I am tired of special interests and deep pocket people forcing their will on the majority. If anyone doesn’t know the type of people I’m talking about, there the ones that says:

Don’t do as I do, do as I say, because they want to rule.

I'm proud to be part of that majority who have stood side by side at the Annual Meeting each year and reached into our own pockets when voting to continue and for using all avenues that are available to us for an equal opportunity of enjoyment from this great resource so that all recreational users can enjoy their own personal preferences not just the few.

The district recognized the need for wetland protection and stepped up and helped to protect them.

It makes one wonder why the wetland owners won't recognize that others have as much right to their own recreational preferences as they do and that is why we need to continue our pursuit of justice for all within the legal system that was set up by our forefathers to protect us from people like them.

LTG_ I understand that you're mad because you don't like what happened. I don't insult you for your opinion. I just don't agree with you. Did you really need to insult me to make your point? Treat people the way you want to be treated, I say...
_______________________________________
Wetlands are necessary for filtering the pollution out of our surface waters, naturally. I am not the only one who believes this. To me, it's more important to have clean water to drink than to have a place for recreation. Use a canoe or kayak instead of a speed boat, and you'll be alright.

LTG_ You've twisted what I'd said. I said remove houses 1000' below the dam, not around the whole lake. And I only meant when they became dilapidated or had bad septic; not ones in good shape with working septic.

jfranco - Have you ever felt screwed-over? Have you ever felt the facts were on your side and still, no one would listen to you? Have you ever wanted to build something, remodel something, make something cleaner, better, or maybe leave something as is, only to be told by your zoning committee, or your city hall, "No."
*
Despite having common sense and facts on your side, someone with more money, more power, has shut you down, simply becuase they can?
*
Well, that is exactly what the courts are supposed to do - resolve conflicts. And that is why we have state courts and federal courts, to address specific types of conflicts.
*
That is why we have circuirt courts, appellate courts, and suprement courts, to insure all issues are properly interpreted and resolved.
*
That is why we have statutes, ordinances, rules and codes - and that is why lawyers are needed when those various rules are misintrepreted or misapplied.
*
So, unless you want to live your life under a dictator, you should respect the American system of Justice. Or, when that day comes that you feel screwed, there will be no one there to protect your rights.

End the appeals already! Our courts have better things to do than waste their time with this. Feels like my taxes are being flushed down the toilet...

JimP - it looks like cnichols, lakelover, and greengina are all the same person. All of them post the exact same misinformation.
*
Which is the same issue we have here in SE WI - every time the public begins to get behind reasonable efforts to improve water quality, protect wetlands, safeguard farmland, etc, someone stands to say something completely nutty, like "remove all dams," or, "fish consumption kills..." and the rest of us run as fast as we can to get away from these people.
*
GreenGina said the other day on one of these blogs that all homes 1,000 feet from shoreline should be removed. Just nutty.
*
You seem to have a rational sense of what needs to be done to protect the wetlands (even the private property wetlands), which in turn filters pollutants to improve water quality, and still provide recreation to boaters and skiiing etc.
*
But, the nutty "HEY, I have a BIOLOGY degree, I know more than you..." crowd attempts to silence reason for their vision of utopia.
*
I wonder if my hometown paper there will editorialize on the future of Lake Koshkonong?

If you go to RKLD blog and scroll down you will find a link that lists the lakes and rivers with known health advisories.

If you go to RKLD.org blog and scroll down you will find a link that lists the lakes and rivers with known health advisories.

For some reason this blog changes the link to the site that just lists the consumption advisories by species.

The DNR issues an advisory state wide as they would rather error on the side of caution, not because all the fish in the state are contaminated. That is why they list the lakes they are sure having contaminated fish, all others lakes not listed are just a precaution advisory

The DNR is the responsible agency by state statue to advise and warn the public of all environmental safety issues. The DNR staff puts the signs you see at boat landings, occasionally municipal or county health departments will post unsafe swimming because of high bacteria at beaches, etc

cnichols - I too have been to the www.RKLD.org website often these past 2 days. I wonder if the lake district is liable for failing to post the boat landings with "fish advisories" as is done on the Fox River that flows into Green Bay?
*
PCBs are carcinegeous and I would think that given the amount of research that has been conductd by DNR and the RKLD on the lake and river, in preparation for this current legal dust-up, that at least the DNR would have forced the RKLD to post the fish advisories.
*
Would the DNR have given the RKLD a free pass, if PCBs were detected?
*
I add that PCBs are passed-up through the biomass, so I would think given the hostility seems to exist between the residents who want higher water levels and the duck hunting clubs who are trying the keep low water, I would think that at some point someone would have tested ducks for PCBs.
*
If a duck or a goose or any herp for that matter, had tested postive for PCBs in tissue, I have to think the DNR would have introduced this evidence in the courtroom, if for no other reason than to make the Lake District go away, for fear of liability.
*
Oh, what page is Lake Koshkonong cited?

I agree with the others who say it is time to end the lawsuit. I noticed the RKLD web site has a post implying that no fish advisory exists for Lake Koshkonong. As others have pointed out, this is incorrect. You can read the advisory here: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/consumption/FishA.... Generally speaking, young women and children are advised to eat NO muskie, and only 8 ounces a month of walleye, pike, bass, catfish, and several other species. Men and older women are advised to eat no more than 8 ounces per week of these fish. Other fish such as bluegill, crappies, yellow perch, sunfish, bullheads and inland trout can be safely eaten in slightly greater quantities. According to the advisory, "Two main contaminants are responsible for fish advisories in Wisconsin. They are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)and mercury." I would suggest it is within the scope of the District's mission to be concerned with a change in mercury release into the Rock River, but for reasons I don't understand they seem to disagree.

I cannot believe the hierarchy of the gazette who are cohorts of at least one wetland owner would resort to such tactics that they would remove posts from this blog and then still preach freedom of the press. I’ve had numerous post, which were within the guide lines and rules removed that were no more than exact quotes from the district environment assessment to contradict another persons prior post.

I read that Rock County tourism totaled more than $233 million last year. I have to wonder how much tourism money would drop if the wet ducks get their way. Sure go ahead and drain the lake every 8 to 10 years. I bet that all business owners around and near the lake would love to take a year off without pay and the respective townships would take a year off from collecting taxes also. Yeah sure. Drain the lake every 8 to 10 years, watch property values sink, watch the tax base sink and we have now created our own little sub-prime mess called Wetlands Muck.

In reviewing comments regarding the disappointing decision from Judge Dillon I am starting to smell some dead fish. Wetlands member Linn Duesterbeck has been quoted as saying "he would like the lake district to get a grant to study drawing down the lake in summer every eight to ten years. Wetlands Chairperson Rick Persson is quoted as saying that "as a group, we're not advocating (summer drawdowns) AT THIS TIME." The key words here are AT THIS TIME. Time changes every second, and our time is now. Please continue the fight.

Long_Time_Gone Wetlands are a very important part of our entire ecosystem and that is why the district chose to provide assistance through state grants. The legislature when creating the grant program recognized the need to protect all wetlands not just public wetlands because erosion is not the private landowner’s fault and it affects all of us and is caused by developments and catastrophes of nature.

One thing we do know is armoring provides relief from erosion and therefore it benefits everyone.

One last post - I must agree with JimP that who can say what is "natural." Afterall, dams have existed since the beginning of time, and Lake Koshkonong has been affected by a dam of some sort since what, 1849?
*
Throw into the mix that the DNR requires various "management" programs - deer herd management, managed fishing seasons, a calander that is managed for pheasant hunting, bear hunting, duck, etc, etc -- and it is easy to see that very little left in nature is "natural."
*
Removing a dam after 150+ years might be considered an "unnatural" state of nature for all the species that adapted.
*
My gripe here in the SE corner of the state is towards the farming interests who imported those non-native asian beetles to eat the aphids off the corn. It is impossible to keep them out of your house.

lakelover The only comment period that I've seen is the Wisconsin Utility Association is requesting that Wisconsin evaluate the federal regulations in the proposed changes to to Wisconsin’s mercury emission rules and that is for banking early reduction credits, not a proposed increase of mercury

Something is just not right about public tax dollars being spent to improve someone's private property.
*
I undertand that wetlands serve as nature's filter, but if I plant a tree in my yard do I get a tax credit for helping clean carbon dioxide from the air? No?

I applaud the district's involvement to date. But imagine what more can be done if we weren't spending so much time on a money-draining lawsuit. For example, there is currently a proposed increase in mercury pollution in the Rock river upstream of Lake Koshkonong with about two weeks left in the public comment period. Has the RKLD weighed in? I haven't seen anything on their web site. We already have enough mercury contamination in our fish to justify a fish advisory that restricts consumption; no one wants it to get so bad we can't eat ANY of the fish.

Long_Time_Gone The district applied for Wetland Restoration Grants from the DNR. Private land owners were not eligible because the state statue allowed only governments or non-profit associations to secure them. It was not from the districts funds, when the district applied the wetland owners were responsible for the all documents and consultant’s fees to file for the grants.

We secured and distributed the funds believing at the time that the wetland owners would see we are truly working for the entire environment and they would work with us for the betterment for all.

JimP - the lake district paid to have private property, the wetlands, ripprapped??
*
I could understand if the wetlands were public property, owned by the state or the county, and then the lake district paid to protect those wetlands, so the public could access it for duck/goose hunting.
*
But Google indicates that nearly every wetland is owned by private entities.
*
Could I drive there, take a canoe and set-up a duck blind on those wetlands, like I can on the public wetlands here in SE WI??

lakelover

The district has always been working on what you call important things.

The District has actively pursued this habitat protection strategy through a cooperative effort with the Department to armor wetland shorelines to reduce wetland loss.

RKLD has sought grant programs and legislation to permit structures on the bed of Lake Koshkonong specifically to protect and restore aquatic habitat. RKLD has sponsored ten (10) $10,000 Wetland Restoration grants from the State of Wisconsin to limit erosion on many of the privately owned riparian wetlands of Lake Koshkonong. The majority of these projects included riprap armor of wetland shoreline areas that have been eroded and lost over time. Riprap armor has been used to reduce erosion loss and is actively supported by RKLD as a remedy for both upland and wetland shorelines.

Groundwater dominated wetlands such as meadows will be converted to marshes.

Increased water level would reduce the total phosphorus concentration

Jackson1 - lemons and lemonade and nuclear power plants aside, why would you not advocate for green power?
*
Why is no one talking about bringing back the hyrdo plant, not just at Indianford, but wherever there is a dam?
*
Seems to me that to generate green energy, you need more water to flow - not over the dam, as most do now, but through turbines.
*
lakelover, would that be a good investment of "your" money?

JimP - I agree that the current decision sets a precedent at the state level - I never said it didn't. My point was that as this goes up the chain of court systems, the geographic scope increases until, at the Supreme Court level, it affects the entire country. So for those who say there is nothing to lose by continuing the appeal, that is untrue. It will cost more money (our tax $$ pay BOTH sides) and it could set a nationwide precedent instead of a local one. There is talk that the next round will be cheap (~$20,000), but what about subsequent rounds after that? I hear the argument "we spent too much money to quit now", but that argument will justify appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. And - maybe I am wrong - I don't think we can get away with a mere $20,000 for a Supreme Court case. My position is that there is too much to lose by appealing. Meanwhile, we could be working on things we all agree on, like improving the water quality.

intrigued missed part of your post but down steam would be the same as it and that is the flow of the river

intrigued, during normal water periods it may raise the level a couple of inches up to Fort, but above there because of land contour there would be little if any increase, also during high water periods or floods it would be the same as now.

Jim P - You are right about that. There is a lot more manipulating this watershed (and the others in Wisconsin) than this dam. I'm not terribly up on this but how would increasing the lake level effect the river levels upstream and downstream?

intrigued sure it manipulates the water but we are not living in 1846, does anyone know what is natural? I doubt it and because of rooftops and blacktop even with removal it still wouldn’t be natural so all we can do is protect the 150+ years of habitat that exist today.
The original dam was actually constructed up river about 400 feet, not down river.

lakelover
Sorry but you are wrong this affects property rights for the entire state; it does so because it only recognizes wetlands and excludes all other property surronding lakes/rivers and anytime a decision is made in a court of law it affects the entire state.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but "In 1846, construction of a dam began four miles downstream from the lake, in Indianford. The original dam was made of wood and was used to operate a saw mill." The source for this information is: http://webpages.charter.net/jsill/Koshko...

Anyway, my point being that the dam was not originally contructed to provide a boating/fishing tourist attraction. And the dam itself is a manipulation of the natural rivershed and wetlands of the area. The DNR controls it but whatever decision is made, unless the decision is to remove the dam, it is all still manipulation.

JimP, you are mistaken in your analysis of the RKLD report. In the conclusion, it says "Based on the literature review, the following positive and negative impacts may occur to some degree with the increased and stable water levels proposed." It then goes on to say that wetland loss may occur as I stated. It is a fact that the RKLD report admits that their proposal could cause the loss of wetlands. You may disagree with it if you wish, but you cannot deny the report.

intrigued The issue isn’t whether or not the river is being manipulated up and down naturally. The issue is the DNR Operating Orders that requires the dam owner to leave gates open to such a low level that it drains the lake instead of allowing the dam to do what the intended purpose, which was to maintain a reasonable level so everyone can enjoy it, not just the few.

JimP, I am pretty sure the Dillon decision does not affect the entire country like a Supreme Court decision would. Courts have specific geographic areas under their influence, and I don't think the Dillon decision affects someone in, say, Alaska as much as if it were made by the Supreme Court.

I'm wondering how much the fact that Lake Koshkonong isn't really a lake contributes to this issue. Lakes tend to have fairly steady water levels that change pretty slowly. But Lake Koshkonong is simply a wide spot on the Rock River.
The river goes up and it goes down. Living on the Rock River in Fort I have seen levels at 7.3 feet and .6 feet all in the same year. I think some of the property owners are under the mistaken impression that they should always have the same amount of water in front of their property. In my estimation, there is already enough manipulation of this natural resource going on. How about we let the river do what it needs to do?

lakelover
The decision from Dillon already affects everyones property rights and
favors only a few owners.

danweiss
what you are reading in the RKLD report is about high water levels like floods, not the 7" increase the district is requesting. You cannot take one sentence out of an entire report and conclude that any increase cause wetland loss

We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars so far and have nothing to show for it except fancy new cars for the lawyers and now a legal precedent that can affect other lake districts. The higher you take it, the more far reaching the legal precedent becomes. Let's say it reaches the Supreme Court and we fail, it suddenly affects every lake district in the country. If there were a realistic chance of succeeding, I'd say go for it, but the chance of legal success at this point is slim. Let's spend the money on something different or else let the taxpayers keep it. It's our money, not the government's, and we should make sure it is spent wisely.

JimP, are you claiming the RKLD proposal would create additional wetlands? Then how do you explain the phrase "Higher water levels may cause shallow marshes to proceed to lake phase" in RKLD's own report?

For 2008 the assessment was $45, very reasonable, when you think of all the RKLD has done over the years, saving the dam from demolition and all of the scientific data they contracted out for experts to do. They are the largest repository of scientific data ever collected for this ecosystem.

Danwiess the increase proposed does not inundate the wetlands. Wetlands need water, during years of low water periods during the growing season they dry up and wetland lose occurs as woody plants replace the desirable wetland plants. An increase also would help expand the wetland further back from the shoreline.

I just googled and found the WI Department of Revenue lists the Rock-Koshkonong Lake District property assessed at more than $450 million.
*
I then found the RKLD.org website and read they charge a flat $100 per parcel.
*
If a so-called crappy, shallow, carp-infested lake can generate such a huge value to the homes along the shoreline, why would anyone complain about $100 a year? Why would anyone not want to challenge the DNR's mandate to keep the lake levels shallow?

Appealing yet again would be throwing good money after bad. Let's either return to the originally promised $25 assessment or else spend the money on something we are guaranteed to get value for, such as improving the boat landings. It's time to stop with the $400/hr lawyers.

Hawkeye is incorrect when he says the "increase would not harm the wetlands". RKLD's own research claims that wetland loss is a possibility. Specifically, here is the quote from the "Negative Impacts" section of the Environmental Response to Proposed Operating Order Change dated April 4, 2003: "Higher water levels may cause shallow marshes to proceed to lake phase". I don't blame anyone for wanting more water, but to claim that raising the water won't hurt the wetlands contradicts the WDNR, LKWA, and even the RKLD's own study. Lake Koshkonong has already lost hundreds of acres of wetlands as lake levels have risen over seven feet. Does anyone really think that raising the water level now would somehow have a *different* impact than it has in the past?

I believe that the WDNR is a necessary governmental agency that is forced to make a lot of tough decisions regarding the overall health of the states ecology. In this case, however, they have clearly dropped the ball. So much has been written about the RKLD's disregard for the health of the area's wetlands. Nothing could be further from the truth. The RKLD funded costly independant studies that concluded that this modest level increase would not harm the wetlands. I have not heard of any DNR suggestions for a compromise to this issue that would help satisfy the majority of the lake district members. This is a classic case where the majority is being held hostage by an elite few and I am rapidly losing faith in the ability of the WDNR to govern our area's resources fairly.

Ordering Summer drawdowns on Lake Koshkonong is akin to ordering darkness each night after the sun goes down.

Perhaps the could gauge when it is necessary by the when number of propellers ruined per season reaches X amount,or by when dock length in the shallows reach 300 feet for navigability. Plenty of visual indicators available if common sense is not the rule of the day.

I imagine the wetland folks would have to open up the dam to their secret hunting pond on the same schedule.

RKLD, please carry on your quest for safer boating and the value of our properties. We are with you.

OK, using a combination of Google Earth, and public tax records, it appears that nearly every wetland location on the lake is owned by private interests. The DNR has public wetlands near the Rock River NE of the lake.
*
My question is, if how can the private property of the wetlands be granted more "deference" than the private property of residential homes?
*
Both parcels are "private property." So why are they not treated equally? Can the public hunt on these wetlands, without permission of the landowners?
*
Lastly, I was shocked how little wetland parcels are taxed. It appears to be a well-thought tax loophole for the private hunting clubs.