Tanner Lake district reports erosion, carp and vegetation work; seeks grants and county partnerships

Representatives of the Tanner Lake Rehabilitation District told the Dunn County Planning, Resource and Development Committee that their two‑and‑a‑half years of work have focused on water quality, sedimentation, aquatic vegetation and boating safety.

Al Brown, chair of the lake district, said the board began with limited funds but has developed a strategic plan and local partnerships to tackle problems. He described a carp bounty and tournament to estimate and reduce carp numbers, noting that the DNR does not routinely survey carp. Brown said the district aims to monitor carp removal across multiple years to assess whether carp levels are a long‑term problem.

Brown also described heavy aquatic vegetation in the lake’s northern half (curly‑leaf pondweed and other invasives) and said harvesting accounts for more than half of the district’s budget. He reported the Red Cedar River corridor from Colfax to Tanner Lake contains “over 50 erosion sites” contributing sedimentation to the lake and said the district is partnering with county staff on surface water grant work to address one of those sites now.

Tom Bills, another district appointee, summarized collaborations that have supported the district’s work, including the Red Cedar Partnership, UW Stout, Wisconsin DNR, Dunn County staff and donations from local sporting and business groups. Bills reported the district recently worked with Muskies Inc. on permitting and stocking, noting the group helped place 444 muskies (10–12 inches) to support fishery balance.

On financing, Brown said the district’s early year budget was modest (initially about $15,000) and explained current levy and budget composition: about half of the budget funds aquatic vegetation harvesting and other activities are funded through grants and contributions; he said average property contributions equate to roughly $100–$125 per property given an average lakeshore property value the board cited (roughly $2.25 million average property value reported by the district). Brown stressed most work is volunteer‑run and that larger projects such as dredging or major sedimentation mitigation will require county and state involvement.

The district is preparing an aquatic vegetation management plan and a lake management plan setting specific measures and budgets for projects such as shoreline improvements, sediment control and possible boat‑landing improvements. The board also took over enforcement and buoy placement responsibilities for slow/no‑wake areas and continues to weigh future ordinances while monitoring litigation in other counties that could affect local options.

Committee members thanked the district for organizing volunteers and pursuing grants. The committee took no formal action; staff and district leaders noted the need for continued coordination and grant applications to fund larger remediation work.