempts to portray the issue as one of class warfare does a disservice to the integrity of the majority of shoreline property owners whose interests in the property are often multi-generational.

• Contact your state senator and representative and ask them to support the work of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. and legislation that limits the DNR’s regulation of private property. If you don’t know who your legislator is, go to http://www.leg.state.mn.us and click on the “Who Represents Me?” link.

• Keep P.O.P.U.L.A.R. informed of progress made with public officials and identify any legislators willing to work with P.O.P.U.L.A.R. to carry remedial legislation.

• Send copies of your letters on the issue to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. at protectlakes@gmail.com or by facsimile to 763-201-7899.

• Watch for future communications from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. regarding
• the drafting of legislation supporting our position and be prepared to assist with testimony regarding your particular circumstances before the legislature,
• the circulation of petitions to clearly demonstrate the intensity of the opposition to the General Permit and to the enforcement of regulations beyond what is needed to maintain healthy public waters,
• organizational meetings to better focus our activities and identify goals to be pursued,
• the establishment of a political action committee to encourage public servants to respond to P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s concerns, and
• other matters of interest to persons concerned about the DNR’s activities.

Thank you for your support. Please remember to take the time to read the General Permit and its conditions.
(end of January 28, 2008 correspondence)

P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: Property Owners Protecting Useful Lake Access Rights

Welcome to the new blog for P.O.P.U.L.A.R., Property Owners Protecting Useful Lake Access Rights.

My name is Sam Stern. I'm an attorney who has been working with clients with homes on Lake Minnetonka and Gull Lake to respond to efforts by the Minnesota D.N.R. to further regulate the use and enjoyment of lakeshore property by the property owners.

We formed P.O.P.U.L.A.R. as a means to focus the efforts of property owners interested in this issue. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. is an unincorporated association. If you want to be a member, you're a member. We recognize that with hundreds of thousands of lakeshore property owners in the State of Minnesota, we will not reach unanimous agreement on all issues affecting lakeshore property rights. However, by working together in areas of common interests, and forcing public officials responsible to their constituents to feel the heat of our sheer numbers, we believe we can achieve our goals and limit the government's intrusion with unnecessary regulations.

I decided to create this blog as a way of making it easy to keep everyone up to date. While I have been sending out e-mails (and will continue to do so when a new blog is posted), some recipients have had trouble downloading the attachments. By referring people to the blog, that won't be a problem.

We hope to reach some resolution of the difficulties posed by the 2008 General Permit issued by the DNR on January 24th as quickly as possible. We are aware that P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members would like some direction prior to the start of the 2008 season. Today, I had several meetings at the Capitol. The meetings included discussions with Governor Pawlenty's office and with legislative leaders. The consensus that came out of the meetings was that this remains first and foremost a DNR issue. The governor's office is arranging a meeting for me with the Deputy Commissioner of the DNR. The letters and e-mails that have been sent out by P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are having a positive effect insofar as the administration is open to discussion and knows it cannot merely pay lip service to the concerns of the thousands of lakeshore owners our message reaches.

We need to keep up the pressure. Please continue to correspond with your state representative and state senator, and with the governor's office to let them know of your concern. You can identify your state representative and senator by going to www.leg.state.mn.us and clicking on the "Who Represents Me?" link. Be sure to correspond with legislative representatives at both your lakeshore site and your regular home (if different). Governor Pawlenty can be reached by e-mail at tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

We have been highlighting the following points:
1. It ain't broke; don't fix it.
2. The DNR has no scientific studies to back up the decision to restrict the size of dock platforms. The Dock Advisory Committee noted the need for more information in its final recommendations. The study that was referred to in the Dock Advisory Committee's town hall presentations focused on the differences in aquatic environments resulting from allowing a pristine lake to be developed, not the incremental changes resulting from the installation of docks once development occurred.
2. It does not make sense to impose the same regulations for all lakes.
3. It is unfair not to grandfather in existing structures, at least up to some reasonable size, for lakeshore owners who have had the structures in place since before the regulations were adopted in 2002.
4. It is unfair not to allow lakeshore owners who installed dock platforms after 2002 to retain them insofar as the new regulations were adopted without adequate notice, ignored with respect to enforcement and included permitting procedures that were not followed by the DNR.
5. The inclusion of an "Aquatic Impact Area" as a condition in the 2008 General Permit is the first step towards significantly more onerous restrictions on the use and enjoyment of lakes by lakeshore property owners. Although currently discretionary because the DNR did not want to go through formal rulemaking, the DNR's history of moving towards increase restrictions makes it likely that there will be an attempt to mandate the Aquatic Impact Area in the future.
6. Lakeshore property owners stand to lose thousands of dollars on obsolete dock sections if the 2008 General Permit is enforced.
7. There is no way to effectively enforce the 2008 General Permit. The DNR has indicated enforcement will vary by county since some county attorneys refuse to prosecute dock size violations. The DNR has also indicated that it does not have the resources to patrol every lake in Minnesota to assure compliance with the 2008 General Permit. The inability to uniformly enforce the 2008 General Permit renders it constitutionally deficient.
8. Property taxes are based on the length of shoreline owned. If the DNR is allowed to tell someone with 100 feet of shoreline that he or she can have no greater use than the neighbor with 50 feet of shoreline, an unavoidable result from imposition of an Aquatic Impact Area regulation, then taxes on the longer shoreline should be reduced. As we neither expect that or H*ll to freeze over, more onerous regulations that will have the limiting affect described should not be allowed.
9. This is a non-partisan issue. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members range from owners of large homes on well-developed lakes to owners of small cabins that have been in the family for generations located on more pristine lakes.

Anyone reading this who wishes to be on the P.O.P.U.L.A.R. mailing list should send an e-mail to protectlakes@gmail.com. I wish to express my thanks to everyone who has been so responsive to my requests to provide information needed to carry on this cause. Also, the willingness of individuals with contact lists to share our information with their contacts has been incredibly beneficial.

Finally, for now, here is the PowerPoint Presentation I prepared to use as a lobbying tool. It's crude, but it makes the points. It's also hard to read many of the slides at the size allowed by this blog. In the coming days, I'll post the substance of the PowerPoint slides and comments on the blog so don't worry about not being able to read everything below. When watching the slideshow, press the "pause" icon to stop it and take more time to read a particular slide.

Please note that the reference to the 250 square foot dock platform described as a goal has to be read in connection with the corresponding goal to mandate the issuance of permits for non-conforming platforms where the property owner demonstrates a need.