Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Legislative Wisdom (?) and Accelerated Rulemaking


The 85th Session of the Minnesota Legislature has adjourned, but not before legislators turned up the heat on Minnesotans who own lakeshore property.

Contrary to earlier reports and expectations, rulemaking on “structures in public waters”, i.e., docks (with and without platforms), boatlifts, canopies, etc., must be completed by January 15, 2010, a year earlier than previously contemplated. The Legislature actually appropriated $100,000 for the D.N.R. to use in 2009 to conduct this expedited rulemaking, even though D.N.R. representatives had testified that no additional funds would be needed if the deadline for rulemaking was set for 2011.

Under the legislation adopted, D.N.R. general permit no. 2008-0401, authorizing exceptions to existing regulations’ 8 foot wide limit on dock structures, expires on the effective date of the updated rules. Accordingly, unless P.O.P.U.L.A.R. succeeds in pushing back against the “public waters lobby” during the 2009 rulemaking process, lakeshore property owners will see even 120 s.f. dock platforms outlawed and, in all likelihood, witness a significant curtailment in the “impact” they are allowed to have on the public waters lapping up to their private shoreline.

Rulemaking Advocacy Practice
P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members anxious to help start the process of protecting lakeshore owners’ property interests have an opportunity to make themselves heard in public forums even as we wait for next year’s rulemaking. Currently, the D.N.R. is engaging in rulemaking on shoreland management. Click here for a link to the D.N.R. file with a schedule of the 12 upcoming open houses taking place between June 3 and June 25.

The first open house takes place at the Minnetonka Community Center, adjacent to City Hall, on Wednesday, June 3rd, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. The meeting in Brainerd is scheduled for June 17th in the Northland Arboretum.

The shoreline management rules govern development, construction, setbacks, impact, structures as they apply to lake shores. Traditionally, the D.N.R. has worked with local jurisdictions to determine appropriate shoreline management based on local considerations. Shoreline management rules govern impact on the lakes from the point of view of the land.

This approach is contrary to the D.N.R.’s involvement in setting standards for public waters, i.e., governing impact on the lakes from the point of view of the water. When regulating the “public waters”, D.N.R. does not rely on the input from local jurisdictions, except where it has delegated some authority to a local organization like the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD).

P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s efforts have been focused on public waters regulation, the scope of which includes docks, platforms, boatslips, etc. However, as P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s members are also impacted by shoreline management rulemaking, and since there are issues common to both concerns, we believe P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members should make sure that shoreline management rulemaking gatherings, including upcoming open houses to solicit the public’s input and provide a background on the process, are well attended. Shoreline management and public waters management may be apples and oranges, but they’re both fruit.

P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members attending the D.N.R. open houses should insist on receiving clarification on the relationship between new shoreline management rules and forthcoming rulemaking on structures in public waters. Recall that, under the existing general permit, lake shore property owners are encouraged to observe an “aquatic impact area”, limiting their use of their lake shore to the lesser of 50 feet or one half the length of their shoreline. Currently, observance of the “aquatic impact area” suggestion is at the discretion of the lakeshore owner. Will new shoreline management rules mandate observance of an “aquatic impact area”?

What about the impact of limitations on usable shoreline on property values and resulting property tax assessments? Assuming sufficient support from its members to actively participate in D.N.R. rulemaking, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. intends to challenge the propriety of allowing jurisdictions to continue to assess property taxes at a premium based on the length of shoreline if, in fact, rules are implemented that relegate excess shoreline to the status of the same eye candy available for free to the general public. The government should not be allowed to deny property owners the use of more than a standardized fixed amount of shoreline at the same time it imposes property taxes as if the limitations were not in place. Open houses to discuss shoreline management rulemaking provide an excellent opportunity to start that dialogue since local governing bodies will be in attendance.

By being a vocal part of the shoreline management rulemaking process, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members will send a signal to the D.N.R. that next year’s rulemaking on public waters issues must protect the legitimate interests of lake shore property owners. There will be no railroading of new restrictions on the use and enjoyment of lakeshore property or the accessories necessary for that enjoyment.

Because the rulemaking process of most interest to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members has been moved up a year, it is even more imperative that P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members support our efforts by making a donation to fund research, both as to scientific and economic issues, publicity, needed to inform everyone with lakeshore property, whether or not they own a dock platform, that restrictive rules need be opposed, and advocacy, making the case for P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members before elected officials and appointed bureaucrats. Please click on the “Donate” button at the top right corner of this blog and be part of the effort to protect P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members’ interests.

Permit Applications
On a related matter, we are continuing to monitor the willingness of the D.N.R. to issue special permits for those lakeshore property owners who have dock platforms that exceed the limitations of the general permit. Assistant Commissioner Larry Kramka still insists that D.N.R. policy in our current environment is to consider justifications proposed in special permit applications, particularly where dock configurations have existed for many years prior to the adoption of existing regulations in October, 2003, and not dismiss applications out of hand, as had been the case up until now.

In discussing the reluctance of local hydrologists to issue special permits as reported by some P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members, Assistant Commissioner Kramka suggests that special permit applicants try to work through any concerns with the hydrologist before submitting the completed permit.
The list of area hydrologists is available by clicking here.

However, if need be, permit applicants should contact the hydrologists area supervisor to seek a solution. Click here to be directed to a link listing the area supervisors that should be contacted if there is an impasse with a local hydrologist. Although Assistant Commissioner Kramka made it clear that not everyone would be issued a special permit, there is a sense that as applicants work up the management chain at D.N.R., they will find more awareness of and responsiveness to the issues confronting legacy dock platform owners. Other special needs, including health and safety concerns and family size, should be considered in addition to the historical use of dock platforms.

Finally, special permit applicants should not submit the application until they have reviewed it with the local hydrologist and, if need be, upper management, to verify that the application is complete and has some chance of being approved. Once the special permit application is received by the D.N.R. and determined to be complete, the D.N.R. will invoice the applicant for the $150 fee. The fee should not be submitted beforehand. Once a special permit is issued with respect to a particular dock platform configuration, it remains in effect for so long as the circumstance justifying its issuance continues. There is not need to reapply on an annual basis.

We are in the process of pursuing several special permits on a test basis. We will not tolerate accepting lip service from the D.N.R. nor, for that matter, from Governor Pawlenty, who has the power to direct the D.N.R. to follow through on allowing reasonably-sized legacy dock platforms to receive permits. Please keep us advised of any particular difficulties you are experiencing in efforts to obtain a permit. Also, should you decide to risk being cited by not applying for a permit, be sure to let us know what enforcement actions, if any, are being taken by the authorities.

As always, thank you for your support. Special thanks go out to the individuals who have already sent in checks or made donations through PayPal by clicking on the "Donate" button. I look forward to meeting many of you in person at the shoreline management open houses.

-Sam Stern

The race is on to regulate the public water. Be a participant!

Friday, May 9, 2008

Season Opener

Goodbye to boatslips?
We have finally arrived at that time of year in Minnesota when Winter loosens its grip and we return to our enjoyment of Minnesota’s lakes in their liquid form. This year, many of us have a choice to make when installing dock structures in the admittedly public waters:
(a) Do we limit the configuration of dock platforms to fall within the 170 s.f. (including last dock extension) maximum allowed under the D.N.R.’s General Permit 2008-0401 and avoid the necessity of applying for a special permit from the D.N.R.?
(b) Do we apply for a special permit from the D.N.R. seeking permission to re-install our dock platform that exceeds the 170 s.f. limit allowed under the D.N.R’s General Permit?
(c) Do we attempt to fly below the radar and install a dock platform that exceeds the 170 s.f. without applying for a special permit and hope that the D.N.R. will not seek to enforce existing regulations making the platform illegal absent a special permit?

Since the last blog posting, a number of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members have expressed problems when going through the permit application process. No one has contacted us to indicated that their application for a special permit has been approved. On the other hand, the difficulties described by members whose permit applications were denied, or not processed, seem to have involved extraneous issues that most lakeshore owners will not face.

Official Position
Assistant D.N.R. Commissioner Larry Kramka still insists that lakeshore owners wishing to install dock platforms in excess of 170 s.f. should apply for a special permit and that owners of “legacy docks”, i.e., structures utilized since before the 2004 season when the existing regulations first went into effect, should highlight that status in the application in order to receive most favorable consideration. Commissioner Kramka underscores the importance of fulfilling all the requirements of the special permit application and suggests contacting the local hydrologist to review the application for completeness and likelihood of approval before officially submitting it with the non-refundable $150 fee. Finally, Commissioner Kramka clarified that a special permit need only be applied for once (if approved) and that the $150 is not an annual expenditure. You can obtain the list of local hydrologists by clicking here.

Real World Considerations
It would be extremely helpful if P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members would keep us posted on the status of their experience with applying for a special permit. Generally, only Part I of the special permit application needs to be completed, the balance deals with more extensive impacts on the aquatic environment. No approval from the Army Corps of Engineers is required, despite confusing language in the special permit to the contrary. Maps of the location required under Section 3 of the permit application can be generated online from www.mapquest.com or www.google.com/maps. Be sure to include a drawing of the project with dimensions as required in Section 5 of the permit application.

When considering whether or not to apply for a special permit legally required given the size of your dock platform, assume that the larger your platform, the more likely that you will be cited by the D.N.R. for violating existing regulations if no permit is obtained. We have no indication that the D.N.R. will be applying a full court press to assure 100% compliance with its regulations. We have no indication that counties will agree to prosecute citations for violations of D.N.R. regulations governing dock platform sizes. However, we have no reliable indication that the D.N.R. will continue to look the other way with respect to violations of existing regulations or that county attorneys will refuse to prosecute and cannot, as a matter of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. policy, advise against complying with the regulations.

This brings up another consideration and a renewed call for support. Expect that the D.N.R. will prioritize enforcement based on complaints received. If you have neighbors inclined to report problems they perceive with your use of your lakeshore property, expect the D.N.R. to respond. Also, expect that the lobby behind Senator Mary Olson’s legislation to repeal General Permit 2008-0401 upon the issuance of new regulations that will, in their view, at worst require everyone to limit their dock size to no more than 8 feet in any one direction, to be clamoring for the D.N.R. to enforce existing regulations, including the limits imposed by the General Permit.

Although we were able to buy some time before the commencement of new rulemaking on “private structures in public waters”, the D.N.R. has made it clear that the process will start next year. If we wait until next year to prepare, we will find ourselves playing catch-up as was the case this year responding to the work of the D.N.R.’s Dock Advisory Committee that resulted in the issuance of the General Permit with its “aquatic impact area”.

If you are satisfied being told by the D.N.R. that you can utilize no more than 50% or 50 feet of your lakeshore, whichever is less, do nothing. If you are willing to have the D.N.R. dictate how much lineal footage of dock you can install, do nothing. If you are willing to limit or even eliminate your use of boatlifts on your property, do nothing. If you don’t need a boat canopy, or, at least, more than one boat canopy, do nothing. If you don’t mind the inability to moor more than one boat at your lakeshore property, do nothing. If you think it’s okay for lakeshore communities to impose property taxes at a premium on lakeshore that you will be prohibited from impacting, do nothing.

The choice is clear. We can do nothing and watch as each of the consequences described above are incorporated into new rules designed to limit property owners’ use and enjoyment of their lakeshore to a “minimal impact” standard found in existing regulations but clarified for purposes of future enforcement. Or, for those of us who find such post facto government intrusion into property rights unacceptable, we can ready ourselves for forthcoming hearings before the D.N.R., the legislature and, if necessary, the courts.

The Ask
The publicity, the research, the legal representation, the organization, the education, and the persuasion to “ready ourselves” all costs money. Those of you who decide to “do nothing” need read no further. Those of you who believe that by acting together, the thousands of impacted lakeshore property owners can protect their investments and lake use heritage, while continuing to be good stewards of the public waters need to step up and make a financial commitment to allow the work of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. to go forward.

P.O.P.U.L.A.R. is in the process of applying for 501(c)(4) non-profit status. Contributions are not tax deductible. However, we can use our official position to influence the implementation of regulations. We are establishing a board to oversee the direction of our efforts and assure the efficient expenditure of donations. Informational meetings will be held soon in the Twin Cities and in the Brainerd Lakes area. We will continue to pressure the D.N.R., the legislature and the Pawlenty administration to protect our interests.

Or, we can do nothing.

Please send your checks made payable to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. to:
P.O.P.U.L.A.R.
c/o Samuel L. Stern
247 Third Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55415

Thank you for your support. Please pass on the link to this blog to interested parties.


"Minimal Impact" as envisioned by opponents of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.