06-25-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LOSING LAKES: Enjoyment of a Unique Metropoiitan Resource is Threatened Although the situation on one lake affects other lakes, planning and management decisions often are made for individual lakes ratlwr than for the metropolitan area as a whole. Because decisions about one lake can lead to user displacement, they directly influence use of other lakes. For example, restrictions on motorized boats in Minneapolis and St. Paul caused boaters to move to suburban lakes. Boaters displaced from some lakes moved to the St Croix and Mississippi Rivers. The lack of decisions and restrictions on recreational use on some lakes also leads to user displace.nent, as discussed in Chapter 1. Small boat users move to lakes where they feel safer and less crowded. Decisions about development and water quality management can also lead to user displacement, if lake users dislike the water quality or view from a lake. No comprehensive forum exists for lake managers in different oi^ganizations to coordinate their goals, policies, and aaivities. The sheer number of management agencies makes communication among them difficult, and the narrow goals of some agencies can impede overall management of lakes. No agency is responsible for facilitating communication and coordination of lake management Interests in lake management frequently conflict Conflicts between long-term arxl short-term concerns are common. For example, local governments sometimes have short-term economic interests in development that conflict with long-term interests of proteaing the lakes. As discussed above, there may also be conflicts between local and regional interests. Different agencies managing a single lake can even have conflicting goals. There is a long tradition in Minnesota of viewing the seven county area as an interconnected region, and of seeking metropolitan solutions to its problems. The Metropolitan Council was created in 1967 to guide "orderly and ecorromic" development of the metropolitan Twin Cities area. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act, enacted in 1976, required the Council to oversee a process of comprehensive planning by all local units of government.* The Metropolitan Council has organized its regional policy guidelines around "metropolitan system plans" for airports, transportation, waste control, and recreational open space. In turn, local units of governments prepared comprehensive plans that were reviewed by the Council to ensure that they were consistent with those guidelines. CONCLUSIONS While many issues are regional in scope, management authority over surface waters is localized. We believe that metropolitan surface waters, both lakes and rivers, truly function as a regional system, y- are largely managed by local governments that may have concerns and interests in conflict with effective long-term management of a regional resource. The current method of metropolitan surface water management is more oriented towards the demands of the present than the concerns of the future. Currently, management tends to react more to short term problems than to plan for the future of our lakes and rivers. Municipalities frequenfly lack the financial resources and expertise necessary to effcaively carry out all of their surface water management responsibilities. Surface water management agencies in the mcTO area tend to focus narrowly on their own jurisdictions rather than viewing surface waters as ecological and recreational systems. Each governmental body has a small piece of the total surface water management responsibility. While agencies may manage lakes and rivers well within their own n^w goals, no agency takes an overall view of the surface waters. Better regionwide coordination of the goals, policies, and activities of management agencies is essential to improving metropolitan lake management Minn. Stat. §§473.851-.872.