Lake Koshkonong levels in court again
The debate over Lake Koshkonong's water level came down to a debate between public and private rights in Rock County Court on Tuesday.
Attorneys for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Rock Koshkonong Lake District sparred for three hours over whether the DNR should raise the lake's level 7 inches and eliminate winter drawdowns. The DNR refused a request from the lake district to do so in 2005, and a hearing examiner upheld the refusal in 2006.
William O'Connor, attorney for the lake district, argued the hearing examiner gave too much weight to wetland interests, considering wetlands a "public right," and too little weight to the interests of landowners who say their properties have lost value from the lake's low level.
The judge did not say when he will announce a decision.
Feb 19, 2008 at 5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think what the issue here is, the fact that most people dont want to buy a house on a lake in which they have to have a very small boat to enjoy it. 7inche would make be feel safer taking my boat out with the $300 prop on it. In turn I might feel better about buying a home on a lake where I can use my current boat on all the time. I feel the special interest groups always get the upper hand, i'm not sure why, when the public is the majority. Keep up the fight people
Feb 19, 2008 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I live on the lake. Seven inches makes a huge difference on how navigable the lake is and makes it a much safer place to be.
I wish the wetlands association, i.e. duck hunting clubs would admit the real reason they want the levels to stay where they are is that raising the water level would make some areas navigable - meaning that the public can use these waterways without the law considering them trespassing. Bottom line: the duckhunters don't want the "masses" mucking around in what they consider their own land.
I purchased a small home on the lake and have made considerable improvements to it, and wish the judge would realize that these extra few inches would help others realize what a tremendous resource we have in our backyard--a lake that has so much more potential than it is viewed to have now.
And yes, taxes are paid on assessed value. However, if the lake homes were to triple in market value, they eventually will be re-assessed.
I would gladly pay my fair share of taxes if the home was re-assesed at a much higher level if I was able to sell my home for triple what it is now worth.
Feb 19, 2008 at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Property taxes are based on assessed value, not appraised value. If a lake house is less desirable, the state does not care, it still caries a value. Water front taxes, now that could be a valid argument...
Feb 19, 2008 at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
do the wetland advocates have any business sense at all? Don't they realize that property tax revenues will go down to NOTHING when they finally turn the lake into an ugly swamp because no one will want to live on it anymore? We are in a financial crunch in this state- the last thing we need to do is come up with more crazy ideas on how to get rid of tax revenue. On top of property tax revenue, the lake brings in lots of sales tax thru the restaurants and bars that no one will want to visit once they are sitting on a swamp. 7" is fair- and frankly, a safety necessity as long as boaters are on the lake.
Feb 19, 2008 at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
7 inches of water is not to much to ask. The pros out the cons on this isue.
Feb 19, 2008 at 3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Have the scales of justice been calibrated lately?
Feb 19, 2008 at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
PUBLIC RIGHT VS. LANDOWNER RIGHT.. wHICH IS GREATER? THE CORRECT WEIGHT WAS GIVEN TO EACH SIDE.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.