It's a classic case of the ideologues pushing to fix something not broken, much the way the Walkerites messed up years of cooperative and productive planning on the phosphorus rule, and for good measure, the wind turbine siting rule, too.
If you want to follow these issues and get notices in a nifty emails, join River Alliance of Wisconsin, donate and subscribe:
The Zombie of Shoreland Zoning Rules Lurches AgainLast week the DNR received authorization from its governing body, the Natural Resources Board, to draft changes to the rules affecting shoreland zoning, known to water geeks as NR 115. These are the same rules that have been in the making, amidst painful negotiations and compromise, for 10 years, and generated thousands of public comments from around the state.These are the same rules that were endorsed by conservation organizations, realtors and developers together. Now DNR wants to change rule again, under the guise of modifying or clarifying certain sections of the rule that are "difficult to implement or administratively burdensome."In reality, the changes described in the scope undermine key water protection elements of the rule, and upset the balance the current rule achieved between landowner flexibility and environmental protection.The River Alliance is emphatically opposed to further weakening of the rules, and particularly opposed to re-opening them well after key parties had reached agreement. Over 40 counties have adopted new ordinances aligning with the new rule, and this re-opening of the rule throws more confusion their way.
Thursday update:Someone should explain to people who develop and sell shoreland property that the value of that property is deeply tied to the quality of the water that property sits on. You wreck the lake, you wreck the value of the cottage. Isn't that obvious yet?
In yesterday's Word on the Stream, we reported that over 40 counties had adopted shoreland zoning ordinances in accordance with the state's new shoreland zoning rules.That is incorrect. Actually, six counties have adopted new ordinances, seven are in that process, and 27 other counties have begun the process.
We regret the error, and we are grateful to some hawk-eyed observers for pointing it out.
These rules have been slogged out for TEN years with multiple rounds of public comment, multiple advisory committees, and multiple rule versions. They were finally passed less than two years ago, and haven't even been fully implemented, but now there are problems that need to be changed? Since our DNR Secretary is a developer and the Deputy Secretary used to run the developer advocate organization--MBA--I'm not shocked they are wanting to gut shoreland regulations. I'm surprised its taken them this long. Matt Moroney, despite reams of data and a special, and I would add hefty, SEWRPC appendix documenting the benefits of riparian buffers, continued to lobby during the entire Regional Water Quality Management Planning process that there was no scientific evidence that shoreland buffers protect water quality. Its the "if you repeat the lie many times" it will become "fact" strategy. They need to give these thoroughly vetted rules a chance to be actually implemented. If there are problems later, than we can address them at that time. This is an attempt to give back to the developers that put them in office and nothing more.
ReplyDelete