Koshkonong residents divided over next step in court battle
Podcast Episode
Kyle Geissler talks with Janesville Gazette reporter Stacy Vogel about the options the Rock Koshkonong Lake District has in appealing a ruling regarding lake levels.
Photo 
Daniel T. Dillon
Photo 
Brian K. Christianson
JANESVILLE The Rock Koshkonong Lake District has an important decision to make, and district residents aren’t making it any easier.
Since the district learned Monday of Rock County Judge Daniel Dillon’s decision to uphold the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in its refusal to raise the lake level, district officials have heard from many of the district’s 7,000 residents, Chairman Brian Christianson said.
About one-third want the district to appeal the decision, and another one-third want the district to give up the case and focus on other projects to improve the lake, Christianson said. The remaining one-third is undecided, he said.
“It’s going to be a challenge for the board to decide where to go,” he said.
The judge’s decision is the latest step in a battle that has been raging for 25 years between the DNR and advocates of higher water levels.
The latest fight started in 2003, when the lake district asked the DNR to raise the lake’s level 7.2 inches in summer and eliminate winter drawdowns. The DNR denied the request, and an administrative law judge upheld the DNR’s decision in 2006.
William O’Connor, attorney for the lake district, argued in Rock County Court that the DNR placed too much weight on wetland interests and disregarded the interest of property owners, violating state statute that requires the DNR to weigh all interests.
In the 2006 case, Administrative Law Judge William Coleman rejected evidence from the lake district about the economic impact on property owners caused by lower water levels, something Dillon questioned during oral arguments in circuit court.
“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 Dillon wrote in his decision that, while he might have interpreted the statutes and weighed the evidence differently, the administrative law judge’s interpretation also is valid.
“While not referring to specific dollar losses in tax revenues, property loss or other impacts caused by lower water levels in the summer, (the administrative law decision) does consider impact from loss of use of lake property,” he wrote.
“This court, in applying great weight deference, must sustain the agency’s reasonable statutory interpretation, even if the court believes that another interpretation is equally reasonable, or even more reasonable, than that of the DNR.”
That reasoning seems to leave the door open for appeal, Christianson said.
The lake district spent between $400,000 and $500,000 on the administrative law review, he said. O’Connor handled the circuit court case pro bono because the administrative review cost more than expected.
But an appeal wouldn’t cost much because there are no oral arguments at the appellate court, Christianson said. Costs would be mostly for photocopying information and arguments the lake district and O’Connor already have.
“There is a school of thought from about a third of our constituents that we’ve got such a significant amount of time and money invested in this that we really ought to push this through to a point where we have no further options,” Christianson said.
That would involve taking the case to appellate court and, if necessary, the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The district has 30 days to decide if it wants to appeal the decision.
STORYLINE
The issue: The Rock Koshkonong Lake District has been fighting since 2003 to raise the lake’s level 7.2 inches in the summer and eliminate winter drawdowns. The Department of Natural Resources denied the request in 2005, and the state Division of Hearings and Appeals upheld the decision in 2006.
The district appealed that decision to Rock County Court in December 2006.
What’s new: Judge Daniel T. Dillon upheld the DNR’s decision in a ruling dated Friday.
What’s next: The district has 30 days to appeal the decision to the state appellate court.

May 15, 2008 at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
The Lake District must keep fighting the 'good fight' for plus 7.2" of additional summer water level. It's the difference between needing a 300 foot pier or 100 foot pier to safely moor a boat on Kosh.
The following is from the DNR's Pier Regulation information:
Figure 2. Pier Length
A pier may extend to the greater of:
A.) the three-foot water depth, or
B.) where there is adequate depth for mooring a boat,
or using a boat hoist or boat lift.
With the existing, meager summer lake levels, how far out do you really need to go with a pier to reach 3-foot of water, enough to moor an average size Koshkonong boat? Does the DNR weigh the safety issues of extremely long piers jetting into navigable waters vs. giving us a reasonable amount of water to float a boat? I really don't think the DNR took our big lake into consideration when writing their pier regulations. The right hand of the DNR doesn't seem to know what the left is doing, again. The wetlands group? ...it smells of self-serving 'land barron' mentality. It's a worth while investment to let our little Lake District be the giant killers. Go ahead, fight the 'good fight' for us to the end! Quiting now would be a definite loss. T.
May 14, 2008 at 9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Try a lake swap Brian. Koshkonong for Mendota.
May 14, 2008 at 11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Raise it. Maybe people would actually spend time and money on the lake then. So what you have to move your piers and maybe the lake gets a bit busier. The wetlands groups have way to much influence on these issues for what to preserve weedy swamp land?
I wouldn’t buy property on the lake right now, just because it is low. It seems like this shouldn’t even be an issue.
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.