They'd Pave Over a River If They Could. Wait, They Already Did That!

Tweet

No, that's not a photoshop or an artist's rendition of some jackwagon city planners dream to pave over a river with a parking lot. That's the real thing courtesy of Google Earth.

The parking lot sits over the bustling Rock River between Court and Milwaukee Streets in Janesville. It was built in 1963.

Janesville officials are now considering its permanent removal, which seems very odd for a city that vigorously adheres to old world industrialist sprawl plans. But whatever they decide, I won't put any hope into thinking they have turned towards organic and sustainable economic planning models. They are just entering 1955 only now.

Related:

Janesville's Comprehensive Plan Grows a Poor Future

Janesville Considers Expanding Industrial Base Into Farmland

Corporate Power Blowing In State's Wind Industry

Tweet

Just like Wisconsin's Video Competition Act proved to be a stacked deck of cards against local control by relentless corporate power, the PSC appointed Wind Siting Council also was heavily stacked with profit-driven wind proponents bent on restricting local government authority as much as possible.

It's even more troubling when environmental groups step up and pinch-hit for corporate power hitters in the name of crushing local rules that are "holding up some projects" and declare Wisconsin as "not a good place to do business."

Old Patchwork of Rules - Meet The New Patchwork Of Rules

Last week, the wind advisory panel completed its work on statewide wind farm siting rules by adopting their report on a 11-4 vote. The minority group members wrote a dissenting viewpoint that included stricter health and safety rules and a plan to protect property values. They wrote...

Wind Watch Excerpt:
“When people are abandoning their homes, when they find it difficult or impossible to sell their homes, when symptoms experienced in the vicinity of wind turbines do not occur in other environments, it is not useful to dismiss such reports as inaccurate or hysterical.”

"Nonsense" writes the state health officer....

Wind Watch Excerpt:
In a letter to the Council, State Health Officer Seth Foldy stated, “Current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that contemporary wind turbines cause adverse health outcomes” at the setbacks proposed by the Siting Council. He resists the dissenters’ opinion that turbines are keeping people awake. “Symptoms such as sleep disturbance and headache are common and caused by a wide variety of conditions,” he writes.

A few days later in what appears to be a direct contradiction to the health officer's opinion.

Daily Reporter Excerpt:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — State utility regulators will consider a recommendation that homeowners who live near wind farms be compensated for concerns about noise and reduced property value.

At this point, I don't put much trust in anybody on this deal. But you know the first sign of systemic setback failure is when compensation must be considered for those who live where evidence doesn't exist for their concerns. Somebody should call a mistrial.

There is little doubt that green energy is an inherently “liberal” solution to help wean us off of fossil fuel problems – but by throwing in with corporate interests at the expense of property rights and personal peace and enjoyment – liberals and environmentalists are not only wasting valuable political capital and their reputation in standing for the common good, but are also allowing the renewal energy industry to fall to the same oppressive money masters and con artists that have corrupted the free market system and wrecked our economy. That to me, is perhaps the worst revelation to come out from Wisconsin's wind siting council.

Video: Watching The Wind Flicker

City: Treated Pool Water Safe For Environment

Tweet

As reported earlier in the Janesville Gazette, the wading pool in Janesville's Palmer Park was closed after a leak was discovered. The cause of the leak was due to a damaged or missing 2-foot long strip of caulking.

JG Excerpt:
City staff initially questioned whether the 50,000 gallons of water that leaked into the ground below the pool would cause any negative environmental effects, given the chemicals placed in the pool to keep it clean. However, city water treatment officials said those chemicals would be inert, meaning they do not react with any other elements or compounds. Malone said there would be no environmental impact.

---

Given The Chance, Ron Johnson Would Poison The Well For Big Oil

Tweet

Democratic Party of Wisconsin Excerpt:
Earlier this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the worst oil spill in history had put at risk 78,264 square miles of fishing area, an area nearly exactly the same size as the Great Lakes. Nevertheless, Ron Johnson announced his support to drill for oil in the Great Lakes, which are estimated to hold oil and natural gas.

more >>>

Farmers Cap Their Future With Development

Tweet

The following is an excerpt from a letter posted in Sunday's Janesville Messenger about the dire consequences cap and trade will have on Wisconsin farms.

Janesville Messenger Letter Excerpt:
Our farmers will be faced with making the choice of converting farmland into forests for greenhouse-gas reduction or providing food for this country and the world. This shift in land use will hurt consumers at the grocery store. Food costs could rise by up to an average of $33 billion annually by 2020 and up to $51 billion annually by 2030 as a result of this legislation. -- D.R.

The letter writer is the president of the Rock County Farm Bureau and I bring that up because I don't recall the county's farm bureau standing up against the city of Janesville's plan to convert 9,800 rural acres into private and commercial development.

Aside from a couple of real and honest-to-goodness farmers and our local environmentalist, I don't remember groups of farming organizations writing letters to the editor or explaining to the city council how converting farmland into concrete and rooftops would shrink the state's agricultural sector or hurt consumers at the grocery store. Maybe I just happened to have nodded out and missed their speeches, warnings and urgency. And I don't recall state or local farm bureaus showing any support for the land use tax reform in AB 75, a provision designed not only to restore legitimacy and fairness to the state's land-use zoning and tax assessments, but also slow down the conversion of precious farmland into blacktopped development. To the contrary, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau was the driving force opposing the reform saying it will push farmland out of production more quickly.

Perhaps Wisconsin's farm bureaus are really not against converting farmland into anything so long as it's not into forests. After all, who wants to buy a forest? The problem is - is what I've always feared it was - that many (not all) farmers are the developers. They're the ones selling.

So the question is - Are the state's farm bureaus nothing more than front houses for developers?

Myopic City Officials Cost Taxpayers $75,000

Tweet

JG Excerpt:
Sept. 11, 2009 -- An agreement between the Janesville Water Utility and an environmental group would fundamentally change how residents are charged for the water they use.

Janesville residential customers would pay less per unit of water as their household water usage decreases, a reverse of the current billing system. This is good news for residents who are looking for ways to not only save water but also save money. All rate hikes being equal, it will reward water conservation and hopefully instill the proper respect our natural resources deserve.

But there was a catch.

JG Excerpt:
Aug. 22, 2009 -- The agreement the council will consider on Monday was created by the water utility after negotiations with Clean Wisconsin. The $75,000 annual budget included in that plan was “more than the city wanted, but significantly less than originally requested (by Clean Wisconsin),” according to a memo to the council from Director of Utilities Dan Lynch.

The city administration and council couldn’t ignore Clean Wisconsin like they've ignored their own concerned constituents. Why? Because...

JG Excerpt:
Aug. 26, 2009 ... Clean Wisconsin is an advocacy group that was awarded intervener status when the city applied for a water rate increase with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. The city will develop a water conservation plan that will include community education, residential rebates and commercial/industrial audits.

Clean Wisconsin was empowered by the State of Wisconsin and given equal authoritative status with local officials - they had to be accommodated. The bottom line is that Janesville will no longer reward excessive water consumption with volume discounts. This is great news providing someone can't "buy" an exemption.

With that said, why did it take the pressure from an outside environmental group and a $75,000 settlement to nudge the city towards water resource conservation, when Janesville has concerned citizens (modestly including myself), a city appointed sustainability committee and a local environmental advocate (Rock Environmental Network) making a stink over similar regressive pricing methods regarding city water and garbage waste facilities? Only to be largely ignored.

I've heard it all enough already in direct conversations, comments and emails on my blog. Oh, we (or I) are too aggressive, take the wrong approach, are combative, negative or power hungry. Baloney! I'm an altar boy compared to the tone of the teabaggers and anti-reform demonstrators. All are great buzzwords to demonize a perceived opponent in order to keep the status quo.

The administration and council's short-sightedness will cost city taxpayers what should have been an avoidable $75,000 today - we got off lucky this time with Clean Wisconsin. Still, it is a high price to pay because somebody refused to swallow their tender ego. What will it cost taxpayers the next time city officials refuse to work with locals boldly working against the grain, and instead have to surrender policy control once again to an outside group? It could be millions next time.

With this economy and urgency, it would be much cheaper to bruise the ego, get the job done and then apologize for it later.

Environment Without Government Is Unsustainable

Tweet

Tuesday's Janesville Gazette carried a surprising endorsement for Earth Day activities individuals could carry out during their lives to help create a sustainable and living planet. The editorial title, We cannot wait for government to save environment was somewhat misleading as it gave the impression the newspaper editors believe the government wasn't doing enough to protect the environment. To the contrary, after reading the first few lines of the editorial, it appears the newspaper would favor letting economic development, sprawl, venture capitalists and consumers self-regulate to protect the environment rather then work in tandem with the government to create and enforce regulatory policy.

JG Excerpt:
But we shouldn’t wait for government to force us to do the right thing. After all, state law requires businesses to recycle, but do you see recycling bins adjacent to trash containers at gas stations? Likewise, the debate continues on whether ethanol subsidies are wise.

We’ll also argue long about whether Barack Obama’s proposed “cap and trade” plan will fight global warming enough to warrant soaring energy prices.

To their credit, the paper followed that politically inspired opening by posting ten smart ideas to help celebrate Earth Day everyday, most coming from Julie Backenkeller of the Rock Environmental Network. But absent from the list was arguably the most important activity we can do to help save ourselves.

So I propose Earth Day idea number eleven.

11. As often as possible, call, write a letter, send an email, or attend a meeting with your local city council, congressional representative, senator or state legislator and ask them what bills, regulations and resolutions they intend to sponsor that can help develop and build support for a sustainable economy and defend the environment. And tell them what you believe will help our nation and neighborhoods transition to a sustainable society. Our environment is a living organism that is not too big to fail, we can't let it go bankrupt and a bailout is useless. Once it's dead - it's gone. Time is of the essence.

'The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around." -- Earth Day founder and former Wisconsin Governor and Senator Gaylord Nelson

Reminiscing About Farmland In The Year 2105

Tweet

SON: “Hey Pop, a friend of mine said Janesville at one time was surrounded by some of the most fertile topsoil and farmland not only in the country – but in the world! I laughed, but no one else thought it was funny. What gives?”

POP: “Well son, your friend is right. A long time ago Janesville was surrounded by the finest farmland on Earth.”

SON: “So what happened to it?”

POP: “Academics, landowners, speculators and Janesville city officials all simultaneously thought the land could be better utilized by paving over it with concrete, asphalt and homes.”

SON: "But that happened way back in the 19th century, when they probably didn’t know any better, right?”

POP: “No. It began sometime in the middle of the 20th century, but the warning signs didn't show up until around 2010.“

SON: “But that must have been a time when they didn’t know about the rare quality of the soil, sustainability issues or carbon footprints, right pop?

POP: “Wrong son. They knew all of that plus more. They had all the data. They just chose to ignore it and go with obsolete trend patterns. Everybody else was doing it. "Economic development and growth" was the magic term. Sprawling out in the name of economic development – except very few other cities had what Janesville had.”

SON: “So, it could have happened by accident, and then others added to it and only made the mistake larger, right?”

POP: “Wrong again, Son. The city actually worked for years on this and documented 25-year-long plans to annex the farmland and develop it and even made efforts to oppose ruralization.”

SON: “OK, but you never explained what would make the people do this, pop?”

POP: “Some folks thought there was something in the water that dumb-downed the people or made them passive and compliant. But my grandfather told me it was caused by greedy landowners and developers and a city government that sought total control."

SON: “But wasn’t there over-development and infrastructure problems, and a housing glut back then?”

POP: "There sure was. But perhaps the worst part of all of this was the city’s philosophy on growth. They felt the best way to utilize the farmland was to fit as many homes on it as they can, primarily for tax purposes. The city opposed rural development and open land sprawl as inefficient use. They felt it best to urbanize it as densely as possible with homes and commercial developments – at the same time the inner city was becoming increasingly fragmented by bulldozing homes, and thinning the density by creating greenbelts."

SON: “Will any good ever come out of this?”

POP: “Well there could be a silver lining. Someday, they might bulldoze all those homes and rip out the streets and sidewalks and greenbelt it.”

SON: "But why would they do that, pop?”

POP: "Progress my son – progress."

Statement from Janesville's Comprehensive Growth Plan Overview:
The plan does not advocate for preventing development in the City as a viable strategy to preserve agricultural land….

Think Local Environment First for Living Economy

Tweet

In the USA Weekend magazine was an article titled Local and loving it, one writers quest to help her community with purchases closer to home. The article contained some interesting facts, ideas and links about thinking and buying local.

USA Weekend Excerpt:
"A study we did found that for every $100 spent in a chain store, $14 went back into the local economy. For a locally owned business, it was $45," says Stacy Mitchell, author of "Big-Box Swindle" and researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

One of the organizations mentioned, Business Alliance For Local Living Economies (BALLE), has an interesting and unique mission statement that includes the importance of an accessible living media for news independent of corporate control, so that citizens can make informed decisions in the best interests of their communities and natural environment.

Preserve Farmland With Responsible Annexation

Tweet

The few Janesville city council meetings I attended over the years regarding annexation of existing farmland for development had extremely low public attendance, to my disappointment. Developers and landowners requesting annexation would talk up the bogus benefits of the expanding tax base – and the Janesville administration would come to the podium and follow suit that the developers plan for the parcel fits the administration and council pre-approved “Comprehensive Growth” plan. Any short rebuttal would revolve around a comment that without annexation, the owners of the parcel would develop anyways, but that it would be much better for the city to have some control because of it’s close proximity to the city, yatta, yatta, yatta - Cha-ching. It was rubber stamped every time.

Under those circumstances, farmers could get twice the value for their land if they sell to developers, but would they still attract those kind of buyers if they knew Janesville wouldn’t rubber stamp the annexation with sewer and water? That I believe is the real question and the problem. In recent years, I don’t know if any annexation requests have ever been denied by the Janesville City Council.

There are several ways to discourage this gravy train to sprawl. One way is to exclude all Ag land from the comprehensive plan. But that would require political cojones. Another way the city can check it and encourage the preservation of farmland here would require just as much vision and bravura from city leaders. Janesville would have to consider and approve a moratorium on annexations. Only then might owners and developers think twice about building a development on septic and private well, and without other city services. Right now, they take one look at Janesville’s existing “Comprehensive Growth Plan” and factor in the Janesville’s reputation as an annexation rubber stamp to immediately begin pounding in “For Sale” signs. Without Janesville’s annexation, the decision to blacktop farmland would remain where it belongs, in the hands of the pre-annexation township or county.

It still might not stop the loss of farmland nor will it infringe on the owners rights, but at least Janesville would no longer be complicit in the destruction of some of the finest farmland and topsoil on Earth. In my view, the problems with respect to the farmland, developers or property rights won't involve Janesville’s influence or growth plan in this matter – if they refused to annex. Without excluding Ag land, the solution to guarantee Janesville’s sustainability in the future must include annexation restraint with or without the comprehensive growth plan.

This posting is the independent perspective of this blogs’ author and is not written in cooperation with the Rock Environmental Network (REN). However, I enthusiastically support their cause and concerns.

The Rock Environmental Network is urging Janesville residents to attend Janesville's Sustainability Committee meeting next Tuesday night to discuss the City's Comprehensive Plan. For more information, click here.

Ideas For Janesville's Future

Tweet

How Things Got This Way

JG Editorial Excerpt:
City Manager Steve Sheiffer say’s the city’s vision is to make the Dawson/Jackson Street area a major park.

Just what Janesville needs - another greenbelt park.

What Janesville does need is thee park. You know what I mean, a large park built from big dreams with big money and all the civic attractions and markers expressing what Janesville is all about.

We have the location in Riverside for this but unfortunately, they have splintered the activities over the years, and administration elites drove much of the funding into Palmer. It’s too bad because City Planners now have two parks dividing the city and now want to segregate it further by creating another medium scale park in what could arguably be the city’s most prime real estate for economic development.

But what I find just as troubling if not an obstruction to progress is the city’s rigidity on an ancient and unfunded vision the City Manager has referred to as the Riverfront Plan.

Janesville Neighborhood Shut Out Of Progress:
After almost 90 years, Janesville finally is starting to look the way John Nolen envisioned it could. The famed landscape architect, who was integral in planning a state park system for Wisconsin, was called in to take a look at Janesville's first city plans and had an idea.
"This was back around 1920," said Brad Cantrell, the city's planning director. "He recommended the city turn the area along the Rock River into parks and open space. He saw it as a major asset to business, and up to that point, it had kind of been an industrial corridor. A lot of businesses here had turned their backs on the Rock River."

And do you know what? The Delavan/Jackson Street area in Janesville has been frozen in time ever since. Who wants to invest in a business or buy property in an area when the city wants to turn it into a park from plans drawn up nearly 90 years ago?

At the last council meeting the City Manager made another interesting comment. He said when the city council approves a development or commits to a resolution, the action is void if no funding is earmarked by the time the council’s term expires. Yet the city planners continue to rehash Nolen’s plan not from 20 years or even 40 years ago, but from 90 years ago! Those supporting this old idea today are said to be visionaries. Nolen was the visionary, and after almost a century of unfunded mandates, I’d say his term has expired.

The Jackson/Delavan Street Area

This is MY idea for the Jackson/Delavan St. area.

Turn it into a mixture of privately developed mid-rise condo’s and small stores with large sweeping terraces to the river. The properties would be oriented with their facade, balconies, decorative features and large windows facing the river. The views would be spectacular relative to what Janesville has to offer. Sure, the street side faces GM, but there are architectural and landscaping tricks that could be employed to diminish this adverse view. And who knows how long those smokestacks and industrial tanks will remain in play anyhow, with the expected closing of the plant. It would give Janesville a taste of what they’ve seen in other towns and would offer a fine example encouraging other property owners along the downtown river corridor to join the club - without forcing them.

This would be a high-end development with the river as the main attraction, not some earthen berm meant to block the view of a Big Box store. This would serve as Janesville’s experimental concept and entrance into 21th century living, eventually melding the nearby and affordable single-family residences from the Fourth Ward into a well balanced and self-sustaining community. Micro CSA’s could fill in any remaining vacant parcels.

Turning this area into another green-belt park would be a crime whose time has past. It would return zero tax dollars and would continue to push economic development away from the city’s core to the outer edges in the form of sprawl. It’s time to get past the 1920’s. If anything, the cost of energy demands it.

The GM Plant

Of course, I hope Janesville does not lose the GM factory, but if we do, I’ve mentioned another one of MY ideas in a comment to an earlier posting from June 28th.

It involves turning the 200+ acre facility grounds into a wind and solar power generating facility - NOT a factory as recently explained by another creative individual in the Janesville Gazette. Don't take that comment as a attack against the factory idea, I mentioned it merely to show the fundamental difference between our ideas.

The other key element to MY idea is to sell the electricity produced back to Alliant in the form of credits on residential OR business electricity bills. The facility would be owned and operated by the taxpaying residents of Janesville, the "Janesville Perpetual Energy Company" if I may - not a private entity.

I believe this development would be an irresistible incentive to attract businesses, entrepreneurs and others into Janesville. The window to acquire multi-million dollar Federal grants for such a green-powered facility is just around the corner - the possibilities are endless. General Motors may also be willing to ante up millions to extricate itself from environmental liabilities expected to be uncovered at the property.

Another idea of MINE is to turn the GM location into a giant state-of-the-art Expo Center complete with county fair grounds, outdoor band shell AND a duo-purpose ballpark for the Snappers and Gladiators. The location is ideal for volume traffic as the surrounding streets have already been modified to handle the additional loads. When one considers that the cramped confines of Wrigley Field in Chicago has only an eight acre footprint, it is easy to put into perspective the size of the GM plant. Janesville's Rotary gardens is about 15 acres. The Reuther Way access road running into the heart of this location help make this idea for multiple recreational facilities even more appealing. This would be more than just a Rock County facility, it could be South-Central Wisconsin's Regional Recreational and Expo Park.

Even though I’ve posted these ideas on the Internet and invite people to consider them, I’ve highlighted these ideas as mine simply because they are. This Web-presentation is time and date-stamped, and I welcome others to convince the city to change course on the Riverfront Plan before it's too late. In addition, I also realize this proposal might sound presumptuous and beyond the bounds of an ordinary citizen. But we all search for reasons why things shouldn't be.

If key elements of this prospectus are implemented, I would expect credit to be given where credit is due.

At the same time, I don't pretend that this is the economic rapture Janesville has been waiting for, or think any of it can or will happen anytime soon without funding. Nolen’s concept has been on the books without funding and without completion for over 90 years, they are no longer visionary. Lesson learned.

The only other suggestion I can make is directed toward individuals who feel as strongly about their ideas as I do. Before you pass them out casually during conversations or to individuals and organizations requesting you send the ideas to them, have your idea documented, notarized or digitally date-stamped at the minimum. I don't mean to sound preachy on this, but much of the world's wealth is built either on somebody else's labor, other people's money or stolen ideas.

Obnoxious Ordinance Amendment Should Be Uprooted

Tweet

Friday’s Janesville Gazette contained a public notice on Page 9A from the Janesville City Administration about an upcoming city council meeting for the purpose of amending the city’s noxious weed ordinance.

The original ordinance known as Ordinance 8.56 Noxious Weeds can been seen below as it appears on the Janesville City Website.

In the public notice as printed in the Gazette, the "new" ordinance and its sections take up nearly half a page in small font newsprint. The city writes up a short description of the amendment as follows......

Ordinance No. 2008-413
An ordinance repealing and recreating the noxious weed ordinance so as to permit City approved Natural Landscaping with penalties, injunctive relief, and other remedies as set forth….

The folks in the Janesville administration are overstepping their bounds once again into the peaceful enjoyment of private property ownership. Through the use of wryly written legalese they have been able to present the full amendment as a loosening of restrictions when in fact it is a tightening of control with stiffer penalties and fewer options for the home owner and gardener. And instead of presenting natural landscaping and its techniques as an extension of artistic expression and individual sanctuary, they present it to the gardening taxpayer as a controlled expansion of weeds.

Although the existing laws appear to have been reasonably successful enforcing voluntary compliance in weed abatement, the entire amendment appears to be authored with the same intent as the city's landlord/nuisance ordinance. That is, for the city to trespass onto private land and remedy the situation with confrontational enforcement if necessary. But the worst part is probably this.

Amendment Notice Excerpt
5. This section shall not apply to properties owned by governmental entities or where federal, state or local regulations provide otherwise.

Well, Wisconsin's Park Place would like its taxpayers to obey strict rules regarding the growth of noxious weeds and tall grass but exempts itself from the same.

So while you’re out there on your hands and knees pulling and bagging thousands of garlic mustard sprouts from your yard and spraying dangerous herbicides and other poisons that eventually find their way into the Rock River and groundwater aquifiers, the city’s own parks and right-of-ways of garlic mustard and dandelions are packing their bags full of seed just waiting for the next windy ride into your yard.

The public hearing for this so-called noxious weed amendment is scheduled for July 28th at 7 PM in the council chambers at the Janesville municipal building.

Lake District Pursue Higher Instead Of Deeper

Tweet

In Thursday’s editorial, the Janesville Gazette encouraged the RKLD to keep up the fight against the state Department of Natural Resource's powers and reasoning establishing the water level height of Lake Koshkonong. This coming after a recent ruling re-affirming the DNR’s constitutional powers as a state agency.

JG Editorial Excerpt:
Resident and business owners who want more water will never be satisfied if the district abandons the fight now.

This is probably the most telling statement describing the perpetual contradiction concerning Lake Koshkonong, that adding more water will create the deeper conditions they want. They are ignoring the shallow nature and heavy gravity within their own defense, and have put their own self-serving economic benefits and interests as the driving force to over-rule the decision achieved by the DNR's fine balance between economic and environmental impact concerns.

On Thursday night, the RKLD Board voted to appeal the recent circuit court decision. No doubt, economics played just as heavy a role. Advancing to the Appellate Court will cost each parcel owner in the RKLD district only $5 and another $12.50 if the case goes to the state supreme court.

Besides the extremely low cost on their end to pursue the matter, one of the RKLD’s reasons to continue the fight is the idea that the DNR would have surely appealed the ruling, had Dillon overturned their constitutional powers. So it turns out, the lake district's argument has reached the point beyond the data, the logic or the reasoning behind their passionate pursuit. It has become a combative exercise not to justify their own cause but to defeat the other guy as well.

Sounds political to me.Cartoon? sent in by a reader.

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.

Koshkonong water level opinion

Tweet

Just from the bits and pieces I’ve read over the years and as a former homeowner and resident near the river in Fulton Township, this is what I understand about the dispute over lake levels of Koshkonong. The Lake District wants to raise the water level 7.2 inches by raising the height of the Indianford Dam. They want the higher water levels for two primary reasons: increase navigability and to raise their property values, possibly not in that order. They want to do this seemingly without regard to the impact up or downstream, the natural environment or wetland preservation. Without the dam, in its natural state, the area known as Lake Koshkonong is just a widening of the Rock River, very shallow and marshy.

The RKLD has posted their case on the web and enlisted the “expert” services of biologists and hydrologists. Unfortunately, their website is loaded and overdone with degrees and resumes almost to the point of coerced intimidation against those who oppose their viewpoint. Some testimonies have conflicting statements and imply they would rather have a return to the water levels when the dam was “broken” from the 60’s up until 2004. At the levels maintained now, “periods of low flow occur often in late summer and fall” said Robert J. Montgomery, consultant for the RKLD. Raising the level could possibly stagnate the lake during drought conditions. Montgomery also said, “the lake impoundment does not store water or alter Rock River flows to any material degree.” Whaaat? If that's the case, why have a dam?

I’m not a huge fan of the DNR, but their position is exactly what they are charged to do, protect the environment and help provide optimum use and accountibility for the states resources within reasonable circumstances. They want to maintain things just the way they are. They have a winter drawdown plan to reduce damage of the fragile Koshkonong shoreline and they have the dam at a height that sustains good flows and velocities of the river, without breaching the young shoreline any further during the summer.

This is important because it does seem if they raise the water any higher, water velocities could slow enough to lower the oxygen levels of the stream, thereby turning the lake into a giant cesspool of toxic soup, particularly during drought conditions. The consequential damage to the shoreline is more obvious and needs no explanation. If the DNR took into account property values as top priority or the recreational use of the lake, I’d think they are not doing their job or, that they have been bought.

JG excerpt:
About the DNR position “I was frankly shocked by the assessment – boating, navigation and property values were treated as minor and incidental things, “said Lake District attorney William O’Connor.

As you can see the Rock Koshkonong Lake District is not afraid to hide their true motivations so I would agree they have been transparent. Those behind the Lake District seem to be supporters of the latest trend in America for the past 10 years regarding public entities and natural resources, that private economic gain overrides all other causes. But that’s another issue for another time.

At the levels maintained for now, I have personally witnessed areas of the river downstream and in Janesville become very shallow where the bottom has been exposed for long periods of time during the summer. Near downtown Janesville, Spring Brook is oftentimes down to a trickle with heavy sediment buildup and huge trees toppling over with their roots exposed, and this is at the mouth of the river! Throughout the winter the water is up high and frozen, and during spring thaw the ice continues to tug and pull at the shoreline. I don’t need biologists to tell me this, I've witnessed this firsthand for years. This is a cycle that runs like clockwork with the dam manipulation at Indianford. Sure, Janesville has their own dams but they seem to be applied to improve velocities, not the levels. The point I am trying to make here is that the perceived gains at Koshkonong comes at the expense of levels and environmental damage elsewhere. They certainly do not have any more right to the water than anyone else.

The request to raise it only 7.2 inches seems minor, but just as a casual observer looking at the big picture, I would say the levels maintained now are generous and bordering on excessive, regardless of boatability. Sure, I would like to see a deeper Lake Koshkonong, too, but the Lake District's reasons unfortunately appear to be self-serving and not for the benefit of the natural environment. If they can prove that raising the water levels would enrich or improve the natural environment, (not economic environment), water quality, fishery, wetland preservation and most importantly shoreline integrity of the lake including up and downstream for the long term, I would support them 100%. But they cannot.

If the judge or DNR caves in to economic interests, they know as well as the District that it is a short term fix for more lake depth. During the natural ebbs and flows of rivers and lakes, they know it will speed up shoreline erosion, disrupt the water table, increase sediment deposits on the river bed and expand the reaches of the lake. They know that 10 years from now or 100 years later, they will have to raise the dam again to maintain the minimum depth they desire, this will be an endless cycle. And, it does not address the damage done upstream or downstream.

“I sure pray the DNR gives us back our lake, at least for a few years until it fills in some more.”--Evelyn Payson PS.“I think dredging areas like ours is going to have to be part of the ultimate solution for the lake (and it has to be dredging large areas, not narrow channels. Dredging a narrow channel is like making a ditch through maple syrup - it fills up right away.). What's been happening is that the lake's been filling in - that the bottom has, in essence, been coming up.”(blogger)

Turning a giant marsh into a giant lake is a big idea, and big ideas require big money. Through a special assessment on surrounding property owners the Lake District has raised $400,000 to pay mostly attorney fee’s, a minuscule amount of money when you consider what they want to accomplish.

If they want a deeper lake they need a deeper bowl, and the only way to do it is to dredge. Unfortunately, it would cost 10’s of millions of dollars if not more and disturbing the marsh bottom may pose worse unforeseeable problems and consequences. I’m sure if the Lake District could afford it, they would pay a group of biologists to write a favorable report on dredging and go to court all over again. But they will need lots more money to turn Lake Koshkonong into something it isn’t, lots more than their properties are worth.