Opinion ID: 1841181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: History of Inland Lakes Legislation

Text: ถ 33. The 1974 legislation to promote the protection of public inland lakes grew out of a study conducted by the Legislative Council's Natural Resources Committee in 1972. The drafting file for the Legislative Council's bill, 1973 Assembly Bill 766, [9] makes clear that the drafters used existing law on town sanitary districts as the model for the creation of lake districts. The bill went through seven drafts before it was introduced, however, and these drafts reveal an evolution in concerns about protections for property owners and they show how the lakes bill differed from the sanitary district law. ถ 34. To illustrate, the first draft of the lakes bill limited the land in the lake district to frontage land. It defined frontage as lands fronting on a lake, having a direct access to the lake via artificial watercourses or having rights of access running with the lands. LRB-170/1:4. The explanation provided in the text of the draft stated: The definition of `frontage' is used in delimiting those lands in local lake renovation districts. It includes those lands having direct private access to lakes; presumably, these lands will be specially benefited by any lake renovation project, and thus should directly bear part of the financial burden. LRB-170/1:4. ถ 35. In this first draft, only persons owning frontage could petition to establish a lake district. LRB-170/1:6. An explanatory note read: Governmental jurisdictions are included as eligible petitioners, since frontage owned by them will both be assessed for and benefited by reclamation activities undertaken by the district. In the bill's section on special assessments, the lake district commissioners were directed to severally and separately consider each parcel of frontage therein and determine the benefits to each parcel and make assessments thereon. Any owner of a parcel of frontage who feels aggrieved by the assessment was authorized to appeal to the circuit court. Such appeal shall be tried and determined in the same manner as cases originally commenced in said court. ถ 36. In the first draft, there was no provision for a landowner to seek review of the county board's decision to include a parcel of frontage property in the lake district and no provision for a landowner to seek detachment of frontage property from the district. ถ 37. By the third draft, the bill contained a provision permitting any person aggrieved by the county board's decision to create the lake district to petition the court for judicial review. LRB-170/3-10. The third draft still contained the delimiting language on frontage. ถ 38. The fourth draft retained the limitation to frontage and added the following explanation: The frontage definition also includes lands having direct access via natural streams flowing into or out of a lake. Determining whether any particular lands in this class should be included in a district because of direct benefit is a question of fact, and is reserved to the county board for determination . . . . LRB-170/4:7 (emphasis added). ถ 39. The fifth draft dropped both the definition of and limitation to frontage land but added a provision on detachment, linking it to the appeal provision for establishment of the district. LRB 170/5:20. The draft also eliminated the explanatory note affirming the county board's broad fact-finding authority in creating a lake district. ถ 40. When the bill was ultimately introduced, the explanatory note following the bill's section on Merger, Annexation, Detachment read: [The section] [p]rovides means of altering district boundaries. Merger is done by common consent of the governing bodies and members of both districts. Annexation proposals are measured against the same standards used for establishing the district, and are similarly appealable. Detachment proposals are decided upon the basis of whether the territory proposed for detachment is benefited by continued inclusion in the district. LRB 170/7:29-30. ถ 41. Although the lakes bill received extensive attention prior to its introduction, it remained controversial. Its legislative history after introduction includes 5 Substitute Amendments and 36 simple Amendments. See Legislative Council, Digest of Council Bills in the 1973 Legislature 65 (May, 1975). We see nothing in the legislative history of the statute that dictates a requirement that a property owner prove a change in circumstances to qualify for detachment. On the contrary, the detachment procedure assures that an aggrieved property owner will be able to secure an individual determination whether specific property is benefited.