tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10328827695624883582024-03-19T03:16:29.737-07:00P.O.P.U.L.A.R. on the WebLatest News on the Efforts of P.O.P.U.L.A.R., Property Owners Protecting Useful Lake Access RightsSam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-83902688940419695172010-09-14T13:32:00.000-07:002010-09-14T15:19:09.993-07:00Getting It Right for Lakeshore Visitors and Residents<div style="text-align: justify;">On August 11, 2010, Governor Tim Pawlenty exhibited a welcome combination of common sense and governmental action. The governor returned proposed regulations on private structures in public waters and on shoreline management to DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten “directing the DNR to further engage interested stakeholders, and especially the Legislature, in a fresh approach that will better conserve and manage Minnesota’s most important natural resource”, its lakes.<br /><br />Governor Pawlenty made it clear in his August 11th correspondence that had the rules progressed and come to his desk in their present form, he would have vetoed them. The governor’s action represents a tremendous victory for P.O.P.U.L.A.R., which has been steadfast in its efforts to limit the application of new rules on private structures and to account for the differences in lake configurations, both natural and artificially induced. Recognizing and responding to P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s efforts, Governor Pawlenty pointed out to Commissioner Holsten:<br /></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">I recognize the need to improve our state’s shoreline practices and limit excessive intrusion of public waterways by private structures. However, the rules you forwarded to me regarding these issues do not strike a proper balance between protection of our lakes and waterways and the equally important right of our citizens to enjoy them and their property.</span></div></blockquote> <div style="text-align: justify;">The governor recommended that the DNR consider statutory enactment achieved through cooperation with the 2011 Legislature, whose members are more accountable to the public than DNR bureaucrats (my word, not his), rather than rushing into new rule-making as the issues are revisited.<br /><br />As a result of Governor Pawlenty’s actions, it does not appear that any significant action on the issue of private structures or shoreline management will take place until a new governor, and new DNR commissioner, are in place. While we cannot be sure of timing, we can be sure that special interests determined to impose their concept of pristine lake experiences on the entire State of Minnesota will demand that the regulations be revisited.<br /><br />Recall that the proposed regulations on private structures went well beyond the debate over dock platform size that spawned the legislative directive in the first place. P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s greatest challenge may be to publicize this fact in order to avoid the imposition of significantly more restrictive regulations or statutes addressing all elements of private structure use, including onerous limitations on the amount of dockage and number of watercraft lakeshore property owners will be allowed to maintain.<br /><br />The governor’s rejection of the shoreline management regulations provides P.O.P.U.L.A.R. with another opportunity. Until now, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. has not involved itself in the shoreline management debate. This results primarily from the fact that the review of shoreline management regulations had been going on for nearly a year prior to the commencement of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s efforts in response to proposed restrictions on the size of dock platforms.<br />Since both issues are back on the drawing board, it may make sense for P.O.P.U.L.A.R. to work to organize public awareness of all efforts to restrict lakeshore property owners’ use and enjoyment of their shoreline.<br /><br />To this point, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members have done an excellent job of making their positions known to the DNR and to state and local government officials. As we move forward, it will take persistent communication to elected representatives to keep the pressure up and, particularly, extend our reach to the shoreline management issue.<br />We can start by demanding that candidates for public office disclose their position on the private structures and shoreline management issues. While it may be fair to assume that Tom Emmer is least likely among major party candidates to allow new restrictions on lakeshore property owners’ rights, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members should not refrain from putting the question to Messrs. Emmer, Horner and Dayton.<br /><br />We have been taking a low key approach to the issue while the governor’s action was pending as P.O.P.U.L.A.R. did not want to politicize the matter while Governor Pawlenty reviewed the proposed regulations in a thoughtful, reasoned manner. Now that matters are in a state of flux again, we will provide P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members with regular updates on the status of the effort to impose new restrictions.<br /><br />Please contact the gubernatorial candidates at the addresses shown below and ask them to answer the following questions:<br /><blockquote>1. Do you agree that any new regulations governing lakeshore stewardship and the enjoyment of docks, boatlifts and platforms should allow previously lawful uses to be retained and passed on (i.e., grandfathered)?<br /><br />2. Do you agree with Governor Pawlenty’s assessment that any modification to existing regulations should avoid “imposing a one-size-fits-all standard when lakeshore circumstances vary so widely”?<br /><br />3. Do you believe that lakeshore owners, who have made a significant financial and emotional commitment to their property, are the best stewards of the lakes they reside on and should be given considerable deference in the adoption of any new regulations?<br /><br />4. Do you agree that it makes no sense to regulate shoreline management without addressing the problems of waste treatment and farm runoff that introduce significant pollutants into our waters?<br /><br />5. Do you agree that imposing statewide onerous restrictions on private structures in response to reports of a handful of illegal, oversized structures is not appropriate?</blockquote><br />Our experience has proven that a large influx of correspondence from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members sends a signal to the recipients that these are issues of major concern to a large number of constituents who represent a broad demographic. Taking a couple of minutes to call the question as we approach the November election will keep the pressure on. Be sure to copy P.O.P.U.L.A.R. on your letters and any responses. We will post responses online for all to review.<br /><br />Unfortunately, for P.O.P.U.L.A.R. to continue to successfully lobby on behalf of lakeshore property owners, it is imperative that funds be raised to cover the costs involved. A number of members have already contributed generously, assuring our place at the table and making it possible to prevent railroading by the DNR and supportive special interests. Without ongoing pressure, lakeshore property owners face a potentially different outcome under the next administration.<br /><br />Please make a secure contribution to the work of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. using the "Donate" link to PayPal at the top of this blog. If every reader of this blog donated $25, we would be sufficiently funded for the next lobbying campaign. If you do not wish to use PayPal, you may send checks made payable to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. to 247 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415-1003.<br /><br />Finally, please use the comment section of the blog, or send an e-mail to protectlakes@gmail.com, to express your preferences with respect to involving P.O.P.U.L.A.R. in the shoreline management debate.<br /><br />Thank you for your support. Here are the mailing and e-mail addresses for the campaigns of the three major gubernatorial candidates:<br /></div><br />Mark Dayton for a Better Minnesota<br />800 Minnehaha Avenue East, Suite 201<br />St. Paul, MN 55106<br />info@markdayton.org<br /><br />Tom Emmer for Governor<br />P.O. Box 14269<br />Saint Paul, MN 55114<br />go to link at www.emmerforgovernor.com/connect/contact<br /><br />Horner 2010<br />10760 Highway 55<br />Plymouth, MN 55441<br />Campaign@Horner2010.comSam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-82890549173029404272010-02-14T06:08:00.000-08:002010-02-14T06:59:40.801-08:00Pending DNR RegulationsThe Star Tribune ran an article yesterday that mentioned the proposed DNR regulations now sitting on Governor Pawlenty's desk awaiting signature or instructions for revision. If you missed it, click <a href="http://www.startribune.com/local/west/84312132.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUI">here</a> to read the article.<br /><br />On behalf of P.O.P.U.L.A.R., I posted the following comment online:<br /><br />"The DNR regulations that are pending will be applied to all recreational lakes in Minnesota, are not limited to "shallow areas" and go much further than restricting so-called dock platforms.<br /><br />"After allowing the sale and use of shoreline property for generations, and taxing its value accordingly, the government now proposes to limit the number of boats, boatlifts, dock sections, and canopies that can be utilized. The proposed regulations also limit the total width between any such docks/lifts to 40 feet of lakeshore on a lot (and multiple lots with common ownership count as one lot) regardless of how much shoreline is owned. Property owners fortunate to have purchased a large enough lot to allow the kids to swim in an area away from boat traffic will be forced to concentrate all activity within the 40 feet.<br /><br />"The reglations might make sense on lakes where there's not been much development or residents have chosen to leave their properties in a more pristine state. However, the DNR, including Tom Hovey, who is quoted in the article, admits that the limited impact of the status quo is not a threat to aquatic life. Trying to turn the entire state into the BWCA is just another example of heavy-handed government interference with the rights of property owners who have vested economic and environmental interests in maintaining the health of the lake on which they reside.<br /><br />"This is the land of 10,000 lakes. There are plenty of choices to make if someone wants to be on a lake without looking at structures that were purchased and installed consistently with DNR regulations. The sensible approach is to allow lawful uses to be retained (as is the case with boathouses) and focus regulations on assuring that, going forward, impact on lakes is more limited."<br /><br />P.O.P.U.L.A.R. has been active in trying to limit the impact of the proposed DNR regulations. Check back next week for an update on our efforts.Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-57558194043940358352009-05-09T09:57:00.000-07:002009-05-09T10:28:04.717-07:00Getting the Word Out (with an example)<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Lakeshore Dreams, a published and virtual magazine devoted to promoting Minnesota's heritage of lake cabin ownership, is to be commended for helping to publicize the D.N.R.'s plans to impose stricter regulations on dock and boatlift ownership. With a 15,000 person mailing list, we hope that the magazine's assistance will contribute to a groundswell of concern and standing up to the D.N.R. Click <a href="http://www.lakeshoredreams.com/lakeresources/docking-rights-in-trouble/a208.html">here</a> for a link to the LakeshoreDreams.com posting and call to action.<br /><br />Here's an example of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s concern. The photo below is of an endangered dock configuration. Currently, and for more than two decades, the configuration has been compliant with all regulations and the local lake association guidelines. However, because it stretches for 65 feet on a 100 foot shoreline, it would be prohibited under currently proposed D.N.R. regulations. The property owner would be forced to discard thousands of dollars of dock structure and would not be able to use his property to moor all of his watercraft, forcing him to pay for outside storage or sell the "excess" boats. <span style="font-weight: bold;">There is no justification for this! </span>The property owner was at all times in compliance with existing regulations when he supported the local economy and purchased the structures and the watercraft. The D.N.R. could, <span style="font-weight: bold;">and should</span>, easily focus its efforts on future lakeshore development to achieve its stated preservation goals and leave existing lawfully installed structures alone.<br /></span></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKkhln5hdRuuMDvMbIT0CbDqBVFzruCr2k8WnoObDkVgFW9qSU0YHdF85Kon_PJ5wtX0ZQl4pkRhEZcWXuD72cKjRe4F06Mi3HBdG8sCIxbB5qXdhMoPxmh6kLuFqB3ULnbyrP1Ugra7og/s1600-h/Endangered+Species+Dock.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 265px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKkhln5hdRuuMDvMbIT0CbDqBVFzruCr2k8WnoObDkVgFW9qSU0YHdF85Kon_PJ5wtX0ZQl4pkRhEZcWXuD72cKjRe4F06Mi3HBdG8sCIxbB5qXdhMoPxmh6kLuFqB3ULnbyrP1Ugra7og/s400/Endangered+Species+Dock.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5333876937893633122" border="0" /></a>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-41810581922553690712009-05-06T12:16:00.000-07:002009-05-06T12:45:57.174-07:00End Game: Standing up to Needless Regulations<span style="font-size:130%;">Minnesota’s precious summer season soon returns and the installation of lakeshore owners’ docks and boat lifts is in full swing. “Precious” should probably also be applied to the docks and boat lifts themselves. Now that the Department of Natural Resources has gone through the motions of completing four meetings of the Private Structures Advisory Group, it is drafting proposed regulations that, if adopted as described in the last meeting of the Advisory Group, will significantly change the way 45-60,000 lakeshore owners access the public waters.<br /><br />P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members have a last opportunity to intervene in the process before new regulations are adopted in time for the January, 2010 deadline. Assuring reasonableness in the adoption of new regulations governing the size and number of docks, boat lifts, boat ramps, dock platforms, and canopies will require active participation in the public hearing process set to take place in late summer. It will take communications to the vast majority of riparian owners unaware of pending rule changes to assure their participation in the process. It will take a focused legal challenge to ill-conceived modifications to existing regulations that will diminish lake access rights and property values. It will take funding.<br /><br />Here’s the update.<br /><br />P.O.P.U.L.A.R. served on the Advisory Group as the voice of lakeshore property owners. However, as reported earlier, the Advisory Group consisted mostly of D.N.R. staff and individuals with more concern for returning the public waters to environmentally pristine jewels than with recognizing the rights of riparian (lakeshore) owners to continue to enjoy their formerly lawful access to public waters.<br /><br />Lip service, which abounded, was paid to the rights of riparian owners. Unfortunately, it appears that the persons responsible for generating the draft of the new regulations believe a single four-foot wide dock extending to four feet of depth satisfies legal obligations to riparian owners and any expansion of that limited access is a gift. One environmentalist on the Advisory Group thought the initial regulations proposed would have no affect on 85% of Minnesota’s lakeshore owners. I reminded the gentleman that the 15% of 300,000-400,000 property owners who will be negatively affected amounts to 45-60,000 interested parties.<br /><br />Here are some of the issues that arose in the Advisory Group discussions:<br /><br />• P.O.P.U.L.A.R. objected to conducting an Advisory Group without giving the group members any guidance on the demonstrated need for new regulations or limits on the scope of what ought to be considered. As a matter of law, regulations cannot be modified without submitting a Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR), something like an environmental impact statement, prior to allowing the government to modify rights of private citizens.<br /><br />Although the Advisory Group was told there would be a draft SONAR to work off of by the February meeting and, later, before the final April meeting, a SONAR was never provided to the Advisory Group. Rather, at the April meeting, it was explained that the D.N.R. will develop a SONAR to justify (after the fact) whatever draft rules are sent to the Commissioner and the Governor for consideration. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. considers this unacceptable and believes it effectively negates the credibility of any “advice” relied upon from the Advisory Group. During the course of four meetings of the Advisory Group, there was no demonstrated need to modify existing regulations other than a mandate from the Minnesota Legislature that arose because of concern over the size of dock platforms.<br /><br />P.O.P.U.L.A.R. likened this approach to being asked to design a cost effective airplane without being told if the airplane was going to be used to fly from Brainerd to Minneapolis or from Minneapolis to Tokyo. Without adequate guidance on need and reasonableness, it’s impossible to give informed advice.<br /><br />• P.O.P.U.L.A.R. argued strenuously for including grandfathering provisions in any new regulations. The D.N.R. circulated questions to the Advisory Group about the appropriateness of grandfathering existing private structures that were legal when first installed. The responses generally supported a phasing out of the right to maintain legal structures over a period of time.<br /><br />• P.O.P.U.L.A.R. argued that new regulations needed to consider the economic impact on property values and on businesses that rely on lake commerce. The so-called “real estate industry” representative on the Advisory Group acknowledged that stricter D.N.R. regulations would result in some of her clients wanting to sell their lake homes because of reduced access opportunities. However, the representative would not connect the dots and admit that a sell-off resulting from stricter regulations would put downward pressure on market values. Evidence from experts to the contrary submitted to an administrative law judge will be critical in forthcoming public hearings.<br /><br />• P.O.P.U.L.A.R. argued that any “impact area” imposed should not necessarily be defined by a contiguous line since many riparian owners bought lots with longer shorelines precisely in order to segregate various activities, e.g., swimming areas from boat docks. This was ignored in the initial draft of the new regulations.<br /><br />• P.O.P.U.L.A.R. argued for the inclusion of specific criteria for the issuance of permits for structures that exceeded the minimalist criteria that will not require a permit. Criteria recommended by P.O.P.U.L.A.R. had to do with safety, both with respect to mooring watercraft and to assuring lake access for persons with physical challenges, historical uses (again, grandfathering structures that had been in place prior to the adoption of rules that restricted them), and family size. Only the family size criterion was included in the initial draft and that was challenged by a D.N.R. staffer offended that the size of one’s family should determine how much dock a riparian owner could put out.<br /><br />As currently proposed:<br />• Riparian owners will be allowed to have an impact on their lakeshore that is contained within a contiguous line that does not exceed the lesser of ½ of the length of their shoreline or 50 feet. There was some discussion that a minimum length might be appropriate for smaller lots, thereby avoiding the need to cram all impact into a 25 foot wide area on a 50 foot lot.<br />• Anyone with seven or more watercraft, seaplanes or floating structures restrained by docks, mooring buoys or other means will be considered to be operating a mooring facility and will need a permit.<br />• There is no provision in the initial draft for grandfathering structures that were legal when first installed.<br />• Dock platforms cannot exceed 120 square feet (not including the dock extended from shore) without a permit.<br />• There is no provision to compensate riparian owners who will have to discard excess dock sections and/or boat lifts and, not incidentally, "excess" watercraft to comply with new regulations.<br /><br /></span> <div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Action Plan</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />1. <span style="font-weight: bold;"> Send letters to D.N.R. Commissioner Mark Holsten.</span> His e-mail address is <span style="font-style: italic;">mark.holsten@dnr.state.mn.us</span>. His fax number is 651-296-4799. His address is 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4040. Demand that property owners who have invested thousands of dollars in their lawfully installed docks, boat lifts, canopies and platforms be allowed to keep and maintain them. Demand compensation for any other result, including compensation for the reduction in property values that will result from reduced access. By simply grandfathering in the right to retain previously owned lawfully installed private structures, most of the issues go away.<br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Send letters to Governor Pawlenty.</span> His e-mail address is <span style="font-style: italic;">tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us</span>. His fax number is 651-296-2089. His address is 130 Capitol Building, St. Paul, MN 55155. Demand that he not approve any new regulations that do not grandfather previously owned lawfully installed private structures. Demand that any new regulations contain specific criteria for allowing issuance of permits where structures justifiably exceed the restrictions in the regulation in view of safety and historical uses.<br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Help publicize the existence of the pending regulations.</span> Make sure lakeshore neighbors are aware of what the D.N.R. has planned. Refer them to this website. Ask them to be added to the P.O.P.U.L.A.R. mailing list. This is <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> about platform sizes. Once property values are impacted by new regulations, it will result in local governments needing to raise property taxes on everyone to make up for the reduced revenue from properties that no longer justify premium taxation.<br /><br />4. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Donate to P.O.P.U.L.A.R.</span> You can use the PayPal link at the top right of this page or below or send a check to P.O.P.U.L.A.R., 247 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415. The funds will be used to educate and organize the public, pay for professionals to represent collective interests of lakeshore property owners before the D.N.R., to make P.O.P.U.L.A.R. heard in public hearings and, if necessary, in court to challenge any illegally adopted regulations. A lot of effort has been made to establish a record and hold the D.N.R. accountable. <span style="font-style: italic;">Please help assure that we do not repeat the mistakes of 2002 by sitting idly by while new restrictions are quietly adopted.<br /><br /></span></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Please Support P.O.P.U.L.A.R. (all donations graciously accepted)</span></span></span><br /></div><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input value="2973471" name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden"><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><input alt="" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif" name="submit" border="0" type="image"><br /></div><img alt="" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif" border="0" width="1" height="1" /><br /></form>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-37945252836821263732009-02-25T12:36:00.000-08:002009-02-25T12:57:59.998-08:00Response to Questions of the WeekThanks to the 30+ folks who took the time to complete the survey that was posted in response to the D.N.R.'s Questions of the week. I compiled the responses and submitted them to the D.N.R. for inclusion in the official record of the Private Structures in Public Waters Advisory Group.<br /><br />I also submitted a response on behalf of P.O.P.U.A.R. It appears below.<br /><br />Finally, the D.N.R. questioned my so-called "cheap shot" at the person designated as the Advisory Group's representative of the real estate industry in my February 15th blog report on the February 12th meeting of the Advisory Group. I did not identify the person by name then; I won't do so now. My criticism of the person's narrow point of view while accepting the responsibility of representing all realtors in Minnesota who sell lakeshore property was not meant as a cheap shot. However, in retrospect, to be 100% accurate, I should have referred to the person as the only realtor <span style="font-style: italic;">with whom I have spoken in the past year about the issue</span> who does not see a correlation between D.N.R. regulations and lakeshore property values. I apologize for the broader language contained in the February 15th blog and for any angst the perceived exaggeration caused. I also renew my call for the appointment of someone in the real estate industry with a broader point of view to the Advisory Board.<br /><br />Here's the memo responding to the Questions of the Week:<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><div style="font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;">M e m o r a n d u m<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">To: D.N.R. Private Structures Advisory Group/Erika Rivers</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">From: Sam Stern, P.O.P.U.L.A.R.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Date: February 25, 2009</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Re: Response to First “Question of the Week”</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Before I get into detail on the responses I have to the Question of the Week, I’d like to share an analogy with the Advisory Group that might illustrate why answering the questions posed such difficulty. As you read this, keep in mind that we are all acting in a fiduciary, as well as representative, capacity as Advisory Group members. Accordingly, we should not be engaging in absolutes (e.g., “no limitations under any circumstances” on one end; “no modification of wilderness status” on the other). Therefore, the ability to intelligently answer any questions depends to a large degree on the context in which the question is being asked. Here’s the analogy:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Imagine that instead of discussing private structures on public waters, we have been asked to design an airplane for a courier service that operates out of Lindbergh International Airport, Holman Field, Flying Cloud Airport and the farmer’s airstrip near me in Maple Plain.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Imagine we were asked the following Questions of the Week (they are not intended to correlate to our actual questions):</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">a. How long should the runway be in order to safely take off from the airport?</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">b. Should the airplane be allowed to use the entire runway before lift off?</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">c. How long should the wingspan be on the airplane?</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">d. How much cargo should each flight be allowed to carry?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Remember, our mission is to design an airplane. Before we can intelligently answer any of the questions, each of which in their own context asks for relevant information, we need the answers to other questions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">a. You cannot answer the first question unless you know how large the airplane is going to be. If the courier service is going to continue to operate out of all four venues, then the Advisory Group would need to either recommend different sized airplanes for the different airports or that the one airplane being designed be small enough to be able to take off and land in the most restrictive environment. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">b. You cannot answer the second question unless you are familiar with the configuration of respective airports. I believe that Lindbergh is engineered to allow the use of nearly the entire runway when necessary. Using the entire runway in the farmer’s field in Maple Plain would put the airplane perilously close to County Road 83 and to power lines.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">c. You cannot answer the third question until you have some idea of the size of the airplane being designed, including its cargo capacity and its desired range and whether it will be powered by jet engines or by propellers. Space limitations at the airport would also have to be considered before the question could be answered intelligently.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">d. You cannot answer the fourth question until you have some idea of the capacities of the airports. Runway length and construction will determine how much cargo can be carried. Also, you need to come up with a design before you can put a limit on cargo. A C-130 should be allowed to carry more than a Piper Cub. However, getting back to (a), if the Advisory Group is only supposed to come up with one design that all four airports can accommodate, it will necessary to design on the small side.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">If a member of the Airplane Design Advisory Group came to the table with a pre-conceived notion that air transport is a bad idea, that jet engines are too noisy and harm the environment and that any new airplane should have no more than minimal impact, then I suppose it would be possible to answer the four questions without regard to the variables that make a more impartial consideration possible. However, doing so would violate the fiduciary responsibilities to the courier service assumed by agreeing to sit on a committee formed to deliberate and advise.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I fear that the Private Structures Advisory Group is being put in the same position as my analogy. We are being asked to answer questions about shoreline impact without a clear understanding of the goals we are striving to achieve. We have yet to see a Statement of Need and Reasonableness. Therefore, no one has been shown the “need” for any new regulations (other than a legislative mandate that arose solely out of concern for the size of dock platforms). No one has demonstrated the “reasonableness” of various degrees of regulation. As in my analogy, it would not be reasonable to submit a design for a twin of the Boeing 747 if the courier service depended on the farmer’s field in Maple Plain to operate. And consider how your answers to the questions in the analogy might be further affected by the knowledge that the courier company only serviced the Twin Cities metropolitan area, making the use of anything but the smallest of planes a silly alternative to trucking.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">With that as background, and with the fervent request that the Private Structures Advisory Group be furnished with necessary contextual information in which to deliberate in the future, here are P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s responses to the Questions of the Week.</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">1. How much shoreline width do people need to impact in order to have their dock, lift, swim areas, aquatic impact management areas, etc?</span> It is impossible to provide a “one size fits all” answer to this question. Many P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members who answered this question in surveys conducted online and provided to the D.N.R. identified a specific number based on their own experience. However, thinking more globally, the length of shoreline “needed” depends on specific shoreline topography, specific historic lawful use of the shoreline and the resulting utilization of various forms of private structures and watercraft, family size and other demographics, including health considerations.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">2. Should it be a percentage of shoreline owned; with a minimum and/or maximum? Other suggestions? </span> Since Shoreland Management rules being updated and aquatic plant management rules will necessarily impact the placement of private structures along riparian property owners’ shoreline, there is no need for new Private Structures in Public Waters rules to further restrict the length of aquatic impact. The State has to recognize that in instances where lakeshore property owners have more narrow shorelines, restrictions beyond those imposed by Shoreline Management and APM will render the property nearly unusable. In instances where lakeshore property owners have opted to purchase longer expanses of shoreline to meet their particular needs, they should be allowed, subject to Shoreline Management and APM rules, to enjoy the benefit of their bargain.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">3. Should the impacted space be continuous? If not necessarily continuous, should they be of equal width within the total percentage allowed?</span> There is no need for the impacted space to be continuous. As before, there is not one approach that reasonably fits all uses. Some lakeshore property owners purchased lots with longer shorelines precisely because they wanted to separate different uses of their property, often out of concern for safety. It is difficult to answer this question without have a sense of what the allowable aquatic impact length will be. For example, if the allowed length is limited to 30 feet (Heaven forbid), it is unlikely that, on a 60 foot wide lot there would be room for meaningful separation of the zones given required setbacks from lot lines. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">4. How would the width be measured (would it measure across the altered shoreline and/or altered aquatic vegetation area? from dock edge to lift edge? Would maneuvering room be included?)</span> As indicated by a number of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members who responded to this question in the survey, it is not clear what is being asked. Having said that, as a general rule, any measurement criteria should be narrowly construed so that areas not actually impacted are not included in the width of the zone. With respect to “maneuvering room” being included, the mere suggestion is an affront to any concept of fairness. As we have been reminded ad nauseum, the public waters are available to everyone. Why would we even consider imposing effectively more restrictive conditions on riparian property owners by limiting their ability to maneuver in public waters for fear of having a larger portion of the public waters be included in their overall aquatic impact zone?</span><br /></div>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-51490849957136262622009-02-22T15:07:00.000-08:002009-02-22T15:41:26.688-08:00D.N.R.'s "Questions of the Week" aka "Putting the Skier before the Boat"The Private Structures Advisory Group has been asked by the D.N.R. to respond to the first in a series of "Questions of the Week". While under some circumstances, this might prove to be a useful tool to identify areas of agreement (and disagreement) among Group members, I have serious concerns about the timing of posing these questions and expecting meaningful responses.<br /><br />As I indicated last week, we have yet to see the proposed Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) required to justify any rule-making. Answering the Questions of the Week outside of the context of a SONAR makes little sense to me.<br /><br />Here are the questions.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">1. How much shoreline width do people need to impact in order to have their dock, lift, swim areas, aquatic impact management areas, etc?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">2. Should it be a percentage of shoreline owned; with a minimum and/or maximum? Other suggestions? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">3. Should the impacted space be continuous? If not necessarily continuous, should they be of equal width within the total percentage allowed? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">4. How would the width be measured (would it measure across the altered shoreline and/or altered aquatic vegetation area? from dock edge to lift edge? Would maneuvering room be included?)</span><br /><br />Here's the problem. The answers to the questions depend entirely on the goals sought to be achieved by new rules and the goals should depend on the <span style="font-weight: bold;">need</span> to make changes in current rules. Without a SONAR, the responses to the Questions of the Week could amount to nothing more than irrelevant opinions. For example, the answers to the questions should be dramatically different depending on whether rules are needed to (i.) maintain the status quo with respect to aggregate human impact on aquatic plant life and fish or (ii.) return all lakes in the State of Minnesota to wilderness status in order to protect the biological environments. Also, since the "R" in SONAR stands for "reasonableness", it is impossible to determine the reasonableness of a proposed rule independently of knowing what the goal is trying to achieve.<br /><br />There is no need for me to suffer alone in trying to respond to the Questions of the week. PLEASE take the time to give me your thoughts on the Questions of the Week by clicking the link at the end of this paragraph. I will make sure P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members' responses are incorporated into my official response. Because of the deadline to respond by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 25, I need your input on our survey by 10:00 a.m. on the 25th. Click <a href="http://www.polldaddy.com/s/A2BA07DF020BD44A/">here</a> to take the survey.<br /><br />Thanks for your support.Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-19051688485355636922009-02-15T15:10:00.000-08:002009-02-15T15:42:53.048-08:00Report on the Feb 12 DNR Advisory Group Meeting<div style="text-align: justify;">The second meeting of the Private Structures Advisory Group took place on February 12th. As was the case with the first meeting in January, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. was the primary voice arguing against more restrictive D.N.R. regulations of private structures on public waters.<br /><br />In addition to P.O.P.U.L.A.R., Dan VanderMey of FLOE International spoke up for the dock industry. There was no representative of the marine industry at Thursday’s meeting. The representative of the real estate industry, who P.O.P.U.L.A.R. expected would support concerns about the impact of regulations on property values, was more concerned with limiting colorful boat canopies across the lake from properties she was listing.<br /><br />Fortunately, Bruce and Julie Larson and Rob Birkeland attended the meeting as public observers and provided input to the Advisory Group during the public comment period at the end. I have asked Tom Hovey, who oversees the Advisory Group at the D.N.R. to appoint Bruce Larson to the Advisory Group in order to assure that the only real estate representative on the Advisory Group is not also the only real estate agent in Minnesota who doesn’t see any correlation between D.N.R. regulations and lakeshore property values.<br /><br />Before I get into what transpired at the meeting last Thursday, here’s what did <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> happen.<br /><ul><li>The draft of the Statement Of Need And Reasonableness (SONAR), required as part of any rulemaking was not discussed. It is still being worked on and will be submitted to the Advisory Group before the March meeting. The document is critical because it identifies for an administrative law judge the concerns that allegedly justify modifying regulations in the first place. If there is no legitimate need, there should be no rulemaking.</li><li>The group did not discuss the parameters of a General Permit that would be used to incorporate most current uses of private structures. Rather, Julie Ekman, who heads up D.N.R. Waters permitting, explained that the D.N.R. believed that the rules themselves would identify private structures that did not need any permit. The problem with this approach is two-fold:</li></ul><ol><li>On a procedural basis, it contradicts the decision of the Advisory Group, actually submitted to a vote at the first meeting, that extensive discussion of the scope of a General Permit should be addressed at the outset of the February meeting. I am not comfortable with a unilateral decision by D.N.R. staff to ignore the directive from the Advisory Group and, in fact, to eliminate reference to discussion of the General Permit and the vote to make its discussion a priority in the minutes of the January 6th meeting. Click <a href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/structures_rules.html">here</a> to go to the D.N.R. web page with a link to the minutes.<br /></li><li>On a substantive basis, the lack of a General Permit eliminates an efficient way to make it clear that private structures that were lawfully installed under then current regulations will be allowed to be retained not withstanding subsequent, more stringent regulations. Absent a General Permit grandfathering in pre-existing private structures, the new regulations themselves will have to incorporate legacy language.</li></ol><br />Some progress, from the point of view of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members, was made at the February 12th meeting of the Private Structures Advisory Group.<br /><br /><ul><li>The concept of the “Aquatic Impact Zone” was modified significantly. If it appears in the final recommendations to the D.N.R. commissioner, it will not be based on the square footage limitations contained in the first draft of the rules and challenged as unworkable last month in this blog and in P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s lobbying efforts. Rather, the Advisory Group reached a consensus that any “aquatic impact zone”, designed to aggregate human impact on a limited portion of the lakeshore property, will be measured along a line parallel to the shoreline according to a formula to be discussed later. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. took the position that the length of the aquatic impact zone should depend on the length of the owner’s shoreline and should be subject to the grandfathering of any prior, lawful uses of private structures. We also argued, with some success, for a non-contiguous aquatic impact zone, in order to allow for the separation of swimming and boating areas on properties where the owner opted to purchase additional lakeshore to allow for safer use of the property.</li></ul><br />The table below identifies the variety of opinions on the Advisory Group as to how long the aquatic impact zone should be. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. intends to demonstrate how restrictive some of these proposed configurations are when dealing with a 50-100 foot shoreline and a couple of boats and a swimming area.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Allowed Length of AIZ Votes</span><br />Depends on size of property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5<br />Depends on size of property (w/limits) . . . . . . 5<br />Max 50’ or ½ length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2<br />Max 40’ or 1/3 length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1<br />Max 50’ or 1/3 (w/allowance for small lots). . 3<br />Max 30’ or 1/3 length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1<br /><br /><ul><li>The other area of significant progress was the willingness of the pro-D.N.R. side of the table to acknowledge that it may be necessary to grandfather at least some previously lawfully installed private structures. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. was adamant about the need to compensate lakeshore property owners for any regulatory taking and, more importantly, adamant about everyone on the Advisory Group understanding that entitlement to compensation was a matter of law. While I had the sense that D.N.R. staff and representatives of environmental groups were not happy with the prospect of having to limit the scope of regulations to something affordable, it was not my job to make them happy. I committed to distributing more information on the concept of mandatory compensation before the next meeting. </li></ul><br />Two meetings remain before the Advisory Group will turn over recommendations to the D.N.R. commissioner and the public hearing process will begin. We still need to pin down the need for an aquatic impact zone, the propriety of grandfathering prior lawful uses of private structures, the basis for issuing special permits that will address special needs of lakeshore property owners based primarily on safety grounds and the question of enforceability and affordability of whatever final form the rules take.<br /><br />Some of you have been sending me questions about specific aspects of the rules and the justification for what the D.N.R. is doing. Because of time and budget constraints, I am not in a position to respond on an individual basis, especially since most of the questions are similar. However, if you post your questions as comments to the blog, I will respond publicly in order to allow everyone to share, and comment on, the response.<br /><br />To those of you who responded to the request for donations, thank you for your support. We would like to continue our aggressive representation of lakeshore property owners and increase our presence at the legislature. However, doing so will take the financial support of everyone with a stake in the outcome. Secure donations through PayPal can be made by clicking on the "Donate" button at the top of the blog. Otherwise, checks can be mailed to P.O.P.U.L.A.R., 247 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415.<br /><br />Please comment by clicking on the “Comment” link below.<br /></div>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-78575978279745325252009-02-05T08:16:00.000-08:002009-02-06T14:43:05.203-08:00Frequently Asked Questions about DNR RulemakingI have received a number of requests to shorten the length of these blog entries.<br /><br />To try to keep things more brief, I have prepared the following list of “Frequently Asked Questions” or FAQs. Please feel free to ask anything else in the comment section at the end of the blog.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">Why do we need more DNR regulations?</span><br />A: Because the Legislature said so in 2008. Senator Mary Olson of Bemidji, responding to pressure from constituents concerned about the size of dock platforms, required the DNR to undertake and complete new rulemaking by January 2010 on the issue of “private structures” in public waters.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">Is the “private structure” rulemaking limited to a debate about dock platform sizes?</span><br />A: No. Once directed to take a new look at the rules, last modified in 2002 to restrict dock width to 8 feet but with no limit on the length of dock, the DNR has indicated it intends to address all private structures, including boatlifts, boat slip canopies, boat launching ramps, beach sand blankets, dock platforms and docks themselves.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">What is P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s position on the proposed new regulations?</span><br />A: Simply put, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. believes that if a private structure was acquired and first utilized in a lawful manner (consistent with then existing regulations), it should be exempted from any new restrictions. The property owner should be allowed to retain and continue to use the private structure and should be allowed to pass on exempted private structures when their lakeshore property is sold. Any new regulations, which should still be reasonable and meet N.E.A.R. criteria, will apply to newly acquired private structures.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">What is N.E.A.R.?</span><br />A: P.O.P.U.L.A.R. believes any new regulations have to meet a four-way test: <span style="font-weight: bold;">Needed</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">Enforceable</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">Affordable</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">Reasonable</span>.<br />• If there is no demonstrated <span style="font-weight: bold;">Need</span> for a change in the regulations, the law prohibits their adoption.<br />• Any new regulations should be limited in scope to a level that can be <span style="font-weight: bold;">Enforced</span> uniformly and with the limited resources available to the DNR.<br />• New rules that deprive lakeshore property owners of the use of lawfully acquired and utilized property, or result in a reduction in the market value of lakeshore property, constitute a regulatory taking, entitling affected persons to compensation from the State. Therefore, any new regulations should be limited in scope to a level that the State of Minnesota can <span style="font-weight: bold;">Afford</span>.<br />• Taking everything into consideration, the final form of regulations must be <span style="font-weight: bold;">Reasonable</span> as a matter of law.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">Doesn’t P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s position, effectively one of “grandfathering” existing docks, boatlifts and other private structures amount to a “I have mine, but you cannot have yours attitude”?</span><br />A: Yes. So what? P.O.P.U.L.A.R. believes that is a better approach than “I cannot have mine so formerly legal uses have to be stopped”. Think of it like this. When Congress first mandated more fuel-efficient cars in the 1970’s because of the benefits to the environment and in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil, it did not outlaw "muscle cars" lawfully acquired beforehand or prevent them from being sold. It just looked forward and moved on. Anyone purchasing a vehicle afterward accepted that they were in a new era. It can be the same way with lakeshore property owners (as long as the new private structures regulations are N.E.A.R.).<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">What is P.O.P.U.L.A.R. doing to prevent the adoption of unneeded, unenforceable, unaffordable and unreasonable regulations?</span><br />A: P.O.P.U.L.A.R. has a seat on the Private Structures Advisory Group, appointed to represent the interests of lakeshore property owners. Unlike past rulemaking exercises, the DNR is forced to respond to P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s challenges to proposed regulations. Because of its position on the Private Structure Advisory Group, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. has been able to publicize elements of the proposals being considered, like the “Aquatic Impact Zone” discussed previously in this blog, resulting in reconsideration by the DNR and less restrictive proposals being used as a baseline for further consideration. More generally, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. serves as a single, focused voice of the hundreds of thousands of lakeshore property owners potentially impacted by new regulations. This blog was visited nearly 6,000 times since initially posted in early 2008. In just the last three weeks, when P.O.P.U.L.A.R. started reporting in earnest on the new rulemaking, the blog has been visited 1,510 times. As P.O.P.U.L.A.R. lobbies the Governor, the Legislature and the DNR, these numbers are significant.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">What happens next?</span><br />A: Once the Private Structures Advisory Group makes its recommendations to the DNR commissioner, proposed rules will be published. There will likely be public hearings responding to the proposed rules and, depending on the level of support P.O.P.U.L.A.R. receives, we will encourage members’ attendance and arrange for the testimony by members of the business and lake communities to create a record upon which final implementation of rules must be based. Ultimately, the DNR commissioner, the governor and an administrative law judge need to determine that the regulations are needed, reasonable and comply with all requirements of the law. A number of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members have indicated that they are determined to sue to prevent the implementation of any new regulations that do not meet those standards.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">What is the status of Private Structures Advisory Group deliberations?</span><br />A: Currently, I am preparing for the February 12th meeting of the Private Structures Advisory Group. The agenda calls for discussion on the scope of a General Permit to exempt certain private structures from regulation. There are some members of the Advisory Group who, at our first meeting, expressed the opinion that the DNR should not issue any general permit and that lakeshore property owners should have to go before the DNR to get permission for pretty much anything that goes into the water. P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s position, by contrast, is that there should be general permits, written as broadly as possible, allowing legal uses of private structures to be continued without regard to new regulations.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">Are the Private Structures Advisory Group meetings open to the public?</span><br />A: Yes, but only for purposes of observation. A better way to have input is to communicate with P.O.P.U.L.A.R. to make sure concerns are being addressed and then attend public hearings when held to voice your opinion publicly.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">Does P.O.P.U.L.A.R. publish all comments on its blog or are negative comments censored?</span><br />A: P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s policy is to publish all comments with the exception of anonymous personal attacks. We will publish personal attacks if you have the backbone to put your name on them. We will publish anonymous posts that merely express an opinion, for us or against us, but do not engage in personal attacks.<br /><br />Q: <span style="font-style: italic;">What happens if P.O.P.U.L.A.R. does not receive adequate financial support to fund its efforts?</span><br />A: The short answer is that lakeshore property owners will be left to fend for themselves individually. We will complete our service on the Advisory Group and look for volunteers to carry on. However, we believe much of the gains that have been achieved will be lost. The DNR, and the majority of the Advisory Group membership that supports very restrictive limits on the existence of private structures in public waters, are funded by taxpayer money. They do not have any reason to pull back from achieving their agenda.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Please use the "Donate" button at the top right of this blog to show your support. Thank you!</span><br /><br />Finally, here is a question from a member who wrapped most of the objections critics of private structures on public waters have into a single question:<br /><br />Q:<span style="font-style: italic;"> If lakeshore property owners are not supposed to (i.) commandeer public waters with their private structures, (ii.) use structures to make their lake experience more comfortable and, depending on conditions, even possible, (iii.) create eyesores that everyone on the lake has to look at, and (iv.) interfere with access to all of the public waters, why aren’t ice fishing houses regulated?</span><br />A: Anybody?<br /><br />Thank you for your support and assistance in keeping P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members' interests protected.Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-73324849025498437282009-01-27T14:21:00.000-08:002009-02-03T09:43:00.320-08:00He Said, We Said<span style="font-size:130%;">I was going to entitle this installment of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s blog "It is, too, a big deal" in response to a contrary characterization of the new private structure rules by a D.N.R. official. The problem is, that after speaking directly to the official who allegedly made the comment, I do not believe he meant what those in earshot thought that he said. Confused? Good. Because the lesson for today is how P.O.P.U.L.A.R. intends to apply pressure while exercising restraint.<br /><br />We are going to apply pressure in the current rule-making process because we are not willing to allow the large majority of citizens who are convinced that lakeshore owners are selfish elitists bent on usurping the public waters to give political cover to environmental interests desiring to adopt the restrictions of the BWCA on a Statewide basis. Lest you believe I am exaggerating the political challenges we face, be sure to check out the comments that appeared in the January 24th Star Tribune in response to an article about proposed public access fees on Lake Minnetonka. I have included a few of them below.<br /><br />We are going to exercise restraint because there is a chance through common sense discussions and factually based negotiations we will be able to establish a record in this rule-making process that will either leave an administrative judge no choice but to consider the property rights of lakeshore property owners or will set the stage for successful litigation to enforce those rights if not acknowledged in new DNR regulations. A lack of restraint, <span style="font-style: italic;">i.e., </span>ranting and raving with little regard for substance and an unwillingness to engage in thoughtful debate will undercut the legitimacy of our concerns.<br /><br />This double-edged approach crystallized after a series of meetings and phone calls that started last week when the annual Boat Show opened its doors at the Minneapolis Convention Center. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. began receiving phone calls from dock and watercraft vendors expressing concern that the DNR was visiting everyone's booth and, for all practical purposes, denigrating the work of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. and suggesting that we were over-reacting and needlessly stirring up lakeshore owners and business people by false claims of adverse consequences from the adoption of new regulations.<br /><br />I decided to investigate and went to the Boat Show to meet with some of the folks who had visited with the DNR. I have gone out of my way to be accurate in my description of the challenges P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members face and did not want to jeopardize our credibility by making accusations about inappropriate DNR behavior on the basis of hearsay. Since much of the concerns that had been expressed after the Boat Show meetings was relayed through an intermediary, I wanted to check things out directly.<br /><br />I used the occasion to distribute literature at the Boat Show, asking interested parties to educate themselves on the scope of pending regulations by following our efforts on this blog and to support the work of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. I am convinced that the wider the audience P.O.P.U.L.A.R. has, the more difficult it will be for the DNR to adopt new rules, as it did quietly in 2002, that do not acknowledge and protect lakeshore property owers' rights.<br /><br />Prior to publishing anything about my Saturday afternoon meetings at the Boat Show, I decided to speak directly to the DNR official who had visited the vendors earlier in the week. I wanted to give him the opportunity to respond to what I had been told by the vendors (they said you said) and, where appropriate, memorialize his comments in order to establish a baseline from which to negotiate the private structure in public waters regulations. My restraint was rewarded when the DNR official and I had the opportunity to speak for nearly an hour yesterday, clarify some issues and clear the air about our respective roles as we go forward.<br /><br />Here is the exchange that occurred during the phone conversation yesterday:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R.:</span> Several vendors claim you told them P.O.P.U.L.A.R. was putting out false information to scare people and raise money (I offered to share the DNR's portion of lottery ticket sales instead).<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">DNR: </span>Did not say P.O.P.U.L.A.R. was spreading false information. I had been receiving calls from people concerned because they heard the DNR was going to impose fees and require licenses in order to have dockage at their lake property. I said that there is false information like that being spread, without accusing P.O.P.U.L.A.R., and I wanted to assure everyone that it was false.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R.:</span> That wasn't us. As we discussed last year, credibility is key for us. If there's something you see in the blog or otherwise that is not true, call me on it. Directly.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">DNR:</span> There hasn't been anything in the blog that is not true. However, the discussion of the new rules was based on a preliminary draft and the final version will likely be much different. (n.b., This includes the contents of the literature distributed at the Boat Show)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R.:</span> But without changes, the concerns expressed in the "Open Letter to Governor Pawlenty" blog are accurate?<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">DNR: </span>Yes.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R.:</span> The vendors at the Boat Show said you claimed that the new regulations would not have an impact for 85% or 98% (two different recollections) of lakeshore property owners.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">DNR:</span> I said 90-95% of lakeshore owners would not be impacted by the time the initial version of the regulations that we distributed at the Advisory Group meeting are modified in response to everyone's input.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R.:</span> But, clearly, as written, an Aquatic Impact Zone that limited lakeshore property owners to using 500-2,500 square feet of the lake adjacent to their property based on a ratio of 5 square feet for every foot of shoreline would affect much more than 5-10% of lakeshore property owners.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">D.N.R.: </span>Yes, but that's why we have to go through the process of considering the impact and making adjustments so the rules make sense.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R.:</span> The vendors at the Boat Show said you claimed that the State would not regulate the number of boats lakeshore property owners were allowed to own. However, the effect of regulations that limit the amount of dock and number of boat lifts that can be installed has exactly that impact.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">DNR:</span> Let me ask you something. Do you think, that with all the scrutiny the new regulations will receive, from the Advisory Group you sit on, from other divisions in the DNR, from the Commissioner, even from the Governor before they become effective, we will end up with regulations that force people to give up their boats?<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R.:</span> The short answer is "no" because P.O.P.U.L.A.R. will be in court overturning any attempt to do that. If there's any regulatory "taking" by the DNR, there has to be compensation to the property owner whose property was taken. Since the State cannot afford the tens of millions of dollars of liability a taking would create, it cannot legally adopt confiscatory regulations.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">DNR: </span>(No further debate on the subject)<br /><br />Other matters dicussed in my productive conversation include:<br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-size:130%;">my concern that, just as P.O.P.U.L.A.R. acknowledges that some modifications to the existing regulations will result from the process, the DNR has to educate its involved staff members that compromises to accommodate issues important to lakeshore property owners must be forthcoming;</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">the need to factor all implications of new regulations in arriving at a final draft to be submitted for consideration by the Commissioner of the DNR, including the impact the regulations will have on commerce, property values, property taxes and government services that rely on those taxes; and</span></li><li><span style="font-size:130%;">the propriety of "grandfathering" private structures that were lawfully acquired and first utilized before the adoption of regulations that restricted them.</span></li></ul><span style="font-size:130%;">As noted above, I am including (without editing) a few of the comments that were posted on the Star Tribune's website after an article appeared Saturday reporting on a proposal to charge a fee to use public landings. Note the indications after each as to how many readers approved of the particular comment. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. faces the same criticism of its lakeshore property owner membership. The political pressure brought to bear on elected officials, and DNR staff, by the visiting public, has to be considered when building a record upon which regulations must rely.<br /><br />When you've completed reading the comments below, please consider joining the generous P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members who have stepped up in the absence of lottery revenue and helped fund our efforts. There's a lot of work that still needs to be done to protect our interests. Thank you for your support.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">DOCK FEE</span><br />Minnetonka needs a dock fee for homeowners, they take up too much of the PUBLICS open water. Lets start at $1,000 ft for every foot over say 8ft in length, thats per season if you have a permanant dock space as in year round lets make it $10,000 a year, of course this is all subject to if you get a permit or not and the permit isn't free. inspections for contaminant run off from your property will be factored in also, can't have that fertilizer getting in the waters. special regs for boat lift size and boat size, swimming raft regulations with seperate fees they should be pulled to shore every night for safety. No new construction within 1000 ft of the shoreline high water mark, no more contruction with less than 500 ft of the next home, 500 ft minimum and on and on and on<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">posted by k57pulbuf on Jan. 24, 09 at 7:44 PM</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">23 of 29 people liked this comment.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The basis of their concerns.</span><br />I suggest that Minnesota take back our lakes from the people that have ruined them with their developments. Face it, lakeshore development is bad for lakes. I suggest Minnesota return the lakeshore to its natural state by disallowing any mowing, cutting, clearing, building, cleaning, docks, or beach maintenance within 100 feet of the high water mark. You get the picture. And make it a law that allows public access within that 100 foot lake enhancement area. If the so called "lake association" actually cared about the lake the live on they would all jump at the chance to support those kind of regulations. Sad to say though, I think mostly they use environmental concerns to cover up their desire to protect their own selfish interests and privacy.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">posted by xsnowdog on Jan. 24, 09 at 9:32 PM | </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">19 of 24 people liked this comment.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">If you benefit, you pay. If you don't benefit, you dont pay.</span><br />This is a no brainer. If you use the lake, you pay. Property owners, boat owners, snowmobile owners, ice fishing, if you want the benefits of the lake, then pay. If you want to enjoy having a flat screen tv, then you pay, not the tax payer. The lake shore owners and users of the lake can afford the property and toys, so asking them to support this lifestyle is fair.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">posted by deephaven10 on Jan. 24, 09 at 9:41 PM | </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">12 of 22 people liked this comment.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">There is already a fee. The water craft registration.</span><br />There is an aquatic species surcharge that is built into the water craft registration fee. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/licenses/watercraft/index.html This is a state resource that should be handled as all other Minnesota lakes are. What sets it apart is the affluent community that surrounds it. Perhaps they should suggest levying a waterfront property tax to pay for this? If this is really such a problem, why not increase the invasive species surcharge?<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">posted by ztrvz on Jan. 25, 09 at 12:18 AM | </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">22 of 23 people liked this comment.</span><br /><br />I propose a fee on docks and boat stored on public waters. This keeping a dock on public waters is quite a benefit for private individuals. We could charge by the foot, so the worst offenders pay more. There are more than 100 lakes infected with milfoil in Mn. Are we going to charge a fee on all of them? As a fisherman, I don't mind the milfoil. It has made bass fishing even better. If they want to charge a fee to launch, then the DNR should charge homeowners to keep stocking the lake with taxpayer's fish.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">posted by libsridiots on Jan. 25, 09 at 8:31 AM | </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">13 of 15 people liked this comment.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION</span><br />If a ramp tax is levied on those who use the lake intermittently then it's only appropriate that homeowners and businesses on the lake are taxed accordingly. One cannot simply say "I want to live on the lake or do business on the lake but I want soneone else to pay for taking care of the lake."<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">posted by fredappl on Jan. 25, 09 at 11:00 AM | </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">5 of 7 people liked this comment.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Oh My...How Exclusive!</span><br />Why not regulate the residential dock situation more closely and raise the fines on homeowners that have more watercraft tied up to their docks than is legally allowable or violate lakeshore degradation laws? That would raise these "needed" funds in a heartbeat.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">posted by smchange on Jan. 26, 09 at 1:16 PM | </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">2 of 3 people liked this comment.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >P.O.P.U.L.A.R.:</span><span style="font-size:130%;"> Take a deep breath and leave your own comment by clicking on the comment button below.</span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-88736577820153273172009-01-20T18:10:00.000-08:002009-01-20T18:57:07.705-08:00P.O.P.U.L.A.R. Survey ResultsThe first survey of watercraft/lakeshore owners conducted by P.O.P.U.L.A.R. is now closed. In all, 160 of the 471 visitors (in 662 visits) to this blog last week completed the survey, many expressing their appreciation for what they described as a less biased format than the D.N.R. survey of watercraft owners.<br /><br />The results of the survey are available here. Click on each page image to obtain a larger version of the survey page. Hit the "back" button on your browser to return to the blog and the next page of the survey.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVjozolVIjPJOJucknx6ZtQJAVfabiwt67kpw0xJL-lWguq6B-Pl36ZdwModdm8K2w2ekwmeAGK0oW3lWuN4XhxYSggSDrk5Kb2ZPlGdnLipO2W88IM4TPMzMq82QQLrro5zyPbfrSUtWb/s1600-h/Page-01.jpeg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVjozolVIjPJOJucknx6ZtQJAVfabiwt67kpw0xJL-lWguq6B-Pl36ZdwModdm8K2w2ekwmeAGK0oW3lWuN4XhxYSggSDrk5Kb2ZPlGdnLipO2W88IM4TPMzMq82QQLrro5zyPbfrSUtWb/s400/Page-01.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293570347725819010" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkrVG_uQHx5SNXSE9nHr71_AH54TiEq0LQFF77MLzGgLKNwYECqROSlwYGa2E6risX6ajSVbr07I0HKqkDWvOOL27Cr1Vz20X1PjHY2yLgCESfnfR1zYsNrrs8nKsBnMHxiOoJ1cUIDsgK/s1600-h/Page-02.jpeg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkrVG_uQHx5SNXSE9nHr71_AH54TiEq0LQFF77MLzGgLKNwYECqROSlwYGa2E6risX6ajSVbr07I0HKqkDWvOOL27Cr1Vz20X1PjHY2yLgCESfnfR1zYsNrrs8nKsBnMHxiOoJ1cUIDsgK/s400/Page-02.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293571193410956018" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgi0JVki2Lf7EdmspEYnzLZnzCioymkqVWk9keYudbEMx_vRJiFKTjvF5y21QIDiPNZ5DACzqIBEwIGKqnyU8TRfrwPg_wyw08r-zgOPGmRjzN3CpHIc2kYZvu73xR7kWt0zXWcJx6uRO6a/s1600-h/Page-03.jpeg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgi0JVki2Lf7EdmspEYnzLZnzCioymkqVWk9keYudbEMx_vRJiFKTjvF5y21QIDiPNZ5DACzqIBEwIGKqnyU8TRfrwPg_wyw08r-zgOPGmRjzN3CpHIc2kYZvu73xR7kWt0zXWcJx6uRO6a/s400/Page-03.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293571193617465970" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjMGrxlHMINzw7tdnigNCUkAcZJaKSxqmTKfSAisf47B0fKvoBTwUwqnaEvc34IB2hTeZSNvbNXijMRpnGdPm3B_VET7vK-1G81dlnnbnLHoPt07s8rB3OqS1-H9ynoRbG6-GseDyZFrjh/s1600-h/Page-04.jpeg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjMGrxlHMINzw7tdnigNCUkAcZJaKSxqmTKfSAisf47B0fKvoBTwUwqnaEvc34IB2hTeZSNvbNXijMRpnGdPm3B_VET7vK-1G81dlnnbnLHoPt07s8rB3OqS1-H9ynoRbG6-GseDyZFrjh/s400/Page-04.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293571199146006514" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYEUy1sZ4s5F2YRq1D95BEfmxGFKxuFAjGpO0qCleRRDMqxLQXMRMTfQkGOe_hPRBHkuO0P33togUHx6Nd4A7szbEDDCIFzeYMNvSRkGPyYYkde1urAdA_lNvD2jJ2e1hfQ3vaXp_B8O7A/s1600-h/Page-05.jpeg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYEUy1sZ4s5F2YRq1D95BEfmxGFKxuFAjGpO0qCleRRDMqxLQXMRMTfQkGOe_hPRBHkuO0P33togUHx6Nd4A7szbEDDCIFzeYMNvSRkGPyYYkde1urAdA_lNvD2jJ2e1hfQ3vaXp_B8O7A/s400/Page-05.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293571208662842274" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSmERRP_b9VaQ7I8FPRX81LpEmaOnp-_oUDErbH-mbOPc6cV4qEZfgOurzUA64zg5KI8n9RXby1-lHpWSosf0vIIvhX2SfPcleTPsOJc13idn4RWYRD96f4KH5j_eClycHLwAbReWlWxat/s1600-h/Page-06.jpeg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSmERRP_b9VaQ7I8FPRX81LpEmaOnp-_oUDErbH-mbOPc6cV4qEZfgOurzUA64zg5KI8n9RXby1-lHpWSosf0vIIvhX2SfPcleTPsOJc13idn4RWYRD96f4KH5j_eClycHLwAbReWlWxat/s400/Page-06.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293571213194455650" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYOwql0q8FFTtqB9Q_AIRXh0jvIggFHQZ9Kg0nlhubE87aly7QyNDbq7zUlWTFNtZkpXWxur2cm6NbOgDV2k_VIkgMPsdkKiZULNrU_qqZfgnVATznZ3ZoKXWdhSOU3Spf1TljzhbcbMO5/s1600-h/Page-07.jpeg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYOwql0q8FFTtqB9Q_AIRXh0jvIggFHQZ9Kg0nlhubE87aly7QyNDbq7zUlWTFNtZkpXWxur2cm6NbOgDV2k_VIkgMPsdkKiZULNrU_qqZfgnVATznZ3ZoKXWdhSOU3Spf1TljzhbcbMO5/s400/Page-07.jpeg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293572713176136562" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJw_On4fRy5W4rJzjoZtu9Ffcpm2nIxV8i0y3CkKUDGT4U8EArTuZLX7w8ZYrEjr3WUBvaQH0KEjzQ2BqlwWyQw3dYFubkd5GaCvIBy6bXTmZjWMMgS-e0dIiHMTc15RbcC9XscMGNOCuX/s1600-h/Page-08.jpeg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJw_On4fRy5W4rJzjoZtu9Ffcpm2nIxV8i0y3CkKUDGT4U8EArTuZLX7w8ZYrEjr3WUBvaQH0KEjzQ2BqlwWyQw3dYFubkd5GaCvIBy6bXTmZjWMMgS-e0dIiHMTc15RbcC9XscMGNOCuX/s400/Page-08.jpeg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293572710899253490" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnIo8-WnEArIe9FTMnmEPhuDt7DqKIP1J6kPXevTqVEm_xt3QageHYRdOEv-O9V2MF9nHoHvKEJ_pVZksTSmLHP2Kwjd7YMvjyV680dhQUTWWL_YEzdnHafGwyhDuBjfXQaEBq5F03Bd4x/s1600-h/Page-09.jpeg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 309px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnIo8-WnEArIe9FTMnmEPhuDt7DqKIP1J6kPXevTqVEm_xt3QageHYRdOEv-O9V2MF9nHoHvKEJ_pVZksTSmLHP2Kwjd7YMvjyV680dhQUTWWL_YEzdnHafGwyhDuBjfXQaEBq5F03Bd4x/s400/Page-09.jpeg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293572712622898658" /></a><br /><br /><br />About 60% of the respondents own property in Crow Wing County. About 20% own property in Cass County. A little more than 6% own property in Hennepin County. Wright and Washington Counties had a few respondents. Aitkin, Douglas, Hubbard, Itasca, Ottertail, Scott and Sherburne Counties each had one property owner. 14 respondents either do not own lakeshore property or did not respond to the question about location. One of the tasks P.O.P.U.L.A.R. faces is getting residents from all over Minnesota to understand that the proposed D.N.R. regulations will apply to them. There appears to be a misconception, based on the hoopla last year over dock platforms, that the new "private structure" rulemaking will impact primarily Gull Lake, Lake Minnetonka and the Whitefish Chain.<br /><br />We believe that if all lakeshore owners in the State understood the potential threats to their use and enjoyment of their property, there would be a significantly more widespread outcry.<br /><br />As demonstrated in the results of the survey, lakeshore owners, who have a vested interest in the well-being of the public waters on which they reside and in the commitment they have made to their respective properties, strongly believe that the State of Minnesota will be financially liable for compensation if there is implementation of regulations which outlaws previously legal uses of property. Similarly, persons responding to the P.O.P.U.L.A.R. survey demonstrated a strong belief that any reduction in property values resulting from new regulations will require a reduction in property taxes.<br /><br />These results will be part of the record the D.N.R. Commissioner will have to consider before approving any new regulations. The financial impact of adopting the regulations cannot be ignored. P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s position is that the State of Minnesota cannot lawfully impose new regulations which carry with them a legitimate financial burden to the State without making provisions to meet that financial burden. Suffice it to say, that this are not the time for the State of Minnesota to incur tens of millions of dollars in obligations to property owners on account of the taking of their lawfully acquired property and property rights as a result of new, incredibly restrictive regulation of docks, boat lifts, boat slips, sand blankets and watercraft ownership.<br /><br />Please help us fight on your behalf by making a donation to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. today. Thank you for your support.Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-90831323760742647692009-01-15T21:30:00.000-08:002009-01-15T22:42:14.420-08:00An Open Letter to Governor Pawlenty<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6oEpdxRoXCsdeCi5jDcoDXSxRMbsWldfT5947qq3roNJYPBxmeGsYbWz-OH-2NYTMPEod8uOrmltz50rqsmiWGRPsSf0XPCKKR3G7yyFNJB4VrGi-uLtnN1Xi-UdNcvHlab1wxk0qqftU/s1600-h/1400sf+Aquatic+Impact+Zone.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 422px; height: 544px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6oEpdxRoXCsdeCi5jDcoDXSxRMbsWldfT5947qq3roNJYPBxmeGsYbWz-OH-2NYTMPEod8uOrmltz50rqsmiWGRPsSf0XPCKKR3G7yyFNJB4VrGi-uLtnN1Xi-UdNcvHlab1wxk0qqftU/s400/1400sf+Aquatic+Impact+Zone.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291763349354403106" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I prepared the diagram above to demonstrate how restrictive the first draft of the DNR's proposed regulations are. Click on it to see a larger version and then hit the "back" button on your web browser to return to the blog. Rather than incorporating an Aquatic Impact Area as in last year's general permit, requiring all impact by lakeshore owners to occur within a length of shoreline equal to the lesser of 1/2 the length of the shoreline lot or 100 feet, the new proposed regulations have an "Aquatic Impact Zone" equal to 5 square feet for every foot of shoreline up to a maximum of 2,500 square feet for lots with 500 lineal feet or more of shoreline.<br /><br />The </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >suggested</span><span style="font-size:130%;"> Aquatic Impact Area in last year's general permit was bad enough. If adopted, the Aquatic Impact Zone will be </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >mandated</span><span style="font-size:130%;">. The diagram demonstrates how, as currently proposed, the concept is purely unworkable. As noted in the diagram, a lakeshore owner would have to own 280 lineal feet of shoreline just to be able to retain a couple of small boats and a tiny sand blanket beach. As a practical matter, lakeshore owners with a 60 foot lot line would be allowed an Aquatic Impact Zone of 300 square feet. That amounts to 6 sections of 10x5 dock. Period. No lifts, no canopies, no sand blankets.<br /><br />When I verified my understanding of this element of the proposed regulations, the DNR staff person reminded me that the proposed regulations are in their initial stage and that modifications in response to concerns such as mine would be considered. He did not disagree that, as written, my understanding of the proposal is accurate.<br /><br />My intention is to use this blog to keep P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members informed as to what is going on with the new regulations. As I discussed a couple of days ago, we have a seat at the table to provide input into the final version of the new regulations. I have no intention to shy away from aggressive advocacy on behalf of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members as the process moves forward. I understand that some level of compromise will need to be achieved. My concern is that interest groups with sharply different opinions than those of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members regarding the rights of lakeshore owners are not as inclined to compromise.<br /><br />In order to try to enforce some oversight on the process from the one person to whom the DNR must answer, I sent Governor Pawlenty a letter today. It appears below and I'll let it speak for itself. I am hoping to arrange for another meeting with the governor and or his staff to convey our concerns over the potential disregard of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members' rights and the economic fallout that would result.<br /><br />If you are in agreement with the letter to Governor Pawlenty, send a letter of your own to the governor. Send one to your legislative representative. As the legislature is trying to address a multi-billion budget shortfall, its members should be aware of, and should oppose, the imposition of a regulatory scheme that will destroy the economy of Lake Country, devalue lakeshore property and result in diminished property tax revenues.<br /><br />Lastly, please fill out the P.O.P.U.L.A.R. survey (click <a href="http://www.polldaddy.com/s/24C97395B07ED7F1/">here</a>) and the DNR survey (click <a href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/survey/watercraft/index.html">here</a>) if you have not already done so. There is no identification of who submitted which answers, either to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. or to the DNR. We need to build a record as part of the rulemaking process in order to have a basis for challenging any adverse results, if necessary. Remember, the surveys are open through next Monday, January 19th. We've had about 80 responses thus far. We can use more.<br /><br />Let your friends and lake neighbors know what we are doing. This fight to protect our interests will take time and won't be inexpensive. If you can help out financially, it's appreciated. You can use the "donate" button above to the right to make a secure donation through PayPal with your credit card. Please feel free to comment on our efforts. You can do so anonymously.<br /><br />Thanks for your support.<br /><br />Here's the letter sent to Governor Pawlenty today (and already received by his staff).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">Governor Tim Pawlenty<br />130 State Capitol Building<br />75 Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard<br />St. Paul, MN 55155<br /><br />Re: DNR Private Structures in Public Waters Rulemaking<br /><br />Dear Governor Pawlenty:<br /><br />As I write this, you are preparing to give your seventh State of the State address before the Minnesota Legislature. Given the challenges we face as a State and as a nation, I can only imagine the pressure you feel as you attempt to offer a roadmap to recovery that both acknowledges competing points of view and adheres to the basic principals that have defined you as a public servant. Thank you for your service.<br /><br />I am writing on behalf of P.O.P.U.L.A.R., an association of Minnesota lakeshore property owners and others with an interest in the lakes communities formed about a year ago and concerned about the encroachment of government regulations on the private use and enjoyment of lakeshore property.<br /><br />Let me again thank you for your past efforts to facilitate communications between P.O.P.U.L.A.R. and the DNR. Last year, Assistant Commissioner Larry Kramka and I had frank, but potentially productive, discussions about the concerns of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members and the ability of the DNR to accommodate the needs of lakeshore property owners whose historical use of their property was being challenged by recent regulations. In addition, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. now has a seat on the Advisory Group constituted to provide input to the DNR Commissioner as he considers implementing new rules governing private structures on public waters mandated by the 2008 legislature.<br /><br />As with your responsibilities in delivering the State of the State address, I have an obligation to balance competing points of view, both within P.O.P.U.L.A.R. and with opinions held my other members of the Advisory Group. I take that responsibility seriously and was honored to have been selected to serve as the voice of lakeshore property owners in the DNR’s rulemaking process. However, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are concerned that, without proper guidance offered to the DNR by you as governor and as the ultimate authority over rulemaking, mere lip service will be paid to the rights and interests of lakeshore property owners. We believe the DNR needs to receive direction from your office that any new regulations be tempered to avoid imposing restrictions on lakeshore owners that dramatically adversely impact the use and enjoyment of private structures which, prior to 2003, were perfectly legal.<br /><br />When you and I spoke at the St. Louis Park Rotary meeting in the spring of 2008, we agreed that rules that “grandfathered” existing structures that were legal when installed represented an acceptable compromise between competing environmental and property ownership interests. For reasons related primarily to the difficulties of communicating to the DNR’s enforcement agents, a problem that can be rectified in new rules, lakeshore owners who applied for a special permit last season on the basis of having “legacy” structures were generally denied relief. The absence of enforcement of regulations by the DNR in 2008 rendered the issue moot.<br /><br />As we address new rulemaking, it appears that enforcement will not be an issue. All parties agree that any rules adopted have to be capable of uniform enforcement. Unfortunately, thus far, there is no similar acceptance of the preconceived notion that the investment of initially compliant legacy owners be protected from the impact of new regulations.<br /><br />The first draft of the new regulations furnished the Advisory Group by the DNR makes no provision for grandfathering existing legal private structures. The drafter of the rules suggested that any decision to exempt existing private structures on account of their prior legal existence should be addressed in special legislation. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. believes such an approach would impose an unnecessary burden, both from the point of view of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members and of legislators, who have much better things to do with their limited time and resources.<br /><br />To give you an idea of how restrictive the new proposed rules are, even keeping in mind that the proposal is in its early stages, I have enclosed a diagram setting forth an example of a typical lakeshore property configuration. The hypothetical property owner maintains a small fishing boat on a lift, an average sized pontoon, and a small sand beach maintained along the lakeshore. As indicated, under the current proposal, the lakeshore owner would need at least 280 feet of lineal shoreline in order to qualify for this minimal impact. Few Minnesota lakeshore owners have 280-foot shorelines.<br /><br />Even if, as has been suggested, the access dock is not counted (150 s.f. in the diagram), and all dock other than what is needed to board the fishing boat and the pontoon is removed (200 s.f. in the diagram), the lakeshore owner would still have 1,050 s.f. deemed included in what the proposed rules consider the allowable “Aquatic Impact Zone”. Accordingly, the hypothetical lakeshore owner would still require 210 lineal feet of shoreline to qualify for the impact described. Again, most lakeshore owners do not own 210 feet of shoreline.<br /><br />When the discussion of private structures on public waters started in 2007, it was characterized as a debate over the size of dock platforms (“party docks” per the Star Tribune). Now, lakeshore property owners, including those without a dock platform, face de facto restrictions on the number of watercraft they can own, the extent to which they can provide a swimming area in front of their lake homes, and the amount of dockage and number of boat lifts they can retain to allow safe and secure boarding and protection of their watercraft.<br /><br />The consequences from the imposition of such restrictive regulations are far reaching.<br />• In the first instance, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. believes that outlawing the use of private property acquired and previously utilized legally constitutes a taking by the State and entitles the owner to just compensation as a matter of Constitutional law.<br />• Imposing limits on the amount of shoreline a lakeshore property owner is allowed to impact under new regulations will drive down property values and related property taxes. It will also give rise to litigation by lakeshore property owners challenging premium property tax assessments on the basis of lakeshore footage the owner is not allowed to utilize. The loss of property tax revenue will necessarily be made up by increased assessments on all property, both lakeshore and non-lakeshore property, within the impacted jurisdiction.<br />• The real estate, marine and dock industries face devastating losses, on top of the challenges faced in our current economy, as the economic impact of the restrictive new regulations are felt.<br /><br />The State can ill afford either the obligation to compensate property owners for a taking or the loss of property tax revenues that will result from the proposed restrictions. The State’s economy should not be subjected to unnecessary undermining by regulating major sectors of the lakes community out of business.<br /><br />We believe that the solution is to compromise the goals of environmentalists with the rights of lakeshore property owners. Require any new regulations to accommodate existing private structures that were legal when first utilized. Going forward, everyone would understand that, as is common with the implementation of other environmentally friendly regulations, new standards apply. However, individuals who made investments in their lakeshore property, consistent with then prevailing legal standards, should be allowed to retain and pass on those investments.<br /><br />If, in your capacity as governor, you could provide the DNR with guidance on this issue, and direct that any new regulations start with protecting pre-existing legal private structures as a baseline, there is a much higher likelihood that the process will play itself out with a minimum of disruption to law-abiding property owners and a significantly reduced cost to the State of Minnesota, local jurisdictions and the residents of local jurisdictions who do not reside on public waters.<br /><br />Please excuse the length of this correspondence. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members and I would be happy to meet with you or your staff to elaborate on our concerns. Thank you for your consideration.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Samuel L. Stern, for<br />P.O.P.U.L.A.R.</span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-47048357526980047212009-01-12T10:04:00.000-08:002009-01-12T12:36:22.770-08:00DNR Rulemaking Update: The Ship has left the Dock (Platform)<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">The Department of Natural Resources' rulemaking process to revisit the issue of "private structures" on public waters is in full swing. As indicated in the e-mail that went out to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members in November, the DNR solicited comments before the drafting of new rules began. In addition, the DNR is soliciting input via the Internet by asking watercraft owners to complete a survey (see link below) and has started a formal rule-making process designed to meet the January, 2010 deadline imposed by last year's legislature.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R. is at the forefront of representing the rights of lakeshore property owners. It has been recognized by the DNR as a voice of lakeshore property owners as the process proceeds. In fact, as a result of the work P.O.P.U.L.A.R. has done thus far to express the viewpoints of lakeshore property owners, we have been given a seat on the Structures in Public Waters - Rule Revision Advisory Group constituted to provide input to the DNR as part of the process. I attended the first meeting of the Advisory Group on behalf of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. last week. The meeting was primarily to organize the Advisory Group, review the issues, distribute the preliminary draft rules DNR had prepared, identify the issues of concern to Advisory Group participants and set a schedule for three additional monthly meetings.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Our aggressive representation of lakeshore property owner rights will be needed if the final regulations are to incorporate our concerns. In addition to P.O.P.U.L.A.R., one representative (each) of the dock industry, the real estate industry, the marina industry and the resort industry serve on the Advisory Group. Unfortunately, 15 of the remaining 19 Advisory Group members are DNR staff or representatives of environmental groups. Since the purpose of the rulemaking process is to establish a record upon which an administrative law judge can rely in approving new regulations, it is critical that we build a record that evidences the rights of lakeshore property owners and the need to avoid over-regulation. Should those rights and needs be ignored in the process, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. will have the basis for litigating to prevent the implementation of offending rules. Without a record, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members will be at the mercy of the dictates of the DNR.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">As noted above, comment gathering is part of building a record for later consideration. Accordingly, we cannot allow emotionally based, uninformed, baseless opinions to be relied upon in establishing a record for review. Part of the comment gathering is coming from the distribution of a survey to licensed watercraft owners in Minnesota. This survey is in addition to opinions garnered at the Minnesota State Fair in 2008 and is intended to obtain the opinions of persons most likely to use the State's lakes and rivers: boat owners. Initially, the survey was to be distributed to 25,000 randomly chosen watercraft licensees. The randomly selected licensees received a postcard from the DNR asking them to go online and answer a 27 question survey. Subsequently, the DNR decided to give all watercraft licensees the ability to participate in the survey by going online at </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/survey/watercraft/index.html">http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/survey/watercraft/index.html</a><span style="font-family:verdana;">, entering a license number, and answering the questions. The license number is required only to try to limit responses to persons with a vested interest in the process. The DNR is not keeping track of which answers come from which licensees, so there is no reason not to participate or be honest with your answers to the questions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are urged to go online to the DNR survey and file a response on or before January 19th, the deadline for responding. We need to make sure that the results are not completely skewed in favor of the weekend boater who visits a local lake, enjoys the public waters, but has no real interest in the rights of, or understanding of the needs of, lakeshore property owners.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are also urged not to get frustrated with the tone of the survey, which appears to be skewed against property owners' rights. Rather, </span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;" >P.O.P.U.L.A.R. owners should click </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><a style="font-weight: bold; font-family: verdana;" href="http://www.polldaddy.com/s/24C97395B07ED7F1/">here</a></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;" > </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">and take a modified survey prepared to more fairly reflect some of the issues presented by more restrictive rulemaking by the DNR. The results of this survey will be presented to the Advisory Group and made part of the official record of the rulemaking proceedings. It is not limited to watercraft licensees. It </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;" >is</span><span style="font-family:verdana;"> limited to one response per computer.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">It is now time, absolutely, to make your fellow lakeshore property owners aware of efforts to severely restrict their use and enjoyment of their property. Never mind dock platforms: docks themselves, boat slips, boat lifts, sand blankets, canopies, personal watercrafts and even the number of allowed boats are being targeted by the proposed regulations.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Now that the process has started in earnest, I'll be posting blogs more regularly so check back often. Later this week, I'll start reviewing the elements of the draft rules as presented at the initial Advisory Group meeting.</span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;" >Finally, please conside</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;" >r making a donation to support our efforts. You can either click on the "donate" button at the top of this posting or send a check to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. at 247 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415.</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;"> The money will be spent to assure that lakeshore property owners have a voice at the table and, compared to the tens of thousands of dollars invested in so-called "private structures" and watercraft, is a worthwhile investment to maintain your historical lake lifestyle.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Thanks for your support.</span></span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-52622627708554276132008-09-19T09:35:00.000-07:002008-09-19T10:17:16.519-07:00D.N.R. Rulemaking on Docks, Boatlifts and Platforms has Commenced<span style="font-size:130%;">As anticipated, the Department of Natural Resources has commenced the rulemaking process in connection with “possible amendments to the rules governing structures placed in the Public Waters.” As regular followers of P.O.P.U.L.A.R. communications know, structures in public waters includes private docks, boatlifts, boat canopies and dock platforms. In fact, Minnesota Rules Part 6115.-0170, subpart 37, defines "structure" as <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">any</span> building, footing, foundation, slab, roof, boathouse, deck, wall, dock, bridge, culvert, or any other <span style="font-weight: bold;">object</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">extending over </span>or under, anchored to, or attached to the bed or bank of a <span style="font-weight: bold;">public water</span>.</span></span><div class="subp" id="rule.6115.0170.37"> </div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />Click <a href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/structures_rules.html">here</a> for a link to the DNR's web site announcing the new rulemaking and to sign up for e-mail updates on the process from the DNR.<br /><br />The purpose of this blog is to initiate a process with P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members to organize an effective campaign to (a) prevent amendments to existing rules which will further restrict lakeshore owners’ use and enjoyment of their property and (b) incorporate a grandfather provision into any rule amendment, acknowledging the prior, lawful impacts lakeshore owners have been allowed to have on public waters.<br /><br />As I have indicated in past communications, the failure of lakeshore property owners to respond to prospective government encroachment will result in government encroachment.<br /><br />While lakeshore owners have managed to survive another summer without undue DNR interference with the use of their property, this may well be the calm before the storm. As expected, the DNR chose not to enforce regulations or cite property owners whose dock platform configurations exceeded the 120 s.f. allowed. What was not expected was the refusal of local hydrologists to consider the legacy of individual’s dock platform configurations when responding to the application for a special permit. Despite assurances from an assistant commissioner of the DNR, and the observation by Governor Pawlenty that grandfathering “legacy docks” was a good compromise, the local bureaucrats generally refused to issue special permits, even for property owners whose use pre-dated current regulations.<br /><br />This summer’s experience set the stage for addressing DNR rulemaking. We have learned that unless protections, like the allowance of legacy dock configurations, are incorporated into the rules, we cannot count on obtaining variances, even for legitimate reasons. If the Governor’s public stance and a compromise reached with senior DNR management are insufficient to persuade bureaucrats responsible for carrying out policy to issue special permits allowing variances, then we have to insist incorporating a mandate for variances into any new regulations.<br /><br />Besides the struggle of attempting to persuade an intransient DNR that property owners have rights worth protecting, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. faces the challenge of reaching lakeshore property owners throughout Minnesota to advise them of the intent of those clamoring for more restrictive regulations. The self-proclaimed protectors of the environment have announced their intent to push for regulations that limit (i.) the total amount of dockage (whether or not there is a platform at the end), (ii.) the use of boatlifts, (iii.) the use of canopies and, of course, (iv.) the use of platforms. This should be a matter of great concern throughout the State. Although the media has characterized this as merely a spat over the size of “party docks”, the regulations sought by P.O.P.U.L.A.R. opponents through new rulemaking would potentially impact every Minnesota lakeshore property owner.<br /><br />In order to address the problem, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. hopes to have the support of its membership necessary for the following:<br />1. An orchestrated public relations campaign consisting of press releases and press conferences designed to inform the public about the broad scope and potential impact of the upcoming rulemaking.<br />2. A letter writing campaign to Governor Pawlenty and every member of the legislature soliciting support for a rulemaking process that will not turn a century of Minnesota tradition on its head by effectively limiting property owners use and enjoyment of their lakeshore.<br />3. Conducting a “town hall” meeting with Governor Pawlenty to allow P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members in a less formal setting than the rulemaking process make their views known to the one person who can block efforts by the DNR to overreach.<br />4. Fully participating in the rulemaking process, including assisting members with providing meaningful comments on proposed amendments to rules.<br />5. Establishing a record in the rulemaking process that can be used in future litigation should litigation become necessary to protect property owners’ rights.<br /><br />Please start formulating your comments to send to the DNR in connection with the upcoming rulemaking. The formal “Request for Comments” can be found by clicking here. The comment period ends at 4:30 p.m. on November 17, 2008. Comments may be made orally or in writing (we strongly urge submissions in writing) and should be directed to:<br />Tom Hovey, Public Waters Hydrologist<br />Department of Natural Resources<br />Division of Waters, Box 32<br />500 Lafayette Road<br />St. Paul, MN 55155-4032<br />Tel: 651-259-5654<br /><br />with a copy to:<br /><br />P.O.P.U.L.A.R.<br />Attn: Sam Stern<br />247 Third Avenue South<br />Minneapolis, MN 55415<br /><br />We recommend that your comments be concise, but personalized. Here are some suggestions for items to be included in your comments.<br />• Address any special needs you face in the use and enjoyment of your property.<br />• Describe your location and amount of shoreline (in order to help argue against a “one size fits all” approach and establish a basis for adjusting property taxes in the event of limitations on shoreline access).<br />• Disclose the length of time that has transpired since the installation of your private structures, especially if your structures pre-date the 2003 season.<br />• Estimate the value of your investment in lawful improvements to your property that will be impacted by new restrictive regulations.<br />• Describe any difficulties you experienced in attempting to get a special permit for your dock structure.<br />• Explain how a reduction of allowed private structures will impact your use of watercraft, your property values and the local economy.<br />• Share any special background or expertise you might have (marine store operator, realtor, dock installer, etc.) and how, based on your background or expertise, you believe regulations should be handled.<br /><br />Feel free to send an e-mail to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. (protectlakes@gmail.com) with your proposed comments if you’d like some input before sending the comment in.<br /><br />Ideally, the DNR will receive hundreds of comments from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members. Similarly, we need the Governor and our legislatures to hear loudly and clearly from our membership. We are working on an open letter to Governor Pawlenty and to the legislators that will appear here early next week. Please come back when you get a notice that there’s been a new posting and modify our open letter for your own purposes to make the statement that urgently needs to be made.<br /><br />Thank you for your support. Working together we can, in fact, make a difference as Property Owners Protecting Useful Lake Access Rights.<br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaq84USBjcXenNgYcZRkOkDCcZmhSp1LQiL52J4goHEHZvdoUjmmdgugZWLJkla4wT0_jrbDJUHYrhzdtjmpfqC5HSkp_yGrAy3iMZz5eKPQmKvZL1iaxxdfFdo3OD9AGQRKF7ctHwUhT9/s1600-h/DNR+Exhibit+2008-06-17+19-13-53.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaq84USBjcXenNgYcZRkOkDCcZmhSp1LQiL52J4goHEHZvdoUjmmdgugZWLJkla4wT0_jrbDJUHYrhzdtjmpfqC5HSkp_yGrAy3iMZz5eKPQmKvZL1iaxxdfFdo3OD9AGQRKF7ctHwUhT9/s400/DNR+Exhibit+2008-06-17+19-13-53.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5247773089009124322" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">This display was used by the DNR during its June, 2008 Open Houses discussing Shoreline Management rulemaking. The DNR felt the "dock issue" was important and related enough to include the display with the others. However, we are concerned that the decision amounted to more form than substance. Click on the image to get a larger version. You will notice that, while "docks" are mentioned and pictured, there is no clear indication that dock platforms will be a topic of discussion. Nor is there an indication that under some proposals, docks comprised of more than one length needed to reach 4 feet of water will be prohibited. Similarly, there is no indication that boatlifts or canopies will be the subject of rulemaking scrutiny. Someone not familiar with the issue might conclude that the DNR was primarily concerned with commercial facilities, piers and wharves. If this was inadvertent, it was a lost opportunity to open a real discussion around the State. If it was intentional, it highlights the concerns P.O.P.U.L.A.R. has about the ability to have lakeshore property owner rights adequately protected from being railroaded.</span></span><br /></div>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-29573568930174898282008-06-05T14:41:00.000-07:002008-06-05T15:00:47.133-07:00DNR Open House ReportHello, all. I received the following thorough memo from a POPULAR member who attended Tuesday's open house hosted by the DNR to discuss shoreline management regulations.<br /><br />Please review the information and consider attending an open house near you. The schedule is linked from the blog posted last month or available on the DNR web site. Let's continue to make our concern about DNR over-regulation known and at the forefront of their considerations.<br /><br />Here's the memo. The author requested that his name not be used. His work is greatly appreciated. <br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">MEMORANDUM<br /></div><br />Date: June 4, 2008<br />To: Samuel L. Stern. General Counsel, P.O.P.U.L.A.R.<br />From: (P.O.P.U.L.A.R. member)<br />Re: Summary of Observations during Attendance at June 3, 2008 DNR Open House for the Shoreland Rules Update Project At Minnetonka Community Center<br /><br />I attended the DNR Open House for Shoreland Rules Update Project scheduled at the Minnetonka Community Center from 6:30 – 9:00 p.m. on June 3, 2008.<br /><br />The following observations are passed along for your information.<br /><br />The handout sheet provided by the DNR upon entering the meeting room indicates:<br /><br />SHORELAND RULES OPEN HOUSE<br />MINNETONKA<br /><br />Shoreland Rules Update<br /><br />* Shoreland Rules Update - Learn about the process that will be used to develop draft rule revisions, what the existing rules cover, and what are some potential areas that could be addressed in rule revision.<br /><br />* Local Governments – Staff from various local governments in the area are available to discuss how local shoreland ordinance implement the shoreland rules.<br /><br />* Provide input on areas that you think should be addressed as part of the rules update project.<br /><br />Other Shoreland Related Projects and Efforts<br /><br />1. Shoreland Stewardship – Individual shoreland management techniques that protect water quality, habitat, and shoreland ecology.<br />2. MN Pollution Control Agency – Impaired waters and total maximum daily load activities to support the Clean Water Legacy.<br />3. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District – Blue Thumb; planting for clean water program.<br />4. Minnetonka Natural Resources – Water Quality Education<br />5. MN Pollution Control Agency – Low impact development methods for controlling stormwater.<br />6. Wright Soil & Water Conservation District – Water quality in Wright County.<br />7. Other DNR Programs – Docks, fisheries, shoreland restoration, and aquatic plant management.<br />8. University of Minnesota – Erosion Control Program<br /><br />My general impression is that the DNR is holding these Open House meetings simply to be able to say they have sought public input and comment. The DNR does not, however, seem really interested in gathering public opinions at these meetings in a truly meaningful way that would be quantifiable.<br /><br />The meeting room was set up similar to a variety of other information fairs with different zones of information around the perimeter of the room. DNR representatives were on hand and mingling with individuals or small groups of attendees to answer questions.<br /><br />There was a posterboard on an easel with a listing of topics like “stormwater runoff”, “setbacks”, “docks”, “surface water use”, and a number of other terms on it. The attendees were asked to take a strip of four adhesive-backed red dots and place the red dots by the topics that they thought should be addressed in the new shoreland regulations. This method merely gave a visual indication of what topics should be reviewed in making the new rules. This procedure, unfortunately, did not give the attendees a way to indicate what their individual position was on any of the particular issues that might be affected by the rulemaking.<br /><br />There was a separate easel with a sheet of paper on it immediately adjacent to the easel with the DNR listed topics. The blank page of paper was used for attendees to write in previously unlisted topics for consideration. When I arrived someone had already written something along the lines of “Individual rights of owners regarding the use of their own property”. This statement had a large number of red dots by it.<br /><br />I wrote in an additional comment on the sheet stating “Regulatory taking of Riparian Property Owner Rights”. It may not be that the rules that are ultimately developed rise to the level of a regulatory taking that is compensable to the riparian owner, however, I did attempt to make the point with a couple of the DNR officials whom I spoke with that some of the new restrictions under consideration sure seem like a “taking” of benefits we have enjoyed and/or had decision making control over for decades or generations.<br /><br />The Open House is not conducted in a format where there are speakers to the entire assembly or questions put to the DNR officials in an open assembly format for all attendees to hear at once. Instead, the format is done in a one-on-one or small group question and answer format. During the meeting I had separate conversations with Paul Radominski, a research scientist from the DNR office in Brainerd, and Tom Hovey, the Public Waters Permits Program Coordinator of the DNR. Tom Hovey was the individual everyone was directed to for questions about the dock regulations.<br /><br />Some of the input and concerns I attempted to convey in discussions with DNR officials included the following:<br /><br />Is there really a widespread problem that needs addressing by new shoreland regulations? I expressed a preference for keeping government regulation to a minimum and also encouraged reasonableness based upon scientific fact rather than conjecture about impacts. Riparian owners are predominantly excellent stewards of the resources because of their vested interests in their own property as well as the public water which abuts it. It would be much preferred for the DNR to promote voluntary compliance with certain recommended “best practices” or “recommended practices” by virtue of education of the public as to the benefits that could be achieved by such practices rather than the by virtue of the imposition of legal regulations which the DNR seems inadequately prepared to enforce.<br /><br />As regards the dock matter in particular I inquired of Tom Hovey as to whether he could give examples of any types of circumstances under which the DNR has actually granted a special permit for dock platforms greater than the 120 square foot platform measured separately from the access dock or 170 square foot area including the access as allowed under the DNR’s General Permit No. 2008-0401. I mentioned I had heard of several applications being submitted, including an applicant with a handicapped member in their family; however, I have not heard of any special permit requests being granted. Tom Hovey indicated that some permit applications had been withdrawn after the DNR representatives visited with the applicants about alternative ways to lay out their docks in a manner which would not require a special permit. He did indicate that if the same oversized dock layout has been used by a special permit applicant for an extended period of years that factor should noted in the application; however, he did not indicate that having what some people refer to as a “legacy dock” alone would result in a permit being issued either. Neither did he indicate that anyone had been granted a special permit.<br /><br />When Tom Hovey was asked directly about whether the DNR would be enforcing violations of the General Permit this season he . . . indicated that the more likely situation would involve one in which a neighbor made a complaint (even if anonymously made) against another neighbor about an oversized dock. Mr. Hovey indicated that in that situation the result would initially be the delivery of an information packet about the dock regulations to the offending neighbor.<br /><br />There was an abundant supply of printed literature on a variety of topics available for attendees to select at the Open House. Most of the literature appeared duplicative of the information available online at the DNR website.<br /><br />In addition to the shoreland rules information there were also a number of other informational stations relating to the topics listed under the “Other Shoreland Related Projects and Efforts” section of the handout page referenced above.<br /><br />In conclusion, if the DNR really wanted to learn where attendees at these Open Houses stand on the issues it would be possible to use any number of other commonly used techniques to gather and quantify citizen input by using written questionnaires or surveys. Do not expect the regulatory result to be based on majority or consensus views of the public. It seems clear the new draft shoreland rules that are due out about this time next year (May 2009) will reflect the DNR’s own positions rather than any democratically polled desires on John Q. Public on the subject. If you seek to provide meaningful input to the DNR it was suggested that you try to get someone on an Advisory Committee.<br /><br />N.B. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. has started the process for being included on any advisory committee established in connection with forthcoming rulemaking on private structures in public waters (e.g., docks, boatlifts, canopies, platforms).<br /><br />Please read the comment received in response to the e-mailed version of this blog. It is imperative that P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members show up in numbers that will make it clear to the D.N.R. and the administration that regulations infringing on lakeshore owners' rights will not be quietly accepted.Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-71741890482890926442008-05-21T16:17:00.000-07:002008-05-22T05:49:21.473-07:00Legislative Wisdom (?) and Accelerated Rulemaking<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcKnHrmRr5P2gJqU9CD9LbKktIDq00KvaM2kvo2Br90WF5n_hq_1aV_i8C68wEnw8Eeww0B_l2ltF9qVb7-O_5jmjSMmA2ZhaEERiA2aSFd6uCif6SYrSS3w4Yeatc6aClS0JUj5796DxG/s1600-h/Picture+1.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcKnHrmRr5P2gJqU9CD9LbKktIDq00KvaM2kvo2Br90WF5n_hq_1aV_i8C68wEnw8Eeww0B_l2ltF9qVb7-O_5jmjSMmA2ZhaEERiA2aSFd6uCif6SYrSS3w4Yeatc6aClS0JUj5796DxG/s400/Picture+1.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5202991304567135906" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The 85th Session of the Minnesota Legislature has adjourned, but not before legislators turned up the heat on Minnesotans who own lakeshore property.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Rulemaking Advocacy Practice</span></span><br /></div><span style="font-size:130%;">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. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Click </span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/shoreland_rules_update_project.html#">here</a><span style="font-weight: bold;"> for</span> a link to the D.N.R. file with a <span style="font-weight: bold;">schedule</span> of the 12 upcoming open houses taking place between June 3 and June 25.<br /><br />The <span style="font-weight: bold;">first open house</span> takes place at the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Minnetonka Community Center</span>, adjacent to City Hall, on Wednesday, <span style="font-weight: bold;">June 3rd</span>, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. The meeting in <span style="font-weight: bold;">Brainerd</span> is scheduled for <span style="font-weight: bold;">June 17th</span> in the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Northland Arboretum</span>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <span style="font-style: italic;">research</span>, both as to scientific and economic issues, <span style="font-style: italic;">publicity</span>, needed to inform everyone with lakeshore property, whether or not they own a dock platform, that restrictive rules need be opposed, and <span style="font-style: italic;">advocacy</span>, 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.<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Permit Applications</span></span><br /></div><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br />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. </span><span style="font-size:130%;">The list of area hydrologists is available by clicking <a href="http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/area_hydros.pdf">here</a>.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />However, if need be, permit applicants should contact the hydrologists area supervisor to seek a solution. Click <a href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/contacts.html">here</a> 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.<br /><br />Finally, special permit applicants should <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> 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 <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />-Sam Stern<br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAYm_zQcFFJnt8Iw3pxXZtEo7rhyKRVkvVJG6go8mwLucOfw9aCms-zBdFs_3e44LfHoX5Ls59vgnmJpmiOGrkYR_3Oe3SfZKdq5bCbpLIqHbneq8M8Y_KJW39Fm1IZHtbuS-FFv06W7s3/s1600-h/Water+Race+Horse.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAYm_zQcFFJnt8Iw3pxXZtEo7rhyKRVkvVJG6go8mwLucOfw9aCms-zBdFs_3e44LfHoX5Ls59vgnmJpmiOGrkYR_3Oe3SfZKdq5bCbpLIqHbneq8M8Y_KJW39Fm1IZHtbuS-FFv06W7s3/s400/Water+Race+Horse.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5202997059823312562" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:lucida grande;" >The race is on to regulate the public water. Be a participant!</span></span></div>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-20037529790368135972008-05-09T10:02:00.000-07:002008-05-09T10:56:24.371-07:00Season Opener<span style="font-family: lucida grande;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Goodbye to boatslips?</span></span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9D68stNEqAMxw1AggqMHt3WH20FLSbGjrMSGEjJpsK7BHGdMy-HYLbb8_ae-KPKwKNVERrPOGDI8g8Cd_BJJV0JApxdM1SMEeJWvdrcnDM4Ld7_48cJrzy8U8RYRN83RnJsyx1uFbjleT/s1600-h/Boat+in+Slip.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9D68stNEqAMxw1AggqMHt3WH20FLSbGjrMSGEjJpsK7BHGdMy-HYLbb8_ae-KPKwKNVERrPOGDI8g8Cd_BJJV0JApxdM1SMEeJWvdrcnDM4Ld7_48cJrzy8U8RYRN83RnJsyx1uFbjleT/s400/Boat+in+Slip.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5198436183366136082" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-size:130%;">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:<br />(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.?<br />(b) Do we apply for a <a href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/applications.html">special permit</a> 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?<br />(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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Official Position</span><br />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 <a href="http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/area_hydros.pdf">here</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Real World Considerations</span><br />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 <a href="http://www.mapquest.com/">www.mapquest.com</a> or <a href="http://www.google.com/maps">www.google.com/maps</a>. Be sure to include a drawing of the project with dimensions as required in Section 5 of the permit application.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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, <span style="font-style: italic;">do nothing</span>. If you are willing to have the D.N.R. dictate how much lineal footage of dock you can install, <span style="font-style: italic;">do nothing</span>. If you are willing to limit or even eliminate your use of boatlifts on your property, <span style="font-style: italic;">do nothing</span>. If you don’t need a boat canopy, or, at least, more than one boat canopy, <span style="font-style: italic;">do nothing</span>. If you don’t mind the inability to moor more than one boat at your lakeshore property, <span style="font-style: italic;">do nothing</span>. 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, <span style="font-style: italic;">do nothing</span>.<br /><br />The choice is clear. We can <span style="font-style: italic;">do nothing</span> 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 <span style="font-style: italic;">post facto</span> 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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Ask</span><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Or, we can do nothing.<br /><br />Please send your checks made payable to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. to:<br />P.O.P.U.L.A.R.<br />c/o Samuel L. Stern<br />247 Third Avenue South<br />Minneapolis, MN 55415<br /><br />Thank you for your support. Please pass on the link to this blog to interested parties.</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid2N42Jg4nb97YQ8zqujLSsdU_P4JEhbzbXduYVRplIi4puwWAdnpLxZDpnPVkT24gOSNujA2aVkDc8k5WIUrZeewIWyFp1cAkxPoSF0gKHaEOI6DpRFc4r9clgV3iKM52Ee7WkiGC4Dlb/s1600-h/Minimal+Impact.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid2N42Jg4nb97YQ8zqujLSsdU_P4JEhbzbXduYVRplIi4puwWAdnpLxZDpnPVkT24gOSNujA2aVkDc8k5WIUrZeewIWyFp1cAkxPoSF0gKHaEOI6DpRFc4r9clgV3iKM52Ee7WkiGC4Dlb/s320/Minimal+Impact.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5198436672992407842" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family: lucida grande;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;"> "Minimal Impact" as envisioned by opponents of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.</span></span></div>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-16541516008992632302008-04-28T00:07:00.000-07:002008-04-28T00:43:12.552-07:00Special Permit Applications: Why Comply?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijK_n7DD1sDQuNNGWsz8-IE0lrxIkgcAZ2afld4J8qjBd-AHgoM8IrtKTli1PcJQ_g6sJV_pACOJYWrn7TsqLaFKo5RnR3AGx4M_ry2W6NfU9gTBcvtv4RPQbBm4CapHz8jkK-ENarNO4w/s1600-h/Gull+Sailboat.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijK_n7DD1sDQuNNGWsz8-IE0lrxIkgcAZ2afld4J8qjBd-AHgoM8IrtKTli1PcJQ_g6sJV_pACOJYWrn7TsqLaFKo5RnR3AGx4M_ry2W6NfU9gTBcvtv4RPQbBm4CapHz8jkK-ENarNO4w/s400/Gull+Sailboat.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194197335392054226" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members should watch their e-mail on Monday, April 28th for a discussion of the pros and cons of applying for a special permit for their dock platform if it does not fall within the scope of the DNR's 2008 General Permit. Please forward the e-mail on to everyone on your list who has a need to know but has not asked to get P.O.P.U.L.A.R. mail directly.<br /><br />As an update in the meantime, I can report that I met directly with Governor Pawlenty last week. The Governor is aware of the considerable concern P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members have regarding D.N.R. regulations. We discussed both the issue of dock platform size and proposed regulations by Senator Mary Olson's supporters that would enforce the limited "aquatic impact area" written into the 2008 General Permit and restrict dockage, boat lifts, canopies and, ultimately, watercraft. I am not going to speak for the Governor, but MY sense from our conversation is that he seeks to strike a balance between concern for the health of the public waters and concern for the investment Minnesotans have made in their lakeshore properties, the health of the economy dependent on businesses that support lakeshore owners' use and enjoyment of their properties and maintaining a quality of life that Minnesotans have pursued on the lakes for decades.<br /><br />Remember, if you want to be added to the mailing list, send an e-mail to protectlakes@gmail.com and you'll be added.<br /><br />We are waiting to hear from the D.N.R. on how they intend to handle our first special permit application from a "legacy dock" owner. As soon as we have a better handle on the similarities, or differences, between the D.N.R.'s "talk" and their "walk", I'll post with more information. In the meantime, read the April 28th e-mail when it hits your e-mailbox.<br /><br />Think Spring!!</span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-21258248688669731152008-04-07T12:35:00.000-07:002008-04-07T14:12:21.236-07:002008 Dock Season Approaches: Time to Wake the Sleeping Dogs<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja33W8VG509Z7YK1HG5pyAo0FavG0EhUhYypEhxcKVAoJ9WXFb9lzUmABsQbTIFeJ1Xld6r1ahVH5cEd8AyQUXZAiBbqGF3TMcgLayOm5zLuVaIt_q18YLhQn_h24i_GL3Av9wHcP4JxyX/s1600-h/Murphy+58.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja33W8VG509Z7YK1HG5pyAo0FavG0EhUhYypEhxcKVAoJ9WXFb9lzUmABsQbTIFeJ1Xld6r1ahVH5cEd8AyQUXZAiBbqGF3TMcgLayOm5zLuVaIt_q18YLhQn_h24i_GL3Av9wHcP4JxyX/s400/Murphy+58.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5186589784301635762" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">After an admittedly too long hiatus, it is time to address a number of pressing issues facing P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members as the public’s ice becomes the public’s water once again.<br /><br />Over the past several weeks, since writing about my testimony before the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, I’ve been monitoring Senator Mary Olson’s legislation. I’ve also had the opportunity to meet again with Assistant Commissioner Larry Kramka from the D.N.R. to get a feel for what lakeshore property owners can expect from the D.N.R. this season with respect to dock platforms. Finally, I commenced communications with the D.N.R. official overseeing shoreline management rulemaking to make sure that if Sen. Olson’s bill passes, and rulemaking impacting P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members’ interests is commenced in connection with existing shoreline management rulemaking, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. would have a seat at the table and an opportunity to shape future regulations. We joined the D.N.R. in opposing combining shoreline management and public waters rulemaking. As of this writing, those efforts have proven successful. As noted below, there will be no rush to judgment on new rules governing lakeshore property owners’ use and enjoyment of their lakeshore.<br /><br />One thing appears certain: many of our legislators still lack a clear understanding of the disastrous impact on Minnesota’s economy, property values, and way of life that is sure to result if Senator Mary Olson’s supporters succeed in controlling future rulemaking. Environmental extremists, like “aquatic biologist” Dann Siems, who won’t tolerate even the restrictive 2008 general permit criteria for dock platforms, are determined to turn the entire state into a quasi-BWCA. Mr. Siems harps incessantly on the need to return to the concept of allowing no more than “minimal impact” on Minnesota’s lakes by humans. According to one of his colleagues on the D.N.R.’s 2007 Dock Advisory Committee, Mr. Siems’ idea of minimal impact is one 3 foot by 10 foot dock section per lake lot. While I haven’t personally heard him admit to such a restrictive view, my sense from his public comments and his blog is that this is closer to the truth than our legislators are aware.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >This is no longer about the size of dock platforms. </span><span style="font-size:130%;">Upcoming rulemaking will address a wide range of issues surrounding private structures on public waters, including the number and size of docks, the exclusion of boat lifts, the elimination of boat slip canopies and, ultimately, the number of boats lakeshore property owners are allowed to keep on the public waters. Mr. Siems and his cohorts are determined to mandate enforcement of the Aquatic Impact Area (“AIA”) now merely suggested in the 2008 General Permit. Under the AIA, any intrusion on more than 50% of the length of a lot owner’s shoreline, up to a maximum of 100 feet of access, will be illegal. For example, lakeshore property owners with 60 feet of shoreline will be allowed to “impact” only 30 feet. Any aquatic activities, including swim beaches, dock configuration, mooring, accessory (i.e., boatlift) installation will all need to occur/exist within the 30 feet width. Property owners with 200 feet of shoreline will have to limit their access to the same 50 feet as allowed to a property owner with 100 feet of shoreline, notwithstanding the premium in taxes assessed for the remaining, unusable, 150 feet of shoreline.<br /><br />Accepting for the moment that Governor Pawlenty and our legislators are apparently willing to abdicate responsibility for protecting the interests (i.) of lakeshore property owners and (b.) of small business owners whose ability to sustain payrolls and support the economy is dependent on maintaining reasonable regulation of the lakes, it is up to P.O.P.U.L.A. R. to make absolutely certain that rulemaking takes into account our legitimate interests as stewards of the public waters. The days of covert rulemaking that pays mere lip service to the public’s right to input are history if, and only if, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are willing to unite and support a loud and clear opposition to any additional infringement of our use and enjoyment of our lakeshore property.<br /><br />I apologize for the lengthy introduction. However, after a few weeks off the public soapbox, it is important to make it very clear what P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are facing. Speaking of “public”, this blog is now being read by a number of persons opposed to P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s agenda. While I welcome converts to our cause, I need to exercise caution in discussing strategies. The governing board structure being implemented to actively pursue P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s goals, discussed below, will facilitate our ability to operate with some modicum of discretion in broadcasting our plans.<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Where We Are in the Process</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />The public pressure brought about by P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s advocacy, including the hundreds of communications generated by P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members, has resulted in significant concessions by the D.N.R. on how dock platforms will be handled pending the promulgation of new rules. While not perfect, I believe we have a solution that will be workable for most members.<br /><br />The D.N.R. is unwilling to modify <a href="http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/general_permit_2008-0401_platform.pdf">General Permit 2008-0401</a> to include dock platforms larger than 120 square feet (170 square feet including the last dock extension). However, Assistant Commissioner Larry Kramka has assured me that lakeshore owners whose platform configuration does not fall under the protection of General Permit 2008-0401 and who, under existing regulations, apply for a special permit will receive a meaningful review of the permit in light of the lakeshore owner’s particular situation. More significantly, Assistant Commissioner Kramka agreed that property owners whose dock platform configurations pre-date the 2004 boating season (when the new regulations first went into effect) can point to that fact to justify the issuance of a special permit and that the D.N.R. will be inclined to look favorably on that fact. Finally, we were assured that the decision on whether or not to issue a permit will be reviewed at upper levels of D.N.R. management, not at the local level as before. If it turns out that slightly increasing the total platform size allowed under General Permit 2008-0401 to up to 250 square feet will eliminate the need for most of the special permit applications, the D.N.R. will consider it, based on actual experience, since they do not want to be in the permitting business.<br /><br />If adhered to, particularly as it relates to “legacy docks”, this compromise should address most P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members’ concerns. Other issues that will impact the availability of special permits include matters of safety and lakeshore geography.<br /><br />Permits are available online. Click <a href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/applications.html">here</a> to be directed to the D.N.R.’s website to obtain a permit form. For general information about the need for a permit, click <a href="http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/permits/water/needpermit.html">here</a>.<br /><br />The uproar that developed once dock platforms replaced invasive species, reckless boating, overcrowding, over-fishing and receding shorelines as the D.N.R.’s main concern make it clear that the Department will eventually proceed with new rulemaking. Senator Mary Olson had proposed that the rulemaking take place in conjunction with the shoreline management rulemaking approved last year and commenced in January. Mindful of the problem’s P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s member had had in the past with insufficient public input into the rulemaking process, I opposed the fast-track approach in my testimony before the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee last month. I followed it up with a letter to the State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee, which reviews proposed legislation involving rulemaking (excerpted here):</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">I testified before the Environment and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday and expressed our concern that any rulemaking undertaken be broad enough in scope and duration to address all of the scientific, social and economic issues raised by efforts to limit lakeshore owners’ access. While many have characterized this as a debate over the size of dock platforms, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are even more concerned by the public pronouncements of supporters of S.F. 3237 that suggest that the size and number of allowed boats, boat slips, docks and accessories be severely reduced.<br /><br /></span> <span style="font-style: italic;">For this reason, it is critical that the process for any new rulemaking on structures in public waters not be curtailed in any way. For this reason, too, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. joins with the DNR in opposing S.F. 3237 as passed out of Environment and Natural Resources. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. believes that rulemaking undertaken in conjunction with ongoing shoreline management rule-making will create an “apples and oranges” situation, trying to address both matters within the jurisdiction of local communities (shoreline management) and the DNR (public waters). Moreover, the highly controversial nature of public water rulemaking, with its potential for resulting in a taking of property rights, would either drain limited resources from shoreline management rulemaking hearings or find the DNR without sufficient financial and personnel wherewithal to provide adequate consideration of the many issues associated with the public waters.</span><br /></div><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Through our efforts and the supporting testimony of the D.N.R., S.F. 3813, the Omnibus Appropriations bill, incorporated Senator Olson’s original bill in the following form (Article 10, Section 17):<br /><br />105.5 Sec. 17. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES RULEMAKING<br />105.6 REQUIRED; STRUCTURES IN PUBLIC WATERS.<br />105.7 By June 30, 2011, the commissioner of natural resources shall update rules on<br />105.8 structures that are allowed in public waters and the permit requirements for those<br />105.9 structures under Minnesota Rules, chapter 6115. The Department of Natural Resources<br />105.10 general permit no. 2008-0401 expires on the effective date of the updated rules.<br />105.11 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.<br /><br />The obligation to hold rulemaking in conjunction with shoreline management rulemaking has been removed and the D.N.R. was given until June 30, 2011 to adopt new rules. There is no similar language in any House legislation. Therefore, the issue will need to be worked out in a conference committee and we can’t be sure the mandate to fast track public waters rulemaking won’t be reinserted into the final bill. Protecting P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members’ interests in this area is on the to-do list described below.<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Where We Need to Be</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />Assuming that rulemaking will not take place until 2009-2010, we have time to organize to make sure that the effectively covert manner in which the 2003 rules were adopted is not repeated. It’s ironic that no one seems happy with the 2003 rules. From P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s point of view, the 2003 rules ignored historic uses of docks to facilitate use and enjoyment of lakeshore and were acceptable only so long as they were ignored by the D.N.R. and other’s charged with overseeing compliance with the regulations. From Dann Siems and colleagues’ point of view, the 2003 regulations are too liberal since they do nothing to limit the overall impact lakeshore owners have on the public waters and do not restrict overall dock linear footage or the permissible number of boats, boatlifts, canopies and other accessories or the amount of lakeshore property owners are allowed to impact. From the D.N.R.’s point of view, the regulations do not achieve the goal they sought, i.e., not being responsible for issuing thousands of permits to property owners installing docks.<br /><br />Up until now, a couple of lakeshore owners have spent $17,000 funding P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s efforts to push back the D.N.R. and opponents of dock platforms. In order to effectively address the issues of forthcoming rulemaking, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. needs to prepare to influence each of the issues that will be subject to regulation under the guise of controlling public structures on public waters. Unfortunately, this is an expensive process since there is a critical need to effectively communicate the issues to hundreds of thousands of lakeshore owners statewide. In addition to funding ongoing lobbying efforts, we need to<br />a. organize formally as a non-profit;<br />b. fund research into the science of aquatic impact;<br />c. fund research into the economic impact of any proposed restrictions, including the impact on commerce and on property values;<br />d. develop a uniform process for challenging property tax assessments on real estate devalued by any effective taking;<br />e. fund a public relations campaign to make it clear to ALL lakeshore property owners, on a regular and repeated basis, that this is not merely a discussion of dock platform size and that significant property rights previously taken for granted are at risk;<br />f. establish an advisory board of governors to oversee and guide the direction of the organization and approve expenditures on its behalf;<br />g. establish town meetings for P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members around the State in order to make sure the message is being disseminated and that valuable input is being received; and<br />h. develop means, through voter awareness and, potentially, a Political Action Committee, to educate elected officials about the true consequences of the seemingly politically safe support for smaller dock platforms.<br /><br />To get things going, persons interested in serving on a board of governors should send me an e-mail to that effect, including information that would be helpful in making a decision. We would like to mount a billboard campaign as soon as possible to raise general awareness, particularly among lakeshore owners who think that they’re safe because they don’t have a dock platform. We have a preliminary estimate from a public relations firm that outlines a plan of action between now and mid-summer. The plan includes advertising, printing, billboards, rallies, and other means of creating public awareness. All told, we can easily spend $100,000 just on the public relations efforts. Finally, we expect to have our first gathering on Gull Lake early this summer to review our progress and identify future needs.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >A gratifying number of you have already inquired about supporting P.O.P.U.L.A.R. financially. Today, you get your wish.</span><span style="font-size:130%;"> In order to achieve our goals, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are asked to contribute to support our ongoing efforts. There is no fixed amount being requested. However, it appears that it will require a six figure commitment to adequately fund all necessary efforts and costs that will be incurred through the end of rulemaking in 2010. This is separate from any contributions to a PAC, should one be established. If everyone were to contribute $2-5 per foot of shoreline owned, we would be well on our way to meeting the needs of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s membership and carrying their message to our public servants. Checks can be made out to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. or to Stern & Associates P.L.L.C. Trust Account. The donations will </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >not</span><span style="font-size:130%;"> be tax deductible as a charitable contribution. Consult your accountant as to deductibility as a business expense where appropriate.<br /><br />Please contact me with any questions. E-mail (pick one: samuel.stern@gmail.com, sstern@mplslaw.com, or protectlakes@gmail.com) works best. However, as of April 15th, I am returning to the full-time practice of law, including governmental relations. I will have a new office address and checks and correspondence should be sent there instead of the Independence address:<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R.<br />c/o Samuel L. Stern<br />Stern & Associates P.L.L.C.<br />247 Third Avenue South<br />Minneapolis, MN 55415<br />Tel: 612-333-0102<br />Fax: 763-201-7899<br /></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br />In the meantime, please let your legislators know that you strongly urge them to retain the language quoted above in S.F. 3813 (Article 10, Section 17) and that any rulemaking on structures in the public waters needs to be undertaken independently of other issues. The D.N.R. has stated that it will be able to absorb the costs of public waters rulemaking without any separate appropriation if allowed to wait until the next biennium. Therefore, if nothing else, it’s fiscally responsible to support the language in S.F. 3813. Write, e-mail or call their offices. As always, keep it accurate and keep it clean. Here's the link to information on contacting your representative: <a href="http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/Districtfinder.asp">http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/Districtfinder.asp</a><br /><br />Thanks for your patience and support.<br /><br />P.S. to Dann Seims regarding your comment about my “<a href="http://beltramiswcd.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-03-18T09%3A53%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=7">ignorant arrogance</a>”: sticks and stones, Pal.</span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-80077530517582233822008-03-12T20:09:00.000-07:002008-03-12T20:45:08.914-07:00Dock Bill Hearing In Senate Committee<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhffyis8onjRs6xESExTKM5mLIwaOod6qTUxKg-Zs-UrLHyOhTPu7G5i-PdvOhKMwjfpszqzRhPgE2QeZ4ll3Fp5QCAy7I6IpnFMxsOt5lJqivst2_pWsFa0HkyX_4Zud0-vACV_Gij0Dl9/s1600-h/2006+POLO+CLASSIC++480.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhffyis8onjRs6xESExTKM5mLIwaOod6qTUxKg-Zs-UrLHyOhTPu7G5i-PdvOhKMwjfpszqzRhPgE2QeZ4ll3Fp5QCAy7I6IpnFMxsOt5lJqivst2_pWsFa0HkyX_4Zud0-vACV_Gij0Dl9/s400/2006+POLO+CLASSIC++480.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5177065665844128466" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I had the opportunity to testify today before the Minnesota Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Senator Mary Olson's legislation discussed in yesterday's blog received a hearing. Senator Olson, Dann Siems and two other witnesses testified in favor of SF 3237 which would mandate rulemaking on structures in public waters (docks, dock platforms, boat lifts, canopies, etc.) and terminate the 2008 special permit before the start of the 2009 season. I testified when they were done but before the DNR representative was raked over the coals for allowing the whole problem to get out of hand by adopting and then ignoring regulations. As I sat listening to Senator Olson and Mr. Siems hold forth on the damage to the lakes' ecosystems visited upon the waters by my constituents, I felt like the little white ball in the photo above. Then I remembered, "we're right", and I became the mallet.<br /><br />At the outset of her testimony, Senator Olson asked that her bill be amended to eliminate separate rulemaking and incorporate the required rulemaking into existing studies of shoreline management. The DNR was not happy with the amendment, contending that it would delay the shoreline management rulemaking and leave the DNR without sufficient funds to complete both. The committee chair, Sen. Chaudray, told the DNR representative that the $1 million allocation received last year for shoreline management rulemaking should be enough. The committee passed the bill out to the Local Government committee to deal with the rulemaking issue. There has been no action in the House.<br /><br />When it was my turn to speak, before I got into my prepared remarks, I indicated that P.O.P.U.L.A.R. was concerned that rulemaking addressing our issues have enough time to fully cover the scope of the problem. I advised against being rushed or not adequately notifying the public as had been the case before. I believe the committee members understood my concern, especially as there was general agreement between me and Senator Olson that there had been a lack of real notice during the last go around. I was assured that shoreline management rulemaking had just started, was advised to get in touch with Public Waters at DNR (see you soon, Tom Hovey), and told that there was probably at least another 18 months to the process. If Senator Olson's bill passes as amended, it appears that we'll have time to gear up. I have a follow-up meeting with Assistant Commissioner Larry Kramka tomorrow to try to mitigate the impact of the 2008 General Permit. I'll be discussing this rulemaking issue with him when we meet.<br /><br />My prepared remarks appear below. I'm including the written materials submitted in order to maintain a record on this blog of what was turned over to the committee today. If you've been reading the blog, you don't need to reread the submissions as they were all taken from earlier postings by me and by individuals leaving comments.<br /><br />I'll write more after meeting with the DNR on Thursday. Several of you have asked about contributing to the cause to relieve the burden taken on by two P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members to pay for our efforts. I'll have some thoughts on that in my next blog as we are facing a protracted struggle to prevent dock platform opponents from legislating lakeshores back to virginity. Besides paying for my services, we may need to retain local counsel to challenge implementation of the General Permit and we'll definitely need to retain the services of someone to do scientific research to counter our adversaries. More on this tomorrow.<br /><br />In the meantime, here are my prepared remarks:<br /><br />Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify today regarding Senate File 3237, which calls for rulemaking by the DNR to regulate structures in public waters.<br /><br />My name is Sam Stern. I am an attorney representing an association of Property Owners Protecting Useful Lake Access Rights, or “P.O.P.U.L.A.R.” for short.<br /><br />A little more than two months ago, I was asked by a client who owns lakeshore property to investigate pending DNR rules impacting docks and platforms. Recommendations of the DNR’s Dock Advisory Committee were anticipated by mid-January and my client and a few of his fellow lakeshore owners, who had all learned of the work of the Dock Advisory Committee after its public comment period was closed, were concerned about the impact of additional rule-making on their use and enjoyment of the public waters. Each of this handful of individuals had invested in dock structures long before the current regulations were implemented for the 2003 season. Each lakeshore property owner’s structure exceeded the 8-foot wide limitation of the subsequently adopted regulation. Having been clueless during the 2002 rule-making process and behind the curve with respect to the DNR’s public discussions in 2007, my client and his colleagues directed me to protect their interests.<br /><br />Determined not to be overlooked again, like-minded lakeshore property owners, who, not incidentally, take their responsibilities as stewards of the public waters extremely seriously, have formed P.O.P.U.L.A.R. and are committed to assuring that any additional regulation of their use and enjoyment of the public waters is actually needed, avoids a “one size fits all” implementation across a plethora of geographic and environmental lakeshore configurations, recognizes historical uses of lakeshore property that often span multiple generations without degrading the public’s enjoyment of the lake, recognizes the importance of the marine and dock industries in Minnesota and the threats posed by unnecessarily restrictive regulation, acknowledges the economic impact enjoyed and relied upon by lakeshore jurisdictions as a result of the decision to allow development of lakeshore property in exchange for premium rates of taxation, weighs the benefits afforded shoreline by the utilization of docks, platforms and boatlifts, is based on sound scientific principles that do not measure aquatic impact against the assumption that the shoreline is otherwise undeveloped, and can be universally enforced consistent with Constitutional assurances of equal protection.<br /><br />Membership in P.O.P.U.L.A.R. is easy. Send an e-mail to protectlakes@gmail.com and ask to be put on the mailing list. Since early January, more than 250 Minnesotans have requested to be put on the P.O.P.U.L.A.R. mailing list. Many of the e-mail recipients forward communications to members of lake associations, giving P.O.P.U.L.A.R. an even wider audience. For example, since February 7th, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members have been able to keep track of our efforts on P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s blog, found at http://protectlakes.blogspot.com. As of last night, in a little over a month, the blog had received 2,125 visits from 950 unique visitors.<br /><br />I apologize for this long-winded background. However, it is important for the Committee to understand that this is an issue that cuts across socio-economic and partisan lines and is not being asserted by a few wealthy despoilers of the environment. Proponents of increased DNR regulations suggesting otherwise are engaging in rhetorical sleight of hand designed to mask the generally unacceptable consequences of their agenda. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. is not merely concerned with the size of allowed dock platforms. The association has grave reservations about the outcome of further rushed rule-making.<br /><br />The “aquatic impact area” incorporated into the DNR’s 2008 General Permit, albeit on a discretionary basis, signals the direction unimpeded new regulations would lead. A lakeshore property owner’s entire impact on the public waters is limited under the AIA to the lesser of 50 feet or one half the length of their shoreline. In other words, someone with 200 feet of shoreline is allowed the same 50-foot impact as someone with 100 feet of shoreline. The owner of a typical 60-foot shoreline lot would be allowed to impact 30 feet. Given the 8-foot width allowed for docks, and assuming ownership of a 10-foot wide pontoon boat, the owner of a typical 60-foot shoreline lot would be hard pressed to safely utilize the balance of his or her impact area for a swimming beach and might or might not be able to use existing accessory structures, like a boat lift.<br /><br />If the Committee believes more than 2,000 visits to a new blog in a month is impressive, imagine the response that will be generated when a couple hundred thousand lakeshore owners are told to reduce the length of their docks, the number of their watercraft, and the use of accessories like boat lifts or canopies. Consider the economic impact on a vital marine industry faced with regulatory impediments to the sale of additional watercraft.<br /><br />P.O.P.U.L.A.R. believes that Senate File 3237 should be amended in two ways. First, it should give the DNR at least three years to undertake meaningful scientific and economic studies to determine the impact of additional regulation on public waters and the public, a group that includes lakeshore property owners. Forcing rule-making within a year on an agency that already determined it did not have the finances or personnel to follow the recommendations of its Dock Advisory Committee and engage in rule-making this year will only lead to a hurried and publicly unacceptable outcome.<br /><br />Second, the legislature should mandate that any new rule-making by the DNR that limits the use and enjoyment of lakeshore property should provide for:<br />a. “legacy docks”, initially installed prior to the 2003 season, up to the size of the dock last installed prior to 2008;<br />b. allowance of dock platforms of 200 square feet, exclusive of the last dock extension, thereby enabling lakeshore property owners to utilize either 4 foot or 5 foot wide dock sections (i.e., five 4’x10’ or four 5’x10’ sections);<br />c. issuance of permits to persons who installed non-compliant docks between 2003 to 2008, up to the size of the dock last installed prior to 2008, where specific needs criteria relating to safety, lake access or shoreline configuration are met;<br />d. abatement of property taxes to the extent limitations on the amount of usable shoreline are imposed, determined by applying the same formula to the amount of abandoned shoreline previously used by the relevant tax assessor to impose an enhanced valuation for tax purposes on the same linear footage; and<br />e. compensation for rendering currently legal dock configurations obsolete.<br /><br />I recognize that some of these suggestions might seem a little radical. From a lakeshore property owner’s point of view, they are no more radical than the suggestion that the State has the right to involuntarily deprive the property owner of the use and enjoyment of their lakeshore after years (or decades) of quiet enjoyment, good aquatic stewardship and no discernable negative impact.<br /><br />Cognizant of the Committee’s limited time for testimony, and with the Chair’s permission, I would like to augment my testimony with written submissions, consisting of correspondence received from, and blog comments posted by, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members, who, more eloquently than I, make their case for limited government intrusion. In addition, I am including excerpts from P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s blog that outline our position on the issues and respond to our opponents’ concerns. Please note that the anonymous nature of the blog comments was necessitated by a combination of the fear of retribution for acknowledged non-compliance and the technology behind the publication of the blog that makes anonymity the least onerous means of posting a comment.<br /><br />Thank you for your consideration of the viewpoint of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ACCOMPANYING THE TESTIMONY OF </span></span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">SAMUEL L. STERN, GENERAL COUNSEL,</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">PROPERTY OWNERS PROTECTING USEFUL LAKE ACCESS RIGHTS</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">(P.O.P.U.L.A.R.)</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span><br /></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">P.O.P.U.L.A.R. Blog, February 7, 2008 (excerpts):<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />We have been highlighting the following points:<br />1. It ain't broke; don't fix it.<br />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.<br />2. It does not make sense to impose the same regulations for all lakes.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />6. Lakeshore property owners stand to lose thousands of dollars on obsolete dock sections if the 2008 General Permit is enforced.<br />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.<br />8. Property taxes are based on the length of shoreline owned. If the DNR is allowed to tell someone with 200 feet of shoreline that he or she can have no greater use than the neighbor with 100 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.<br />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.<br /><br />“2008 General Permit for Dock Platforms Issued”, February 9, 2008 (excerpts):<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Here are copies of the correspondence circulated from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. on January 28, 2008:<br /><br />Executive Summary<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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!<br /><br />January 28, 2008 Letter to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. Members<br />Dear P.O.P.U.L.A.R. Supporters and Other Interested Parties:<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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:<br />"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)<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />Meeting with the DNR<br />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.<br /><br />The wide range of issues Mr. Hovey and I discussed during our meeting are summarized below.<br />Aquatic Impact Area<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />Dock Platform Size<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Enforcement<br />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.<br /><br />Need for Regulation/Grandfathering<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Property Taxes<br />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.<br />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 foot 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.<br /><br />Tailoring Regulations<br />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.<br /><br />Additional Rulemaking<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Call to Action</span><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />To be a part of this movement, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. needs you to:<br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• 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.<br /><br />• Watch for future communications from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. regarding<br />• the drafting of legislation supporting our position and be prepared to assist with testimony regarding your particular circumstances before the legislature,<br />• 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,<br />• organizational meetings to better focus our activities and identify goals to be pursued,<br />• the establishment of a political action committee to encourage public servants to respond to P.O.P.U.L.A.R.’s concerns, and<br />• other matters of interest to persons concerned about the DNR’s activities.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">“Calling All Evil Doers”, February 21, 2008 (excerpts):</span><br /><br />It's confession time.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />Dann Siems, 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:<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Dann Siems, 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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):<br /><br />"These projects will not require permits from the DNR provided all listed conditions are met.<br />Project Restrictions<br />. . .<br />Seasonal Docks and Floating Structures<br />•Removed from water on a seasonal basis (before winter freeze-up)<br />•All components removable form lake or stream bed by nonmechanized means<br />•Will not be a hazard to navigation or endanger public health and safety<br />•Site is not a posted fish spawning area<br />•Will not include fuel handling or sewage facilities<br />•Is not used or intended to be used for human habitation, as a boathouse or as a marina<br />•Allows for free flow of water beneath it"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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?"<br /><br /><br />“Strib Weighs In”, February 25, 2008:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Siems next provided the Strib with a history lesson and a bit of sleight of hand that the reporter did not pick up on:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Blog Comments and e-Mails from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. Members:<br /><br />We have had a cabin on Gull Lake for over 50 years. Per the new ordinance, it appears that we have had a non-compliance dock since the early 60's. At the end of our dock, we have a small 10' x 20' platform which we enjoy immensely. The platform serves many purposes; it serves as a barrier to the swimming area to protect my grand children from boating traffic and it serves as a place to load unload people from our 25 foot pontoon boat and/or a place for visitors to dock their boat. It's a great place to entertain, swim, fish, sit and it appears to be a haven for fish. We have coffee in the morning and a glass of wine at night on our platform. This platform is an integral part of our lake home...I'd like to increase this platform to 10' x 25', not make it smallerI believe that the DNR needs to do some research and get lake owner's input before passing these trivial policies. Let's focus our energy and taxpayer dollars on items such as milfoil, zebra mussels, water pollution clarity, boating safety, etc.<br /><br />In reading this blog and learning more of the process that got this issue to where it is now and the political opposition that has appeared from Senator Mary Olsen, I wonder what it is that has got those like her and the DNR so fired up. This was not an issue or a problem and I had not even heard a rumbling about it. Regardless it is an issue now and lakeshore owners are being made out to be bad guys. If those on the lakes think this is the only issue they will be mistaken. After docks will come the # of boat allowed and the use restrictions. I used to love Minnesota. There are other options.<br /><br />Sam Gene (Holderman, Dock Advisory Committee member), <br />You gentlemen have put time in and your comments are so well taken. I wish I could relate my thoughts so well. I support you 100% and could not agree more with your view of the rhetoric form the environmental view who takes the non issues and characterize the issue as...... Party Platforms, Dinner Parties, Super-sized, wealthy lakeshore owners, ruins the appearance of lakeshore and caving in to the well heeled. <br />Gene, you stated it so well. The enviros resort to labeling and class warfare because the science and the math just don't make their case.<br />Thanks Guys .... Bruce Larson<br /><br />To those of you that are frustrated with this stage in the process you can not give up or throw in the towel. The reason we have derelicts like Senator Olson and Dann Siems in our government is because people don't pay attention. We should hold ourselves to higher standard than Senator Olson and Mr Siems do and keep working so our voice can be heard. This is more than docks, and that is why the article was written like it was. Great comments Gene and Keep up the good work Sam!<br /><br />More proof that lake property owners are better stewards of the lake:"...this was the first year I can remember that there was NOT any attempt to barricade the access to Round Lake...for the ice fishing tournament. Consequently, there were 200-250 vehicles parked on the ice. The drippings and trash from these vehicles isn’t doing the lake and shoreline any good.<br /><br />Regarding the comment that legislators may not help because some are trying to out "green" themselves-then folks ought to remember them in this election year. This is an important issue which effects not only our family use of the lake but also the value of Minnesota lakeshore. The powers to be should resolve this issue before the ice goes out !<br /><br />It appears that progress was made in that meeting in-between. Your thorough notes are reassuring, I almost felt like I was there. I don't understand how the 170 square foot limit was arrived at. It isn't evenly divisible with a lot of docks between 4 and 5 feet wide. I guess they initially thought the 8' rule fair, but the marketplace must not have been part of the equation. My perception is that the DNR is determined for all to adhere (eventually) to that 8' maximum. All the posturing looks like they will only temporarily be lenient. I hope I'm wrong, but since people are upset, that could be one of the reasons for it. That, and the sudden enforcement of regulations on docks that had been there for years that they never objected to before (just curious as to why 12 people were cited, not given a warning, and not everyone treated equally?). If I didn't have a LOT of respect for the DNR and the tough job they have to do, I wouldn't feel so ill-served by what has happened. Wasn't that thoughtful of Senator Olson to credit to us the idea to turn potentially unusable dock sections into lakeshore decking?? :( What a negative attitude for the Senator to take, like we are deliberately out to make trouble. Sorry to disappoint you, Senator, but that's not our idea of a solution. The more accurate term of "legacy dock" is right where we find ourselves. I'd be glad to provide photos to be granted a permanent understanding. I would like some assurance that I won't be indicted if I do that, as prosecuting County Attorney's offices are on record as ready to file. I'm encouraged that Mr. Kramka is conveying these concerns to the policy makers, and looking for it to make sense to all of us. You expressed our point of view very well, Mr. Stern.<br /><br />I would like to express my view that docks that are included in these new regulations are not a nuisance, infringement of the rights of others, or a priority in the scheme of things involving our lakes. We have not heard any of our neighbors on the lakes complain about dock size. The quality of water, excess speed and size of boats, milfoil problems are of much more importance to the quality of our lakes. Jan Bob De Vries<br /><br />For a number of reasons, I am not in favor of the proposed restrictions on dock size. For example, many cabin owners do not have a flat or sunny area of their property to sit near the lake, so a dock provides a such an area. We spend 80 percent of our day on our dock, which needs to be big enough for a group of people to enjoy. Also, I've never heard anyone talk about larger docks being eyesores. And as long as one's neighbor doesn't have a problem with the positioning of your dock, I fail to see any problem caused by such docks. Legislators should instead spend our tax dollars addressing "real problems" like the waves of huge, super-noisy speedboats eroding the shoreline.<br /><br />Okay, I just re-read this article and the comments. Please stress to anyone who will listen that getting older people with physical limitations and families with more than two small children in and out of a boat is a real challenge unless there is a sufficiently-sized dock platform. Who decided on the current size, and what did they base it on? I can't afford to replace my dock with one 8' wide (I can barely lift the 5' decking with help every spring and fall, it's a chore to put out and take in every year).You need to allow for a walker or a wheelchair, and/or usually two extra people to accomplish this, and more help if the older person is too proud to use either. And managing small children is a little more difficult than herding cats. Some are afraid. A small area makes them more so. Reducing the size of a platform from the first blanket permit is such a shame. I can't understand why you would deprive the very young and the very old of the opportunity for a first or a last memory. Weren't you ever young? Don't you hope people make allowances for you if you are ever disabled? Put yourself in their place. Make necessary changes to these regulations so that the DNR won't be at odds with everyone who purchased these docks. If the dock companies aren't at fault for selling them as an improvement, why should we be required to pay more to use them as such? My dock was designed specifically to accommodate these needs.<br /><br />There is a 75 foot elevation along the south shore of Big Trout with little or no horizontal landing area at the bottom. Therefore, weather permitting, my family spends 95% percent of it’s time on our dock. If we are forced to decrease the size, it will play a roll in diminishing the overall enjoyment of the property and most likely impact property values as word gets around. The large docks along the south shore of Trout play a major roll in what makes the location attractive. In closing, the docks along the south shore of Trout add to the overall ambience of the shoreline. I love to boat by in the summer and observe the colorful flower pots. There are exceptions to every rule and to make a blanket statement without considering each individual property is wrong. There is a huge difference between a 1200 acre lake and a 300 acre lake. The DNR needs to think this one through. Thank you P.O.P.U.L.A.R<br /><br />We own an expensive and beautiful home on Lower Whitefish and 5-6 years ago invested in a top shelf dock that included a platform that exceeds the dimensions now limited by the DNR. The reason for the platform is because we live on the sands banks with steep elevation, no room for beach area, and the need for at least 100ft of access dock to maintain a water level of at least 4-5 feet at the end of the dock for swimming and speed boat and fishing boat lifts. All homeowners have this problem on our end of the lake. Like many others, the platform becomes the major gathering point to enjoy the lake for our children and friends who come to join us for extended weekends. In addition we have handicapped friends who also enjoy the beauty of the lake country and the larger platform allows all of us the opportunity to be on the dock together and enjoy watching the children swim and the boats that pass by. Much more time is spent on the platform than out in the boats during the summer. Let’s not forget that we live in Minnesota and only have 4 months to really enjoy the water access to the lake(Memorial Day to Labor Day). Our family has had a Brainerd area lake home for over 30 years, and I can not remember ever getting the docks in much before Memorial Day and always out by mid –Sept. If the DNR wants to proceed along this line then at a minimum a property owner who has made the investment in a dock and a platform should be grandfathered in prior to the implementation of the new rules. Of course, that grandfather privilege would be premised on the property owner’s respect and protection of the lake and the shoreline. It should also provide for clear exceptions to general rule to meet special needs as have been expressed by myself and others. I have never come across a single lake front property owner who has not protected and taken care of the water quality and the shoreline. I urge the DNR to postpone the effective date of these rules and allow for a more detailed study and the consideration of grandfathering in those property owners that have made a substantial investment in a dock and a platform. Thanks for taking the time to read this note.<br /><br />I am on Lake Ossie in Crow Wing, have been for 7 years and only recently became aware that some sort of restriction existed on dock size. My Dock is 4ft wide by 40ft long (due to depth) and has a 10'X 12' pad at the end. (280 total sq ft) I have a boat tied to each side all summer. The pad provides a safe, stable platform for my family (3 and 4 yr old daughters) and guests to access our boats. If I were held to the letter of the law, I would probably do 8'X 50'(400 sq ft, same depth as before) and perhaps two. I currently have 201 ft of shoreline of which 150 ft is virgin so there is plenty of room for improvement - but I'd rather not. I'd rather Minnesota's public servants not spend their/our time/money on this either. Fight invasive species instead of homeowners.<br /><br />We are on the east shore of Rush Lake on the Whitefish Chain. According to our latest Survey we have 162 ft of shoreline. We have a 10 to 12 ft elevation from the lake. We have owned this property since the very early ninties and have chosen to keep our shorline in a natural state. In doing so, we have limited our "trimming and removal" of trees and vegetation along our bank and bluff areas. I am sure that if we had chosen to do so whether it was legal or illegal, we could have "landscaped"or "altered" our shoreline over the years. We have seen it done elswhere permitted or not. The consequence of this is that it has limited our lake views but has gained us privacy and we believe, enhanced the overall "natural" look of our shoreline. We give this background because we made the decision to have a dock platform many years ago. It would be redundant to repeat all the comments made by previous property owners so we would just like to add or empahsize a few points. We have two elderly grandparents that are reluctant participate in lake activities because it is difficult for them to access the dock due to the stairs and elevation. They were uncomfortable walking or sitting on an unstable 4 ft dock with a 10ft "L". With our dock platform, we can assist them down to the dock and they can literally enjoy hours of relaxation with family and grandkids as well as fishing right off the dock without climbing in and out of a boat. Yes, we have a small table with an umbrella on our platform, to shade from the sun. One grandparent has had skin cancer surgery. Our six grandkids spend most of their time at the lake on the dock, fishing, swimming and other family recreation. The dock platform allows safe separation when excited 3 to 10 year olds are learning to "cast". They enjoy catching all species and as many have stated earlier, our dock and platform are a haven for everthing from minnows to bullheads. Our platform allows us to limit our use of our boats and still enjoy our lake property. Every fishing tournament brings contestants in search of the largest Bass. We have tournament sized Bass hanging out under our platform. We have taught our kids and grandkids the virtues of "catch and release" from our platform. And yes, we do on occasion keep some Sunnies and Crappies for a fishfry. None go in to the freezer. Isn't that what life at the lake is all about?We have never had a "Party" on our platform. We do on occasion bring down a bottle of wine, watch the sunset or the "fireworks", and wave and socialize with neighbors passing by on their boats. We cannot do this from our land because of the elevation and aforementioned decision to favor trees and vegetation. Again, our boat can remain in its lift. We love the "Chain" and spend many hours boating on it. The truth is, it is getting more congested, and any way to limit this congestion by using our dock platform should add, not detract from the overall quality of life both on the lake and off. With all of the other more pressing demands on the DNR manpower and financial resources, we need to see scientific proof that our dock is detrimental to the quality of our lakes. If this can independently and fairly verified, we will voluntarily bring our dock platform in to whatever is deemed reasonable. We do not need another government regualtion. Our guess at this point, is that once again we find complaints from a very few who are "offended", dictating policy, without the science to validate it. Every controversial issue has its plus's and minus's. We hope this one can recieve a balanced reviewal. We, like most of those who have commented so far, have the most to lose if the Quality of our lakes is not maintained.<br /><br />I have had a home on the Whitefish Chain for the last 17 years and I don't understand what all of the concern is about. I don't recall seeing many docks that are an intrusion to anyone boating on the lakes, in fact just ask any fisherman why he chooses to cast his line under docks and lifts. Apparently they recognize that to be a good fishing spot. Does that mean the platforms are "harming" the environment. If the platform is not hindering navigation, then I say let the lakeshore owner enjoy his property that he paid so dearly for!<br /><br />My family has vacationed on Gull Lake since the 1940s and purchased property there in the 1950s. My enjoyment growing up there prompted my husband and me to purchase property and build in 2001when our new dock was put in. We have a platform of 10 x 20 so are out of compliance with the new rule. If we had sandy beach, it clearly wouldn't be necessary but we don't. Our young grandchildren love the lake but need to be supervised. A 200 square foot platform is hardly a "party platform" in my mind but is crucial to our enjoyment of the lake. One size does not fit all. Some rules may be necessary but they should be more clearly thought through from the vantage point of all concerned.<br /><br />Our family is on Island Lake, part of the White Fish Chain. We too like most of the docks on the lake will not meet the “newly enforced” rules by the DNR. We added a larger platform at the end of our dock not because we have parties, but rather because of a need to enjoy the lake. Our lakeshore is extremely porous and we are not able to sit on the shore line. I would also enjoy reading an in-depth analysis on the advantages or disadvantages of a larger platform. Fishermen sure seem to know where the best fishing is located. Our family supports clean lakes, vegetation at supports fish, protection of our shoreline and safe boating. These are the areas I would ask the DNR to focus and spent our tax dollars on. Sitting on a dock with one’s family should not be in the domain of the government!<br /><br />Just a few thoughts...Perhaps Senator Olsen is too quick to jump at the mention of "party platform." Is there a statesman who supports lake property owners? We applaud P.O.P.U.L.A.R. for representing us so ably... The editorial is ambiguous in claims of "many opponents." P.O.P.U.L.A.R. is very up front as to the number of people they speak for. There's always going to be somebody to object no matter what, but just because they find fault doesn't invalidate what we hope to correct. The proposed regulations are clearly unfair in several respects. I hope P.O.P.U.L.A.R. submits a rebuttal to that misleading editorial. I don't care if our viewpoint is not universally accepted; we purchased this modest addition to our dock in good faith and a long time ago. Grandfathering applies to other regulations, why not this widespread situation? Why penalize so many and keep narrowing the restrictions? A platform is structurally safer in circumstances involving children and the elderly, and allowances should be made on their behalf. Those who object probably aren't happy with anything on shore, so their viewpoints are understandable but unrealistic. Thanks for the opportunity to voice an opinion, and good luck with the next meeting. Looking forward to revisions that take us into consideration, and don't let the lack of universal acceptance influence the outcome. Senator Olsen and her cohorts really are "narrow-minded!"I prefer to remain anonymous, but I do live on the lake, and have a platform only slightly bigger than what the current permit will cover. I don't write a lot of letters, but in this case I'll do my best. If more people take the time that you have, we'll be okay when all is said and done.<br /><br />I've been visiting the Whitefish Chain since 1970. We've owned a place with my parents on Trout Lake since 1992. My parents are still there and we purchased our own lake home on Trout Lake in the last couple years. We both have docking systems over the 120 sq ft regulations. We were never made aware of the 8 ft limit when purchasing the docks. We have always taken steps to protect our water and animal life and are concerned about our lake. We paid a few thousand dollars to put riprap in to protect the shoreline from eroding. Where is the scientific proof? A few people are making this big stink because of what? non-scientific assumptions? Why not use the DNR efforts for policing the landings, to prevent boats with invasive species attached to them from entering our waters. There are so many other good works to be concerned with, DOCKS??? We have fishermen fishing under both docks on a regular basis. We see the fish swimming under our docks every day. Do boats want to zig zag in and out of the docks? I don't think so, and if they did it wouldn't be real safe for the swimmers. There are VERY few docks that we see that are UNREASONABLE in size. The reason for people having lake homes has changed over the decades. Fishing used to be the big draw. In the last two decades many of the lakes, especially the larger lakes have become more recreational in nature. People have come up to these lake areas paid a pretty penny for their property, put nice lake homes on them, supported the local businesses and NOW are presented with unrealistic restrictions for their lake front. Presented with these restrictions after the fact, after they have invested a lot of money in the area, their homes, AND their docks. Most people have lake homes so they can use the lake. The dock is our favorite place to spend time with friends and family, to watch boats, to fish, and watch loons meander by, to see the sun rise and set. We don't call our dock a "party platform". It's MULTI purpose platform with a lot of very family friendly activities being enjoyed on it any chance we get!! I think the people living on the lakes, paying the taxes, caring about their water should have a voice! The platforms are not hurting anything!! Does the DNR want to buy back all of our permanent dock sections that we would be unable to use????<br /><br />We are on Big Trout Lake. Our platform has been larger than 120 sq ft. for over 12 years. Our place on the lake is the families gathering spot and we spend 90% of our lake time on the dock platform. We often have 15-20 family members including very young grandchildren and children with disabilities on that platform. We remain there virtually all day, bothering no one. Without this safe island for our family we will be forced to put our most fragile and vulnerable family members at risk and join the thousands of boaters that already congest our waterways. We will be forced to buy insanely expensive fuel to motor around the lakes, which will in turn contribute to air, water and noise pollution. We will now be forced to compete with enormous boats, some going in excess of 100mph. and piloted by drinking drivers. I don't understand why the DNR would want to eliminate these safe haven docks for families and put these families at risk in boats. Our family has been able to enjoy the lake in this "0-impact", way for many years. There is no good reason to change it now. Furthermore, in the years we've been on this lake, we have seen the water clarity and fish populations increase. Put on a snorkel and mask and look under our dock. You will find that several fish species thrive here. Fish spawn all around our dock and stay there for protection and shade. Fisherman love these larger docks because they provide, shade, shelter and a perfect habitat for fish to enjoy. Its no coincidence that during fishing tournaments we have many fisherman casting under and around these larger docks. These larger docks are providing critical habitat and an ecosystem that promotes fish populations. We believe these new regulations are at the very least untested and short sighted, and in reality are detrimental to lakes and fish and dangerous for families like ours. To reduce air, water, and noise pollution on our lakes and promote a healthy and vibrant fish environment, we believe the DNR should embrace the larger docks and concentrate their limited resources on pesticide/herbicide elimination from our lakes and shores. We, the lakeshore owners, are excellent stewards of our lakes because we study and observe it every day. We are probably more in tune with the health of our lakes than a DNR official, who with limited resources, can only take a snapshot once in a while. Please don't destroy these vital ecosystems. At least grandfather the larger docks in so there can actually be some study done to prove their worth.<br /><br />We are on Daggett Lake on the Whitefish Chain. When we installed our new docks and platform in 2001 we were in compliance. When Boathouses were "outlawed" by the DNR, the existing ones were "grandfathered" and did not have to be torn down (or reduced in size). Why shouldn't docks and platforms be the same? Why should we have to throw out good dock sections that we paid a lot of money for when we were in compliance when they were first installed? Also, limiting the depth at the end of the dock to 4' with the changes in water depth that have been evident in past years, will cause many property owners not to be able to enjoy their boats when the water level is lower. Even last summer many boat owners could not get their boats away from the dock. And, at what point in the summer will the water depth be measured when it varies so much. We have a 26' foot boat and we need to be in water deep enough to bring the boat in so that the end of the boat is up to the end of the dock so that the elderly in our family can enter and exit the boat safely on the back of the boat. Depth allowed should be at least 6' at the end of the dock. Reconfiguration will cost additional expense to add connections. We think that the vast majority of property owners on the lakes are respectful of the lakeshore and do a good job of properly maintaining it for the good of the environment.<br /><br />We are on Rocky Point Gull Lake. Our platform is greater than 120 sq ft. We require a platform our size to safely dock boats, swim from while we have guest boats tied up, and for general sun, as our shore is shaded with natural majestic pines that we intend to leave. As new owners we reshaped the dock arrangement and reduced the non-platform area by 160 sq ft. We have been allowing our shoreline to 'go back to nature' to reduce pesticides from the lake and make room for the little creatures. This is magnitudes more important than "dock control". We deeply care about the lake. We would not want to jeopardize the value or quality of the lake for any reason. We don't know how this dock rule improves our lake; we see it as a ridiculous infringement on our rights. We are not even mentioning the burdensome cost to comply, nor the enormous ever increasing property taxes continuously paid. The DNR should get on to something important like pesticides.<br /><br />We have a cabin on Roosevelt Lake and have a dock platform in excess of 120 square feet. We own nearly 300 feet of lakeshore and less than 50 feet has seasonal structures on it. None of these structures creates a navigation hazard or impacts the fish population. Based on the number of boats that fish near our docks, I'd have to say we probably are helping the fish population with our docks. Our family and friends use these structures to safely enjoy the lake. Whether its docking a boat to load passengers or helping kids learn how to water ski, wakeboard or get on a inner-tube having the dock platforms at their current size helps make the activity safer and easier. Enjoyment of the lake is privilege we pay a hefty fee for every year. Additionally, why isn't there a formula that addresses square footage to lake footage? One would think that there must be some correlation between the two. But that would assume someone has applied basic scientific principles to identify the problem and develop/test theory's on how resolve to the problem. It's amazing that with all the real quantifiable issues the DNR currently faces they have decided to make this their "flavor of the month". The DNR's Division of Waters states their mission/purpose as "Helping people ensure the future of our water resources". I have not seen any scientific data, studies or evidence that 1) the current docks on waterways in the state of Minnesota are causing "X" (fill in the metric) amount deterioration to water quality, wildlife habitat, etc. and 2) when the new changes are implemented we will see "Y" (again, fill in the metric) resulting improvement in water quality, wildlife habitat, etc. It appears to be a few individual opinions, not based on facts, measurable goals or measurable outcomes. The DNR has real issues, measurable ones that it should be addressing. Problems like shoreline erosion, impact of drought, invasive species of fish and plant life, boating safety, etc... Yet they are spending (I would argue wasting) time, energy and money on something that has no metric, no targeted outcome, and frankly no support from the majority of people that own and use the waterways. Furthermore, how can they even think about passing "laws" they can't begin to enforce. And why would they consider enforcing these laws when they are not enforcing many of the existing laws that were created and if enforced could have real impact on "ensuring the future of our water resources". Who's going to pay for this. Who's going to buy back the $10,000+ in docks that we own that will no longer be useable. What about the impact to businesses that manufacture docks in the state. What about the impact to those who sell and install them. And finally, are my homeowner taxes going to go down because limits the DNR is imposing on my prior user rights? Wake up Minnesota DNR. Focus on your mission and do what needs to be done to improve the waterways, not proceed with another un-substantiated, un-supported, un-enforceable law.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">(P.O.P.U.L.A.R.)</span><br /></span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-46677014501744468062008-03-11T06:57:00.000-07:002008-03-11T19:16:20.313-07:00Dock Hearing Scheduled in MN Senate<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeKYVL3132L9nTQVVhznqQp9fxET83WOHqH9aTtOIQCpwSHTkbiXhP1vwXwchtUA4kjMwlK9YJNcAdMNa6aZe_RNgVimW1TqRf4HtDEh72fnhjEWfWrOzd-UDFCBz4UllW4D306QmY_F-E/s1600-h/Eagle+Flag+Portrait.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeKYVL3132L9nTQVVhznqQp9fxET83WOHqH9aTtOIQCpwSHTkbiXhP1vwXwchtUA4kjMwlK9YJNcAdMNa6aZe_RNgVimW1TqRf4HtDEh72fnhjEWfWrOzd-UDFCBz4UllW4D306QmY_F-E/s320/Eagle+Flag+Portrait.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5176496874735184418" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I've been waiting until we had something substantive to report. The time has come. As you know, Senator Mary Olson introduced legislation that would require the DNR to complete new rulemaking on the issue of structures in public waters by March 15, 2009. The 2008 General Permit would expire at that time.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">As we have discussed, we believe that opponents of dock platforms will use rule-making as an opportunity to further restrict lakeshore owners' use and enjoyment of their property. The "aquatic impact area" included in the 2008 General Permit as a suggestion could very well become mandatory. Moreover, the intent of Senator Olson and her supporters is to return to the 2002 DNR regulations limiting docks to 8 feet in width. There would be no platforms allowed.</span><br /><br />If the legislation passes, we will need to actively participate in the rule-making process in order to protect P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members' interests more successfully than in the past.<br /><br />While I am still working with Assistant DNR Commissioner Larry Kramka to address the dock platform issue in light of the 2008 General Permit, our focus will undoubtedly change to stay on top of new efforts to restrict lakeshore property use.<br /><br />To start with, I have sent requests to the chairpersons of the Environment and Natural Resources Committees in both the Minnesota Senate and House, asking that I be allowed to testify on behalf of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.<br /><br />The Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing on Senator Mary Olson's bill, S.F. 3237, for March 12th at 12:30 in Room 107 of the State Capitol. As noted above, the legislation requires the DNR to complete rulemaking on <span style="font-weight: bold;">structures in public waters</span> by March 15, 2009. The 2008 general permit would expire at that time.<br /><br />Keep in mind that <span style="font-style: italic;">structures in public waters </span>includes <span style="font-weight: bold;">any</span> dock, not just platforms, boat lifts, canopies, etc. It could very well impose restrictions on the size and number of docks a lakeshore property owner is allowed, effectively determining the number of water craft allowed. It could also restrict the use of boatlifts, canopies and other accessories.<br /><br />I have sent the following e-mail to Sen. Chaudary, the chair of the Environment and Natural Resources committee:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">"Dear Senator Chaudhary:<br /><br />I understand that you will be holding hearings on Senator Mary Olson's bill SF3237. I represent an association of lakeshore property owners, Property Owners Protecting Useful Lake Access Rights (P.O.P.U.L.A.R.). Currently, there are several hundred recipients of P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s direct communications. In the last month, 898 unique viewers have visited P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s blog 1,975 times, indicating a high level of interest. You may visit the blog at protectlakes.blogspot.com.<br /><br />While P.O.P.U.L.A.R. welcomes legitimate research into the impact of structures on public waters, as contemplated by SF 3237, we are concerned that the process not be used for increased restrictions on property owners' use of their property, as contemplated by the "aquatic impact area" included in the DNR's 2008 General Permit. We are aware that some opponents of dock platforms desire further restrictions on property owners' use and enjoyment of their property, ultimately impacting Minnesota's marine industry, tourism and employment in resort communities.<br /><br />P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members believe that they should not be deprived of reasonable use and enjoyment of their lakeshore access. They recognize that they live on public waters but believe that, with their vested interests, they are the most effective stewards of public waters.<br /><br />Contrary to descriptions in the media, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members represent a broad range of socio-economic interests. Many, if not most, have owned their properties for several generations. Many of those who have constructed dock platforms did so to address concerns regarding safety and shoreline geography. References to "party docks" in the media and by opponents of platforms are misguided. Moreover, most of the platforms were constructed prior to the DNR's regulations that went into effect in 2003 and owners resent characterizations of illegality.<br /><br />I would like the opportunity to testify at any hearings on SF3237. Please contact me to let me know if this will be possible. Thank you for your consideration."</span><br /><br />As I requested in my letter to P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members, please send e-mails to members of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee. You can get their addresses <a href="http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1006&ls=85#members">here</a>. Tell them that any new rules have to consider the unique aspects of each lake, the safety needs of property owners, the historic use of the property and investment in dock structures prior to any regulation, and any other concerns you have.<br /><br />Please pass on information received from P.O.P.U.L.A.R. to anyone you know who might be concerned about the extent of DNR rule-making. Even lakeshore property owners who do not install platforms ought to be concerned about being told how much of their shoreline is off limits because of perceived environmental damage.<br /><br />Let's be heard. As always, keep it civil and keep it accurate.<br /></span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-19018923766580185152008-02-27T19:34:00.000-08:002008-02-27T19:49:46.513-08:00DNR Update<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYoLolL4gnbs9mANGHGE5phGsPE_lHTSdGxcWzk8c6Q_1Gam75EmDV1TsY_5-WmLqHp3bYtq73AsthVjR1bpHLNQKPN_dDdRcX4AcZfj_iULcnh99lPdj-d7wBur7oZBKMVtSrSeW98gz9/s1600-h/Girls+on+Boat.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYoLolL4gnbs9mANGHGE5phGsPE_lHTSdGxcWzk8c6Q_1Gam75EmDV1TsY_5-WmLqHp3bYtq73AsthVjR1bpHLNQKPN_dDdRcX4AcZfj_iULcnh99lPdj-d7wBur7oZBKMVtSrSeW98gz9/s320/Girls+on+Boat.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5171872495270713186" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />As always, I'll keep you posted.</span></span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-1423260765299658562008-02-25T06:20:00.002-08:002008-02-25T09:11:11.894-08:00Strib Weighs In<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2HfuB4bhO0cFsc4NJmNfqzphB9xskfxrK1iKjEVJDxWQDN_4vtVYmhTxhyphenhyphenSXp160Z0KLXeBy8utgVHt43i-ns37887w9mTPk9_LnexM9t-R7itc9EPfJvUZ85NTq7WAWrUlczKCH6kLLL/s1600-h/Split+Rock+View+8x10.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2HfuB4bhO0cFsc4NJmNfqzphB9xskfxrK1iKjEVJDxWQDN_4vtVYmhTxhyphenhyphenSXp160Z0KLXeBy8utgVHt43i-ns37887w9mTPk9_LnexM9t-R7itc9EPfJvUZ85NTq7WAWrUlczKCH6kLLL/s400/Split+Rock+View+8x10.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170939227974731298" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">This morning's Star Tribune carried an <a href="http://www.startribune.com/local/15927317.html">article</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Siems next provided the Strib with a history lesson and a bit of sleight of hand that the reporter did not pick up on:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://mpls.startribune.com/dynamic/feedback/form.php?opinion=1">Strib</a>. You might also want to comment on Dann Siems' <a href="http://beltramiswcd.blogspot.com/">blog</a> 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 <a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?district=57B">drop him a line</a> and show your appreciation.</span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-77004464801688214752008-02-21T18:09:00.000-08:002008-02-21T22:35:36.072-08:00Calling All Evil-Doers<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC8oF59Ba_fBfay0J5oBjwITmMulBCrPMogPUjh_9vsLupQI4WsM2p7ImgKHAwndXBDD9SEx-Mz5aIJBwonklFYnd5_L4hXZ0EYIYEwUVi4hu2Hnbs9w9PvwbR1IOKu7dSHceGx4VOWE0X/s1600-h/Sheriff.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC8oF59Ba_fBfay0J5oBjwITmMulBCrPMogPUjh_9vsLupQI4WsM2p7ImgKHAwndXBDD9SEx-Mz5aIJBwonklFYnd5_L4hXZ0EYIYEwUVi4hu2Hnbs9w9PvwbR1IOKu7dSHceGx4VOWE0X/s400/Sheriff.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5169689096138851858" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:130%;">It's confession time.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">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:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">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.</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">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:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >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.”</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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):<br /><br />"These projects will not require permits from the DNR provided all listed conditions are met.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Project Restrictions<br />. . .<br />Seasonal Docks and Floating Structures<br /></span>•Removed from water on a seasonal basis (before winter freeze-up)<br />•All components removable form lake or stream bed by nonmechanized means<br />•Will not be a hazard to navigation or endanger public health and safety<br />•Site is not a posted fish spawning area<br />•Will not include fuel handling or sewage facilities<br />•Is not used or intended to be used for human habitation, as a boathouse or as a marina<br />•Allows for free flow of water beneath it"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.leg.state.mn.us/">http://www.leg.state.mn.us/</a>. You should continue to hold public servants accountable for being accurate in their discussions on this issue.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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?"<br /><br />P.S. Thanks to those who have forwarded nice comments about our efforts. It makes it easier to keep typing past midnight.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0UeUQa72FKBi3qrhERNjRHj06b4zJrN8Zr2-U7Jwn-bxQF_L1oYWPlrXx0ZZUrSP01hdYGiMeF1g144gP9jaCtbM59hzvoMcUYzsKyrAaXmQAm99GyjXJ3fW7qWbGtuxGaW_8fVTJt1pd/s1600-h/Knight.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0UeUQa72FKBi3qrhERNjRHj06b4zJrN8Zr2-U7Jwn-bxQF_L1oYWPlrXx0ZZUrSP01hdYGiMeF1g144gP9jaCtbM59hzvoMcUYzsKyrAaXmQAm99GyjXJ3fW7qWbGtuxGaW_8fVTJt1pd/s400/Knight.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5169687640144938498" border="0" /></a><br /></span></div>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-29967104919395503492008-02-19T19:03:00.000-08:002008-02-19T21:16:20.313-08:00Feb 19 Meeting with DNR<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh82_MoFFMmLMdsUZaq7-3aeOaBpZUr0fKr1a5f7HCcnvtIACi6KhG-WzjH-eoaEUKaFAyXXPG1LpPKvOWASjffOWJG1pAf-AjMqMdDE2FE95TtzJ5cRlYRY64aXd_WUs1OlIArKh0toxhC/s1600-h/Morning+on+Lake.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh82_MoFFMmLMdsUZaq7-3aeOaBpZUr0fKr1a5f7HCcnvtIACi6KhG-WzjH-eoaEUKaFAyXXPG1LpPKvOWASjffOWJG1pAf-AjMqMdDE2FE95TtzJ5cRlYRY64aXd_WUs1OlIArKh0toxhC/s400/Morning+on+Lake.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5168925459543557602" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Here's what happened in between.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br />Mr. Kramka also identified several issues that the DNR would need to address in modifying the 2008 General Permit.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The lakeshore management issues Mr. Kramka expressed concern about (#3) </span><span style="font-size:130%;">need more </span><span style="font-size:130%;">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 </span><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /></span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1032882769562488358.post-84601538982194377722008-02-16T15:03:00.000-08:002008-02-17T13:28:48.195-08:00P.O.P.U.L.A.R.'s Viewpoint is NOT Universally Accepted<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5_8_3EXjYjaxRV3B2dlSjJZvKceY7E5-dc04tmMOJZA5rUcRVp3ZaW04pJsUNDfsL8JeLPUe4VfF2qz2S3EvZNeBRtPsFs1c9msWxyuWNcU5wW2Yuv6CLFwbPWDN-vAJtl9uBAtk_Dcot/s1600-h/boat+model.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5_8_3EXjYjaxRV3B2dlSjJZvKceY7E5-dc04tmMOJZA5rUcRVp3ZaW04pJsUNDfsL8JeLPUe4VfF2qz2S3EvZNeBRtPsFs1c9msWxyuWNcU5wW2Yuv6CLFwbPWDN-vAJtl9uBAtk_Dcot/s320/boat+model.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5167679815948502466" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />On Sunday, February 3, the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Bemidji Pioneer</span> published the following editorial:</span><br /><p style="font-style: italic;"> <span style=";font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" > 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.</span></p><p style="font-style: italic;"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" >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.</span></p><p style="font-style: italic;"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" >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.</span></p><p style="font-style: italic;"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" >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.</span></p><p style="font-style: italic;"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" >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.</span></p><p style="font-style: italic;"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" >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.</span></p><p style="font-style: italic;"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" >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.</span></p><p style="font-style: italic;"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" >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. </span></p><p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-style: italic;">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.</span><span> (Published with permission from the Bemidji Pioneer)</span> </span></p><span style="font-size:130%;">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</span>Sam Sternhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08477144625423977542noreply@blogger.com10