Rock-Koshkonong wants to make slow/no-wake level consistent across county
The Rock-Koshkonong Lake District is asking the Rock County Board to set uniform standards for slow/no-wake orders on the Rock River.
Lake district Chairman Brian Christianson said the district wants new standards because the current system is "arbitrary" and leaves boaters unable to do more than putt along stretches of the river and Lake Koshkonong for days at a time during high water—often during the heart of the boating and tourism season.
The lake district seeks a countywide standard that would set slow/no-wake at flood "action stage," which the National Weather Service lists as a foot below true flood stage.
When the water drops below action stage, the slow/no-wake restrictions would be lifted.
Christianson said that would shorten the amount of time it normally takes to remove slow/no-wake orders.
It also would help pave the way for the district to use the Indianford Dam to raise water levels at Lake Koshkonong—a plan that's tied up in a court case against the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and is headed to the state Supreme Court.
County ordinances give the sheriff's office authority to set and remove slow/no-wake orders.
The sheriff's office generally handles the orders at the request of townships and municipalities—some of which have their own ordinances and guidelines on slow/no-wake—but the county's ordinance lists no numerical standard for water levels.
During high water, Christianson said, the system creates a patchwork of slow/no-wake guidelines along the river. He said it's difficult for boaters to know when they're in a slow/no-wake area and when they're not.
"It creates confusion. It affects fisherman and recreational boaters, both out-of-state people and year-round residents, and it discourages navigation of the river and the lake," Christianson said.
The lake district last year filed a petition with the county asking it to add "objective numerical standards" to its slow/no-wake ordinance. Rock County Corporation Counsel Jeff Kuglitsch said the county's public safety and justice committee could take up a new draft of the ordinance in September.
Kuglitsch said the draft ordinance recommends slow/no-wake orders when the river is above 7 1/2 feet near Lake Koshkonong, and above 6 1/2 feet in the southern part of county.
The 7 1/2-foot recommendation for Lake Koshkonong came from the town of Fulton. The township overlaps the lake district and has authority to make slow/no-wake recommendations on parts of the Rock River between the Newville Bridge and Stone Farm Road.
Christianson said the lake district believes the town's recommendation is too low, especially given studies that show the river tends to recede more slowly than it rises.
The lake district instead wants countywide slow/no-wake standards set at flood "action stage," which at Lake Koshkonong is 9 feet. That's 1 1/2 feet higher than the town of Fulton's slow/no-wake recommendation.
Christianson said the lake district's request is significant because it would protect the district's interests in its court battle to raise water levels at Lake Koshkonong. He said setting slow/no-wake at flood "action stage" would give the lake district a buffer to raise lake levels.
On the other hand, Christianson said, if the county sets a 7 1/2-foot slow/no-wake standard—the town of Fulton's recommendation—then the district would be unable to raise water levels without facing the constant threat of slow/no-wake orders.
Town of Fulton Chairman Evan Sayre said he believes that water levels at flood "action stage" are too high for
full-speed boat traffic on the river. He called the lake district's recommendation "irresponsible."
"You're talking 9 feet of water. That's when you get out the sandbags," he said.
Sayre said the town of Fulton's benchmark for slow/no-wake has been set at 7 1/2 feet for years. He said the rule is based on Wisconsin DNR flood guidelines and is intended to protect seawalls, piers and other property along the river.
Sayre said he believes the lake district is pushing a plan that puts a court case and the interests of boaters ahead of the rights of property owners along the river.
"It's just a political arm-wrestling match. There's no validity to it unless you're somebody who wants to rip around the river in a boat when the water's high," Sayre said.
Christianson said he believes slow/no-wake orders shouldn't be used to curb
noisy boat traffic or to protect people's piers during high water.
"People don't realize that it (slow/no-wake) impacts businesses and other people that live on the lake and that live on the river," he said.

Aug 13, 2011 at 10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
VI. Conclusion
61 In sum, we conclude that: (1) the DNR is not required under Wis. Stat. § 31.02(1), as part of its responsibility to “protect life, health and property” in regulating and controlling water levels and flow, to consider the potential economic effects on residential property values, business income and tax revenue from proposed water levels; (2) the DNR did not exceed the scope of its authority when it considered the effect setting water levels under § 31.02(1) may have on adjacent wetlands; and (3) the DNR did not exceed the scope of its authority in considering the wetland water quality standards of Wis. Admin. Code § NR 103, and other standards originating from ch. 281 of the Wisconsin Statutes, in setting the water levels for Lake Koshkonong. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court order affirming the DNR’s order.
Aug 12, 2011 at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
We don't need NOAA, we got the Weather Chanel. I say we shrink big government!
Aug 12, 2011 at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
If the property owners along the river from Newville to Indianford were polled I suspect over 95% woulld be in favor of the higher level. It is only a very few that ever complain and they are always the same ones. None of the Fulton Town board live on the river and I have seen none of them use it. Leave the waterway matters to the Lake District where it belongs. We own the dam and are working hard to improve the lake and the river. It is very difficult to understand why the township is fighting us. (unless maybe Sayres is jealous)
Aug 12, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sayre is the irresponsible one in this dispute. NOAA has the experience and knowhow when it comes to water levels throughout the state and the nation. They monitor all rivers closely. They have set the "take action" level on this waterway responsibly at 9 feet. That means slow no wake should be set in accordance with their reccomendation not some farmer's ideas that have no scientific basis.
The waterway is much higher than it used to be due to development from Watertown on down over the past 3 decades. If people have old piers and seawalls they should be replaced not protected by Sayre and his cronies. Hopefully rock County will see the light and go by engineers and professionals recomndations. Evan Sayre is the ego power monger in this dispute and should be disregarded.
Aug 12, 2011 at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
72 feet???
Aug 12, 2011 at 7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sounds like the lake district isn't happy about anything they don't control completely...too bad, so sad...
This appears to be another attempt to bypass the court ruling of not raising the lake levels.
The article says there is a court case against the DNR and is headed for the Supreme Court. The appeals court judge has already ruled on this and the lake district lost. So is there another case we don't know about?
Aug 11, 2011 at 9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Chairman Sayre is absolutely correct. Christianson should realize that flooding also impacts businesses, property, farmland & people on the lake & river. He may be the face of the Lake Distict Organization, but he clearly does not represent all of the property owners that are forced by their tax bill to fund and be a part of that group. Christianson is an arrogant, power hungry, egotistical fool.
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.