After more than a year of dealing in generalities, the Lake Vermilion management planning effort is finally considering specific proposals for protecting water quality and the overall lake experience‹ and that is generating some serious questions for the first time.

Such questions are a good thing. The public has a responsibility to scrutinize the activities of its government and it's good to see that the work of the committee charged with lake planning is getting that scrutiny‹ it is bound to make the final product a better one.

Hopefully, critics (and, yes, there will be some) will keep the objective of a better plan in mind as the committee moves towards development of a draft plan, expected to be released later this spring. It is virtually a given that the draft won't be perfect‹ in fact the final plan won't be perfect. But, with the constructive criticism and assistance of area residents and landowners, it can be a plan that meets the objectives shared by a clear majority of lake residents, while protecting their rights at the same time.

Another outcome is possible, of course. If critics opt for knee-jerk opposition to any change in regulation, it could derail any progress in protecting one of the country's most exceptional lake resources.

While a few people were already lamenting over-regulation on Lake Vermilion at a recent meeting of the lake planning citizens committee, such folks are probably in need of a reality check. Minnesota, despite its much-heralded claim to environmental sensitivity is one of the least aggressive states in the U.S. when it comes to regulating lakeshore activity. It has fallen well behind most other states in the Upper Midwest, and is light-years behind states on the East and West coasts.

And Lake Vermilion, in particular, is one of the least regulated lakes in all of Minnesota. Vermilion is one of only a handful of lakes in the state classified as a General Development lake‹ the least restrictive classification. Almost every other lake in our region is classified as Recreational Development, and those that aren't are given the even stricter Natural Environment designation.

For the most part, Lake Vermilion's designation probably won't change as a result of the planning effort currently underway. But by reclassifying certain portions of the lake, we could help lessen the impacts of future development.

There will be some who will oppose any change. But for the vast majority who want to see some protections, we need to be asking ourselves what's reasonable. Is it reasonable to seek the same level of protection on Lake Vermilion as on the vast majority of other lakes in our region? I suspect most people would say...absolutely. Is it reasonable to require that lakeshore owners take modest, inexpensive steps to reduce runoff that fuels algae blooms, or should they be allowed to sit idly by while rainwater washes soil and fertilizer into the lake because they've eliminated tree cover and mow their lawn to the water's edge? Is it reasonable to expect that local governments comply with zoning ordinances, and allow variances only in cases of real hardship (as they are supposed to do), rather than simple convenience? I suspect most people in our area would see such actions as the bare minimum we should expect from lakeshore owners.

Nobody likes rules and regulations. And for some people, the notion of living in the "wilderness" means escaping from the rules that run the lives of most urban and suburban dwellers. That is also part of this area's "northwoods character."

Unfortunately, absolute freedom quickly clashes with real-world realities.

That is especially so on lakes, where development pressure can quickly and directly impact the rights of others to use and enjoy a public resource. That's when an appropriate balance is needed. Living on a lake is a real privilege, but it brings with it certain responsibilities. If people want to live without such responsibilities, they should consider buying non-lakeshore property, where zoning rules are generally more permissive and government oversight is less intense.

That said, there are going to be those who will want to tip the balance in one direction or another. Some of them are going to oppose any change in zoning regulations that requires them to so much as lift a finger to protect the lake. Others will likely push for too much regulation. The members of the citizens planning committee, and residents of the Lake Vermilion area, need to be prepared to stand up to it. We've seen too many examples where the reasonable middle backs down to a handful of noisy detractors on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

The recent survey, which showed reasonable, broad-based concern about the future of the lake, is the strongest point in favor of the committee's work. Not surprisingly, the survey found that most people care intensely about the lake and don't want it to become the Minnetonka of the north. If we all work constructively together, we can craft a management plan that protects the future of Lake Vermilion, while balancing the rights and interests of all.