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

Heading: Lake District Powers

Text: ถ 21. In 1974 the legislature created Chapter 33 of the statutes to afford additional protection to inland lakes. Ch. 301, Laws of 1973. The legislature declared that environmental values, wildlife, public rights in navigable waters, and the public welfare are threatened by the deterioration of public lakes. Wis. Stat. ง 33.001. It found that protection and rehabilitation of public inland lakes are in the best interest of the citizens as a whole and that the public welfare will be benefited thereby. Id. It noted that lakes form an important basis for the state's recreation industry and that increasing recreational use of public waters justifies state action to enhance and restore the potential of the state's inland lakes. Id. Therefore, the legislature concluded, it is necessary to embark upon a program of lake protection and rehabilitation, to authorize a conjunctive state and local program of lake protection and rehabilitation to fulfill the positive duty of the state as trustee of navigable waters, and protect environmental values. Wis. Stat. ง 33.001(2)(a). ถ 22. In addition, the legislature found that local districts should be formed by persons directly affected by the deteriorated condition of inland waters and willing to assist financially, or through other means, in remedying lake problems. Wis. Stat. ง 33.001(2)(b). These lake districts are a significant component of Chapter 33's manifold approach to addressing the legislature's inland lakes objectives. They are corporate bodies with the powers of a municipal corporation, Wis. Stat. ง 33.26(3), and each district may undertake a program of lake protection and rehabilitation of a lake or parts thereof. Wis. Stat. ง 33.21. The provisions governing the creation and activities of lake districts are designed to enable these special purpose districts to coexist among more traditional local governmental units. ถ 23. A lake district's powers are set out in Wis. Stat. ง 33.22. They include the power to sue and be sued, make contracts, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire property, disburse money, contract debt and do any other acts necessary to carry out a program of lake protection and rehabilitation. Wis. Stat. ง 33.22(1). The district may also create, operate and maintain a water safety patrol unit, enhance the recreational uses of the lake, including recreational boating facilities, and assume sanitary district powers. Wis. Stat. งง 33.22(2m), 33.22(4m), and 33.22(3) and (4). ถ 24. To finance these operations, the lake district has power to impose taxes and special assessments. First, the annual meeting may levy a uniform tax on all taxable property within the district. This tax to fund operations may not exceed a rate of 2.5 mills ($2.50 per thousand) of equalized valuation. Wis. Stat. ง 33.30(4)(a). [8] ถ 25. Second, because a lake district may borrow money, the district shall levy an annual, irrepealable tax to pay the principal and interest on its indebtedness. The district shall levy the tax without limitation as to rate or amount on all taxable property within the district. Wis. Stat. ง 33.31(3). ถ 26. Third, the board of commissioners may impose special assessments for the purpose of carrying out district protection and rehabilitation projects. Wis. Stat. ง 33.32(1). After determining the entire cost of the work to be done, the lake district board must apportion a special assessment on a reasonable basis. Id. In apportioning the special assessment, the commissioners shall examine each parcel and determine the benefits to each parcel from the project, considering such factors as size, proximity to the lake and present and potential use of the parcel, including applicable zoning regulations. Wis. Stat. ง 33.32(1)(b) (emphasis added). ถ 27. The potential scope of a lake district's operations, juxtaposed with the lake district's extensive taxing authority, may cause non-riparian property owners to be wary of large property tax bills and assessments. Special assessments should be tailored to reflect actual benefit to individual properties, but taxes to cover a lake district's indebtedness will be taxed at the same uniform rate, irrespective of whether properties are choice riparian or marginal non-riparian parcels. ถ 28. At oral argument, the parties discussed the tensions that sometimes exist among owners of property within a lake district. Some riparian property owners favor high water levels, in part to promote recreation that will benefit their property; some riparian property owners favor lower water levels, perhaps because they have less interest in boating; and some property owners prefer to return a lake to its natural condition by removing any existing dam. When tensions exist within a lake district, factions may struggle to control the elected board to influence the policies and expenditures of the lake district. Non-riparians may watch these struggles, almost as bystanders, understanding that when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. ถ 29. In this case, there has been discussion about the Lake District's potential role in acquiring, operating, and maintaining the Indianford Dam, which is presently owned by Rock County. See David W. Marcouiller, et al., University of Wisconsin-Extension, Assessing Potential Economic and Ecological Impacts of Removing the Indianford Dam 15 (Dec. 8, 1999); James E. Welker, Circuit Judge, Memorandum Decision 1 (Nov. 7, 2001) (The impetus for the creation of the District was the potential for the removal of a small dam at Indianford.). ถ 30. With this in mind, Donaldson petitioned to have his two properties removed from the District. He objected to the added layer of taxation that comes from being included in the Lake District, asserting that his properties are not benefited by the District because neither property is riparian or enjoys private access rights to the lake or river. He therefore sees no point in subsidizing activities that he contends serve only to benefit the Lake District's riparian owners. ถ 31. A lake district board must consider a detachment petition and may detach property upon a finding that such territory is not benefited by continued inclusion in the district. Wis. Stat. ง 33.33(3). In this case, after a hearing, the Lake District Board turned down Donaldson's petition. ถ 32. Section 33.33(3) also provides for appeals of the commissioners' decision, which may be taken under ง 33.26(7). Section 33.26(7) provides: Any person aggrieved by the action of the board may petition the circuit court for judicial review. A verified petition shall be presented to the court, specifying the grounds upon which the appeal is based. Wis. Stat. ง 33.26(7). Donaldson availed himself of this right. His ground for appealing was that the Lake District Board could not have reached the decision to deny his petition based on the evidence it received. The circuit court agreed and ordered Donaldson's property detached. As noted, the court of appeals reversed, reasoning that Chapter 33's statutory scheme required a change in circumstances, a position strongly espoused by the Lake District Board. Donaldson, 260 Wis. 2d 238, ถ 21. Because Donaldson conceded that the overall circumstances had not changed since his property was included in the District, the petition for detachment was properly denied on the basis that he failed to show a change in circumstance. Id.