Legislators hold series of listening sessions in Northwoods

The boating season is over for the year but the health and future of local lakes is on the minds of many as three listening sessions hosted by state Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) and Rep. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) this week drew standing-room only crowds who were focused primarily on the issue of wake boats and enhanced wakes.

 According to Swearingen’s estimates, approximately 200 people attended the Eagle River session, 150 participated in the Minocqua meeting and nearly 100 were present at the Rhinelander session. 

While they were all meant to be general listening sessions, the main focus of each was wake boats and enhanced wakes.

Enhanced wakes have become a hot button topic all over the state, but nowhere more so than in the Northwoods.

During the listening sessions, Felzkowski repeatedly referred to the bill she and Swearingen recently co-authored on this top as a  “starting point.”

The bill addresses ballasted boats that are meant to cause an enhanced wake. At present, wake boats are regulated the same as any other boat, with a no wake zone 100 feet from shorelines, docks and piers. A battle has been raging for some time now regarding whether to create a larger no wake zone to reduce any impacts on shorelines. Citizens have also voiced concerns about safety, movement of Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS), and scouring of the lake bed in shallower water. 

All of these topics were brought up during the listening sessions. Both legislators were impressed with the turnout as well as the attendees’ thoughtful remarks.

“We usually have 20 people or so show up to our listening sessions,” Felzkowski said. “But we really appreciate how important this topic is to you all and we thank you for voicing your thoughts.”

Felzkowski explained that she and Swearingen put the bill together using bills that have been passed in other states. For that reason, the starting point of the proposed bill was set at a 200 foot no wake from shorelines, much the same as jet skis. She also said she was partial to a study from Michigan that recommended 500 feet from shore. This study, she said, was paid for completely by the State of Michigan rather than any special interest group.

Dr. Fred Prehn of Land O Lakes, a board member of LakesAtStake.org, asked both legislators to not “punt it down the road,” where the wake boat issue was concerned. 

He said the bill would not do enough to protect the state’s lakes, especially the small and medium size lakes of the Northwoods.

“I think you’ll get a lot of pushback and it’s a hot button issue, but I think you’ll be surprised,” Prehn told Felzkowski and Swearingen. “But it’s really not a hot button issue if you care about the lakes of Wisconsin.” 

Prehn spoke about his time on the Natural Resources Board (NRB) and the tough decisions the panel faced over the years he was involved. While nothing is always 100% right all the time, he said, if this bill was written in a way that made sense, it would work. He said if the restriction were completely acre-based, he felt it would be the best way to write the bill. 

If the bill restricted wake boats to lakes over 1,500 acres that would eliminate all but 77 lakes in the state. At 1,250 acres, that would eliminate all but 100 lakes, thereby decreasing any damage to the state’s other 6,000 lakes. 

He said he was not proposing allowing wake boats free reign of those lakes, but he noted it would be impossible to enforce a depth restriction. He also spoke about legislation already on the books that is not being enforced and stated he wanted to see a bill that would be enforceable. He said the state has to protect what it can protect by statute. 

“If these guys can pull this off, you have no idea what a coup it is,” Prehn said. “Because if they can’t pull it off, the bill dies, you’re talking three years before something ever happens.” 

For that reason, he said it was important to amend the bill, hold public hearings in December, and have it for discussion and possible passage in the winter session.

Manitowish Waters town chairman John Hanson spoke to the group in Minocqua about his town’s ordinance and how it is being enforced. He said he was all for towns having the option to make their own ordinances more restrictive than state statute. Others attending the listening sessions also expressed the view that they would like to see the ability for local control, which was not in the bill at this time.

“We know that the bill we put out is not restrictive enough, right? ” Swearingen told the group in Minocqua. “We know that. But the fact of the matter is, we’re saying we are allowing these boats to be on these lakes? They’re already allowed. We need to regulate them. That’s why we put out the bill we did. It’s a starting point.” 

The lawmaker said he and Felzkowski were struggling to get a committee in the Senate to look at the bill due to its controversial nature. Ideally, he said he would like to see a joint hearing between both a Senate and Assembly committees. 

After the first of the year the legislators would be back in session and the matter could be settled by early March, he added.

“Everything we do in the northern part of the state, it takes a bigger lift,” Felzkowski said. “I’m not using it as an excuse, it’s just plain reality.” 

She told the group that while there are two legislators in the senate who represent 24 counties in the north, there are six that represent Milwaukee County. 

For that reason, issues affecting those in the north are a harder sell. 

“This is going to be compromised legislation,” Felzkowski said. “And you are not going to be happy. Fred (Prehn) said it. If you get 80% of a loaf of bread in the legislature, you just had a huge win.” 

She said she and Swearingen work as hard as they can to protect the lakes of the state, but she cautioned that any legislation would likely not be seen as perfect by all groups, or likely even any groups. 

The uniformity clause in Wisconsin means that all lakes would need to be treated the same under state statute, she added.

It remains uncertain how far this legislation will go or what it might look like in its final form, however Felzkowski and Swearingen said they would take it as far as they possibly can in an attempt to safe guard the state’s lakes as well as to provide opportunity for those who chose to recreate using wake boats.

Most in the audience agreed there was a place for boats that cause enhanced wakes, but they were simply not suitable for all lakes in all situations, according to recent studies that had been done.

There were also several wake boaters at each listening session. Many of them said they, too, care about the lakes of the Northwoods, but not all of them trust the findings of the studies. 

The Public Trust Doctrine does safeguard the resources of the state for all to use in any legal way, giving all the right to use the state’s navigable waters for recreation. This battle, then, is seen by many as “my rights versus your rights,” rather than an attempt to find ways for all users to co-exist. 

The next step for the bill will be a public hearing, which Felzkowski and Swearingen said they hope will take place in December.

Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].