Laserfiche WebLink
CHAPTER 5 <br />GOVERNANCE <br />Metropolitan lakes are managed by a myriad of governmental bodies which often have narrow goals and <br />responsibilities. This chapter discusses the effectiveness of the current method of metropolitan lake <br />management <br />FINDINGS <br />Responsibility for management of metropolitan lakes is fragmented, with all levels of government <br />involved. As illustrated in Table S. 1, metropolitan lakes are managed to some deg^ by three federal <br />boides, four state agencies, seven counties, seven Soil and Water Conservation Districts, 46 watershed <br />districts and water management organizations, two lake conservation districts, and 138 municipalities. <br />Agencies' responsibilities overlap considerably for some functions, especially those related to water <br />quality. <br />The existing governance system has the advantage of allowing management to be customized to a <br />particular lake and those who live around it. Local issues, like the placement of dorks, can be dealt <br />with at a local level. On the other hand, the present system can be cumbersome and short-sighted when <br />agencies concentrate only on their narrow responsibilities. <br />Many public forums are available for citizens to express their views on specific lake issues. All of the <br />agencies listed above hold public meetings or hearings on management issues. Depending on the <br />agency, these issues can range in scope from permits for riparian docks to new shoreland rules for the <br />entire state. <br />Citizens often do not attend or participate in the numerous public meetings concerning lake management <br />unless there is a severe problem that affects them. This lack of participation has several causes. First, <br />few local residents read official notices of public meetings. Second, lake management decisions are <br />often made by local governments, but lake users often live outside the county or niunicipality of their <br />preferred lake. People who live outside the affected municipal or county boundaries are less likely to be <br />informed about pending management decisions than those who live near a lake. Third, the <br />fragmentation of management responsibilities confuses people, making it difficult for them to know <br />where to voice their opinions. <br />However, citizens have few opportunities to become involved in the planning and development of long­ <br />term lake management policy. Some lake management agencies have citizen advisory committees, but <br />often the public is asked to react to policy decisions made by management agencies rather than to assist <br />in the plarming behind these decisions. As noted in Chapter 2, the DNR often makes decisions about <br />sites for new public boat ramps without help from local citizens. Local residents are offered <br />opportunities for input after a site has been chosen. When lake users' concerns are ix)t considered in <br />planning, managers frequently encounter opposition, leading to frustration and expense by both <br />management agencies and the public.