He Said, We Said

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.

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.

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, i.e., ranting and raving with little regard for substance and an unwillingness to engage in thoughtful debate will undercut the legitimacy of our concerns.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here is the exchange that occurred during the phone conversation yesterday:

P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: 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).
DNR: 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.
P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: 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.
DNR: 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)
P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: But without changes, the concerns expressed in the "Open Letter to Governor Pawlenty" blog are accurate?
DNR: Yes.

P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: 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.
DNR: 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.
P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: 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.
D.N.R.: Yes, but that's why we have to go through the process of considering the impact and making adjustments so the rules make sense.

P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: 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.
DNR: 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?
P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: 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.
DNR: (No further debate on the subject)

Other matters dicussed in my productive conversation include:

• 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;
• 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
• the propriety of "grandfathering" private structures that were lawfully acquired and first utilized before the adoption of regulations that restricted them.

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.

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.

DOCK FEE
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
posted by k57pulbuf on Jan. 24, 09 at 7:44 PM
23 of 29 people liked this comment.

The basis of their concerns.
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.
posted by xsnowdog on Jan. 24, 09 at 9:32 PM |
19 of 24 people liked this comment.

If you benefit, you pay. If you don't benefit, you dont pay.
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.
posted by deephaven10 on Jan. 24, 09 at 9:41 PM |
12 of 22 people liked this comment.

There is already a fee. The water craft registration.
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?
posted by ztrvz on Jan. 25, 09 at 12:18 AM |
22 of 23 people liked this comment.

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.
posted by libsridiots on Jan. 25, 09 at 8:31 AM |
13 of 15 people liked this comment.

DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION
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."
posted by fredappl on Jan. 25, 09 at 11:00 AM |
5 of 7 people liked this comment.

Oh My...How Exclusive!
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.
posted by smchange on Jan. 26, 09 at 1:16 PM |
2 of 3 people liked this comment.

P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: Take a deep breath and leave your own comment by clicking on the comment button below.

P.O.P.U.L.A.R. Survey Results

The 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.

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.












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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An Open Letter to Governor Pawlenty

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.

The suggested Aquatic Impact Area in last year's general permit was bad enough. If adopted, the Aquatic Impact Zone will be mandated. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lastly, please fill out the P.O.P.U.L.A.R. survey (click here) and the DNR survey (click here) 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.

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.

Thanks for your support.

Here's the letter sent to Governor Pawlenty today (and already received by his staff).

Governor Tim Pawlenty
130 State Capitol Building
75 Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55155

Re: DNR Private Structures in Public Waters Rulemaking

Dear Governor Pawlenty:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The consequences from the imposition of such restrictive regulations are far reaching.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sincerely,

Samuel L. Stern, for
P.O.P.U.L.A.R.

DNR Rulemaking Update: The Ship has left the Dock (Platform)

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.

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.

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.

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 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/survey/watercraft/index.html, 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.

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.

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, P.O.P.U.L.A.R. owners should click here 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 is limited to one response per computer.

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.

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.

Finally, please consider 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. 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.

Thanks for your support.