Thirty Lakes Watershed District and A.W. Research Laboratory Projects:

Precipitation Study:

We took over this Precipitation Study from the Lake Hubert Association, expanded it, and continue to collect and analyze samples from various parts of the state.

We already know that rain (and snow) contain Phosphorus.  This study will track the precipitation back to the point of origin in an effort to determine where the Phosphorus was picked up.  For example:  a rainstorm which originated in the Dakotas may carry with it different amounts or types of Phosphorus than a rainstorm originating in Oklahoma.

Results of the testing can be seen by clicking on "Precipitation Study."

Click here for:  Winter Testing for Phosphorus and Chlorides

Mass Balance:

This is a year long study analyzing the quality and quantity of water entering and leaving lakes within the Watershed District.

In October of 2006 the mass balance studies were suspended due to the very dry conditions throughout Crow Wing County. 

Thirty Lakes Watershed District Projects

Thirty Lakes Watershed District was formed to preserve lake ecology, prevent or minimize adverse impacts to the District's water resources and to conserve and make wise use of the District's water resources.

The following projects reflect the District's commitment to protecting surface and subsurface waters within the District's boundaries.

1.     Water Quality Data:

The District began a lake water quality-monitoring program in 1972, starting with the major lakes in the District.

The District uses the "Trophic Status Index" (TSI) to measure the degree of aging (eutrophication) of each lake. TSI ranks lakes on a scale of 0 to 90; the higher the number, the more eutrophic a lake becomes. Since a major factor affecting water quality is climatic conditions, which vary, the TSI is not a permanent condition, but it provides a base from which to compare each lake's condition and monthly changes. It is possible to draw definite conclusions about the District's water quality by tracking each lakes entire database.

The data allows the Managers to make informed decisions about lake issues. The data can also be used in future modeling efforts to determine impacts of proposed activities on lake waters quality. Current efforts have expanded the District's water quality program to include monthly TSI monitoring for 23 of the District's lakes during June, July and August.

2.     Water Quantity Data:
        2006,  2007

In 1989 an ongoing lake elevation program was initiated. Staff gauges are installed every spring in the following 19 lakes: Bass, Bonnie, Clark, Edward, Garden, Gladstone, Hartley, Horseshoe, Hubert, Little Hubert, Lougee, Mollie, North Long, Pelican, Little Pelican, Perch, Schaffer, Sorenson and Young.

The program is an ongoing cooperative venture between the District, private shore land owners, MN DNR and Crow Wing County Soil and Water Conservation District. The levels shown on the gauges are recorded every two weeks and after major rainfalls. The gauges are removed in the fall and reinstalled in the spring. Graphs of historical lake levels of each recorded lake are available upon request at the District office.

3.     Mapping Data:

The District compiled a photographic database of all the District lakes between 1976 and 1978. The shoreline was segmented into 300 to 500 foot management sectors. Maps were produced; correlating each of the 35mm slides representing the management sectors to its map position. The photographs have been used extensively in the District's daily management tasks.

The condition of each lake's watershed is key to the condition of its waters. An important technique for monitoring this is low-level aerial photography of District lakes.  An average of thirty areas of concern are documented on each flight. Aerial photographs, supplemented by field survey work ("ground truthing") are the most reliable source of information to locate changes and potential problems. With aerial photos, the District produces information on lakes and wetlands, which is correlated with water quality data.

4.    Development of GIS Stormwater System for the District:

In 2001 the District was awarded a cash match grant in the amount of $20,500.00 from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources for the development of a GIS Stormwater System for the District. The project will determine current and future Stormwater loading to the Fifty-two lakes in the Thirty Lakes Watershed District. The project will determine the following:  stormwater loading based on current land use, current zoning and loading generated from projected zoning. This project will be an interactive web page for resource, managers, agencies, contractors and homeowners to assist in planning for stormwater management. Lastly, the project will develop a long-term planning tool to measure the projected stormwater impact from land use changes in the Thirty Lakes Watershed District. The land changes will be evaluated by the automated GIS Stormwater System prior to the issuance of Stormwater permits.

5.    Overall Plan Revision:

In 2001 the District was awarded a cash match grant in the amount of $15,600.00 from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to update the District's Revised Overall Plan.  The first draft of the plan was completed in October 2002 and distributed for the 60-day review. The District eagerly anticipates the approval of the the revised draft. Highlights of the revised plan include the following: individual lake management plans and implementation strategies for each of the District's 52 lakes; several maps, i.e. sewer project, land use, ditch, historical and current boundary. The plan's Executive Summary outlines challenges, plans for addressing the challenges and achievements the District has made.

Cooperative Projects:

The following projects illustrate how the District is meeting its goal of working with other governmental bodies and residents to solve problems and protect the District's water resources.

1.     The Sewer Project:

The Sewer Project originally began as an informal project of the Watershed District and over time has grown into a top priority among the District's Projects.

One of the first phases of this project involved retaining the engineering firm of Widseth, Smith and Nolting to produce geographic information maps. The four maps produced were as follows: Dwelling Densities ~ determined the number of residents per quarter section, Current Use Effluent Levels ~ determined the gallons of effluent per section by year, Potential Use Effluent Levels ~ determined potential gallons of effluent per section by year by: changing all seasonal residents to year round residents, assigning 2.5 individuals to each household, assigning 75 gallons of effluent to each individual and all agriculture, green space and forested lands were divided into 2.5 acre rural residential lots, and lastly an Ownership map ~ determined public and privately owned areas that could possibly be purchased for construction of an effluent treatment area.

The District presented their findings to the Board of County Commissioners. Much time was spent giving presentations of the maps to local officials, townships, lake associations, etc. On August 23, 2001 a Joint Powers Agreement between Thirty Lakes Watershed District and Crow Wing County was signed.

The Crow Wing County Sanitary Management District was eventually established in 2005. 

For more information, go to our "What's New" page.

2.    Little Lake Hubert Association (LLHA) Lake Restoration and Management Plan

During the winter of 1986 a lumber mill was set up on the ice.  The location was selected by group of individuals who wished to take the trees from the clearing corridor during the extension of the Windy Ridge Road.  The trees from the clearing were taken to the center of the lake and milled into lumber. The next spring the refuse of the milling was left on the ice and subsequently sank to the bottom of the lake. The Thirty Lakes Watershed District’s monitoring program alerted the managers to the problem, Little Lake Hubert was showing the potential of going hypereutrophic.  Concern by the lake residents led to the formation of the Little Lake Hubert Association.  The District joined with the Little Lake Hubert Association to conduct a complete study of Little Lake Hubert and its’ watershed.  The study was composed of lake sampling, Aerial Lakeshore Analysis, mass balance monitoring and integrating a collection of multivariate data (aerial image data, runoff data to obtain runoff coefficients in the Little Lake Hubert watershed and the modeling of this data and other morphological data into a land use – water prediction model simply referred to as the Werring Procedure. (The procedure was named after Manager Dr. Werring.)  The work resulted in the Little Lake Hubert Management Plan.  The plan included a lake restoration plan consisting of a vegetation management plan, a septic update initiative and a hypolimnetic withdrawal. 

 In 1988, the District cooperated with the lake association in a $3,000.00 aquatic weed removal project.

 In 1991 the District launched a management program for Little Lake Hubert in cooperation with the Little Lake Hubert Property Owners Association. This was an excellent watershed to monitor because it represents the majority of land use types present around District lakes and its small size allowed for detailed field work. The District conducted aerial photography, delineated the lake’s watershed and measured the standard lake’s morphological characteristics. The District also collected and analyzed spring, summer and fall land use runoff samples from Little Lake Hubert’s watershed. The laboratory analysis determined the concentration of soluble phosphorus, particle phosphorus and total nitrogen in the runoff from each type of land use.

 The management program is used to determine the effects of different land uses on the water quality of Little Lake Hubert. The information also helps the District determine what procedures and programs need to be undertaken to allow for land use changes while minimizing the impact on the lake. The Little Lake Hubert Property Association financed a water quality-monitoring project and financed the writing of the management program.

 After all phases of the Lake Management Plan were conducted for a period of time the Little Lake Hubert Association wished to reevaluate the lake by conducting most of the procedures conducted during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s by District / Lake Associations joint venture.  In 2000 the Little Lake Hubert Association acquired grants and the District served as the Fiscal Agent for the Little Lake Hubert Association’s, Lake Analysis Grant. The Initiative Foundation awarded the Association $4,500.00 for this project. The three main objectives for this project included: A) Monitor, measure and sample the inlet/outlet of Little Lake Hubert. B) Aerial analysis to locate nutrients and toxic pollution. C) Phosphorus profile analysis.  The Little Lake Hubert Association and the District found that the efforts had been successful, Little Lake Hubert is near its’ pre-damage condition with an average two year TSI value of 36.3.

3.    Clark Lake Association

The District worked with the Clark Lake Association in the early 1970's to reduce nutrient loading into Clark Lake, which was accelerating the eutrophication rate.  The District constructed a weir in the inlet creek between Rice Lake and Clark Lake.  The weir has retained and filtered suspended material upstream from the inlet to Clark Lake thus reducing nutrient inflow into Clark Lake from Rice and Garden Lakes.  Annual water quality monitoring includes flow, total phosphorus, chlorophyll, secchi and suspended solids.  The weir is maintained by the Clark Lake Association.

 The District also assisted the Clark Lake Association in implementing an aquatic plant management plan and bacterial (fecal coliform) testing of the lake.  The fecal coliform testing continued until septic systems were upgraded and the bacterial concentrations declined.

   4.    Lake Hubert Conservation Club

 The District funded an “Aerial Lakeshore Analysis” of Lake Hubert in 1977.  The data resulted in investigations of a number of nutrient and toxic sources.  The District presented the results of the “Aerial Lakeshore Analysis” to lake residents at the annual meeting of the Lake Hubert Conservation Club.  The Lake Hubert Conservation Club subsequently conducted an “Aerial Lakeshore Analysis” comparison flight in 1987.  Areas, which had not shown improvement since the 1977 analysis, were field‑investigated by the Lake Hubert Conservation Club as part of a nutrient abatement program.  The Lake Hubert Conservation Club has systematically corrected the nutrient and toxic sources.

 The District has assisted and provided data to the Lake Hubert Conservation Club for the design and implementation of the Lake Hubert Management Plan.  The District and the Lake Hubert Conservation Club each continue to collect water quality data to track nutrient concentrations in the Lake and monitor the progress of their Management Plan.

   5.    Environmental Responsibility Committees 

The Thirty Lakes Watershed District has organized and chaired Environmental Responsibility Committees (ERC) for various environmentally sensitive projects in the District: i.e. Deacon’s Lodge Golf Course and the Lodgetel Breezy Point Hotel. The Environmental Responsibility Committee consists of two representatives (a primary and an alternate) from the following entities:  

1. The Developer
2. The Opposing Group
3. All permitting agencies
4. The Thirty Lakes Watershed District

The ERC meets approximately every two weeks starting approximately two months prior to construction through project completion, then quarterly for the first two years after project completion and twice per year until a five-year proof of operation is documented. The ERC system has worked remarkably well with all parties benefiting.

   6.    Hydrologic and Nutrient Budgets

In 1993, the District began determining the hydrologic and nutrient budgets for each lake in the District.  In 1993 all inlets and outlets for 16 lakes within the District were analyzed for:  flow rate, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and suspended solids.  The drainages from the following lakes were analyzed:

Crystal

Sorenson

North Long

Edward

Little Hubert

Hubert

Gladstone

Clark

Rice

Garden

Wetland System between   North Long and Round

 The data was used in the development of individual lake management plans.

 7.    Illegal and Detrimental Conditions Affecting Lakes

The District has been instrumental in detecting and defining illegal and detrimental conditions affecting its lakes.  A number of the resultant District actions resulted in court cases.  Examples include:

            1.            A dredging operation on North Long Lake,

            2.            A setback issue that required a shore land homeowner to move his house,

            3.            Placement of fill into the lakebed of Pelican Lake,

4.         Detrimental conditions such as the drainage of wetlands on the south shoreline of North Long Lake were investigated.

   8.    Prediction of Future Impacts of Water Quality:

The District began an effort to predict future impacts to the water quality of District lakes based on current and projected land use.  In the first project of this process, two lakes were selected as a demonstration project (Pelican and Gladstone Lakes).  The county assessor's books were reviewed and copies were made for each land parcel on the demonstration lakes.  An audit of the Breezy Point and Crow Wing County Planning and Zoning minutes was reported in 1985 Zoning Issues Analysis Report.

    9.    Evaluation of effects of dredging:

The District extensively monitored a dredging project on Pelican Lake to evaluate the effects of the dredging.  Aerial imagery and water quality samples were taken before, during and after the dredging took place.  It was concluded that with proper technical assistance, dredging activities could be controlled so as not to pollute the lake. 

  10.    Update the Crow Wing County Soil Survey Legend:

 The District supported the update of the Crow Wing County Soil Survey Legend with a donation of $400.00 and a letter of support for Crow Wing County Soil & Water Conservation District.  The key tasks to initiate and to complete the soil survey consists of the following: A) Gather documentation and interpretive information. B) Soil mapping. C) National Soil Survey Information System (NASIS). D) Manuscript – developing the text that describes the soil map units and the interpretive tables for the soil survey manuscript. E) Compilation – compiling the soil survey maps for digitizing and map finishing. F) Digitizing – digitizing of the soil survey legend to Soil Survey Geographic Database standards. The Board of Managers feel many agencies will benefit from this project. In addition several projects going on in the county will be enhanced from information generated by this project. The Managers recognize that future grant funds for projects within the county may be impeded by not having this project completed.  This project is expected to take ten years with three people working fulltime on it.

 11.    North Long Lake Association Project 2000:

 The District supported the North Long Lake Septic System Inspection project in the year 2000 with a donation of $1,500.00, a letter of support and made available all data concerning water quality issues.  The benefit of the project was to environmentally protect North Long Lake surface and groundwater.  The project’s objective was to identify and ultimately eliminate non-conforming septic systems.

  12.    Crow Wing County Geological Groundwater Atlas Project:

The Board of Managers approved a donation of $4,500.00 for this project.  The project is to be completed by the University of Minnesota.  The project geographically references information about the geology and hydrology of the county.  The project yields maps, text databases and digital products.  The information is used in planning and environmental protection.  The project targets counties with growth and sensitive aquifer systems.  One year of the project has been completed on a four-year completion schedule.

   Potential District Projects

 1.       Continuing a public awareness and education program which may include:

(a)      Attending annual dinner meetings of the Lake Associations within the District.

(b)      Presenting BWSR's videotape on watershed districts to various groups.

(c)      Printing and distributing a District newsletter.

(d)      Volunteer collection of Secchi disc readings.

2.   Monitoring District lakes and wetlands for Eurasian water milfoil, purple loosestrife and other noxious weeds.

3.      The District may continue annual over flights and aerial photography to verify permit activities and identify un-permitted and illegal activities relative to District concerns.

4.      All District wetlands may be incorporated into the protected waters data base database and strategic implementation plans.

5.      Managers may consider exploring a Watershed Stormwater Runoff-Based Fee System or Stormwater Utility.  Minnesota Statute 103D.730 grants Watershed Districts the authority to implement a program of this type. Watershed Districts may build, construct, improve and repair stormwater systems. Property owners can be charged a fee based on quantity, pollution characteristics or difficulty of disposal of stormwater produced by properties.

6.      Thirty Lakes Watershed District may establish a water management district or districts in the territory of the watershed for the purpose of collecting revenues and paying the cost of projects initiated under sections 103D.601, 103D.605, 103D.611 or 103D.730. A Water Management District focuses energy and resources on a specific geographic region and promotes fiscal responsibility.

7.      The District may consider expanding or adjusting water quality monitoring program currently in place.

  Instituting and Funding Projects

           *Methods of Instituting and Funding a Project

 Introduction:

One of the most common questions for the Managers to consider involves the method and responsibility for instituting a project.  This section will outline the various methods of instituting and funding a project and the advantages and disadvantages associated with each method.

             1.    Petition by City:  MS 103D.705 provides that a city may petition the District for

improvements.  A petitioner must guarantee a preliminary fund to cover all costs prior to the District ordering the project.  If the Managers order the project, the preliminary fund is charged to the project.  If the project is not ordered, the petitioner pays the preliminary fund.  The petition can limit the amount of the preliminary fund.  Projects initiated in this manner must be paid for by a special assessment against benefiting properties.

a.   Petition by Residents: Various methods are available under MS 103D.705 for residents to petition for a project.  The major problem with this approach is that the residents must collectively guarantee the preliminary fund and the cooperation of numerous residents is necessary.  This type of petition is common for agricultural drainage projects.

b.   Project by Unanimous Resolution: MS 103D.701 allows the District to initiate a project by unanimous resolution of the Managers.  Such a project would be paid for by assessment of the benefited properties.

c.   Project by Resolution: MS 103D.601 allows a project to be instituted by resolution of the majority of the District Managers.  However, the project must be financed by one or more grants totaling at least 50 percent of the estimated project cost and the total estimated cost to the District may not be more than $750,000.  The District share of project costs are paid for by special assessments against benefiting properties.

2.      Administrative Fund:  The Managers may use a portion of the Administrative Fund for construction and maintenance of projects of common benefit to the District.  The entire fund is limited to either .048 percent of taxable market value or $250,000 per year whichever is less.  Since this is normally used for the basic organizational needs of the District, it may be difficult to fund a large project from this source.

3.      Additional Levy:  MS 103D.905, Subd. 3 authorizes the District Managers to levy a tax over the entire District not to exceed 0.00798 percent of the taxable market value for a period not to exceed 15 consecutive years to pay the cost attributable to the basic water management features of projects initiated by petition of a municipality of the District.  Such a levy would generate approximately $25,000 in the District.

4.      Survey and Data Acquisition Fund: MS 103D.905, Subd. 8 allows the District to levy an amount not to exceed 0.02418% of taxable market value for the purpose of making surveys and acquiring data.  The tax may be levied only once every five years and the fund balance may not exceed $50,000.

5.      Municipal or County Project of Local Improvement:  Municipalities or the County may institute projects for drainage improvements.  Property owners who receive benefits from the project generally pay costs of such projects.  Such a project would be instituted by a petition to the City Council or County Board and would have no District involvement, except for routine permit approval.

   Ongoing Permitting Project:

Thirty Lakes Watershed District Permits and Enforcement

 Implementation of this Watershed Management Plan is governed by the Thirty Lakes Watershed District Regulations adopted by the Managers.  The regulations detail the permit review process and the types of projects, which require a permit.  Enforcement is coordinated with the respective ordinances and rules of municipalities, the county and the state to minimize the regulatory impact on District residents. It is expected that all District Residents and Contractors use all best management practices.

 The District intends to be active in the regulatory process to ensure that its water resources are managed in accordance with District goals and policies.  Consistent with the Minnesota Watershed Law (MS 103D), the District requires permits for all developments and improvements that take place within the watershed boundaries.

   The Requirement for a Watershed District Permit:

 The Board of Managers has found that a permit program for certain uses of water or for performing works affecting water resources of the Watershed District is needed to ensure the wise development and conservation of the Thirty Lakes Watershed District water resources to effectuate the purposes and intent of the Minnesota Watershed Act and to enhance the environment.  An application form shall be filed with the Board of Managers and a permit obtained from the Board of Managers as hereinafter provided: 

1. Improvements Requiring a Watershed District Permit:

All persons, municipalities or other agencies undertaking works of improvement, projects or use of water within the boundary of the Watershed District, may be required, as set forth in the District’s rules, as amended, to submit engineering data and other information as may be required on an application for a permit form and receive a permit prior to any work being started for the following:  

·         Any work which requires a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or the United States Army Corps of Engineers, if such work touches upon or affects any lake, stream, wetland irrigation or drainage ditch, or other surface waters, or any well or other ground waters of the district, unless such work falls within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991 as amended

·         Any work which requires a permit from Crow Wing County, or any department, municipality, or town thereof, if such work falls within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake, touches upon or affects any lake, stream, wetland, irrigation or drainage ditch: or other surface waters, or any well or other ground waters of the District.  

·         Any sanitary sewer, storm sewer or other major utility project contemplated by any government subdivision within the Watershed District.  

·         Any public or private street, road or highway construction project, or any other construction project which by means of its construction may have an effect on the quantity or quality of water runoff. 

·         Any drain tile or drainage ditch that drains directly or indirectly into any public waters.  

·         Any works which include dredging or filling of any lowland, marsh, pond or drainage way. 

·         Any bridge, dike, culvert or drain across any natural drainage way, lake or marsh.  

·         Any diking, excavating, grading or filling adjacent to any drainage way, lake or marsh exclusive of the maintenance of any roadway surface. 

·         Any structure intended for commercial or industrial use to be built, located or relocated on any property within the Watershed District.  

·         Any artificial drainage way or canal cut across a subwatershed within the District.  

·         Drainage of any marsh, pond or wetland.  

·         Construction, alteration, repair or removal of any dike or reservoir within the District.  

·         Any field ditching or draining of any area within the District’s shore land or in excess of one acre within the District.  

·         Any land alterations that remove surface vegetation from more than one acre 

·         Any work on a lake lot which removes or alters an ice ridge. 

 2.   Permit Procedures

    ·         Applicant shall obtain copies of any application forms from the Watershed District.  

·         When it is necessary for the Watershed District Engineer or other consultant to review the application and all exhibits, view the site and make a report to the Watershed District as to the technical implementation of the work, fees for such services may be assigned to the applicant.  

·         The Board of Managers may, at its discretion, require the applicant to appear before the Board to present his application for permit and to give any testimony the Board feels proper in making a decision to the granting or refusal of the permit.  

·         If the permit is issued, the applicant shall abide by all of the conditions of its issuance and shall, in any case, be responsible for the timely notification to the Watershed District of commencement of work so that proper observation and inspection can be made.  

·         If required by the Board of Managers of the Watershed District, the applicant shall file a bond or other approved form of escrow deposit with the Board of Managers in an amount set by the Board and conditioned on performance by the applicant of authorized activities in conformance with the terms of the permit.  ** Said bond or escrow shall be filed prior to issuance of the permit. The bond or escrow shall be deposited with the Watershed District Board before any work is commenced, and when work is completed in a satisfactory manner, the bond or escrow deposit shall be released to the applicant. If the work is of such a nature that the fact of acceptable completion is difficult to determine immediately after the completion thereof, the Watershed District may retain the bond or escrow deposit for a period not to exceed six (6) months at which time a final determination of acceptability shall be made.  

·         If the Watershed District determines that the work is not acceptable, the bond or other escrow deposit shall be forfeited and the Watershed District shall complete the work using those funds.  The Watershed District shall return unused funds to the permit holder or agent after completion of the work.  If said funds are insufficient to complete the work, the Watershed District may complete the work and assess the permit holder under the enforcement provisions of the statute and the Watershed rules. 

·         If the Board determines that is necessary to monitor an activity authorized by permit, all such monitoring costs may be charged and collected from the permit holder.  

·         The fees and cost prescribed herein shall not be charged to an agency of the United States or any governmental unit in this state.  

·         All issued permits shall be signed by the President or Secretary of the Board of Managers or their designates.  

·         No works or use requiring a permit shall be commenced prior to the issuance of the permit.  

·         Unless specified in the permit, works for which a permit is given must be complete within one year, unless the Board of Managers grants an extension. The managers may further require, as a condition of all permits, that they be notified when said improvement is completed.  

·         Application for a permit will be acted upon within 60 days from the date the Board of Managers receives the application and required data.  

·         If a permit application is refused or granted subject to conditions, the applicant may within 30 days, demand a hearing on the application before the Board of Managers.  

·         Obtaining a permit from the Board of Mangers does not relieve the applicant from the responsibility of obtaining any other additional authorization required.  

·         Applications for permit shall be filed with or mailed to the Watershed District office, a Manager for the District or the Engineer.  

·         A plan should accompany the application, and the Board of Managers may request additional information.  (Note: Additional information requirements can be found in the “Rules of the Thirty Lakes Watershed District”.     

3.            Variances:

 The Managers may grant variances from District regulations only if extraordinary or unnecessary hardship will result from strict compliance.  However, the District regulations provide that these variances should not subvert the intent and purpose of the regulations or the District's management plan, and should not grant special convenience or rights to any person or group.  In accordance with these provisions, variances may be granted only if all of the following circumstances exist: 

1.      The purpose of the variance is to alleviate unique non-economic conditions or circumstances that are not the result of any action by the applicant. 

2.      The exceptional or unusual circumstances for which the variance is requested do not apply generally to other properties adjacent to the same water resource and are the result of topography or other natural circumstances over which the property owners have no control. 

3.      Granting the variance will not confer special privileges to the applicant that are otherwise denied to the owners of other lands adjacent to the water resource or to public users of the resource. 

4.      The variance will not result in conditions that do not meet standards set by state law or by regulations of other governmental bodies, and it will not permit a lower degree of flood protection than that provided other lands adjacent to the water resources. 

5.      The variance is the minimum variance that will alleviate the hardship. 

6.      The variance will not violate the spirit and intent of District regulations or the District's management plan. 

7.      The variance will not adversely affect the use of other properties not controlled by the applicant and will not unduly limit the way in which other properties not under the applicant's control may be used or developed. 

The District reviews an average of 80 permit applications, 12 potential permit violations, 43 un-permitted activities, and 14 citizen reports of actions each year.  Many potential violations are seen during the aerial flights. The permits and inspections allow the Managers to meet the District's goal of protecting the water resources by preventing or minimizing adverse impacts. 

The District's  Education Plan

      ·         The District has developed a brochure or newsletter,

·         The District has developed a “booth” at the county fair and MAWD convention,

·         The District will continue to hold meetings two times monthly, the meetings are open to the public,

·         The Managers may attend Lake Associations Meetings to share information, and

·         The District has developed a Website to share information with others