Resurrect Water Project Aspirations Through Sanitary Districts -- A Legislative Proposal

Call Jay Trobec! We've got a Severe Brainstorm Warning in Lake County!

Water quality on our lakes here in Lake County hasn't been too bad this year. Lake Herman has had some stinky days, but the rain and cool temps have kept the green scum at bay compared to other years.

Nonetheless, our lakes do have problems with silt, nutrients, carp, and algae. Unfortunately, efforts to to improve water quality in Lake County this summer have gone nowhere. Folks seeking to form a water project district on Lakes Madison and Brant suffered a ballot box defeat so stinging they folded up their tent and went home. Inquiries from Lake Herman residents as to whether we could use our sanitary district funds to maintain filtration dams and grassy waterways have met with stiff opposition from half of our board—i.e. Lawrence Dirks, who is singularly focused on stockpiling tax dollars to someday build a central sewer system—as well as the apparently very narrow statutory authority of the sanitary district.

On Madison and Brant, a big problem was that folks didn't want to create a new taxing authority on top of their sanitary and road districts to work on water quality. On Herman, a big problem is that statute doesn't appear to let us spend money on anything other than a multi-million-dollar sewer system that isn't going to get built.

I think I just found a solution. We don't need to create new water project districts. We simply need to amend state law to permit sanitary districts to assume the powers of water project districts.

There is precedent for this proposal: I learned from Jerome Lammers that state law allows sanitary districts to assume the powers of road districts (see SDCL 31-12A-20.1). All we need is for District 8 legislators Representative Gerry Lange and Senator Russell Olson, both of whom live at our lakes, to co-sponsor a bill to add the following provision to Chapter 46A-18:

46A-18-20.2. Sanitary district assuming water project district powers. The board of trustees of any sanitary district incorporated under chapter 34A-5 may submit to the voters of the district at an annual election or a special election called and held in accordance with chapter 9-13 the question of whether the district shall be authorized to exercise the powers of water project districts incorporated under this chapter, or the petitioners' application for incorporation filed in accordance with § 34A-5-6 may request such authority. Upon approval of the grant of such authority by a majority of the voters voting on the question, or upon entry of the order incorporating the district if the application has requested such authority, the board of trustees shall be authorized to exercise all powers which a water project district organized under this chapter may exercise, including the powers granted by §§ 46A-18-31 to 46A-18-73, inclusive.

Check those numbers before passage, but otherwise, there you go, Gerry and Russ! House Bill 1001 for the 2010 session, all written up and ready to go, good practical legislation that will benefit your neighbors!

-------------------
p.s.: I'm working on a new website for the Lake Herman Sanitary District. The site is built on Drupal, so I can publish district info much faster and more conveniently than on the original sanitary district website, which requires offline FrontPage/Notepad editing and FTP transfer. And we all know FrontPage is dead. I'll keep working—let me know what you think!

Losing I Can Stand, But Quitting? Water Committee Proposes Dissolution

So suppose you've organized a local environmental action group. You've had some small successes, educated your neighbors, raised awareness, even gotten donations from residents and local governments. You lose one campaign to form a governing body to carry out similar functions, but you still have $14,000 in the bank to continue your work. Do you...

• A. retool your government plan to create a better agency that voters will accept;
  
• B. sustain your group's momentum by continuing to work on environmental issues; or
• C. quit?

The Interlakes Water Quality Committee is choosing C. After losing its bid to create a water project district to fund water quality projects with tax dollars, the IWQC's executive board will recommend disbanding the volunteer organization entirely and refunding its donors.

I'm surprised. The IWQC has done good work, promoting the water monitoring project (of which I am still a wader-wearing member), funding coupons for zero-phosphorus fertilizer to reduce pollution, and helping build the Wolff Dam on Richland Slough to control run-off into Lake Madison. The IWQC's efforts earned enough respect to win funding from both the City of Madison and Lake County (and that's not easy—I've tried!). To end those efforts, especially when they still have $14K left in the kitty to pursue more projects, seems an unproductive overreaction to voters' rejection of creating a government entity to carry out such projects.

Some comments in MDL's coverage of the story (sorry, no link! print edition only, 2009.07.27, page 1) just don't sit right with me:

IWQC board chair Robert Todd tells MDL, "We currently feel we are not able to continue." Put $14,000 in my bank account, and I could continue for quite some time. The committee formed to do much more than just campaign for a water project district... didn't it? I know we had stars in our eyes about forming the district and getting $3M in stimulus money to do 30 projects all at once... but is it that hard to come back to reality and concentrate on doing one or two small projects, as the committee has done until now?

Refunds: The IWQC plans to hand its $14K bank balance over to the Lake Madison Development Association, which has been the main source of its money. However, city and county taxpayers get no cut, since, according to Todd, that money was spent specifically on water quality testing through DSU. I guess I didn't know the city and county had designated their donations for that specific purpose. Hmmm....

Dropping the Ball: IWQC board member Jan Nicolay expresses the hope that "Maybe somewhere down the road someone will pick up the idea [of a water project district] and move it forward." Yet the IWQC is in the best position to sustain the momentum toward that goal. If Nicolay and the rest of the board really want to see a water project district come to fruition someday, wouldn't it be more logical to maintain a functioning, solvent organization that has a demonstrated record of educating the public on water quality issues and serves as a forum for bringing like-minded residents together to organize successful projects? Even if the current IWQC board is tired of politics (and I understand completely if this summer's campaign and the bruising defeat on July 18 had that effect), the board could just keep its head down, stick with small but meaningful projects, and remain as a resource for future organizers who want to give another election a go.

In politics, you win some, and you lose some. But losing a vote doesn't mean you have to accept that the majority is right. Folks who voted yes on the water project district (and a fair number of the folks who voted no) still believe there are projects we can do to improve the watershed in Lake County. The Interlakes Water Quality Committee had built up talent and funds to make such projects happen. And as a volunteer organization, they don't have to answer to the majority; they can just do what they know is right.

I wasn't convinced a water project district was the right thing to do. But I'm not convinced abandoning the cause completely is the right course, either. It will be interesting to see what course the IWQC chooses at its next (last?) meeting on Thursday, August 6, 7 p.m., at the Madison Public Library.

Lake Voters Reject Water Project District 102-228

The Madville Times mobile unit malfunctioned about a half mile east of James River Equipment, so alas, no vid/pix from the parking lot polling tent. But the vote on the proposed Interlakes Water Project District is in: voters at Lake Madison and Brant Lake have said no. Final vote count:

• For: 102 (31%)
  
• Against: 228 (69%)

That's 330 votes out of 709 eligible voters, just about 47% turnout. Not bad for a glorious summer day when folks could be fishing instead.

District proponent Robert Todd heard an assortment of reasons expressed against the district:

• opposition to more taxes (the economy is tight)
• exclusion of non-resident landowners from voting (well, that is the law)
• big campaign spending (apparently Russ Olson is the only big spender who can win in Lake County)
• belief that cleaning up the lakes is an "impossible task" (hey, that's never stopped me from trying!)

District opponent Steven Kant should be relieved... but actually, he says the vote doesn't feel like a victory. I can understand his mixed emotions. The district supporters never quite sold me on the idea of a water project district, but I've always been a supporter of their water quality goals. I hope this landslide (are we allowed in this case to say waterslide?) defeat of the water project district signals only a rejection of creating a new layer of government and taxes and not a rejection of the principles of taking care of the watershed that makes Lake County such an attractive place to live and play. I hope a number of those folks who voted no are still willing to contribute their time and money to promote other water quality projects, like the recommendations listed by Steve Kant himself.

Whether or not the district passed, the Interlakes Water Quality Committee planned to continue its efforts on a volunteer basis. And there are still algae, silt, and carp in our lakes. The IWQC will talk about what to do next about those water quality problems at its next meeting, Thursday, August 6, 7 p.m. at the Madison Public Library.

Water Project District Supporters Outspend Opponents $6000 to $300

Steve Kant isn't paying me for this one: I just find it darned interesting. And since Lake County has no campaign finance reporting website (and isn't legally obliged to have one), I figure I'm the next best thing.

Water Project District:
Required reading before you vote!

—Supporters' website
—Opponents' website
—Madville Times five-part feature, with pros and cons

The big vote on the Interlakes Water Project District takes place tomorrow (Saturday, July 18) at 10 a.m. in the big tent in the Hillside Resort parking lot. I can't get my Al Franken one-man mobile uplink unit working, but I may bike over with my notepad and camera to observe local democracy in action.

Local campaigning has certainly been in action around Lakes Madison and Brant. Mr. Kant tells me one of his fellow opponents reports receiving four "Vote Yes" mailings in four days. Less than pleased with the paper in his mailbox, that opponent called district organizer Robert Todd and learned the "Vote Yes" committee is spending $6,000 on its campaign from $10,000 allocated last year by the Lake Madison Development Association for this purpose.

Kant reports that, for Web presence and a couple mailings, opponents have spent $300.89.

Now I'll note that the amount of money spent on ads and such is no indication of the merits of the arguments. You can read the $6,000 spent by district supporters as an indication of how important they think it is to create a governing and taxing entity to protect water quality in Lake County.

Then again, around here, successful county commission candidates can spend less than a thousand bucks on their campaigns. Gerry Lange spent less than $6,000 last year on his campaign and won a seat in the state legislature. A $6,000 campaign fund for a water project district involving just over 700 voters may also indicate the deep-pockets mindset of the organizers... a mindset that may carry over to determining the tax levy. Whatever the outcome, there are a number of Lake Herman residents who are relieved they won't have Lake Madison residents setting their tax levy.

--------------------
p.s.: Madison Daily Leader publisher Jon Hunter his editorial toe in the water and urges his lake readers to vote yes on the water project district.

Water Project District: Where's Russ Olson?

[Part 5 of a series!]

Last I checked, District 8 State Senator Russell Olson lives within the proposed boundaries of the Interlakes Water Project District. He stands to see his taxes raised by this district. A serious fiscal conservative, Senator Olson should have something to say about the creation of a new tax burden and a new layer of government for his immediate neighbors. Having referred to the federal stimulus package as "a blessing and a curse," Senator Olson should also have something to say about the water project district pursuing a massive three-million-dollar infusion of those federal dollars into the local economy.

Water Project District
Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

Yet as far as I know, our man Russ has made no public statements on the water project district (WPD) or the upcoming public vote on July 18.

Now I can understand a politician keeping his head down on an issue not directly before his agency. Why risk alienating voters when a vote is a local issue, not a legislative issue?

But wait a minute: maybe water quality is a legislative issue. Both proponents and opponents of the WPD at Saturday's meeting in Chester got me thinking: the WPD would tax lake residents to pay for a problem caused mostly by people outside that taxing jurisdiction. It would create a new layer of government to address a problem that existing agencies and regulations apparently aren't addressing.

Why aren't existing agencies and regulations taking care of water quality problems? (We'll assume there are water quality problems... unless some global-warming deniers would like to take a break and argue that Lake Madison doesn't have algae blooms.) Some obvious hypotheses present themselves:

1. Current regulations aren't tough enough.
2. Current regulations are written to favor business and agriculture over environmental concerns.
3. Existing agencies (DENR, state Ag. Dept., etc.) don't have sufficient resources to enforce current regulations.
   
4. Existing agencies are choosing not to carry out their statutory duties.

Whichever of those hypotheses might be true, they all have something in common: they would all be legislative issues. Our legislators could write tough water quality regulations. They could give the boot to any preferential industry treatment. They could increase funding and staff for DENR to investigate water pollution, construct retention dams, and buy or lease land for other water quality projects. And they could light a fire under any Pierre functionaries who are sitting on their hands instead of doing their duty.

Besides, water quality is inherently bigger than any one local jurisdiction. We see it in the pending WPD proposal. The district would encompass Lakes Madison and Brant, yet the pollution is coming from sources west along Silver Creek and north of the city of Madison. If we foul up our water in Lake County, that directly affects downstream in Moody and Minnehaha. Watersheds don't fit our happy grid of townships and counties. Environmental issues demand local action, but they also require some state-level oversight to ensure smaller districts don't flush their troubles away to the poor suckers downstream.

These are all issues that Russ and Mitch and Gerry can and should holler about. Yet the Legislature appears to leave it to small lake communities to decide whether water quality is worth taking action and to find the money to do something about it.

There's certainly a debate to be had about local control versus state efforts. But there's an argument to be made that if the South Dakota Legislature (not just Russell Olson, but the whole kit and kaboodle, plus the governor) were serious about water quality and other environmental issues, Lakes Madison and Brant would not be holding a vote this weekend. That's something not just for Russ to keep in mind this Saturday at the Hillside, but for Russ, Mitch, Gerry, and the rest of us to keep in mind during the 2010 Legislative session... and for the rest of us to keep in mind during the 2010 election.

Water Project District: Where's Lake Herman?

...for that matter, where is everybody?

[Part 4 in a series!]

The proposed Interlakes Water Project District (which faces a public vote Saturday, July 18) would include the sanitary districts currently established around Lakes Madison and Brant. As you may recall, the original plan was to include the Lake Herman Sanitary District in the district. However, political opposition (I heard the Lake Herman Development Association—i.e., fishermen—said they would hire a lawyer to fight any such new district) induced the water project district (WPD) organizers to leave Herman out.

Water Project
District Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

Including Lake Herman would have created an oddly discontiguous jurisdiction... though no more odd than the Heartland Consumer Power District (with outposts in Groton, Volga, and Madison) and the United States (Alaska and Hawaii). Including Herman would have made hydrological sense (hydro-logic?): the 17,000 acres draining into Lake Herman are the head of the Lake County branch of the Lower Big Sioux Watershed, which flows through Silver Creek to Lake Madison.

Now opponents of the WPD contend that leaving Herman out of the plan compromises the WPD's ability to solve water quality issues. (Make group happy, torque off another—you can't win 'em all!) At the July 11 public meeting in Chester, WPD supporters offered a number of responses on why leaving Herman out won't be so bad:

1. The district's taxing authority is limited to its legal boundaries, but it can spend that money on projects anywhere in the watershed. For example, the WPD could lease land north of Lake Herman to plant switchgrass along the tributary that brings lots of ag run-off into the lake by the golf course. (However, it is worth noting that Robert Todd, lead organizer of the WPD, said he is "concerned" about spending money on projects that would directly benefit Lake Herman when no one on Lake Herman is paying.)
   
2. Lakes Madison and Brant drain their own 29,000-acre watershed. Even if they never touched the Herman watershed, they could do a lot of water quality work.
3. Lake Herman doesn't have the population and tax base to make the district work. Robert Todd said that the planned assessment levels would add only $10,000 from Herman to the $80,000 the WPD tentatively plans to raise from Lakes Madison and Brant. Attorney Rolly Samp said that the biggest landowner on Herman is the State of South Dakota, and unless the state decides to offer payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT—my new policy term of the weekend!), Herman just can't support such a levy.
4. Lake Herman itself is not the leading source of pollutants. Robert Todd gave the example of phosphorus: while Herman has noticeable phosphorus levels, those levels jump significantly before the water reaches Lake Madison. Todd cited the old poultry facility (that would be Wenk's), ag operations north of Madison, the city itself, and the north shore of Lake Madison as key sources of that phosphorus.
   

I find point 3 particularly interesting. "Only" $10,000 from Lake Herman is still double the highest tax ever levied by the Lake Herman Sanitary District and almost five times the current tax levy.

More interesting is a combination of points 1 and 4. As WPD committeeman Martin Jarrett pointed out at Saturday's meeting, 85% of the pollution affecting water quality in Lake County comes from agriculture. 14% comes from the City of Madison. It's not like us dang dirty folks at Lake Herman are sending algae blooms to Lake Madison. The WPD could include Herman, and it still would be taxing a bunch of people who aren't the main cause of the problem.

Put harshly, the WPD will take money from lake residents and redistribute it to polluters. This money flow seems backward. At the very least, it suggests that the WPD would do better to include the entire county, or at least the formal watershed boundaries (folks up Nunda way send their water down a different track), so that the major polluters would at least bear some tax burden.

Better yet, let's be creative: perhaps we need a local version of cap-and-trade for nutrient run-off. Give every resident a certain per-acre phosphorus and nitrate allotment. If you want to use chemical fertilizer or run a certain number of cattle above your allotment, you have to buy nutrient credits from organic farmers or landowners who aren't using their allotment. Or perhaps a county-wide WPD could simply impose a higher levy on the ag land identified as the primary source of nutrient load and soil eroision.

The WPD organizers emphasize that the district, if approved Saturday, will be open to expansion. If Lake Herman or the city of Madison or any other jurisdiction wants to join, those residents can petition and vote and start contributing tax dollars right along with Lakes Madison and Brant. For now, as the organizers say, we've got to start somewhere.

But including Lake Herman, by itself, is not a solution. The WPD organizers themselves now say so. The WPD can do work anywhere in the watershed, with or without the official participation of Lake Herman. The only direct effect of including an area in the WPD is to raise that area's taxes. At that point, the question should be not "Where's Lake Herman?" but "Where is everybody?"

Water Project District: Points of Opposition

[Part 3 in a series!]

I gave the proponents of the Interlakes Water Project District a full post listing the main functions and benefits of their plan. Now let's list the points of opposition raised by the more vocal attendees at yesterday's meeting in Chester:

Water Project
District Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

• The proposed water project district (WPD) includes only Lakes Madison and Brant. To make serious progress on water quality, the district needs to include at least Lake Herman, if not the entire county.
• We already pay taxes to support the Department of Agriculture, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and numerous other agencies to protect water quality. We should be able to get our money's worth from existing agencies without piling on more taxes for another agency.
  
• Lake residents are already seeing higher tax assessments from the county. Yet the lakes continue to have to form additional taxing entities, such as road and sanitary districts, to obtain services that the county doesn't provide. Lake taxation is already unfair; adding another special district only exacerbates the unfairness.
• WPD proponent Martin Jarrett said that 85% of the water quality problems come from agriculture. 14% come from the city of Madison. Only a tiny fraction results from the actions of lake residents. Therefore, said one attendee, it seems unfair that lake residents should pay higher taxes when Joe Blow who lives two miles outside the district causes the bulk of the pollution.
• Instead of creating a new district to redistribute tax dollars in leases and incentives, we need to put some teeth in existing laws and enforce fines for pollution.

Now as Rolly Samp said at the meeting, it's always easier to oppose than propose: building a plan requires making every piece fit together, while opposing a plan requires finding just one piece that doesn't work. But, as my classical conservative (and policy debate!) friends will tell you, such are the reasonable rules of the public policy game. If you have the temerity to suggest changing the status quo, the burden falls on you to justify the change and present a solid plan.

So how do these arguments against (and the earlier arguments for) the water project district stack up? Analysis, commentary, and wild speculation coming up!

Water Project District: The Pitch

[Part 2 in a series!]

Robert Todd opened yesterday's informational meeting in Chester on the proposed Interlakes Water Project District with his explanation of what the district would do and why that would be good. Here's a summary of his pitch:

Water Project
District Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

• A formal water project district (WPD) would be able to carry out long-term projects (Todd mentioned a ten-year plan) that ad hoc volunteer groups cannot sustain.
• While there are entities like the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources and East Dakota Water Development District that work on water quality, those entitites limited funds spread over broad areas. The DENR has already funded the Wolff Dam project near Lake Madison and probably doesn't have much more to spend here. EDWDD directs its funding priorities to the Big Sioux River. Forming a WPD here would allow greater local control and focused attention on the local watershed.
• A WPD can levy taxes to support water quality projects that benefit everyone in the watershed. While the district could levy a maximum of $1 per $1000 in property value, a 50¢/K levy would be adequate for the district's first couple years of operation. That's $100 a year for a $200K property. A 50¢/K levy would bring in $80K for the district's annual budget. [Note: that means there is about $160 million in taxable property value around Lakes Madison and Brant.]
• A WPD can also seek special assessments for additional revenue. Obtaining a special assessment requires an affirmative vote by 60% of landowners in the district.
  
• A WPD can qualify for federal stimulus dollars that volunteer groups can't get. However, the deadline for applying for the remaining stimulus money is October 1. Thus, to have a shot at the money, this district needs to start now.
• The WPD would have five major action areas:
  1. controlling nutrient and silt loads (primary area of concern: immediately west of Lake Madison), getting cattle out of the streams by helping develop alternative water supplies
     
  2. reëstablishing grassy waterways
  3. building and maintaining retention dams
  4. controlling carp (they cause bank erosion, release phosphorus and other nutrients that aggravate algae growth)
  5. educate residents on water quality issues and actions
     

A dozen interested residents gave patient and polite attention to this pitch. How did they respond? Stay tuned... more to come!

Water Project District: Rolly Samp's Case

[Part 1 of a series!]

I'm not sold yet on the idea of forming a water project district around Lake Madison and Brant Lake. So the toughest part of yesterday's public meeting in Chester to discuss forming such a district was Rolly Samp's pitch.

Water Project
District Series:

1. Rolly's Case
2. The Pitch
3. The Pitchforks
4. Where's Lake Herman?
5. Where's Russ Olson?

Rolly has been a summer denizen of Lake Madison all his life. His grandkids are the sixth generation of his family to get to enjoy his family property on the lake. And this July 4th, the lakeshore by that property was too green to swim or fish.

Rolly sees the proposed Interlakes Water Project as the best way to ensure that his grandkids and the following generations can continue to enjoy our lakes. Not just the best way—the only way. As Rolly explains it, a water project district would have the organization and status to be eligible for three million dollars of federal stimulus money. If the district can get going and apply by the October 1 deadline, it could grab that cash and fund 30 projects in the local watershed. Those projects would have an enormous long-term impact on water quality, says Rolly.

Without a formal district, there'll be no stimulus money, and those 30 projects won't happen for 30 years. Rolly says Lake Herman would turn to a cattail slough. The lake he has loved all his life will only decline further into a carpy, algae-covered mess.

And at the end of the meeting, he looks me in the eye and says I need to "get on board" with this project.

I know Rolly from my Prairie Village days. I met his son Mike at Boys State. Rolly's a good guy, a good lawyer (not mutually exclusive categories), and an avid fellow writer. And he makes a pretty good case in favor of forming a water project district here in Lake County. So I neither lightly nor eagerly look him back in the eye and say I disagree.

That's why I want to spend some time today working through what I heard at yesterday's informational meeting, the fourth and final such public meeting held by proponents of the Interlakes Water Project District. I'll write up the information presented by organizers Robert Todd and Martin Jarrett. I'll explore some of the questions and arguments raised by opponents of the district, as well as the responses offered by the organizers. And then I'll probably presume to offer suggestions to you lucky 709 eligible voters on Lakes Madison and Brant on how to vote this coming Saturday.

Rolly Samp says you and I need to get on board, for the sake of our grandkids (present and potential). Other people of good conscience say no, we don't. This is complicated... and worth thinking about.

State Law Conflicts on Water District Vote: Standard Drops from 60% to 50%+1

Lake Madison resident Steve Kant, an opponent of the proposed Interlakes Water Project (and current Madville Times sponsor), sends along some important information about the upcoming July 18 vote. We were of the impression that Chapter 46A-18 of South Dakota Codified Law, on water project districts, governed the upcoming election. Specifically, SDCL 46A-18-20 requires a 60% vote to create the new district [emphasis mine]:

46A-18-20. Establishment of district--Vote required. If at least sixty percent of the votes cast in an election are in favor of formation of the water project district, the Board of Water and Natural Resources shall by resolution create and establish the water project district and give it a corporate name. Upon filing of a true copy of the resolution with the secretary of state, the district shall become a political subdivision of the state with the authority, power, and duties prescribed by this chapter.
Source: SL 1984, ch 293, § 19.

But wait! SDCL Chapter 6-16-5 on special district elections calls for a majority vote:

6-16-5. Election on question of incorporation in districts containing less than one thousand voters--Election of directors or trustees. If the proposed district contains less than one thousand eligible voters as defined in § 6-16-6, the county auditor shall set a date, time, and location for a meeting to be held within the district to conduct an election on the question of formation of the special district. The date may not be more than sixty days after the appropriate board declares that the application for incorporation is valid. The auditor shall appoint three judges of election, one of whom shall serve as the superintendent, to conduct the election. The vote upon the question of incorporation shall be by ballot which conforms to a ballot for a statewide question except that the statement required to be printed on the ballot shall be prepared by the state's attorney. After the vote is cast and counted, the judges shall prepare a certification showing the whole number of ballots cast, together with the number voting for and the number voting against incorporation, and shall return the certification to the county auditor. If a majority of the votes cast on the question of formation is in favor, an election shall be conducted by those present at the same meeting to elect the initial board of directors or trustees.
Source: SL 1998, ch 36, § 5; SL 2006, ch 29, § 3; SL 2008, ch 35, § 2, eff. Feb. 27, 2008.

Uh oh! Someone dropped the style-and-form veto pen!

How do we resolve these apparently conflicting statutes? From what Steve tells me, the Secretary of State's office originally advised the 60% vote was the correct standard. However, the Attorney General's office has evidently weighed in to say the newer statute, 6-16-5, takes precedence, and the water project district requires only a majority vote to be formed.

Such conclusion also is supported by SDCL 46A-18-14, which explicitly states that "The election shall be held as provided in §§ 6-16-4 to 6-16-6, inclusive," and which also postdates poor, forgotten 46A-18-20. Darn—supermajorities are kind of fun (as Al Franken will soon attest).

Given that the proposed district has 709 eligible voters, advocates of the district just saw their work get as many as 70 people easier. 60% to 50%+1... that's a big difference! So, while someone at the LRC gets out the higlighter, the advocates of the district breathe a sigh of relief.

Water Project District Public Meetings Start Tonight

If your ears have stopped ringing from all those fireworks, get up and do some civic discourse this week! Supporters of the proposed Interlakes Water Project District are holding four public informational meetings this week to help voters around Lakes Madison and Brant understand what they'll be voting on July 18. The first meeting is tonight! Dates and places:

• Monday, July 6, 7–9 p.m., Broadwater Resort, Lake Madison
• Tuesday, July 7, 7–9 p.m., Hillside Resort, Lake Madison
• Friday, July 10, 7–9 p.m., Tipler Community Center, Lakes Golf Course
• Saturday, July 11, 10 a.m.–12 p.m., Chester Community Center

(Click here for a map of the four meeting sites.)

Now remember, opponents of the formation of the water project district are paying me to advertise their position. But I think these meetings should be of interest to all my Lake County neighbors over on our eastern lakes. Pick one, bring your questions, and get ready to vote July 18!

Brant Lake Flush with Earmark Cash: Johnson Tags $400K for Sewer

More cheers for earmarks in Lake County! Wednesday's Madison Daily Leader (what, print edition only, for big news like this?) reports that Senator Tim Johnson shoehorned $400K into the Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill to help build a sewer system around Brant Lake. The money, approved this week by the Senate Appropriations Committee, is just part of $6.7 million Senator Johnson managed to work into the bill for South Dakota.

Brant Lake Sanitary District board member Jan Nicolay tells MDL's Elisa Sand that the board is grateful for the money, though they won't be counting chickens until they hatch out of a full vote of the Congress. We should also note that the $400K is just a tenth of the $4 million Brant Lake will need to build its sewer (ah, so that's why no one runs for the Lake Herman Sanitary District board—we'll never have $4 million!).

But wowza wowza: $400K for Brant Lake, $190K for the LAIC, $1.1 million for Highway 34—what would we do without big federal spending? I guess the Tea Parties will never get traction in Lake County....

Lake Politics Part II: Madison-Brant Water Project District Election July 18

Anyone who lives by the lake knows that if you don't stir things up, you end up with stinky green algae scum. In political affairs, this message seems lost on Lake Herman residents, who appear determined to let the Lake Herman Sanitary District continue as a practically unelected body.

Not so over in the Madison-Round-Brant aquaplex. They already have a couple sanitary districts, development associations, and road and fire districts. As if all that (and fishing and jet-skiing) doesn't keep folks busy enough, on July 18, residents of those lakes will vote on whether they want to create the Interlakes Water Project District. It won't be a normal election where the polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.: instead, they have a meeting at 10 a.m. on that Saturday at the Hillside Resort parking lot. (If you can't make it, you can stop by the Lake County courthouse to vote absentee.)

Supporters of the new district have posted a description of the environmental projects the district could tackle, plus some Q&A. They're also hosting four informational meetings the week after July 4 so folks have an idea of what they're voting on.

Opponents are mounting their own campaign to prevent the creation of yet another taxing entity around the eastern lakes of Lake County. They have a website (full disclosure: district opponents have paid me to create and maintain that website and advertise it here on the Madville Times) listing reasons to reject the water project district and recommendations for action that can be carried out with existing means to protect water quality on the lakes.

So while the Tea Partiers get ready to wreck a perfectly good July 4 with more mugging for the cameras and absurd cries of socialism, our neighbors at Lakes Madison and Brant conduct some practical, civil, local democracy.

Lakes Madison and Brant Vote on New Project District July 18

Residents of Lake Madison and Lake Brant get to play democracy this summer: the State Board of Water and Natural Resources yesterday approved an election date of Saturday, July 18, for lake residents to vote on whether they want to create a new water project district.

The meeting, conducted online via our state's remarkable Dakota Digital Network, gave Round Lake resident Robert Todd and attorney Rolly Samp an opportunity to tell the board about what the water project district might accomplish. Wentworth Park resident Steven Kant spoke in opposition to the project (see the arguments he offered last September).

As I understand from Robert Todd, the folks on the Interlakes Water Quality Committee who've been moving this idea forward were hoping to have a regular election, with a polling place open all day long and an opportunity for folks to vote absentee. However, the administrative rule governing special district formation (SDAR 5:02:04:22) requires an actual meeting at a specific time. In other words, must be present to vote. Voters must also be registered within the district, so Sioux Falls folks who weekend at the lakes will not be eligible to vote unless they change their registration to their Lake County address. Update 2009.06.15 09:00 CDT: Correction! The Secretary of State's office clarified for us that absentee voting is allowed; if you need it, get your absentee ballot from the Lake County Courthouse.

Now remember, Lake Herman is left out of this proposed district—we're just too cranky to play nicely with others. But if this district does pass, the next logical step will be for organizers to look into expanding the jurisdiction to include the humble headwaters of the Lake County portion of the Lower Big Sioux Watershed. I will thus be watching from the sidelines, but with keen interest. Will Lake Madison and Brant voters create a new tax for themselves in the midst of a recession? How interested are McMansion owners and jet-ski jockeys in protecting their environment? The discussion should be interesting.

Lake Herman: Little Muddy, Little Green, But Won't Kill You

The East Dakota Water Development District has wrapped up its water monitoring for 2008. 34 of us volunteer water monitors waded and paddled out into Lake Herman, Lake Madison, Brant Lake, and other wild waters of the great Big Sioux watershed to check bacteria content and other indicators of water quality. The full 2008 report is available in PDF format at EastDakota.org.

The short form: we're clean! Well, mostly. Out of 191 lake bacteria samples, only one exceeded the EPA-recommended maximum level for "intense swimming." Alas, that one "hit" was here on Lake Herman, a reading of 250 colony-forming units per 100 mL, above the EPA max of 235 cfu/100mL, on the northwest shore just off Pelican Point Drive. Interestingly, a reading I took in August down on the south side of the lake, after tromping through fresh cow patties and having the herd itself come right over to see what I was doing, registered only 100 cfu/100mL.

Lake Herman's water clarity is not too bad. Folks around the lake will tell you we didn't see as much algae this year. By the numbers, the average depth we could see down into the water (the "Secchi depth") was 1.7 feet, not as good as at Lake Madison (2.0 feet) or Brant Lake (2.5 feet), but still just a touch above the average for 10 of the lakes in the project (1.6 feet). (I exclude Lake Cochrane from that average, since Lake Cochrane has an amazing Secchi depth of 16.79 feet—nowhere to hide for those little fishies!)

So Lake Herman may taste a little gritty, but it won't make you too sick. Rather like Lake Herman's busiest blog... ;-)

IWQC Meeting to Discuss Madison-Brant Water Project District Thursday

The Interlakes Water Quality Committee will meet Thursday, October 9, at the Madison Public Library. The main item on the agenda: the water project district IWQC members are working to form. The ducks are getting in a row: the group has the necessary petition signatures and has met with the state board on water and natural resources and area homeowners. Thursday night they'll make plans for more informational meetings and the next steps to make this planned district a functioning government entity. If you live around the lakes or anywhere in the Lake County portion of the Big Sioux watershed, stop by the library Thursday night and learn what this water project district will mean for you.

---------------
A side note: as mentioned previously, Lake Herman is not part of the proposed water project district. We all know that has much more to do with politics and economics than hydrology. For a little perspective on just how different Lake Madison's population is from its neighbors, the minutes of the IWQC Sept. 4, 2008, meeting indicate that the Lake Madison Development Association allocated $10,000 for publishing costs and other communications related to the water project formation effort. $10,000... just for words and paper. The highest amount ever assessed in annual taxes by Lake Herman Sanitary District for all of its operations is $5000; the current annual budget is $2150.

Local Water Project Faces Opposition

The water project district proposed by petitioners at Lakes Madison and Brant has drawn some public opposition. Last night's Madison Daily Leader carried a letter to the editor critical of the project from Steven Kant, resident of Wentworth Park on the north shore of Lake Madison. His reasons for opposition:

1. Geography: The district encompasses just the Lake Madison and Lake Brant Sanitary Districts. To be successful, claims Kant, the district needs the cooperation of everyone within the watershed—i.e., nearly everyone in Lake County.
2. The district is an unnecessary layer of government in a county where folks like Kant and his neighbors already pay taxes to five governing agencies (county, school district, township, fire district, road district).
3. The district would be able to tax up to 1% of taxable value, plus possible special assessments.
4. Non-resident landowners—and that's possibly a majority of the weekend "cabin" owners on Madison and Brant—have no vote on the creation of this taxing entity.

On geography, well, you could argue that our lakes are part of the Lower Big Sioux Watershed, so any water project district here should reach from here to Sioux City. But you've got to start somewhere. If the water project district comes into being, it will have the power to work on improvements with landowners upstream.

Of course, no matter how broadly the boundaries might be drawn, Kant's second and third points would still apply. I can see where separate governing entities for separate public functions spreads out political power and may allow each board to develop more specialized expertise. But Kant gets me thinking: is there any reason, at the county level, we couldn't replace these overlapping and autonomous districts with one overarching administration at the courthouse coordinating all the roads, fire services, sanitary districts, and water projects?

As for non-residents being taxed without representation, I've certainly heard that argument before, and it's a reasonable one. It's an argument that helped found our country. Of course, taxation without representation happens everywhere. In my own quaint little governing entity, the Lake Herman Sanitary District, we have several non-resident landowners who can't vote on the taxes they pay. Same in Madison and likely everywhere else. Of course, the problem is of a much greater magnitude at Lakes Madison and Brant, where a much larger percentage of the land is owned by out-of-towners and even locals who may spend most of their time at the lake but maintain their offical residence in town (Rod? Jeff? better check that out!).

The water project district has obtained the petition signatures necessary to move the project forward for approval by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. By the book, the project is likely to pass muster with the DENR and the eligible voters. But Kant brings up some worthwhile questions about the complicated web of government we make for ourselves in Lake County.

IWQC Petition Update; Meeting Tomorrow Night

Update on the Interlakes Water Quality Committee's effort to create a new Water Project District around Lakes Madison and Brant: they have in their hands petitions with 195 signatures, 27 more than the 168 required. The IWQC will discuss what happens next at its monthly meeting tomorrow (Thursday) night, September 4, 7 p.m. at the Madison Public Library.

Water Project District Organizers Get Signatures, Ready to File

I hear via e-mail that Robert Todd and others from the Interlakes Water Quality District have successfully completed their quest for signatures on petitions to form a new water project district encompassing Lakes Madison and Brant. Organizers needed around 165 signatures; they say they have 210. Keep an eye on the paper for official notice of the next step, would should be a formal meeting at the courthouse and (we hope) a public vote.

Water Project District Aims for Madison and Brant; Herman to Wait

The Interlakes Water Quality Committee is releasing its official proposal to create a water project district to protect water quality here in Lake County. A water project district is a creature of South Dakota Codified Law empowered to levy taxes and engage in projects to monitor and promote water quality. The IWQC folks see a water project district as the right entity to create to keep the lakes in good shape for recreation and good country living.

I've expressed some concerns that the noble goals of the water project district might be sullied somewhat by some less than democratic means of creating the district. Word around the lake is that some folks were even crankier: I've heard the Lake Herman Development Association had retained a lawyer to fight any effort to incorporate Lake Herman into a district with Lakes madison and Brant.

My concerns, at least for Lake Herman's voice in the water project district's formation and operation, have been rendered moot for the time being. The IWQC is announcing that they will attempt to form a water project district consisting solely of Lakes Madison and Brant.

Including Lake Herman in the new district would make hydrological sense: Lake Herman is at the head of the main watershed of the county, gathering and filtering run-off from five channels draining the western part of the county before sending that water on to our neighbors at Madison and Brant and eventually to the Big Sioux. But politically, bringing Lake Herman into the same tent as Madison and Brant appears to be more than the IWQC cares to bite off and chew.

A Madison-Brant water project district has the potential to do some good. By scaling back their plans to leave out Lake Herman for now, the district will have an opportunity to demonstrate the water quality improvements it can achieve and what sort of taxes it will assess to achieve them. And in a few years, well, I'll still complain if the process isn't sufficiently democratic, but show some results, and my Lake Herman neighbors may come begging to join the water project district.