The most pressing topic discussed was the long-standing dock violations at two specific properties. These properties have been non-compliant for around two decades, lacking both the necessary Chapter 91 license and adherence to local dock regulations. The committee noted the absence of layout sheets and stickers, with a member stating, “they were issued no layout sheet with no layout sheet and they haven’t had a sticker in four or five years.” This absence of proper documentation has led to confusion and frustration over the years. The committee emphasized a “no layout sheet, no sticker” policy moving forward to ensure compliance.

Organizing files and documentation for each house on the lake was stressed, with a suggestion that each property should have a dedicated folder containing all relevant information, including layout sheets and previous stickers. This would streamline future compliance checks and reduce the risk of oversight during the sticker issuance process. The committee acknowledged the cyclical nature of their enforcement efforts, with one member mentioning that, “everybody goes oh yeah we’re got to do something about that next spring,” but nothing would happen, perpetuating a cycle of inaction.

The committee decided to send letters to the property owners, stating that they would not receive stickers for the next season unless they complied with the requirements. Writing to the Conservation Commission (ConCom) was proposed to ensure that this issue was formally documented and addressed promptly. It was emphasized that clear communication with property owners was essential to outline the consequences of non-compliance and the need for immediate action, such as obtaining a Chapter 91 license or removing the docks.

In addition to the dock violations, the committee received promising news regarding funding for the design of the Great Brook project. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provided funding, which had been anticipated for nearly four years. This funding would facilitate the design process without imposing costs on the committee.

The meeting also included an update on the Lake Protection Program (LPP) regarding Suffield. A successful presentation to the first selectman was noted, with documentation including photos and a spreadsheet being accepted. However, there was a lingering issue concerning the legal representation of LPP on the Conservation Commission, with conflicting opinions about its legitimacy and the application of specific Massachusetts General Laws (MGL).

Further discussion touched on the challenges of maintaining compliance and the necessity for visible enforcement to deter violations, especially regarding personal watercraft speeding. The committee highlighted the importance of law enforcement taking proactive measures rather than solely educating users. A specific instance was shared about a local operator who had previously been warned but returned to the area.

The committee also addressed buoy removal assistance as part of ongoing lake management efforts. A visual representation of proposed signage to clarify restricted water areas was presented, emphasizing the need for clear communication to the public regarding regulations. A debate emerged about terminology, specifically the use of “jet ski” versus “personal watercraft,” as many operators do not recognize the generic term.

Other topics of discussion included the issue of hydrilla, an aquatic plant, which was sparse in most areas but denser near Connecticut Cove. The mapping of hydrilla was discussed, with two individuals observed collecting data on the lake’s vegetation. The committee planned to cover the boat census results in a future meeting.

The meeting also touched on the presence of beaver dams in Suffield, noting that there are now four beaver dams causing concern about potential flooding, particularly during heavy rainfall. The urgency of addressing this situation was emphasized, with a member committing to send relevant water level data to Suffield officials to make them aware of the potential flooding threat.