Good News On Two Water Fronts

Tweet

It is nice to know that the maverick state of Wisconsin has finally joined with the rest of the Great Lake states in a water compact designed to protect our most valuable resource from exploitation. Wisconsin's implementing bill of the Compact establishes Great Lakes sustainability, inventory control and conservation planning as the key to it’s passage. Yet the final compromise involved winning over those conservative Republicans as noted by the Political Environment - statewide, the water conservation planning will be voluntary instead of mandatory.

But for obvious reasons, I believe this compact will not hold firm against outside special interests or federal powers during a real water emergency. Nevertheless, a Compact is a good step forward to establish a common ground of understanding. Something the litigating parties in the Lake Koshkonong water level dispute should think about considering with each other.

Rock River Watershed Saved From long-term Damage

I'm also extremely grateful that Rock County Judge Daniel Dillon upheld the earlier decision of Administrative Law Judge William Coleman regarding the DNR authority establishing the lake's water level.

JG Excerpt Residents Divided:
It seems to me if you own property on the water, and the water’s no longer there, doesn’t that affect your property?” he asked.

But this remark seemed out of place coming from the judge during oral arguments, particularly after reading his thoughtful and comprehensive 50 point judicial review.

Technically, residents don't own property on the water. Their deeds are for land ownership only. Waterfront owners do hold some rights and restrictions, but the water is owned by the people of the State of Wisconsin, not just the few hundred that ring the impoundment. I'm not saying this to be snarky but the DNR has jurisdiction over the water held in administration rights granted by the state legislature. To my understanding of Judge Dillon's ruling, this is what he re-affirmed. He did not rule in favor of or against the litigating parties.

I'm not a huge fan of the DNR but I also happen to think that the water level is too generous as it is, but that doesn't matter. What matters is the reasonableness of the DNR's water level ruling and it's ability to withstand argument. It's legally durable.

But as long as the RKLD leaders listen to those who think that the court has given deference (other than to the DNR) to one party over the other, they will probably continue the fight. And that's a shame.

And as long as they keep thinking their water level argument is to not give ground to the other, that this is about pitting two sides against one other, the lake loses. Precious time and money is wasted just so somebody's tender ego avoids a bruise.

JG Excerpt Opposing Sides
“We know that the minute we lay down, the next step will be for the wetlands owners to call for a summer drawdown.”

With that poor attitude, their grandchildren will be fighting the same fight fifty years from now.

After reading Judge Dillon's ruling, any reasonable person should surmise that the DNR's water level determination and powers are just as durable against any special interest, including the wetland's party.

The best thing all the parties could do is accept the water level ruling and leave it in the dust behind them. Drop the legal offensives on water levels and drawdowns and seek common ground. Create a compact to improve the total lake environment and water quality. Dredging the lake and creating islands, a la Dubai, sounds extremely promising as does breakwalls for the wetland areas. The Dillon ruling should be the end of all battles and a new beginning for open compromise. Stop thinking this is about Lake Koshkonong waterfront property owners and start thinking about the entire Rock River Watershed AND your grandchildren.