The law that the Minnesota legislature passed in 2009 gave the DNR several broad directives for the goal of the new rules, the words most often used to describe the directives are "protect", "preserve", "conserve", and "maintain' the various environmental, recreational, ecological, commercial, economic, mineral, cultural, scenic and historic aspects of the river.(See the actual text of the law here) Inherent in the aforementioned words is a sense of keeping the characteristics of what is already in existence as-is, and in fact, perpetuating it. Therefor, the fact that  the draft rules create standards much more stringent that the structures and features already in existence are no longer in compliance indicates that the rules the DNR developed are not upholding the intent of the law, but rather contradicting it.

Words not used to describe the intended nature of the new rules are "improve", "enhance", "augment", "revert" and "re-create". This tells us that the intent of legislation (the directive given to the DNR) was not an attempt to ‘un-develop' the MRCCA to return to the appearance of a bygone era. We also believe that the vast majority of new rules (and certainly the ones that are more prohibitive to homeowners) are largely aesthetic and not environmental in nature. For instance, is there any research that shows a significant ecological benefit of changing the setback for a single family residence from 75 feet to 200 feet? or similarly, an ecological reason to more than double bluff line setbacks to be 100 feet where they are currently only 40? We believe that if significant ecological benefits exist, the DNR should be compelled to share their sources of information.

Because of the lack of disclosed standards and research supporting the ecological necessity of the draft rules, we feel that there are aesthetic motivations behind them that go above and beyond an environmental or preservation benefit, and that these aesthetic goals should not supercede property owners' rights to use thier property in a reasonable manner that was lawful when they aquired the property. Doing so certainly takes away utility and value from the property owner, yet leaves him or her uncompensated for that loss.

Though this may seem at first to only affect a small group, once put in place, it threatens the rights of all Minnesota citizens, by setting a precedent that demotes property owners to mere inhabitants of government-controlled lands which are subject to de facto confiscation at any time via zoning and use regulations. Mississippi River Stewards reject this premise and propose that true beauty is optimized when people throughout the state are granted the ability to freely enjoy both the physical landscape and the utility of the Mississippi River and thier own property in a sustainable manner.

We feel that the restricting or altering of the intended and historic use of lands on the river is poor stewardship as it detracts from enjoyment of this great resource and also compromises the rights inherent to the citizens of Minnesota. We feel that being a steward means using the river for optimal utility in a way that will not harm, contaminate or alter it in a manner that would prohibit similar enjoyment for future generations.

• How will this affect me?