On Opposing sides see different futures for lake
Posted on May 15 at 3:43 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JimP - I agree that the current decision sets a precedent at the state level - I never said it didn't. My point was that as this goes up the chain of court systems, the geographic scope increases until, at the Supreme Court level, it affects the entire country. So for those who say there is nothing to lose by continuing the appeal, that is untrue. It will cost more money (our tax $$ pay BOTH sides) and it could set a nationwide precedent instead of a local one. There is talk that the next round will be cheap (~$20,000), but what about subsequent rounds after that? I hear the argument "we spent too much money to quit now", but that argument will justify appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. And - maybe I am wrong - I don't think we can get away with a mere $20,000 for a Supreme Court case. My position is that there is too much to lose by appealing. Meanwhile, we could be working on things we all agree on, like improving the water quality.
On Opposing sides see different futures for lake
Posted on May 15 at 2:52 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JimP, you are mistaken in your analysis of the RKLD report. In the conclusion, it says "Based on the literature review, the following positive and negative impacts may occur to some degree with the increased and stable water levels proposed." It then goes on to say that wetland loss may occur as I stated. It is a fact that the RKLD report admits that their proposal could cause the loss of wetlands. You may disagree with it if you wish, but you cannot deny the report.
On Opposing sides see different futures for lake
Posted on May 15 at 2:47 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JimP, I am pretty sure the Dillon decision does not affect the entire country like a Supreme Court decision would. Courts have specific geographic areas under their influence, and I don't think the Dillon decision affects someone in, say, Alaska as much as if it were made by the Supreme Court.
On Opposing sides see different futures for lake
Posted on May 15 at 10:57 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars so far and have nothing to show for it except fancy new cars for the lawyers and now a legal precedent that can affect other lake districts. The higher you take it, the more far reaching the legal precedent becomes. Let's say it reaches the Supreme Court and we fail, it suddenly affects every lake district in the country. If there were a realistic chance of succeeding, I'd say go for it, but the chance of legal success at this point is slim. Let's spend the money on something different or else let the taxpayers keep it. It's our money, not the government's, and we should make sure it is spent wisely.
On Opposing sides see different futures for lake
Posted on May 15 at 9:45 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Appealing yet again would be throwing good money after bad. Let's either return to the originally promised $25 assessment or else spend the money on something we are guaranteed to get value for, such as improving the boat landings. It's time to stop with the $400/hr lawyers.
On Judge upholds DNR in Koshkonong case
Posted on May 14 at 8:56 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
JimP is incorrect in his statement that carp have no advisory. The WDNR guidelines (http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/consumption/FishA...) say this: "Women of childbearing years, nursing mothers and all children under 15 may eat 1 meal per week of Bluegill, crappies, yellow perch, sunfish, bullheads and inland trout; and 1 meal per month of Walleye, pike, bass, catfish and all other species. Do not eat Muskies. Women beyond their childbearing years
and men may eat unrestricted Bluegill, crappies, yellow perch, sunfish, bullheads and inland trout; 1 meal per week of Walleye, pike, bass, catfish and all other species; and 1 meal per month of Muskies." Carp would fall under the "all other species" category, and are therefore unfortunately restricted.
On Judge upholds DNR in Koshkonong case
Posted on May 13 at 8:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
JimP, I am a bit confused what you are saying. Are you suggesting the fish in Lake Koshkonong and the Rock River are safe to eat? The evidence you provide to support this claim (if that is what you are doing) is a link to "Special advice for PCBs and other chemicals". It is true there is no "special advice" for our particular waterways; however, the WDNR still recommends limiting fish consumption. You may want to review the article "Choosing Wisely - A health guide for eating fish in Wisconsin" (http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/consumption/FishA...). The guide suggests that the reason for the restrictions is because "two main contaminants are responsible for fish advisories in Wisconsin. They are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury." All I am saying is that it would be nice if there were no restrictions on eating the fish of our lakes and rivers - is it really that controversial to suggest we try to do something about it? Peace...
On Judge upholds DNR in Koshkonong case
Posted on May 13 at 3:58 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I would love for the RKLD to focus on cleaning up the lake so that the fish are safe to eat. Lake Koshkonong is considered an "impaired body" under the Federal Clean Water Act. Women of child bearing age and children are advised to eat no muskies and no more than 8 oz a month of walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, catfish, and other fish. Men are advised to have no more than 8 oz a week (http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/eh/Fish/). This is due primarily to PCBs and mercury pollution. I realize that much of the problem is out of the control of the district, but there is MUCH that can be done. They should take a look at what some of the other districts are doing - there is so much opportunity and time's a wasting!
Page 1 of 1
On Opposing sides see different futures for lake
Posted on May 15 at 4:50 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I applaud the district's involvement to date. But imagine what more can be done if we weren't spending so much time on a money-draining lawsuit. For example, there is currently a proposed increase in mercury pollution in the Rock river upstream of Lake Koshkonong with about two weeks left in the public comment period. Has the RKLD weighed in? I haven't seen anything on their web site. We already have enough mercury contamination in our fish to justify a fish advisory that restricts consumption; no one wants it to get so bad we can't eat ANY of the fish.