Docks are in the news again as media around Minnesota begin to report on and scrutinize the DNRs dubious decision to use a General Permit to authorize structures clearly prohibited by existing rules. Use the link above to monitor related stories as they emerge.
One possibility allowed under the new DNR General Permit is that counties may choose opt out and it looks like the Beltrami County Lake and River Associations (BCLARA) may soon ask Beltrami County to do so. Hopefully the commission will do the right and prohibit the use of the patio platform General Permit. Stay tuned for new developments...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
New poll: raise my taxes?!?
As part of my exploration of possibly establishing a local watershed district, I have added a new poll (see right hand column). Based on taxable market valuations within the proposed watershed district, the required tax levy would be roughly $1 per $10,000 taxable market value. Thus, the owner of a $100,000 home in the City of Bemidji would pay an additional $10 per year in property taxes. Likewise, the owner of a $500,000 summer home on Cass Lake would pay $50. Seems like a good investment to me but I'll be curious to see what kind of responses I get (if any!).
Phosphorus: Enemy of the Lake
The Strib recently had a nice feature by Larry Baker on the role phosphorus plays in lakes...it is worth reading and passing along. He has some very interesting ideas about whole watershed phosphorus management and I think he is on the right track. /dps
DNR approves over-water patio platform docks?
In late January 2008 Minnesota DNR Division of Waters issued a new, five-year General Permit which authorizes large patio platforms on private docks. Oddly, the decision to issue this permit was directly contrary the main conclusion of a DNR-convened statewide Docks Advisory Committee (DAC)! I had the opportunity to serve on this 19 member committee, which included eleven citizens, four dock industry representatives, and four DNR personnel. In the first paragraph of our final report, we “expressed significant reservations about the wisdom of re-issuing another general permit for dock platforms, feeling that doing so might be considered an after-the-fact variance for platform docks.” Such patio platforms are illegal under existing DNR rules. A majority of DAC members felt that recommending “any sort of General Permit for platform docks would make them complicit in the degradation of aquatic habitat, the further destruction of the natural shoreline character, and the erosion of the ‘public’ nature of Minnesota waters.”
The Commissioner’s inexplicable decision to disregard the recommendations of the Department’s own state-wide committee raises two major questions. First, why ask people to invest time and energy into serving on a committee only to ignore their carefully crafted conclusions? Second, are top DNR administrators acting in the best long-term interest of Minnesota’s public water resources or are they falling into a troubling pattern of responding to the whims and wishes of a politically well-connected few?
In response to the first question, it appears that DNR leadership was hoping that the DAC would legitimize an earlier dubious decision to issue a one-year general permit for those few docks which clearly violated existing dock rules. In several intensively developed areas of Minnesota, a growing number of private docks do not comply with current DNR dock rules. Rather than enforcing existing rules, the DNR is trying to use a General Permit process to grant after-the-fact variances for political allies. The DAC unequivocally rejected this abuse of the General Permit process and, as a result, our recommendations were disregarded. If existing dock rules need to be updated, and clearly they do, then the Department should immediately initiate a legitimate rule-making process as required by law.
The decision to issue a five-year general permit for patio platform docks is just the latest in a string of recent DNR decisions which suggest that the current DNR administration is more interested in rewarding political allies than in protecting Minnesota’s natural resources. Such short-sighted and self-interested policies do not bode well for the future. Our waters, in particular, are a public resource and the DNR should be working to maintain ecological integrity, natural aesthetics, and public accessibility. Instead, it seems that such worthy ends are secondary to the desires and financial interests of an influential few. The reality is, most Minnesotan’s do not own lakeshore and most who are fortunate enough to do so realize that private docks are privileged intrusions on a public resource. Consequently, a vast majority of Minnesota docks are ‘minimum impact solutions to demonstrated needs,’ as required by existing rules. Why reward a few people who seek to extend their private domain over public waters?
Issuing a five year General Permit for dock patio platforms can only result in the spread of such structures across broader areas of Minnesota. While sales of patio platforms may be good for the dock industry, their use is bad for Minnesota lakes. Ecologically, increasingly large over-water footprints of dock systems and accessory structures disrupt near shore aquatic vegetation critical for fish reproduction and development. They further serve to concentrate and increase the angling vulnerability of a variety of fish species. Perhaps most significantly, large dock systems unavoidably shift aquatic productivity away from rooted plants and toward algae which reduces water clarity and initiates a cascade of largely undesirable changes in aquatic communities. Aesthetically, ever expanding dock systems contribute to visual clutter which compromises the natural character of lakes and shorelines. Finally, and undeniably, patio platforms restrict public access to a public resource.
Therefore, given the DNR’s apparent unwillingness to act in the long-term interest of Minnesota’s water resources, what can be done? According to the cover letter accompanying the new General Permit, any county may prohibit use of this permit within its jurisdiction. Encourage your county to do so. If a county does prohibit use of this ill-conceived General Permit, existing DNR rules remain in effect. Perhaps the Association of Minnesota Counties might even ‘encourage’ the DNR to get on with a legitimate rule-making process instead of foisting resource protection on individual counties? Lakeshore property owners can do the right thing and forego the temptation to expand their dock systems (or, even better, to reduce current configurations). Individual citizens across the state can contact legislators and ultimately compel the DNR to initiate a legitimate rule-revising process. The stakes are high and the time is short. What happens in the immediate future will shape Minnesota shorelines for decades to come.
The Commissioner’s inexplicable decision to disregard the recommendations of the Department’s own state-wide committee raises two major questions. First, why ask people to invest time and energy into serving on a committee only to ignore their carefully crafted conclusions? Second, are top DNR administrators acting in the best long-term interest of Minnesota’s public water resources or are they falling into a troubling pattern of responding to the whims and wishes of a politically well-connected few?
In response to the first question, it appears that DNR leadership was hoping that the DAC would legitimize an earlier dubious decision to issue a one-year general permit for those few docks which clearly violated existing dock rules. In several intensively developed areas of Minnesota, a growing number of private docks do not comply with current DNR dock rules. Rather than enforcing existing rules, the DNR is trying to use a General Permit process to grant after-the-fact variances for political allies. The DAC unequivocally rejected this abuse of the General Permit process and, as a result, our recommendations were disregarded. If existing dock rules need to be updated, and clearly they do, then the Department should immediately initiate a legitimate rule-making process as required by law.
The decision to issue a five-year general permit for patio platform docks is just the latest in a string of recent DNR decisions which suggest that the current DNR administration is more interested in rewarding political allies than in protecting Minnesota’s natural resources. Such short-sighted and self-interested policies do not bode well for the future. Our waters, in particular, are a public resource and the DNR should be working to maintain ecological integrity, natural aesthetics, and public accessibility. Instead, it seems that such worthy ends are secondary to the desires and financial interests of an influential few. The reality is, most Minnesotan’s do not own lakeshore and most who are fortunate enough to do so realize that private docks are privileged intrusions on a public resource. Consequently, a vast majority of Minnesota docks are ‘minimum impact solutions to demonstrated needs,’ as required by existing rules. Why reward a few people who seek to extend their private domain over public waters?
Issuing a five year General Permit for dock patio platforms can only result in the spread of such structures across broader areas of Minnesota. While sales of patio platforms may be good for the dock industry, their use is bad for Minnesota lakes. Ecologically, increasingly large over-water footprints of dock systems and accessory structures disrupt near shore aquatic vegetation critical for fish reproduction and development. They further serve to concentrate and increase the angling vulnerability of a variety of fish species. Perhaps most significantly, large dock systems unavoidably shift aquatic productivity away from rooted plants and toward algae which reduces water clarity and initiates a cascade of largely undesirable changes in aquatic communities. Aesthetically, ever expanding dock systems contribute to visual clutter which compromises the natural character of lakes and shorelines. Finally, and undeniably, patio platforms restrict public access to a public resource.
Therefore, given the DNR’s apparent unwillingness to act in the long-term interest of Minnesota’s water resources, what can be done? According to the cover letter accompanying the new General Permit, any county may prohibit use of this permit within its jurisdiction. Encourage your county to do so. If a county does prohibit use of this ill-conceived General Permit, existing DNR rules remain in effect. Perhaps the Association of Minnesota Counties might even ‘encourage’ the DNR to get on with a legitimate rule-making process instead of foisting resource protection on individual counties? Lakeshore property owners can do the right thing and forego the temptation to expand their dock systems (or, even better, to reduce current configurations). Individual citizens across the state can contact legislators and ultimately compel the DNR to initiate a legitimate rule-revising process. The stakes are high and the time is short. What happens in the immediate future will shape Minnesota shorelines for decades to come.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
2007 Weather Review
The Minnesota Climatology Working Group recently released its overview of our state's 2007 weather. Couldn't help but thinking how short our memory really is regarding specific weather events (at least speaking for myself). /dps
Friday, January 18, 2008
Join the CROWD?*
Interested in helping to establish a local watershed district? For the past several months I have been exploring the possibility and will be facilitating an informational meeting at 7:00 pm Thursday 31 January at the Headwaters Science Center. See this pdf flyer for meeting details and proposal background. /dps
* Committee Requesting an Ozawindib Watershed District
* Committee Requesting an Ozawindib Watershed District
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Docks Comment
I recieved the the following unedited (and unsurprisingly anomymous) response to an earlier blog posting on docks:
"There is no good science that proves that docks are harmful to the lake or organisms in the lake. The studies that you and the DNR use take the general public to be "Idiots". One such instatnce would be the argument that docks block out the sun, while this could be true if the sun was always at a 90 degree angle to the dock. We all know from elementary school that the sun is always moving from left to right when looking south and never at a 90 degree angle to the earth unless you are in the tropics. There are more weeds and fish of all species under my dock than you can shake a cane pole at. To summarize dont take opinions as fact and dont rely on biased junk science, remember the DNR is the same group that said Rip Rap and lottery Doe tags were the solutions not long ago."
Consistent with the Greek origins of the term, I take as "idiots" only those who choose to remain willfully ignorant while rushing eagerly into public dialogue.
Unfortunately, we are living in culture where the bluster of loud opinion has somehow attained the the same weight as sound evidence. In such a context, it seems that the only "good science" is science that is consistent with one's pre-existing biases. For anyone willing to look, it will be readily apparent that there is plenty of legitimate science documenting the adverse ecological effects of such things as habitat fragmentation, over-water shading, and vegetation removal. Moreover, it is well-established that docks concentrate fish and make them more vulnerable to harvest. Docks and associated structures also disturb critical near shore nursery habitat.
Finally, the dock issue involves far more than ecological consequences. Docks are, quite simply, private intrusions on public waters and according to current statutorily-authorized rules, they must be 'minimum impact solutions to demonstrated needs.' Patio platforms are a private trespass on public property. If you build your gazebo or your garage on state forest land you will be rightly expected to remove it. We have been granted a special privilege of putting our private docks in public waters...it is not some sort of inherent right. In addition, as lakeshore developmental pressure continues to intensify and property values correspondingly increase, an ever smaller fraction of Minnesotan's will be able to afford lakeshore. In the end, there is a class issue here. By allowing ever more expansive dock systems, we run the risk of catering to the well-heeled few at the expense of our average citizens. But that, of course, is merely only my own opinion...
"There is no good science that proves that docks are harmful to the lake or organisms in the lake. The studies that you and the DNR use take the general public to be "Idiots". One such instatnce would be the argument that docks block out the sun, while this could be true if the sun was always at a 90 degree angle to the dock. We all know from elementary school that the sun is always moving from left to right when looking south and never at a 90 degree angle to the earth unless you are in the tropics. There are more weeds and fish of all species under my dock than you can shake a cane pole at. To summarize dont take opinions as fact and dont rely on biased junk science, remember the DNR is the same group that said Rip Rap and lottery Doe tags were the solutions not long ago."
Consistent with the Greek origins of the term, I take as "idiots" only those who choose to remain willfully ignorant while rushing eagerly into public dialogue.
Unfortunately, we are living in culture where the bluster of loud opinion has somehow attained the the same weight as sound evidence. In such a context, it seems that the only "good science" is science that is consistent with one's pre-existing biases. For anyone willing to look, it will be readily apparent that there is plenty of legitimate science documenting the adverse ecological effects of such things as habitat fragmentation, over-water shading, and vegetation removal. Moreover, it is well-established that docks concentrate fish and make them more vulnerable to harvest. Docks and associated structures also disturb critical near shore nursery habitat.
Finally, the dock issue involves far more than ecological consequences. Docks are, quite simply, private intrusions on public waters and according to current statutorily-authorized rules, they must be 'minimum impact solutions to demonstrated needs.' Patio platforms are a private trespass on public property. If you build your gazebo or your garage on state forest land you will be rightly expected to remove it. We have been granted a special privilege of putting our private docks in public waters...it is not some sort of inherent right. In addition, as lakeshore developmental pressure continues to intensify and property values correspondingly increase, an ever smaller fraction of Minnesotan's will be able to afford lakeshore. In the end, there is a class issue here. By allowing ever more expansive dock systems, we run the risk of catering to the well-heeled few at the expense of our average citizens. But that, of course, is merely only my own opinion...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
