SPECIAL NOTE
On May 23, 2013, Judge Mac Davis issued a Bench Decision in which he vacated the DNR's November 2010 Manual Code Approval Permit as well as its Storm Water Permit. The Bench Decision can be viewed under the "Legal Battles" tab of this Site. He also reversed the ALJ's underlying 2012 decisions in their entirety. He based his Bench Decision in part on two joint briefs filed by the RRNA and the NLMD, one dated March 22, 2013 one dated May 8, 2013. Both those briefs can be accessed under our "Legal Battles" tab. On July 24, 2013 Judge Davis signed a Final Order in these cases, which can also be viewed under our "Legal Battles" tab. The DNR did not appeal the Bench Decision and Final Order and so they stand as the law of the case.
OUR MISSION
We are the Reddelien Road Neighborhood Ass'n (“RRNA”) and we are pledged to protect North Lake from the ill-advised and destructive policies of the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”). We are not a public agency and we can only protect North Lake if we receive substantial financial contributions from the citizens who live around North Lake. It is sad but very true that we have to band together to protect ourselves from our own government, but that is the reality. We are asking you to help support us in our work to save beautiful North Lake and the surrounding environment, especially the adjacent wetlands.
So, exactly what is the problem we face? Well, do you see the beautiful, lush wetlands at the right? This is located in the Kraus Site next to Reddelien Road. This is part of what the DNR is pledged to protect. The DNR repeatedly stresses the importance of wetlands. For example, the DNR states “Once considered wastelands, nearly half of Wisconsin's wetlands present at statehood were drained or filled. Now wetlands are recognized for their importance to flood control, keeping lakes, rivers and groundwater clean, and providing critical habitat and are carefully protected.” That is what the DNR says about wetlands located on someone else's property. But the Kraus Site belongs to the DNR and so they think that they can apply a different standard to property that they own. The fact remains that the wetlands on the Kraus Site act as a filter for pollutants, like the nutrients from from the 100 acres of farm fields that lie just to the west of the Kraus Site. In addition, wetlands also protect lands from flooding, like lower Reddelien Road which lies just to the east of the Kraus Site.
And yet, the DNR proposes to replace the wetlands on the Kraus Site with a huge amount of asphalt. They want to create a large football-field sized asphalt parking lot, like that at the right. And what would this parking cover up? Well for one thing, it will cover up a marshland where a young girl, such as the one at right, can navigate her skiff.
The DNR insists on doing this even though it may mean that farm nutrients will be flushed into our beautiful North Lake, polluting it. They insist on doing this even though it will force water over lower Reddelien Road. This in turn will compromise the leach beds and septic systems located throughout the neighborhood and flush E-Coli into North Lake.
And why is the DNR intent on doing this? Because six years ago it purchased the Kraus Site at twice its value and now is determined to justify its bad investment at the expense of Reddelien Road and North Lake. Of course, there should be public access to the lake, especially for fishermen. However, the DNR ignores alternate means of achieving that access via the Kuchler Site, located on the other side of North Lake, because they must avoid responsibility for their bad investment. They ignore the fact that up to 10 to 15 fishing boats now actually access the lake via the Cory Oil site, again because they need to cover up their bad investment.
Besides the environmental damage, let's examine the fiscal impact of what the DNR proposes to do at the Kraus Site. Due to Civil Service laws, the original DNR staff that purchased the Kraus Site continues to call the shots. The reason why that staff wants to conceal its bad investment is that it spent nearly $1.2 Million dollars of taxpayer money for the Kraus Site, when it was in fact worth only half that amount.
It is important to consider just how expensive it will be if the original DNR staff is permitted to actually go through with its plans to develop Kraus. The RRNA's experts estimate that the construction problems of putting a long asphalt highway and parking lot in the middle of what is a swamp will cost several times the estimate of the DNR staff. Thus, after spending twice what they should have to purchase the Kraus Site, the DNR staff is prepared to unnecessarily spend even more taxpayer money at a time when our fiscal reality counsels restraint.
The RRNA believes that there is a more prudent fiscal approach to providing a public boat launch on North Lake. If the DNR were to sell the Kraus Site, then the proceeds would be more than enough to allow the development of the Kuchler Site, where the economic challenges of constructing a public boat launch would be far less than at the Kraus Site. In addition, there would be the added bonus of inflicting far less environmental damage on North Lake. However, the DNR staff is only concerned about justifying its original decision to buy Kraus.
This isn’t the first time the DNR's misguided policies have harmed North Lake. The DNR caused serious environmental damage to North Lake almost twenty years ago when it took down Funks Dam in violation of its own rules and standards. Judge Nettesheim of the Court of Appeals made the following critical comments about that episode. According to Judge Nettesheim:
"We join in the [Administrative Law Judge's] criticisms of the DNR's practices in this case. We would expect the DNR, as the protector of this state's natural resources and the chief enforcer of our laws protecting those assets, to abide by the rules which it imposes and enforces on others. We also would expect it to abide by the promises and representations it makes to the public regarding its own activities. These expectations may perhaps explain why the legislature has not deemed it necessary to create laws which make the DNR subject to the requirements imposed on others. However, we cannot rewrite the existing laws to accommodate Froebel's legitimate complaints. His arguments and his criticisms are more properly directed to the legislature."
The DNR only cares about wetlands and the environment when a company or a private citizen allegedly threatens to cause harm. When the DNR causes the harm they don’t care. Please join the RRNA in its efforts to prevent the DNR from permanently damaging our beautiful North Lake as it has in the past!
Sincerely,
The RRNA Board of Directors