Sawyer County board accepts committee report on Callahan and Mud lakes, delays decision

The Sawyer County Board on Jan. 14 accepted a report from the Land, Water and Forestry Committee on a petition to form a Callahan and Mud Lake District and then voted to postpone a final decision until its next regular meeting.

The committee report summarizes a November public hearing on a petition to form the district and includes draft findings of fact and conclusions of law that would be the legal basis for creating a district if the board later votes to adopt them. The county accepted that report in a motion by Supervisor Tweed Schuman, seconded by Supervisor Evan Evans; the motion passed. The board then approved a separate motion to table action on the district until the next board meeting so members can review additional materials and attend a statewide webinar on lake districts.

The question matters because the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has said ownership must be established for the dam that forms Callahan and Mud lakes before work to repair or replace it can proceed. Supporters say a lake district would create a legal entity able to apply for state grants and low-interest loans and to take responsibility for the dam and for invasive-species treatments. Opponents say many properties included in the petition will not directly benefit but could face higher property taxes.

Property owners and volunteers spent more than two years researching options after a DNR inspection in 2022 raised concern about the dam’s condition. “Our state provides a solution in the form of a Lake District,” said Steve McIntosh, a Callahan Lake resident and volunteer, urging the board to allow formation or to offer another viable alternative to meet DNR expectations. Committee member Kimberly Koehler told the board the formation effort reached “135 supporters, just shy of 62%” of the 219 eligible signers, and outlined the group’s communication efforts over two years, including mailings, open houses and coordination with UW Extension and the DNR.

Several residents urged removal of particular parcels from the proposed boundaries. “We are not in opposition to the Lake District, although we are in opposition from being included in its within its boundaries,” said Kent Laynan, who identified his West Falcon Ridge property as landlocked and several miles from the nearest public landing. Thomas Murray and others listed reasons they say their parcels do not “benefit” from the lakes: not lakefront, no deeded access, no view, and no riparian status. One speaker cited Wisconsin Statute 33.26 and said the statute requires inclusion only for properties that receive benefit from the district.

Some lakefront residents urged the board to approve the district to secure funding and act before a dam failure. “It took six years for the dam [at Lake Delhi] to be repaired,” Carolyn Catrona Russell told the board, referencing a 2010 Iowa dam failure to emphasize the risk of waiting; she said a district would make the lakes eligible for state grants and offer a path for proactive repair. Lynn Amundson, representing the lake association and an exploratory dam committee, described hiring an engineer, coordinating with the DNR and UW Extension, and pursuing DNR surface-water grants; she noted the lakes have received no milfoil treatment since 2022 because of funding constraints.

Other speakers pressed the board for more study. Greg Eiseled cited a March 12, 2020 letter and earlier reports and said he did not see evidence the dam was in imminent danger, and he asked for a clearer cost estimate for dam replacement. Rhonda Isolde and others submitted written objections and asked that the board remove several parcels identified in exhibit G; the committee recommended removal of only one parcel on staff grounds.

County staff and counsel described the statutory timeline and options. County staff member Andy Alvarado summarized the required steps: staff received the petition in October, the committee held a public hearing within 30 days, and the committee filed its report to the board within three months. Corp. Counsel Rebecca Roker advised the board on procedure during debate and recommended that the board first accept the committee report and then separately table any remaining actions so staff and supervisors could gather additional information before making a final decision.

The board’s two formal actions were recorded in order: a motion to accept the Land, Water and Forestry Committee’s report (mover: Supervisor Tweed Schuman; second: Supervisor Evan Evans; outcome: approved) and a motion to table remaining matters on the lake district until the next county board meeting (mover: Supervisor Evan Evans; second: Supervisor Stacy Hessel; outcome: approved). The transcript does not include a roll-call tally for either motion.

Next steps: board members said they intend to review the committee exhibits and to watch a Wisconsin Counties Association webinar on lake districts scheduled for Jan. 22. County staff said they will prepare additional answers to questions raised about boundary criteria, petition signatures, and options such as town or county involvement in dam repair. The board will revisit the lake-district petition at its next meeting.

"By accepting the report, you are not bound to make a decision one way or the other," Corp. Counsel Rebecca Roker told the board after members accepted the committee’s filing. “You are simply accepting the report.”

Residents who testified provided addresses in the Hayward area and asked the board either to remove specific parcels from the proposed boundary or to approve formation so grant applications and any dam-repair planning can proceed. The record includes written letters from Jeffrey Merriman and Susan Shingler asking to be removed from the district and multiple public comments both for and against formation.