A Familiar Alarm Sounds Over Geneva Lake

 

New management plan from the Geneva Lake Conservancy revives long-standing calls to follow the science—and confront the city’s own role in the lake’s decline.

On November 20, 2025, the Geneva Lake Conservancy rolled out yet another Geneva Lake Management Plan, like a fresh stack of warnings tossed onto an already sagging pile of ignored evidence. Larry Larkin reminded the room that this movie has played before. A version of the plan was unveiled back in 2008. It was praised, shelved, and quietly suffocated by municipal inertia. Now, Larry Larkin and longtime lakefront owner Chuck Coleman are back, this time with less patience and sharper elbows, urging the lake communities to finally do what they have spent 15 years pretending to do: follow the science.

Meanwhile, the City of Lake Geneva was busy demonstrating exactly why these plans keep getting written. This fall, the city managed a spectacular failure in one of the simplest acts of urban stewardship: picking up the leaves before winter buried them into a phosphorus-rich slurry. To make the farce complete, residents were required to rake those leaves directly into the street. Not the terrace. The street. Runoff central. Madison banned that practice years ago. Lake Geneva institutionalized it.

The lake gets the bill either way.

LEAF RUNOFF

The autumn phosphorus bomb nobody likes to talk about

The Plan is unusually blunt about urban leaf litter:

• Leaves, lawn clippings, and ornamental vegetation are a major urban phosphorus source.

---

SUMMARY OF THE GENEVA LAKE COMPREHENSIVE LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

Purpose of the Plan

The plan is the latest (third) regional management blueprint for Geneva Lake. It aims to:

• Protect water quality and ecological health.
• Identify risks from development, runoff, and climate change.
• Recommend practical, coordinated actions for municipalities, agencies, and residents.
• Update conditions since the last major plan (2008) and evaluate whether past interventions worked.

It exists because Geneva Lake remains one of Wisconsin’s most heavily used and economically important inland lakes, and pressures from development, recreation, and climate shifts are rising.

---

Key Findings

1. Geneva Lake’s Physical + Environmental Profile

• Size: 5,262 acres; maximum depth 140 ft; mean depth 61 ft.
• Watershed Size: only ~30 sq mi, producing a relatively low watershed-to-lake ratio (2.5:1).
  • Translation: the lake is less vulnerable to watershed pollution compared to typical Wisconsin lakes.
• Retention Time: ~13.9 years.
  • The lake flushes slowly; pollutants linger a long time.

2. Water Quality

• Overall water quality remains good, but:
  • Tributaries deliver excessive phosphorus and sediment, especially after storms.
  • Rising storm intensity increases erosion and pollutant loading.
  • Several creeks show chronic issues, especially Bigfoot, Birches, Trinke, Covenant Harbor, and Shadow Lane Creeks.

3. Climate Change Trends Impacting the Lake

Documented changes include:

• Warmer fall and winter temperatures.
• Earlier ice-off dates and more years with no full freeze.
• More intense rainfall events, driving erosion and sediment spikes.

These threaten water clarity, cold-water fish species, groundwater recharge, and shoreline stability.

4. Shoreline and Development Pressure

• Nearly the entire shoreline is developed.
• Heavy boat use, shoreline hardening, and aging infrastructure add cumulative stress.
• Some shoreline protection structures are failing, contributing to erosion.

5. Groundwater’s Critical Role

Groundwater supplies:

• The majority of dry-weather flow to streams.
• A meaningful portion of lake inflow (more than older studies suggested).

Risks include:

• Over-pumping from shallow aquifers.
• Impervious development reducing recharge.
• Stormwater systems routing water away from recharge zones.

---

Tributary Overview

The plan identifies 50+ tributaries; key named ones include:

• Bigfoot Creek – known for red sediment plumes; major phosphorus and sediment source.
• Birches Creek – largest drainage basin; several reaches contribute heavy sediment loads.
• Trinke Creek – highly engineered/altered; poor water quality; strong candidate for upstream detention.
• Potawatomi & Van Slyke Creeks – Class I trout streams with high ecological value but erosion problems.
• Covenant Harbor Creek – stormwater-driven flows; needs stabilization and naturalization.

---

Stakeholder Priorities (from surveys + public meetings)

Residents and lake organizations identified consistent goals:

1. Maintain Geneva Lake’s “High-Quality Water” designation (2022).
2. Reduce agricultural and urban runoff.
3. Balance recreation with ecological protection.
4. Improve tributary conditions and reduce sediment loads.
5. Prepare for climate-driven impacts (storms, heat, ice loss).
6. Strengthen collaboration among municipalities, nonprofits, farmers, and residents.

---

Recommended Strategies (High-Level)

Watershed + Tributary Management

• Install stormwater detention basins and regenerative stormwater conveyance systems.
• Disconnect agricultural drain tiles near tributary headwaters.
• Expand native vegetated buffers.
• Stabilize streambanks; correct channelization impacts.
• Restore wetlands where possible.

In-Lake Actions

• Control invasive species; support native plant communities.
• Manage boating impacts on shallow zones.
• Improve shoreline stabilization—favor naturalization where possible.

Groundwater Protection

• Preserve high-recharge land areas.
• Reduce impervious surface expansion.
• Evaluate any high-capacity well proposals for impact on lake baseflow.

Climate Adaptation

• Update stormwater design standards for higher rainfall intensity.
• Plan for variable ice conditions, shoreline ice heave changes, and water-level volatility.

Governance + Coordination

• Continue joint planning between GLC, GLEA, GLA, municipalities, WDNR, and county agencies.
• Improve shared data collection and public communication.
• Establish ongoing monitoring of tributaries and in-lake conditions.

---

Bottom Line

The plan is blunt: Geneva Lake is still healthy, but the margin for error is shrinking.
The biggest threats are:

• Increased storm intensity and climate-driven changes.
• Sediment and nutrient loading from tributaries.
• Rapid urbanization decreasing groundwater recharge and increasing runoff.
• Heavy recreational use.

The plan lays out a roadmap to preserve Geneva Lake’s water quality and ecological integrity through stronger watershed management, infrastructure upgrades, climate adaptation, and coordinated governance.

The following are recommendations specific to City of Lake Geneva, Town of Linn, Fontana, Williams Bay, etc.

City of Lake Geneva

Theme: Aging urban runoff meets modern lake risk

The City is already operating under a post-construction stormwater ordinance, but the Plan is clear that this is not sufficient for what the climate is now delivering.

What the Plan explicitly targets for the City:

• Deepen stormwater infiltration requirements
  The City’s existing ordinance already requires BMPs, protected areas, and permits for land disturbance. The Plan reinforces this and pushes for greater infiltration through design standards, not cosmetic compliance.
• Complete a full stormwater + climate resiliency plan
  The City’s 2022 Comprehensive Plan explicitly commits to this, and the Lake Plan treats that commitment as an obligation, not a suggestion.
• Hunt down legacy stormwater outfalls that discharge directly into the lake
  Older infrastructure is singled out as a likely contributor of untreated sediment and pollutant loading along the nearshore. The Plan flags this as a monitoring and retrofit priority.
• Continue aggressive road-salt reduction
  The City has already cut chloride use by roughly 60 percent through brining and calibration. The Plan treats this as a model to be maintained and expanded, not relaxed.

Bottom line for the City:
Geneva is being told to modernize its stormwater backbone before climate volatility modernizes it for them.

---

Town of Linn

Theme: Quiet backbone of the lake’s groundwater system

Linn appears again and again in the Plan not as a problem child, but as a high-leverage control point.

Explicit recommendations tied to Linn:

• Stormwater via low-impact development only
  The Town lacks formal sewers and relies on swales, ditches, and culverts. The Plan calls for:
  • Low-impact development standards
  • Protection of recharge-producing landforms
  • Mandatory use of native vegetation in stormwater design
• Retrofit stormwater infiltration in recharge zones
  Linn is singled out as a priority zone for retrofitted infiltration infrastructure, especially where moderate-to-high recharge soils exist.
• Septic inspection enforcement
  The Linn Sanitary District is a named co-enforcer with Walworth County for mandatory three-year septic inspection and pumping cycles. The Plan assigns this a medium priority but zero tolerance for neglect.
• Road-salt leadership must continue
  Linn’s brine program already cut chloride by 25 percent, earning statewide recognition. The Plan directs that this must be preserved as a baseline standard.

Bottom line for Linn:
You are the lake’s groundwater lungs. The Plan is making it official.

---

Village of Fontana-on-Geneva Lake

Theme: The model municipality, now expected to scale

Fontana is treated as the functional benchmark for stormwater governance in the watershed.

Direct plan directives:

• Maintain and update the 2009 Stormwater Management Plan
  Fontana already operates:
  • A formal Stormwater Utility
  • Seven miles of storm sewers
  • Systematic detention, piping, and culvert management
    The Plan does not ask whether this should continue. It assumes it must.
• Target infiltration retrofits in high-recharge zones inside the Village
  Fontana is explicitly named as a priority for retrofitting urban infiltration infrastructure where soils can absorb high-quality stormwater.
• Adopt small-redevelopment stormwater standards
  The Village’s draft comprehensive plan explicitly calls for stormwater rules tailored to small redevelopment projects. The Lake Plan endorses this direction.

Bottom line for Fontana:
You built the rulebook early. Now the lake is asking you to update the edition.

---

Village of Williams Bay

Theme: Tight footprint, high nearshore risk

Williams Bay shares Fontana’s hydric soils and shallow infiltration zones, which the Plan classifies as both ecologically valuable and runoff-vulnerable.

Specific directives:

• Enforce and strengthen construction-phase stormwater ordinances
  Williams Bay already requires stormwater control plans for new development. The Plan aligns with this and implicitly pressures stricter enforcement and audit-grade compliance.
• Retrofit stormwater infiltration in recharge pockets
  Like Fontana and Linn, Williams Bay is flagged for high-priority infiltration retrofits in recharge-competent areas.
• Protect hydric soils and wetland-linked recharge areas
  Williams Bay contains a disproportionate share of the lake’s remaining hydric soils, which the Plan treats as non-negotiable assets for both water quality and climate resilience.
  
  

Bottom line for Williams Bay:
Your geography leaves no margin for sloppy drainage.

---

FINAL-DRAFT-Geneva-Lake-Comprehensive-Lake-Management-Plan-Update

Cross-Municipal Mandates Hitting Everyone

These apply to all four jurisdictions simultaneously:

• Discourage artificial drainage amplification such as excessive tiling and hard-piped storm sewers in recharge areas.
• Limit impervious surface expansion through ordinance reform.
• Purchase land or easements on high-recharge terrain where feasible.
• Integrate infiltration into every new development proposal that introduces clean runoff.

---

Mitigating the risks of climate change

Geneva Lake’s future is no longer framed as an ecological aspiration. It is being regulated as infrastructure risk management under climate stress.

 

 

• Linn is being positioned as the groundwater stabilizer.
• Fontana as the stormwater systems engineer.
• Williams Bay as the nearshore containment zone.
• Lake Geneva as the urban retrofit heavyweight.

The lake is done subsidizing municipal hesitation.

WHO IS ACTUALLY PROTECTING GENEVA LAKE?

A Municipal Compliance Scorecard for Storm water, Groundwater, and Climate Risk

The Lake Plan delivers a quiet but blunt finding:

Only one municipality around Geneva Lake has a formal storm water management plan.
That municipality is Fontana-on-Geneva Lake.
Everyone else is operating on ordinances, intentions, or nothing at all.

---

SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPLIANCE MATRIX

Municipality	Formal Stormwater Plan	Post-Construction Ordinance	Infiltration Retrofits	Groundwater Protection Policy	Climate Resiliency Plan
City of Lake Geneva	❌ None	✅ Yes	⚠️ Targeted but not systemwide	⚠️ Indirect	⚠️ Promised, not yet completed
Town of Linn	❌ None	❌ None	✅ High-priority retrofit zone	✅ LID + recharge protection	❌ None
Fontana-on-Geneva Lake	✅ Yes (2009)	✅ Yes	✅ High-priority retrofit zone	✅ Yes	✅ Implied in plan
Village of Williams Bay	❌ None	✅ Yes	✅ High-priority retrofit zone	✅ Partial	⚠️ Draft only

---

MUNICIPALITY BY MUNICIPALITY

---

CITY OF LAKE GENEVA

Status: Regulated, but structurally behind

What the Plan confirms:

• The City does have a post-construction stormwater ordinance requiring:
  • BMPs
  • Infiltration design standards
  • Protected drainage areas
  • Permits for land-disturbing activity
• The 2022 Comprehensive Plan explicitly calls for a stormwater + climate resiliency plan, which still does not formally exist.

What the Plan implies but avoids saying directly:

• Lake Geneva still has legacy outfalls and older conveyance infrastructure that route runoff toward the lake with limited treatment.
• The City is operating under regulatory memory, not climate reality.

Compliance Verdict:
✅ Ordinances exist
❌ No comprehensive stormwater plan
⚠️ Climate adaptation is still aspirational

---

TOWN OF LINN

Status: Hydrologically critical, administratively informal

What the Plan confirms:

• No formal sewer or stormwater system exists. Stormwater drains via:
  • Swales
  • Ditches
  • Culverts
• The Town’s Comprehensive Plan recommends:
  • Low-impact development
  • Groundwater recharge protection
  • Native vegetation for stormwater control

What makes Linn unique:

• The Plan identifies Linn as a high-priority location for infiltration retrofits because of its groundwater recharge potential.

Compliance Verdict:
✅ Recharge protection is policy
✅ Retrofit priority is a fact
❌ No enforceable stormwater system
❌ No climate framework

This is policy without plumbing.

---

VILLAGE OF FONTANA-ON-GENEVA LAKE

Status: Only municipality fully inside the regulatory future

What the Plan confirms:

• Formal Stormwater Management Plan adopted in 2009
• Stormwater Utility District created
• Over 7 miles of storm sewers and culverts
• Systematic use of:
  • Detention basins
  • Piping
  • Ditches
  • Overland flow paths

In addition:

• Fontana is named as a high-priority infiltration retrofit location.

Compliance Verdict:
✅ Formal stormwater plan
✅ Utility district
✅ Active infrastructure management
✅ Infiltration strategy

Fontana is doing what the rest of the watershed is still debating.

---

VILLAGE OF WILLIAMS BAY

Status: Ordinances in place, system incomplete

What the Plan confirms:

• Williams Bay does have stormwater ordinances requiring:
  • Stormwater control plans for new development
  • Operational criteria during and after construction
• Its draft Comprehensive Plan:
  • Prioritizes maximum infiltration
  • Requires native plantings
  • Encourages rain gardens, bioswales, and buffers
  • Calls for stormwater rules for small redevelopment projects

Also:

• Williams Bay is named as a high-priority infiltration retrofit zone alongside Fontana and Linn.

Compliance Verdict:
✅ Ordinances exist
✅ Redevelopment standards advancing
✅ Retrofit priority confirmed
❌ No full stormwater plan
⚠️ Climate policy still draft-stage

---

THE BIG UNIFIYING FAILURE: NO WATERSHED-WIDE SYSTEM

The Plan’s most revealing conclusion is institutional:

Stormwater governance around Geneva Lake is fragmented by jurisdiction, not designed by watershed.

The document formally recommends:

• A full inventory of all stormwater BMPs
• Development of formal stormwater management plans for Lake Geneva, Williams Bay, and Linn
• Coordinated retrofits for infiltration, detention, and buffer systems

---

LAKE GENEVA NEWS VERDICT

Fontana is governing like a 21st-century watershed municipality.
Williams Bay is halfway there.
Lake Geneva is regulating but retrofitting slowly.
Linn is carrying the groundwater burden with the lightest infrastructure.

And the lake receives all of it.

THE SHORELINE VEGETATION PROBLEM

What the plan says happens when lawns replace living shorelines

The Plan is explicit that shoreline condition directly controls how much sediment and phosphorus enter the lake:

• Maintained shorelines and streambanks reduce sediment and phosphorus loading tied to erosion and surface runoff.
• Shoreline and riparian gardens provide both habitat and runoff filtration, not just visual appeal.
• Nearly the entire shoreline is armored with hard structures like riprap and bulkheads. These are effective at stopping wave damage, but not nutrient and sediment runoff.
• The Plan states plainly that:
  • Native vegetation must be integrated into and behind hard shoreline protection, because concrete and steel alone do not stop phosphorus.
  • Vegetation improves:
    • Pollutant capture
    • Wildlife habitat
    • Shoreline stability
      
      

The plan’s formal directive:

Recommendation 3.36

“Incorporate native vegetation into shoreline protection measures.”

This is not optional phrasing. It is presented as highly recommended, meaning the current dominance of turf grass and hardscape is officially considered a water-quality risk.

---

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN VEGETATION IS MISSING

The document spells out the chain reaction:

• Hard shoreline alone:
  • Stops wave erosion
  • Does NOT stop nutrient runoff
• Lack of deep-rooted vegetation results in:
  • Increased sediment transport
  • Higher phosphorus delivery
  • Loss of nearshore habitat
• Result:
  • More nutrients enter shallow water
  • Algae responds faster
  • Water clarity declines from the bottom up

This is the part of lake degradation that does not look dramatic. It just quietly accumulates.

---

LEAF RUNOFF

The autumn phosphorus bomb nobody likes to talk about

The Plan is unusually blunt about urban leaf litter:

• Leaves, lawn clippings, and ornamental vegetation are a major urban phosphorus source.
• A Wisconsin watershed study found:
  • 55 percent of all residential phosphorus loading occurs in the fall
  • The dominant cause is curbside and street-area leaf litter
    
    

• When rain hits leaves that have been:
  • Crushed by traffic
  • Left in streets and gutters
    → Phosphorus is chemically leached
• That phosphorus is then:
  • Washed directly into storm drains
  • Which typically discharge straight into lakes and tributaries
    
    

---

The Plan’s Enforcement Reality

The Plan states plainly:

• Prompt leaf collection is one of the most effective phosphorus-reduction tools available in residential areas.
• Timing matters.
  • Long street residence time = more phosphorus leached.
• Municipal curbside leaf pickup is identified as a critical infrastructure function, not cosmetic service.
  
  

---

THE “KEEP IT BLUE” SHORELINE & LEAF CONTROL PROGRAM

The Plan directly connects shoreline vegetation and leaf control into its primary public compliance system. Homeowners who sign the pledge formally commit to:

• Prevent leaves from entering waterways
• Stop soil erosion by planting native trees and plants
• Install native planting buffer strips
• Eliminate fertilizer and pesticide use
• Use porous surfaces
• Capture roof runoff
  
  

This is ranked as a high-priority pollution control strategy by the Plan itself.

---

LAKE GENEVA NEWS VERDICT

Shoreline turf grass is not neutral. It is a nutrient conveyor belt.
Street leaves are not seasonal debris. They are the lake’s single biggest residential phosphorus pulse each year.

And together, they explain why:

• Algae blooms do not need factory discharges
• The lake can degrade while everyone still thinks it looks “beautiful”