Current EventsView All Listings >>

Lakeshore property owners are pushing for legislation in Minnesota that would give lakeshore owners greater freedom to remove vegetation clogging open water and fouling swimming.

The proposed legislation would require the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to grant permits for clearing vegetation in many cases.

The DNR’s permit-granting authority “is, if  not abused, certainly used in many cases unilaterally and arbitrarily,” claims William Iacoe, executive director of Minnesotans for Healthy Lakes, a group of shoreline property owners.

Representative Tom Hackbarth of Cedar, MN adds, “I’ve been trying to get the DNR to deal with this for a number of years and they keep ignoring us on the issue.”

Those opposed to greater landowner freedom note that vegetation is important game fish habitat. Giving property owners free reign could mean “large sections of shoreline denuded of aquatic vegetation,” says Steve Hirsch, assistant director of ecological service with the Minnesota DNR. “Aquatic vegetation out in the lake does not belong to the landowner. It belongs to the public.”

Complicating the problem is the presence of invasive species. Some argue that clearing native aquatic vegetation opens the door wide for invasives. Others say that hasn’t happened.

This argument over landowner’s rights plays out in a bill that would require the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to let shoreline property owners remove vegetation out to 150 feet from the shore for up to 100 feet of shoreline for up to 15 percent of a lake’s littoral area — defined as depths of 15 feet or less.

Moreover, under the proposed law, the DNR would have to grant permit requests to remove aquatic invasive species without littoral-area limits. Under current law, the DNR can deny such permits.

The law would also continue a “grandfather clause” — if use of herbicides to control aquatic plants was allowed by permit before 1976 for more than 15 percent of the littoral area of a lake, the limits permitted at that time remain in effect.

Lakefront property owners at so-called “grandfathered lakes” could continue to tend their lakefronts as they have, under the proposed law. “They believe that what they have been doing is responsible,” says Sen. Gen Olson, who represents much of Lake Minnetonka. “They want grandfather status, rather than jump through hoops.”

The bill would also let lakefront property owners use automated untended aquatic plant-control devices without a permit for areas of 2,500 square feet or less or for a boat channel up to 15 feet wide extending to open water if the silt churned up by the mechanical device is less than three inches deep.

The DNR will fight the legislation. “It would take away our discretion to limit permits or deny permits when an individual wants to control submersed aquatic vegetation in front of their property,” says Hirsch.

The bill in effect challenges the DNR’s proposed changes in aquatic-plant management that may take effect as early as 2008.

Currently the DNR allows property owners to control submersed aquatic vegetation on up to 100 feet of shoreline. It is considering tightening that to 100 feet or half a property owner’s shoreline, whichever is less, says Hirsch.

The DNR may allow 35 feet of control for an owner with 70 feet of shoreline or less, and is also considering an exception to allow more control if aquatic invasive plants are present.

Sunfish, largemouth bass, northern pike and muskellunge depend on submerged aquatic vegetation for food and shelter, and such vegetation improves water clarity, says the DNR. In the absence of such vegetation, black bullhead and common carp often dominate.

Native plants “provide higher quality habitat for desirable fish than invasive non-native plants such as curly-leaf pondweed or Eurasian water milfoil,” says a DNR study. “However, these non-native plants provide better habitat than little or no submerged aquatic vegetation. “Minnesota lakes infested with curly-leaf pondweed or Eurasian water milfoil have not seen large declines in game fish populations,” claims the report.

Some interpret the DNR’s conservative approach as going soft on invasives. “They provide the same level of tender loving care to invasives as they do to natives,” says Iacoe.

But removal of any aquatic vegetation may encourage spread of invasives, cautions DNR’s Hirsch. “You’re not going to get effective control of invasive aquatic plants overall just by liberalizing what the individual property owner can do,” he says. “It’s too piecemeal. You have to do it on a lakewide basis. You need a plan of attack and you need to repeat the treatment every two or three years.”

Henry VanOffelen, chapter president of Minnesota chapter of American Fisheries Society, notes that landowners adjacent to dry-land wildlife management areas can’t clear vegetation on those preserves. “Why would it be acceptable for lakes when it’s not acceptable for other public lands?” asks VanOffelen. “Lakes are public resources.”

The debate continues as this issue makes its way through the state legislature. With a possible vote to be held in the near future, the way Minnesota lakeshore owners tend their land could change dramatically.

Article by Marc Hequet. Photo by Al Josef