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.
Here's the memo. The author requested that his name not be used. His work is greatly appreciated.
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 4, 2008
To: Samuel L. Stern. General Counsel, P.O.P.U.L.A.R.
From: (P.O.P.U.L.A.R. member)
Re: Summary of Observations during Attendance at June 3, 2008 DNR Open House for the Shoreland Rules Update Project At Minnetonka Community Center
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.
The following observations are passed along for your information.
The handout sheet provided by the DNR upon entering the meeting room indicates:
SHORELAND RULES OPEN HOUSE
MINNETONKA
Shoreland Rules Update
* 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.
* Local Governments – Staff from various local governments in the area are available to discuss how local shoreland ordinance implement the shoreland rules.
* Provide input on areas that you think should be addressed as part of the rules update project.
Other Shoreland Related Projects and Efforts
1. Shoreland Stewardship – Individual shoreland management techniques that protect water quality, habitat, and shoreland ecology.
2. MN Pollution Control Agency – Impaired waters and total maximum daily load activities to support the Clean Water Legacy.
3. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District – Blue Thumb; planting for clean water program.
4. Minnetonka Natural Resources – Water Quality Education
5. MN Pollution Control Agency – Low impact development methods for controlling stormwater.
6. Wright Soil & Water Conservation District – Water quality in Wright County.
7. Other DNR Programs – Docks, fisheries, shoreland restoration, and aquatic plant management.
8. University of Minnesota – Erosion Control Program
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some of the input and concerns I attempted to convey in discussions with DNR officials included the following:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
