Jive I think we both know compromise is needed. It's going to take a willing majority to stand up and say something needs to be done. It stands to reason the home owners and lake patrons and naturalists have nothing to loose. The increased viability of the water lake front owners pay dearly to live next to should be worth a few more bucks a foot in taxes as well.
If dredging is such a bad proposal that some of the naturalist seem to think, why does the dnr insist on using dredging on sustaing ecology in water ways? You can't have your cake and it eat too. The revenue that sustains the wetlands comes from recreation ie:boating,fishing,hunting. It all boils down to balance.

Rep_of_1, your on the right track! While reading your post I get the feeling you see what I am saying is an expensive, but necessary bullet to bite in order to come to the best solution for the macro-majority over the longest of long-run scenarios. Essentially a continuous effort over a indefinite amount of time. Sure, certain parts will have defined goals and measurable timeframes to accomplish those goals, but by indefinite I mean a timeless effort into establishing a sustainable buffer habitat. That will take time, but with a little help getting going may make for large scale volunteer projects. Like I said, the more we are able to harness the talents, brain power, investment monies, and time of the people who have an interest the lower the initial costs will be for the tax payers. There are interest groups, private investors, municipal bodies, a Lake District, business owners, vacation residents, and primary residents that can make this an important tissue if they step up. Expensive undertaking, a goal, a bullet to bite, or a gift to your grandchildren; whatever it takes to get you and your neighbor on board.

Sandman wrote: "This seasonal cycle isn't going to stop, and taxpayers shouldn't foot the repair bill year after year for flooding damage to the same homes. We could never afford to dredge a lake the size of Koshkonong, and all it would accomplish is to make it deeper anyway --additional/seasonal water volume would still add height to whatever level at which the lake is normally maintained and thereby result in the same flooding."
------------------------------
It would be expensive, but the benefits to nature, sportsman, shoreline home owners, boaters, and the greater economy would be added to the reduced taxpayer payouts for court costs and flood damage enabling us to offset those costs over time. A bit of a non-designated TIF district without the tangent tax complications that come with a TIF.

As to your point about the water being much deeper you are correct! That is the idea. You should go by Smartman rather than Sandman. The larger "bowl" if we can use that analogy, would in essence hold more water. Assuming the size of the lake does not determine the volume of water that enters it, then we can rightfully assume the added capacity would contain the same volume of water in a much smaller footprint in even the worst of conditions. The restored habitat that could replace the artificial, and badly eroded shoreline that exists now would provide even more holding capacity in the worst of floods like we saw last year. Certainly this would not eliminate all flooding, nor would it allow for land-grabbing of the new shoreline. It would create a public land that could still allow for John or Sally Landowner to have a pier if they already have one. Those details could be something that is worked out. Marina like areas with restored habitat on one side, or grouped piers could provide the balance. They are ideas for a workable solution for the greater public as opposed to fruitless head butting by the two sides. There is a solution, and there is a compromise. Whether that is realized before the key players pass away of old age is to be left up to the determination and willingness to step up by those that want something better for the majority. Not the majority of people on one side of the legal fight, but the majority of the vast group of people, species, and economies that are directly or indirectly affected by this great resource we are so lucky to have right in our own back yard.

jive - removing the dam would not widen or increase the flow of the river, except for the immediate time when the lake is being drained. During normal times of precipitation, just as much water is leaving the lake as is entering the lake, that amount of discharge would not change if the dam was removed as the flow would still disperse throughout the wetland. What you would have is a broad wetland with the ability to store large amounts of water during high discharge events which would lessen flooding downstream. However, it is not economically (nor politically) viable to remove the dam. Partarican is partially correct in the assertion that there would be less flooding without Lake Koshkonong. Yes, there would be less flooding in the Janesville area, but there would still be flooding in naturally created floodplains and wetlands (ie the "former" Lake Koshkonong). It's all natural hydrology, take away a natural floodplain/wetland and you increase flooding downstream.

Partarican1, you are not correct. Take out the dam and you have a widened, deeper river that has an even stronger current causing more erosion. You would have a flanking body of water that still resembled more of a lake than the river it is. You would have the same damage you have now to the homes on the river, and possibly much worse due to the more focused volume and current. The economy would suffer due to property value loss, decline in tourism, as well as an increase in legal battles by property owners like you have never seen. The lake would still in essence be there, only the benefits would be reduced to all. That is the side of the DNR. That is the side of the gun clubs and waterfowl hunters. That is the side that you obviously not willing to budge so that a compromise can stop this stalemate, put their well intentioned hard heads together and create actual change that benefits more than just their individual causes. Right now the people facing floods would like to be preparing their seedlings or boats for this spring not sandbagging again.

Sandman - I just visited the Dept of Revenue website, and found the total property value of homes located within the boundaries of the RKLD Lake District (I assume the boundary includes all the riparian homeowners as well as the businesses in Newville and up to Fort Atkinson).
*
I suspect that your comment -- The best things we could ever do is let the "lake" return to it's natural state – would be rejected by nearly every local, county and state politician who receives shared revenues from the massive tax base that exists because of Lake Koshkonong.
*
Lake Koshkonong sits in the middle of one of the largest drainage basins not just in Wisconsin, but the entire Midwest. That huge geographic area includes thousands of rooftops, miles of concrete roads and asphalt parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and every other man-made structure that directs water to its lowest elevation.
*
And Sandman’s answer is what, to strip away a tax base and return the land to a pre-human settlement? There is much better science than that option to protect wetlands while simultaneously protecting home values, recreation, the ecosystem and the tax base.

Partarician1 - I suggest you read the studies at this site www.RKLD.org. I would also steer you to DNR reports on Lake Koshkonong, but after spending several hours searching, the DNR does not appear to have any such site-specific research.

My point is, RKLD has paid UW PhDs to research how the lake/river behaves during various stages of water level. They have mapped the lake bottom and elevations of the river. If I read this correctly, the elevation of the lake is higher than the elevation of the top of the dam. What this must mean is if you were to remove the dam, the lake level would not be affected because the dam does not hold one ounce of water back during high water & during flood stage. The level behind the dam may already be equal to the level of the river on the tail water side. Right?

I remember as a kid, we once paddled a canoe over the dam as straight as rope on water. Nowadays, the experts are required to show us what common sense already tells everyone – except Partarican1.

Dredging the lake? If we could only get enough kitty litter we could soak it up!
Flooding is nature's cycle, and many users have commented that the water quality and fishing have never been better since last year's flood, which can rejuvenate a watershed and which perhaps has done just that in this case. The best things we could ever do is let the "lake" return to it's natural state, a large swamp which could absorb the changing water levels, and not allow building, renovations or repairs in the "100 year" flood plain except at owner expense and with owner-paid insurance. Just remember, because it's a "100 year" flood level estimate doesn't mean that it can't flood just as bad or worse again this year -- it's still got the same 1-in-100 chance of doing just that in 2009!
This seasonal cycle isn't going to stop, and taxpayers shouldn't foot the repair bill year after year for flooding damage to the same homes. We could never afford to dredge a lake the size of Koshkonong, and all it would accomplish is to make it deeper anyway -- additional/seasonal water volume would still add height to whatever level at which the lake is normally maintained and thereby result in the same flooding.
Koshkonong is just a big, flooded backwater swamp -- it will never be Lake Geneva however much money we throw at it. Dredged or not, and as long as it remains an artificial damned and stagnant lake, if you find yourself out on Koskonong during those hot, stuffy dog days of summer, I wager you'll still feel like the Tidy Bowl man hoping for a courtesy flush on a bad day! The best solution is to keep your eyes fixed on the horizon and don't look down (and never look back!).

Dredging that big of a lake could cost tens of millions. Just what the tax payers want to hear.(sarcasm)

It would be nice to have a lake and river way that was able to used with out a slow no wake every spring. Perhaps the gained revenue would off set the cost of dredging in the long run, very long run. Rebuilding flooded homes and business is not going to continue to be paid for by fema. Either create a larger buffer to lake and remove the properties,dredge or some combination. I think the answer is a no brainier that is going to met with huge opposition about the cost.

It's not a lake. It's a wetland with an impoundment. Remove the dam, restore the wetlands, and enjoy less flooding.

Maybe it is time to consider dredging the lake. Expensive, but at least we could solve a few problems:

*allow the lake to hold more water

*better protect wetland areas from flooding

*restoring a shoreline buffer with natural habitat in many areas where there is currently no realistic usable residential shoreline

*find a balance of restored habitat, views, beaches, and usable dock space.

*increase tourism

*less bottoming out & propeller damage
better habitat along shoreline for spawning, nesting, hunting, and fishing.

*restored shoreline vegetation would act as a natural wave protection reducing shoreline erosion

*restored shoreline vegetation would act as a biofilter reducing or eliminating the runoff of the fertilizers, pesticides, and rainwater containing bacteria from animal waste.
-------------------------------------------------
All of this would be expensive. It would also require a balancing act that would turn the opposing sides in the court case to put their guns down in an attempt to put their vast knowledge and resources together for a cause. As it stands, both sides are attempting to win outright. Judging by their support, both sides have large numbers backing them meaning if one side wins, the other large group looses. Compromising on a undertaking as outlined above would benefit both sides. In addition, and more importantly it would benefit many more people not currently vested in the more than 50 year battle. Animals, additional tourists, children and future residents of lake and river property, flood victims of the past and future, marinas, and the greater local economy. Best of all is the realized savings to the tax paying public that funds the needed, but preventable cost every time there is a flood. The only losers will be the lawyers in the ongoing court battle unless they live or vacation here, or are skilled in drafting a formal plan of action needed to pull the various sides together.