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the 2008 General Permit allowing any dock platforms poses a threat to the health of Minnesota's lakes and should be repealed.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.