04-14-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The MCTFLM conclude_ i•iat there is indeed overlap in governmental authorities on and around Lake Minnetonka and that this overlap may contribute to the prob- lems which develop over access and surface use of the iake. Conflicting Authorities Many problems on Lake Minnetonka stem from the opposition of two statutory responsibilities for this resource. The State of Minnesota, through DNR, has a statutory authority and a mandate to provide for adequate public access facilities for all the state's citizens to Lake Minnetonka as well as all oth� akes in the state. The DNR also nas various authorities over surface use, water use and related activities. Municipalities a-ound the lake have statutory authority to provide fo, the health, safety and welfare of their constituents through local land planning. In many instances they carry out planning related to the lake through LMCD, which has extensive statutory powers. See Appendix C, sections 3, 4 and 5, for a full listing of LMCD powers. Proper use of the surface of the lake is among those areas of LMCD authority. This implies that the most appropriate planning bodies are DNR and LMCD. How- ever, the LMCD statute does not clearly provide and the municipalities have not delegated any local planning authorities to LMCD which apply from the shoreline into the land. The only coordination of planning on land lies in the compre- hensive plan of each municipality, coordinated by the Metropolitan Council under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Many of the immediate contentions iie in those conflicts with local plans created by locating a public facility on land in a municipality. The conflict is not totally unique to lake access sites, it occurs for other regional and state facilities such as roads, parks, and waste sites. Plan Adequacy and Implementation The MCTFLM has also dealt with the wider problem of a process which wou!d: 1) develop a plan for regulating use so as to provide the best quality and quantity of use with the least degradation of the lake, and 2) provide adequate impetus for the plan to be carried out. The 1983 task force had adequately identified major problems and proposed appro- priate general solutions. Adequate implementation of the solutions has not occurred. A part of the problem may be that the solutions proposed were nct specific enough. The greate- problem has probably been the lack of resources and of reasons to implement, the recommendations. A procesr calling for greate activity by responsib!c agencies must also identify funds to carry it out. Findings 1. Overlapping powers exist among the agencies which have responsibilities around Lake Minnetonka for effective and efficient government. The over- laps should be isolated and analyzed. Not all the overlaps are undesir- able, sonic may represent necessary fail-safe mechanisms. 2. In addition to a better coordinated program of aut.norities on the lake, the MCTFLM finds that a process is needed both to develop a plan which will appropriately regulate 'oke use and to provide impetus to inclement the solutions developed. 13