Assembly Bill 299 has been passed by both houses in the state legislature and will become law unless the Governor vetoes the bill. If this bill becomes law, it would immediately eliminate all shoreland zoning requirements for land that is annexed by a city or village. Removing shoreland protection standards for annexed areas would allow development to be close to the water and at high density.

Thousands of lakefront property owners in unincorporated areas have invested millions of dollars in structures that meet the current statewide minimum standards for shoreland development. These property owners should not be penalized for following standards and protecting the quality of their lake, nor have their property values lowered by the impacts of high density development. Furthermore, it is unfair to hold annexed neighbors to lesser or no shoreland standards.

Shorelands are important to protect water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, natural scenic beauty, enhance private property values, and preserve everyone’s enjoyment of the water (anglers, boaters, tourists, and the businesses that depend on them).

The Wisconsin Association of Lakes has opposed this bill; protection of property values and near shore areas depends on the Governor’s veto of this bill. We encourage you to contact the Governor’s office with your opinion by April 12th.

Of Wisconsin’s 30,000 farms with livestock, 140 operations have enough manure producing animals to be considered Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes that CAFOs can be a significant source of water pollution. Like other businesses whose activities may impact our public waters, CAFOs must get discharge permits under the federal Clean Water Act. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has been following the federal government’s lead, and has issued permits for CAFO operations since 1984.

Immediate consequences of manure spills include fish kills, and an influx of nutrients that can trigger smelly algae blooms. Spreading manure on saturated lake watershed soils leads to reoccurring and long- term negative impacts on our lakes by contributing to chronic phosphorus loading.

Manure pollution undermines the private and public investment property owners and taxpayers are making to keep our lakes clean, safe, and healthy. Property owners bear an undue burden when their lake quality and property values decline because of pollution elsewhere in the watershed.

• Many of the manure spills that caused habitat destruction and contaminated wells were from manure applications that appear to comply with the current standards.
• Manure spills have severely impacted lake and river habitat, including destroying trout fisheries. A 2005 manure spill into the Sugar River—a nationally renowned trout fishery—caused a massive fishkill. Spill response costs and restoration efforts cost taxpayers over $1 million dollars.
• Fifty-two manure spills that reached surface and groundwater were reported between June 2004 and July 2005. It is estimated many manure spills are unreported.
• Of these 52 spills many were caused by medium and large CAFOs; most spills resulted from manure spreading on frozen and snow covered ground.
• Manure spills contaminated at least 70 wells in Brown County in 2006. Polluted drinking water has caused people to become ill and many have had to incur the cost of drilling a new, deeper well ($10- $15,000 per well) with no guarantee their new well will not become contaminated again.

Talking points about what provisions within NR 243 are necessary to protect water quality are available online. Contact Division of Water Administrator Todd Ambs with your concerns about manure reaching our lakes.

The State Legislature has failed to clarify the uncertainty for property owners regarding piers. When the Legislature passed 2003 Act 118, it created a pier permitting process, exempted certain piers from permitting, and directed the DNR to write administrative rules (NR 326) to administer the statute. The legislature rejected the proposed pier rules developed by the Pier Rule Stakeholder Advisory, the public, and the Department of Natural Resources.

The legislature proposed its own pier bill (AB-850) as an alternative to the Stakeholder-developed rules. AB-850 passed the Assembly, the Senate concurred with the Bill and sent it back to the Assembly where it remains unscheduled. Because the revised rules are unapproved and the Bill that would further change the statute has not been signed into law, the existing rules (with the statutory exemptions made in 2003 Act 118) remain in effect.

An edition of current Pier Planner which reflects the statutory changes made by 2003 Act 118 and the preexisting NR 326 that remains in effect is available online. This document is intended to assist waterfront property owners to design and place a pier that does not require a DNR permit.

DNR’s waterway permitting (Chapter 30) website includes a page on piers which is intended to help users determine if their project is exempt, and what kind of permit they need if they need a permit.

Research has indicated that wakes cause our shorelines to suffer erosion and damaging sediment/nutrient stirring effects that damage and destroy spawning and nesting areas. Wisconsin lakes currently have a 200 foot from shore slow-no-wake buffer for personal watercraft use. There is a 100 foot slow-no-wake rule from piers, docks or buoyed restricted area for all other motorboats. The Wisconsin Association of Lakes supports extending the current 100 foot no wake rule to cover shorelines as well.

On April 10th, the Conservation Congress will hold its annual hearing in all 72 Wisconsin counties and will vote on a resolution (Question 69) supporting a 100 foot from shore no wake rule for motorboats. With your help, this proposal could result in a positive change for our lakes. You can help by attending your county’s Conservation Congress hearing at 7:00 PM on April 10, 2006 and offering your support for this resolution.

The Wisconsin Association of Lakes has prepared detailed talking points for members to take to their county’s Conservation Congress Hearing. The talking points outline the benefits a 100ft universal slow no wake zone would have for our lake’s shorelines.

The Timmer family has owned a historic resort on the shores of Big Cedar Lake for 142 years. The property includes a restaurant, former hotel, and six cottages on 6.5 acres bordered by 313 feet of footage. An existing conservation easement restricts future owners to either of two possible uses for the property: operate the restaurant and resort or tear it all down and create a homesite for one estate residence. The lot cannot be divided.

Jack Timmer’s mother Beryl and other family members wanted to keep the property as open as it is today and not cluttered by residential development. Before 2002, Beryl Timmer had rejected offers from numerous developers who had proposed homes on the hills and upland fields, Jack Timmer recalled. She sold nearly 60 acres of the original Timmer homestead to the Cedar Lakes Conservation Foundation in 2002 so that it would remain open space. That parcel's wooded hills, wetland and upland fields wrap around the historic resort, extending from Cedar Creek on the north to a separate foundation property south of Timmer's Bay Road. Development is restricted in the preserve, ensuring that no homes or businesses will be built adjacent to the resort property.

She agreed to restrict development on the remaining 6.5-acre resort property at the same time. The lakefront parcel gained value after the sale of the 60 acre homestead property. Although deed restrictions like this conservation easement are relatively rare on lake property, the easement has not slowed interest in this parcel; the asking price is $3,495,000.

Beryl Timmer died in 2004. "She always loved this land, and she didn't want to see dense development," her son said.