Lily Lake Summerhaven Association Water Safety

Rev. 10-Sep-2012
Back to Home
 
Tickets issued in 2001 Results of  2002 Water Safety Survey Summary of water safety laws for PWCs, Boats, Piers
Tickets issued in 2002 Law enforcement (how to respond to being pulled over, how to report violations) Town of Milton PWC Ordinance
Summary of Citations in 2006
 Weekly water tests 2007
Weekly water tests 2008
Weekly water tests 2009
Weekly water tests 2010
Weekly water tests 2011
Weekly water tests 2012
 General information about beach water pollution:
http://www.co.kenosha.wi.us/dhs/Divisions/Health/ServicesLab/BeachInfo.php
Tickets issued in 2008
 2007 Pier Protection Act
Oversized piers can get exemptions per the June 24, 2008 Kenosha News.
 Notes on VHS

In the ticket table:

2001 Tickets

These are the tickets that Kenosha County recorded on Lilly Lake during the summer of 2001. Many thanks to Bob Griffin for his work in gathering this data.
 
Initials, Address
Local tie?
 Description of Infraction Fine
CK, Deerfield, IL
Y
 Towing a skier with a PWC with no observer $138.20
DM, Salem, WI
Leaving shore and accelerating to full wake no more than 80' from shore and 60' from dock, then operating a PWC at wake up to dock and
shore.		 $138.20
LC, Chicago, IL
Operating a PWC 30' from restricted swim area at speed, then traveling above no wake speed around shoreline at 80-100' until he stopped 20' from buoys on East side of lake $138.20
JB, Kenosha, WI
Operating a PWC at wake speed within 20' of shore $138.20
JM, Kenosha, WI
Operating a PWC at speed within 50' of shore $138.20
MH, Niles, IL
Y
 Operated PWC at speed 30' from shore, went around lake a few times and returned at speed to within 30 ' of shore $138.20
PS, Oak Park, IL
 Operated a PWC at speed, 65' from marked swim area and 50' from shore  $138.20
JM, Mt. Prospect, IL
Operated a PWC at high speeds and doing circles about 40' from shore and within 40-50' of marked swim area $138.20
TM, Elmwood Park, IL
Operated a PWC at speed within 25-30' of another boat, said  he did not know the state laws $138.20
DNR tickets
The DNR issued 3 tickets, which were also for operating a PWC at speed within 50' of shore. We have to pay to get details so the detailed information is not available. However, Bob Griffin learned that all three were nonresidents and plead no contest. Two of these people were given field sobriety tests and blew 0.09. $125-$140
Local tickets
Per the Town Clerk, Constable Haas did not issue any tickets this summer

Editorial comment: Obviously, people's perception of the problem is in fact correct. PWC operators received every single ticket issued on Lilly Lake this past summer, and all but one involved proximity to the shore, beach/swim area, and/or other boats. Also, these tickets are for operating at speed within 50 feet of shore, NOT the 200' for PWCs or even the 100' for the boats that the law requires. The tickets were for the most part issued for infractions that took place at or near the launch ramp and beach area, which makes them an especially serious safety hazard for other lake users.

2002 Tickets

These are the tickets that Kenosha County recorded on Lilly Lake during the summer of 2002. Many thanks to Bob Griffin for gathering this data. One possible reason for the low ticket rate this year was the difficulty in getting law enforcement officers to come to the lake.
 
Initials, Address
Local tie?
 Description of Infraction Fine
DK, Glenview IL   Operating a PWC faster than slow-no-wake within 100 ft of shore (accelerating rapidly) and adjacent (15 ft) to a posted swimming area $138.60
RD, Carol Stream, IL
Operating a PWC faster than slow-no-wake within 50 to 75 ft of shore  $138.60
MV, Chicago Hts, IL
Failure to display registration number on boat $113.80

2006 Summary of Citations

As of August 5, 2006, Deputy Dan Vogt wrote 18 citations:
- 5 for lack of proper number of Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs)
- 7 for speeding above slow/no-wake within 200 ft of shore
- 1 for operating beyond safe carrying capacity of boat
- 2 for underage operation of a Personal Water Craft (PWC) without a certificate
- 1 for PWC towing a tube without an observer
- 2 for riding on a seat back or the gunwale while going above slow/no wake speed

2008 Tickets

Weekend of July 26-27 offenders: 2 from Kenosha, 1 from Salem, 1 from Burlington.
- Operating PWC within 100 ft. lakeshore
- Operating PWC within 100 ft. of another PWC
- Operating PWC above SNW within 20 ft. of shore
- Operating PWC above SNW within 100 ft. of shore

Weekly Water Tests - 2007

Weekly Water Tests - 2008

August 25 water test: 84 cfu / 100 mls. Last water test of the season.
August 18 water test: 5 cfu / 100 mls.
August 11 water test: 138 cfu / 100 mls.
August 5 water test: 55 cfu / 100 mls. The beach advisory is lifted.
August 4 water test: 345 cfu / 100 mls. This level requires a beach advisory.
July 28 water test: 86 cfu / 100 mls.
July 21 water test: 86 cfu / 100 mls.
July 14 water test: 9 cfu / 100 mls.
July 7 water test: 16 cfu / 100 mls.
July 1 repeat water test: 9 cfu / 100 mls. No beach advisory needed after all.
June 30 water test: 326 cfu / 100 mls. This level requires a beach advisory. Another test will be done in the next day or two.
June 23 water test: 2 cfu / 100 mls.
June 17 water test: 7 cfu / 100 mls.
June 10 water test: 17 cfu / 100 mls. The beach advisory has been lifted.
June 3 water test showed a reading of 237 cfu / 100 mls. Anything over 235 requires an advisory; readings over 1000 require a beach closing.

Weekly Water Tests - 2009

June 1 - 35 cfu / 100 mls
June 8 - 4 cfu / 100 mls
June 15 - 11 cfu / 100 mls
June 22 - 308 cfu / 100 mls (high reading probably due to runoff and geese) BEACH ADVISORY IN EFFECT!
June 24 - 33 cfu / 100 mls - Beach Advisory CANCELED
June 26 - 33 cfu / 100 mls
July 6 - 26 cfu / 100 mls
July 13 - 99 cfu / 100 mls
July 20 - 21 cfu / 100 mls
July 27 - 488 cfu / 100 mls BEACH ADVISORY IN EFFECT!
July 28 - 79 cfu / 100 mls - Beach Advisory CANCELED
August 3 - 157 cfu / 100 mls
August 10 - 435 cfu / 100 mls BEACH ADVISORY IN EFFECT! Swim at your own risk.
August 11 - 75 cfu / 100 mls - Beach Advisory CANCELED
August 17 - 37 cfu / 100 mls August 24 - 387 cfu / 100 mls BEACH ADVISORY IN EFFECT!
August 25 - 727 cfu / 100 mls BEACH ADVISORY IN EFFECT!
August 26 - 70 cfu / 100 mls - Beach Advisory CANCELED
August 31 - 687 cfu / 100 mls BEACH ADVISORY IN EFFECT!

Weekly Water Tests - 2010

June 7: 31 cfu / 100 mls
June 14: 0 cfu / 100 mls
June 21: 20 cfu / 100 mls
June 28: 13 cfu / 100 mls
July 5: no test
July 12: 15 cfu / 100 mls
July 19: 291 cfu / 100 mls - Beach advisory
July 20: 13 cfu / 100 mls
July 26: 127 cfu / 100 mls
August 2: 387 cfu / 100 mls - Beach advisory
August 3: 1300 cfu / 100 mls - BEACH CLOSED
August 5: 2419 cfu / 100 mls - BEACH REMAINS CLOSED
August 9: 10 cfu / 100 mls
August 16: 3 cfu / 100 mls
August 23: 30 cfu / 100 mls
August 30: 61 cfu / 100 mls

Weekly Water Tests - 2011

May 31, 2011 - 4 cfu/100mls
June 6, 2011 - 23 cfu/100mls
June 13, 2011 - 5 cfu/100mls
June 20, 2011- 2 cfu/100mls
June 27, 2011 - 11 cfu/100mls
July 5, 2011 - 53 cfu/100mls
July 11, 2011 - 20 cfu/100mls
July 18, 2011 - 23 cfu/100mls
July 25, 2011 - 3 cfu/100mls
August 1, 2011 - 816 cfu/100mls Beach advisory!
August 2, 2011 - 1300 cfu/100mls BEACH CLOSED!
August 3, 2011 - 291 cfu/100mls Beach advisory!
August 4, 2011 - 19 cfu/100mls Beach can be re-opened
August 8, 2011 - 27 cfu/100mls
August 15, 2011 - 121 cfu/100mls
August 22, 2011 - 38 cfu/100mls
August 29, 2011 - 1 cfu/100 mls

Weekly Water Tests - 2012

June 4, 2012 - 16 cfu/100mls
June 12, 2012 - 40 cfu/100mls
June 18, 2012 - 28 cfu/100mls
June 25, 2012 - 16 cfu/100mls
July 2, 2012 - 13 cfu/100mls
July 9, 2012 - 1203 cfu/100mls - BEACH IS CLOSED
July 10, 2012 - 8 cfu/100mls - BEACH IS OPEN
July 16, 2012 - 1 cfu/100mls
July 23, 2012 - 109 cfu/100mls
July 30, 2012 - 816 cfu/100mls - BEACH IS CLOSED
Aug 1, 2012 - 86 cfu/100mls - BEACH IS OPEN
Aug 6, 2012 - 261 cfu/100mls - BEACH ADVISORY
Aug 7, 2012 - 1414 cfu/100mls - BEACH IS CLOSED
Aug 9, 2012 - 1300 cfu/100mls - BEACH REMAINS CLOSED
Aug 13, 2012 - 387 cfu/100mls - BEACH ADVISORY
 Aug 14, 2012 - 67 cfu/100mls - BEACH IS OPEN
Aug 20, 2012 - 20 cfu/100mls
Aug 27, 2012 - 6 cfu/100mls

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS)

Viral hemorrhagic septicemia is a virus that causes fish to bleed to death internally. It was recently found in two fish from Little Lake Butte des Morts near Oshkosh— the first occurrence of the virus in Wisconsin inland waters. Though believed harmless to humans, the virus has already killed millions of fish in Lakes Huron and Erie and could devastate sport fishing if it gets into Wisconsin's inland lakes. That is why the DNR is instituting emergency rules:
- Never move live fish or fish eggs to other waters and always buy bait minnows only from Wisconsin bait dealers.
- Inspect boat, trailer and equipment and remove visible aquatic plants, animals and mud before leaving the launch ramp.
- Drain water from boat, motor, bilge, live wells and bait containers before leaving a lake.
- Dispose of leftover bait in the trash, not in the water.
- Rinse boat and recreational equipment with hot water, or dry for at least five days.
- Report large numbers of dead fish or fish with blood spots to your local DNR fish biologist or conservation warden.

Results of Water Safety Survey

Meeting on Saturday, June 29, 2002
The Board and Safety Committee members presented the results of the survey and a synopsis of the comments that people wrote on the surveys. The following main agreements were reached: Most meeting attendees excoriated the survey saying it was unscientific, biased, and "a piece of crap" that should not even be shown to the Town Board. For those who participated in the survey and did not attend the meeting, here are the results that were handed out:

Final survey results as of July 10, 2002 (no more surveys being accepted)
Surveys sent: 248     Usable surveys returned: 110 (44.4%)      Surveys discarded (duplicates, anonymous): 7

Estimated lakefront Summerhaven properties: 86 (56 of 86 or 65% of lakefront households responded to the survey)

Y = Circled Yes      N = Circled No      B = Blank (did not circle anything)
 
 
All Respondents
Lakefront Households
Question
Y (# and %)
N
B
Y (# and %)
N
B
1. Full-time resident
63  -  57.3%
47
0
20  -  35.7%
36
0
3. Lakefront household
56  -  50.9%
54
0
56  -  100%
0
0
4. Own boat or PWC
79  -  71.8%
31
0
51  -  91.1%
5
0
5a. Power/ski boat
48  -  43.6%
11
51
36  -  64.3%
2
18
5b. Fishing boat
23  -  20.9%
17
70
12  -  21.4%
9
35
5c Pontoon
19  -  17.3%
19
72
14  -  25%
12
30
5d. PWC
17  -  15.5%
20
73
13  -  23.2%
11
32
5e. Sail boat
13  -  11.8%
20
77
11  -  19.6%
10
35
5f. Row boat, kayak, canoe, paddle boat
45  -  40.9%
10
55
33  -  58.9%
5
18
5g. Deck boat
3  -  2.7%
26
81
2  -  3.6%
16
38
6. Operate on Lilly Lake
75  -  68.2%
15
20
51  -  91.1%
2
3
7. Would take safety course
57  -  51.8%
42
11
35  -  62.5%
17
4
8a. Boaters w/i 100' of shore
72  -  65.5%
30
8
41  -  73.2%
13
2
8b. Boaters w/i 100' of other boat
70  -  63.6%
30
10
43  -  76.8%
10
3
8c. Boaters w/i 100' of swim area
61  -  55.5%
40
9
35  -  62.5%
18
3
8d. Boaters w/i 100' of pier/raft
72  -  65.5%
27
11
44  -  78.6%
8
4
8e. Boaters w/i 100' of person
56  -  50.9%
42
12
35  -  62.5%
16
5
9a. PWC w/i 200' of shore
74  -  67.3%
26
10
44  -  78.6%
10
2
9b. PWC w/i 100' of other boat
71  -  64.5%
28
11
43  -  76.8%
10
3
9c. PWC w/i 100' of swim area
62  -  56.4%
38
10
34  -  60.7%
20
2
9d. PWC w/i 100' of pier/raft
76  -  69.1%
23
11
45  -  80.4%
8
3
9e. PWC w/i 100' of person
59  -  53.6%
40
11
34  -  60.7%
19
3
10. Other boating violations
33  -  30%
67
10
20  -  35.7%
32
4
11a. Concerned about power/ski boat
70  -  63.6%
27
13
29  -  51.8%
21
6
11b. Concerned about fishing boat
16  -  14.5%
64
30
7  -  12.5%
34
15
11c. Concerned about pontoon
21  -  19.1%
58
31
11  -  19.6%
30
15
11d. Concerned about PWC
82  -  74.5%
19
9
37  -  66.1%
13
6
11e. Concerned about sail boat
13  -  11.8%
65
32
6  -  10.7%
34
16
11f. Concerned about row boat
13  -  11.8%
65
32
6  -  10.7%
34
16
11g. Concerned about deck boat
15  -  13.6%
62
33
7  -  12.5%
32
17
12. Support PWC ban (ala Milton)
59  -  53.6%
46
5
21  -  37.5%
32
3
13. Buoys marking 100' off shore
77  -  70%
28
5
35  -  62.5%
18
3
14. Would volunteer as deputy aide
34  -  30.9%
64
12
18  -  32.1%
31
7
15. Any specific concerns
47  -  42.7%
42
21
27  -  48.2%
16
13

Notes:

Summary of water safety laws

Contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) at PO Box 7291, Madison, WI 53707-7921 for a copy of Wisconsin Boating Regulations PUBL-LE-301, or read the regulations online at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/enforcement/safety/boatreg.htm. For other information, see: The following rules are summaries of Wisconsin regulations.

Rules for PWCs

Rules for boats

Note: A typical American sedan is 14 to 16 ft long. Thus 100 ft is roughly 6.5 car lengths.

Rules for Piers

In 2005, new laws took effect to reduce damage to natural habitats. Piers wider than 6 ft or having more than 2 boat slips need a one-time DNR permit. See dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/waterway/piers.shtml.

The Seasonal Residents Association (SRA) Post issued a special report (Vol II, No. 5) that identifies several concerns about what is happening. Here are excerpts from the report:

Grandfathering
If current recommendations are passed, there will be no true "grandfathering" of existing piers and all of the state's nearly half-million piers will be subject to the new regulations. New regulations mean that thousands of docks on Wisconsin waterways might be deemed illegal and owners might be forced to modify or remove them. With a few exceptions, existing piers should be exempt from these new regulations.

DNR officials claim that 84% of the piers would not be affected by the new rules because they would be "no wider than six feet and no longer than the length needed to moor a boat or to rest in three feet of water." The math does not seem to take into account factors such as the length of the boat, the draught of the boat, and changing depth of some lakes from year-to-year and the configuration (shape) of the dock. All other piers would require either a "general" permit ($50) or an individual permit ($300). Permits imply review and approval; approval suggests some denials--and many appeals.

Representative Scott Gunderson heads the Assembly Natural Resource Committee and is quoted as saying, "there are some piers that people have had in the family for 50 years or more, and now they might lose it.... I don't want to see people get caught up in that.... This is a property rights issue." Gunderson thinks the DNR exceeded the intent of the legislature and went too far in regulating piers.

Sensitive lakes
DNR officials have also been quoted as saying that the goal is to rein in the docks and structures that go far beyond their proper purpose--to aid navigation. At the same time, however, they've linked the navigational imperative with their ecological imperative by designating lakes having "sensitive areas"--for fish habitat and aquatic plants. These areas are NOT exempt from the permitting requirements and new piers might very well be denied.

The list is growing: originally 138, then 142, now 154. It's a moving target and could be 200 next year. The regulations are unclear on how else the "sensitive lake" classification will be differentiated from non-sensitive lakes for the purposes of piers.... For more information on each lake:
Go to www.dnr.state.wi.us.
In the menu bar, click the A-Z Index button.
Click the L.
Click Lakes.
Scroll down to Living Lakes (in the left pane).
Under Living Lake, click Sensitive Areas.

[Editor note: You should end up on this page: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/lakes/sensitiveareas.asp.]

"Tattle Tale" Enforcement
While the DNR has the ability to enforce the new rules if they feel your pier is out of compliance, their staffing will not allow for follow-through of the regulations. So, they will rely on complaints from neighbors or other lake users. They do this now in other areas of enforcement. This is particularly troublesome ... since we get so many reports of "locals" who are notorious for finding excuses to harass seasonal residents. We can imagine a scenario where the only pier owners being "tattled on" are the nonresidents. Since the DNR is famous for sending letters with ultimatums, we can envision a barrage of paper harassment as well.

Environmental Challenges
Wisconsin SRA is sensitive to, and generally supportive of, regulating piers to protect Wisconsin waterways from becoming overdeveloped. And generally we support the spirit of the regulations being proposed--but only for new construction. We're not sure that all the provisions are reasonable and in the best interest of many of our members.

We agree in principle that 40' of frontage should not be expected to support every water toy that comes on the market. We also recognize that the recreational environment and natural habitats suffer when the pressure to develop goes unchecked. That said, we feel that the DNR should define abusive pier usage, regulate it accordingly and police aggressively while regulating new pier construction along the lines of the current regulations. In the meantime, provide "grandfather" exemption to existing piers that are not abusing their property rights and stop taxing piers through "permitting fees."
____________________
What you can do

Law enforcement

Town of Milton PWC Ordinance

On June 30, 2001, a 9-year-old girl from Illinois was killed on Clear Lake (Town of Milton, Rock County, WI) when a PWC hit her while she was riding an inner tube behind a boat. The president of the Clear Lake association is quoted as saying, "Everybody that lives out there could unfortunately see this coming. Boats coming 25 to 30 ft off the piers is an everyday thing on the weekends." [Reference: Kenosha News, Dec. 12, 2001, page C6.]

The Town of Milton responded by passing the following ordinance.


TOWN OF MILTON ORDINANCE NO.11:1001

A SOLE ORDINANCE TO REGULATE PUBLIC SAFETY AND BOATING UPON THE WATERS OF CLEAR LAKE AND PRESCRIBED PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THERE OF

The Town Board of the Town of Milton does ordain as follows:

Section l   APPLICABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT

a.  The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to the waters of Clear Lake which consists of 82 acres in the Town of Milton, Rock County, Wisconsin.
b.  This chapter shall be enforced by the officers of the Town Of Milton Police Department.


Section 2  INTENT

a.  The intent of this ordinance is to provide safe and healthful conditions for enjoyment of aquatic recreation consistent with public rights and interests due to congestion and capability of water resources.
Section 3  STATE BOATING LAWS ADOPTED
State boating laws as found in ss.30.50 to 30.71 Wisconsin Stats. are adopted by reference.
Section 4  DEFINITIONS
a.  Town - Refers to the Town of Milton, Rock County, Wisconsin.
b.  Slow No Wake - means that speed at which a boat moves as slowly as possible while still maintaining steerage control.
c.  Personal Watercraft - means a motorboat that uses an inboard motor powering a  water jet pump or a caged propeller as its primary source of motive power and that is designed to be operated by a person standing on, kneeling or sitting astride the watercraft.
Section 5  USE OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
a.  Operation of personal watercraft shall be prohibited on Clear Lake from sunset Friday until sunrise Monday.
b. This ordinance also prohibits the operation of personal watercraft on Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day on Clear Lake.
Section 6  POSTING REQUIREMENTS
The Town Of Milton shall place and maintain a copy of this Ordinance at all Clear Lake public access points within the jurisdiction of the Town of Milton.
Section 7  PENALTIES
Wisconsin state boating penalties as found in s. 30.80, Wis Stats. are adopted by reference.
Section 8  SEVERABILITY
Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared invalid, such declaration shall not effect the validity of the remaining portion of the ordinance.
This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and the day after publication.

Passed this  10th day of December, 2001

Wm. Cunningham  Town Chairman        Jeannine C. Schrank  Town Clerk

2007 Pier Protection Act

Recently, the Wisconsin Legislature adopted and Governor Doyle signed into law the 2007 Pier Protection Act. Because our area is rich with lakes and lake property owners, I thought you and the members of your Board might appreciate a copy of this new law, my recent news article on the subject, and the appropriate link to the Department of Natural Resources. The links are as follows:

Neal Kedzie
State Senator
11th Senate District

Copyright © 2008 Lily Lake Summerhaven Association
Lilly Lake (Wisconsin)