Jump to content

Proposed water-ski slalom course at Lake Metacomet in Belchertown rejected by Massachusetts DEP


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
Posted

BELCHERTOWN – The state has denied a request for a water-ski slalom course on Lake Metacomet, saying the fixture is too dangerous and would interfere with the public’s use of the Belchertown waterway.

 

Residents and town officials vociferously opposed the water skiing course.

 

David Fuhrmann, of 87 Metacomet St., who requested the permit says he will appeal the determination. He also has a home on Long Island in New York.

 

“I am not trying to stir up trouble with the state but it’s discrimination,” Fuhrmann said. He stated that he believes there are 12 other water-ski slalom courses operating on public waterways in Massachusetts, but did not name them.

 

In an interview Wednesday evening Fuhrmann said he has retained counsel and is researching the matter with his lawyer that he did not identify.

 

There was heavy community opposition to the Fuhrmann plan.

 

At an Aug. 26 Belchertown selectmen’s meeting all but two of the sixty that attended opposed the water slalom apparatus.

 

Fuhrmann applied for a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection in July.

 

Records show that the plans Fuhrmann filed with the DEP on July 21 measure the course at 75 feet wide by 950 long. They also state: “300-foot setback on sides; 700-foot setback on ends.”

 

Using the water-ski slalom course “if permitted, would jeopardize the public rights of others on Lake Metacomet,” the DEP wrote in the denial.

 

“The layout and use of the course on Lake Metacomet, a 74 acre Great Pond, would interfere with public rights of navigation. It would generate water-borne traffic that would substantially interfere with other water-borne traffic and impair in a substantial manner the ability of the public to pass freely upon the waterway” and interfere with “public rights of fishing and fowling,” the DEP stated in the Oct. 4 decision. It was signed by Robert J. McCollum, Wetlands and Waterways Program Chief.

 

 

 

Source http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/10/state_says_no_to_water-ski_sla.html

  • Baller
Posted

They claim it is "not a sharing issue", it is a safety issue, citing an unfortunate accident that occurred. Looking at the attached, looks like fisherman not wanting to share a favorite fishing hole, and some mis-understanding.

Good luck with appeals....sounds like a daunting challenge here.

 

http://massbassfishin.blogspot.com/2010/07/lake-metacomet-belchertown-ma.html

 

http://massbassfishin.blogspot.com/2010/07/lake-metacomet-belchertown-ma.html

  • Baller_
Posted

It says the lake size is 74 acres. For a public lake, I have to admit that is a bit small to have a slalom course and all other activities. Now, if it were 740 acres, that would be another story. I live near a 485 acre public lake and my mother-in-law has a cottage on a public lake that is about 200 acres. With the traffic on those two lakes and some of the clearances/setbacks from docks or shorelines, I wouldn't dream of even attempting to get a permit. I do have a permit for another lake for when I am on vacation. That lake is 5600 acres. One of the things about a permit, according to our DNR officer, is that "you are asking to control the surface of the water when placing those buoys". So, you must be able to do so while maintaining a sufficient amount of room for other recreational boat/watercraft traffic. I don't think 74 acres provides that. If it were private, then it is more than enough area and probably enough for two or more courses to have wind protection options along different shorelines.

 

If there are more than 5-10 boats on that lake at any given time, I would have to say there is not enough room. Sorry, David. And, believe me, I stare at every 20 acre pond along the expressways just dreaming about placing a course in each one. But, public water is another issue.

The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.

  • Baller
Posted

This is an all too common story I've heard from way too many of our customers/potential customers over the years. A few years ago we almost got thrown off a small public city lake we've skied on regularly for nearly 20 years by a small group of whining activist fishermen simply out of selfishness, didn't like us stirring up the water on THEIR fishing lake while they were there fishing, didn't want their boat rocked I guess. Funny thing is one of the guys skiing with us at the time this happened happens to also be a tournament fisherman and knew most of the people who fished that lake with any regularity, and who knew that there was a fair sized group of those fishermen who actually came to fish there on Wednesday evenings (mostly from the bank but a few in boats as well) specifically because we where there. Why? They knew when we skied the water being stirred up a bit made the bait more active which makes the fish more active, so their fishing was actually BETTER. Isn't unusual to have someone hold up a large fish to show us as we set on one end or the other. Over the years we've actually gotten to know a lot of those folks on a "wave and say hi" basis and they're cool with us, know what the deal with us is etc. Came to find out later that several of the group doing the bitching wasn't even from this town and only fished there occasionally. Anyway.

 

We only ski there on Wednesday evenings and every other Saturday morning per the long standing lake rules that make it a no wake lake other than those specific days anyway. There is NO general boating taking place on this lake other than a few fishing boats, lakes too small for that. And we're using a PORTABLE course to boot, nothing in the water unless we're there skiing it. They went to a local city council meeting to protest (small bunch of old men with nothing better to do with their time, organized by one loud mouth ring leader) simply because we'd asked the same city council previously to consider allowing us the option of Wednesday OR Thursday (if the wind or weather knocked us out on Wednesday nites we were SOL till Saturday). Very fortunately for us, this is the same lake we hold INT tournaments on and the president of the city council was also a local business owner who was an INT sponsor. Got it quashed because he knew the claims they were making about us were mostly fabricated and false. It died down and it's all good now, and we DID get the Wednesday/Thursday option to boot. But it just goes to show the power of a few mouthy activists organizing around a bunch of half-truths and outright falsifications trying to sway decision makers (who don't know the other side of the story) to their viewpoint. Kind of like current national politics but on a much smaller scale...

 

We also ski on several other public lakes that we don't have (and don't require) permits for. Always with a portable course though, we couldn't get a permit for a permanent course on any of these lakes if our lives depended on it. I'd suggest to Mr. Fuhrman that this might be a better way to go. Get a portable, agree to limited usage times (ski early mornings etc) and forget dumping a bunch of money into fighting a city council who won't be bothered with the facts and who won't be bulled off of a decision they've already basically made by some hired gun lawyer. Sure it would be a lot nicer to just go out and ski an existing course without the time/hassle of putting a portable in and out. Wish I had that option. But it beats the crap out of not skiing at all IMO.

 

I also know of a couple of community lakes with long standing permanent courses who periodically have to deal with this same issue. They've managed to get it under control by organizing and voting some of their club members onto the lake council where they can keep an eye on things and keep the extremist fringe from forcing through their selfish anti-skier agenda. We're a minority folks, and if we don't organize and be vigilant we're eventually going to be limited to ONLY skiing on private sites which makes this sport even more difficult to grow than it already is. Butting heads and trying to bull your way through as Mr. Fuhrman seems to be attempting isn't going to get it done. Organization, education as to what we're doing, and trying to work with the powers-that-be in a cooperative manner as opposed to a confrontational manner will always be more fruitful in my experience.

 

  • Baller_
Posted
Ed makes probably the key point for a successful outcome, have someone on the "inside" or part of the decision making process to be an ally and there will be a slight chance for success. A niche minority fighting a mass majority stands no chance.
  • Baller_
Posted

@Ed Obermeier mentioned using a portable courses and forgoing the permit process or skiing where permits are not required for portable courses. In Michigan, a permit is still required for a portable. I wondered how Mr. Fuhrmann approached the permit process. If he filed the permit request without talking to his neighbors first, that probably did not help. They probably didn't enjoy the surprise or lack of consultation toward their opinion/wishes on the matter. When I applied for my permit, I contacted all of the riparian owners near the course location. I sent them a letter explaining what I was doing and what types of limitations I expected to observe (both required by the permit and my own peace offering). I included a form for them to sign that either indicated their support for my permit or requested more information from me. I didn't list an option to oppose the permit - must have slipped my mind. I had two owners ask for more information and I called or wrote them again. I had several other owners that supported the permit and returned their signature. I submitted the letters of support with my application. The DNR visited the location and even talked to a few owners. Since everyone had been contacted, was aware, and had no previous negative experiences with me, it was approved quickly. I received the first one year permit, renewed for the available two years, and renewed again for the available five years. It will be due for renewal again at the end of 2014. Building the support first and being a good steward has helped.

 

I am actually surprised that Mr. Fuhrmann is still able to ski on that lake. Many smaller lakes are adopting no wake rules before 10:00AM/11:00AM and again after 6:00PM/7:00PM (both prime ski times). He's lucky they haven't done that yet. I feel fortunate that has not occurred on the public water that I use. I feel even more fortunate to have access to private club water. I think the sport is being driven there, which adds a burden on us. I have begun to admit that we are in a minority and not everyone likes what we do - even when we are courteous. We just have to get better at carving out some room for us in those public settings.

The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.

  • Baller
Posted

@OB I've looked into many of the small local lakes anywhere in a 60 mile radius of where I live. Issues are 1) finding the owner, 2) getting permission (nearly impossible), 3) lack of a boat ramp at many of them. MoKan seems nearly impossible to get into, even if you have a connection. Skied there several times with a member one season several years ago considering trying to join, member was told not to bring me back because someone bitched about a visitor taking up too much water time. Too much of a drive for me anyway. Lake Shawnee I think is no wake as are a number of the developed lake communities in the KC area. Most of the public lakes in the KC area won't allow a course period. Pretty much all of the larger community lakes like Raintree and Winnebago are limited to home owners in the community, fortunately I know a lot of folks at both and can ski there whenever I like but it's an hour drive each way. Local INT looked into the lake at MCI, they wouldn't even consider it. Again too much drive for me anyway.

 

I found a prefect little lake not too far from the little public lake I spoke of in the above post. Owner is a $$$ guy who owns a string of pharmacies in this area, built it for duck hunting, perfectly sized and shaped to be a ski lake. We offered to build a boat ramp at our expense, pay a yearly lease, get insurance etc. He wouldn't even consider it. If I had an extra $300 - 400K or so laying around to buy some property and build a lake I'd have already done it. It ain't all that easy...

  • Baller
Posted
We have a lot of fishing and bass tournaments on our lake and have a good relationship with most of the fishermen. Generally if fishermen are in the way and we ask nicely they usually move. We have had courses on this lake for close to 40 years I can only imagine what it would ake to get a new permit.
  • Baller
Posted

A 74 acre public lake seems really really small to allow a slalom course IMO. As much as I'd like a slalom course in my backyard, I might even oppose that if my lake was that small. I pull more wakeboarders and casual skiers than I do slalom guru's who can run the course and having to navigate buoys is a PITA when doing that.

 

I casually had a chat with the ranger of the lake I live on which is a county lake about putting in a course as a feeler before getting too involved. I did some homework and had potential areas mapped out that I thought would be the least intrusive. I knew of the lakes past history and he talked to me about a slalom course and a jump that used to be on this lake maybe 10-15 years ago and that the skiers would tow the jump to the other end of the lake once or twice a year as part of a show for the public. He was/is an awesome to talk to and deal with but in the end he told me that is my right to request a permit for a course but he didn't think it would ever get approved due to all the liability issues these days. I guess my points is... It kinda sucks the guy can't get a course setup but I find it hard to believe that kind of opposition spawned overnight and a little more homework might've revealed this opposition making the case futile in the first place.

 

Appealing such strong opposition doesn't seem intelligent to me either. I feel like all that can be done at this point is make more people mad and hate skiers//wakeboarders even more. The next step will be to start pushing for horsepower restrictions and quiet hours making one more lake a sailing/fishing lake.

  • Baller
Posted
This was a loosing proposition from the beginning. Considering you'd need let's say 12 acres by 1 acre long for the slalom course and runout, that means the size of that lake is about 2400 ft by 1200ft. WAYYYYY too small for mixed use with a slalom course. Had I lived on it, I'd oppose it too.
  • Baller
Posted
Its tough here in MA...I ski on Webster lake a lot and we have a course, but by the time the tritoon boat pulling a tuber and the waverunners are done using it as an obstacle course, there is hardly anything left to it. I really want to start learning to do courses, but they are hard to find out here...or maybe I don't know where to look.
  • Baller
Posted
74 acres!? I'm in Minnesota, so we have many lakes to choose from, but that is too small for a shared public lake. Most lakes here that size have 15 hp limits. Or no gas engines.
  • Baller
Posted

I know nothing about this specific issue except what's available in the links above. However, in situations like this it's important to "rally the troups" by developing as much support for your cause as possible. That includes discussions with the neighbors, DNR officials, etc. It's also includes collecting and understanding as much 'backup' information you can find. Attempting to forge ahead alone is a difficult or impossible task.

 

For example, USAWS has a "Waterways Advocacy" committee and can be a wealth of information which can help with the inevitable questions at the community meetings. There's a link on the main USAWS webpage on the lower left (See below for a screen shot). A direct link is available here - http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/waterways.htm IWWF has also produced a waterways advocacy manual which can help (link on the USAWS page).

 

One concern is the every increasing limitation to access to various lakes and rivers for waterskiers. This story is as much about a permit to install a slalom course as it is a potential to support limiting access at ANY lake.

 

Michigan has had a point person to help with slalom and jump course permits for years. He's also a liason to the DNR for competitive skiers looking for "no observer" permits for practice on public lakes. It's helped tremendously over the years.

 

 

  • Baller
Posted
I looked this lake up. It's WAYYY too small for a combined use lake. Shoreline to shoreline is 1600ft or so. So either you're doglegging at each end and taking up additional room or you're running an overlapping 4 buoy right down the middle of the lake. No wonder the locals put up a fight.
  • Baller
Posted

Noting @kmenard with comments vs. Webster Lake in Massachusetts. Aka Lake

Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg. Site of the 1964 Nationals and many other tournaments, local and Regionals.

 

Wonder if there is a SL course in the same area of the lake, which was a bit tight? I know that there are no longer tournaments there.

 

See the attached 64 Nationals photo from a Water Skier that shows a mass of spectators. Back when network TV covered Nationals. I have a good bit of video from that event, coverted to DVD from 8mm film. The photo shows a TV camera on a dock. That's Dicksie Ann Hoyt in the vignette, who may have won Overall there, and was the 2nd woman to go 100 ft. Photo may show Jimmy Jackson landing a winning jump.

 

Meanwhile: yep, nothing like a slalom course to rile up all the "not in my back yard" people. And, all sorts of rabid pseudo-environmentalists. Been there, seen that, multiple times. And, beware of the Corps of Engineers.

 

  • Baller
Posted

I don't believe that it is, that looks like it is near the beach...we still have a ramp and a course set up, but you best get there VERY early if you want to hit it. Ron and Jim Kokernak use the jump a lot...Ron just set a record for his age group this year.

 

If you can upload that video, I am sure there are people from the club who would love to see it!

  • Baller
Posted

We have had problems on very large public lakes sticking in a portable for 1-2 weeks with locals. A buddy puts a course in on a 550 acre public and it's tenuous with the sheriff due to complaints from shoreline owners and non-owner fisherman...even though it's a very quiet lake in terms of traffic.

If you don't own a 75 acre lake, good luck dropping in a course. We have 2 courses on a 6 foot deep, mucky, 250 acre lake in MN with a crappy launch surrounded by 3 farms. Ideal for our purpose b/c no one else wants it. On a 75 acre lake the locals think, and rightly so, that you are taking over. I love skiing and buoys, but looks like this is a bad ploy going nowhere.

  • Baller
Posted
I know that the slalom course and jump are at a different spot on Lake Webster from talking to Ron and Jim. Ron is an inspiration he never jumped over 100 feet until he was over 60. The age group record he just set was a regional record because unfortunately it was in a class C event not an L or an R or else it would have been a National record.
  • Baller_
Posted

Well, local government may be the least of our worries as the Federal EPA is starting work on broad new rules about the number of streams, brooks and ponds they are able to regulate. Basically they want to say that any bodies of water are all connected in some way. If this goes forward, there will be no more private lakes. They will all fall under the EPA Clean Waters Act authority and can/will be regulated accordingly. At the very least it will be another deep layer of government to have to deal with. At its worst, they can lay down any rule for any body of water. Example; No gas or deasal powered boats in bodies of water less the 40 acres. Or; no wakes on bodies of water less the 40 acres. Easy to sell this to the public as its done in the name of "clean water" and don't we all want "clean water"? Pay close attention to this. It may just get over looked and slip in as law.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/energyenvironment/322833-epa-looks-to-streams-brooks-for-regulations

http://americansforprosperity.org/legislativealerts/epa-moves-to-expand-jurisdiction-under-clean-water-act-404/

 

  • Baller_
Posted
@OB agree.... for now. BUT, your retention pond is exactly what the EPA is after. The theory that they are putting forward is that any basin that could hold water or one that maybe has a little or a lot in it is in some way deep down underground connected to what they do have the ability to regulate now. This includes ground that could hold water as well. This is a land grab. Not just water bodies. I do not think they would go to all this trouble and not shoot for retention ponds like yours or any man made body of water. Permits will be voided and useless when the new rules are written under Federal regulation which supersedes State and local. As for new lakes being built.....
  • Baller
Posted
@wish - we ran into the new regulations while getting the permit for our lake. A pain - for sure - thankfully the Army Corps of Engineers was the easier one to work with. The state on the other hand......that has (was) been a different story. The restrictions are ONLY going to get worse. Get 'em built while you can.
  • Baller_
Posted

@Skoot1123 This was posted at the end of last month on the US EPA's Web site:

 

..Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has protected our health and environment by reducing the pollution in streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands and other waterways. But over the past decade, interpretations of Supreme Court rulings have removed some waters from federal protection, and caused confusion about which waters and wetlands remain protected.

 

EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have sent a draft rule to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review...

 

What leads you to believe the regulations you were put through were new? From what I'm understanding, the new jurisdictions definition is still in the review phase. So what you may have experienced is current jurisdiction and regulations. My interpretation is this is going to get much worse as the jurisdiction of what the EPA can regulate expands dramatically.

  • Baller
Posted

@wish - the regulations we dealt with were perhaps a forerunner to what you mentioned above. HOWEVER - the lead reviewer at the ACE is the one that told us about the "new" rules. The engineering firm doing the design didn't even know about the new rules. There was urgency to get the permit done - kudos to the ACE for helping.

 

As to the future of waterskiing on private property - one can only hope it is saved. I imagine boat companies would want to be advocates for preserving what little "water freedom" we have.

  • Baller_
Posted
Unfortunately this is something that is not being reported. There are hundreds if not thousands of entities that benefit from recreational water use not to mention the plummeting home values on the such lakes. Hope the word gets out.
  • Baller_
Posted
Social media. On BOS is a good start. I believe lots of WS companies or associates of them read this site. It's pretty easy to read between the lines in the EPAs own words above what they want to do. Spread the word.
Posted
@wish, I agree. I think part of the over regulation problem is environmental entities pushing for more and more power and control to justify and expand their existence.
Posted

Wow.....All to common. Everything is slowly getting squeezed out by complaining, selfish people. Did some research on this whole topic with this Fuhrman guy.

It seems he has had a submersable course in this lake for many years. Rumor has it more than 20 years! Never one single complaint or police call in all those years. I bet someone new moved to the lake. We are all familiar with the bad eggs. The jealous people.

This lake is small, but it appears it does Not get a lot of traffic. ( ski lakes for tournaments are often much smaller than this)

It seems the lakefront homes have boats and they do water-ski and drag people around with tubes, but yet they have a problem with Fuhrman doing so? Are people this miserable in the northeast?

I can see some people being shocked with this permit process if it were a brand new venture, but by the sounds of things, someone stirred up trouble with an existing course that had been there for many years without trouble. Even this towns admin said he has never had complaints from this lake ever until now. ( info and news found online)

I know fighting city hall is no fun and maybe it is not worth the fight for Furhman, but... if an existing course had been there that long ( licensed or not ), I would think there may be some laws in his favor. In 20 years, I would bet the enforcement agency for that lake, has seen the course ( if they haven't, then they don't do their job very well). City workers, state workers, towns people, etc, have all seen it for many years. Not one complaint about it in all those years? the state never said it needs to be removed? the city or town never requested it be removed? If it is such a hazard, how could it be allowed and overlooked for so long?

Very sad this is such a fight for him. We all know how tiresome slolom sking is. I am sure this guy just skies for a few passes and then is done. Submersable course? ski and sink the course to the bottom. why such a fight? I bet the guy has a few bucks or a nicer home, nicer boat, etc. Jealous people suck.

Need a private lake to escape them. or a very ski friendly public lake.

 

  • Gold Member
Posted

Note that MA is not inherently unfriendly to the sport. A good number of skiers (including at least 3 fairly regular posters to BOS) train on a public lake that is about 30 minutes from Boston.

 

I have no knowledge of this particular situation, however.

  • Baller
Posted
if the course has really been there for 20 years I would hire an attorney and file suit for prescriptive easement or adverse possession or some other cause that protects grand father rights.
Posted
I think I read in one article that the course had been in for like 23 years, but was recently removed due to all the hassle. The guy must have removed it and did the right thing while getting it permitted. I wonder if the prescriptive easement would work if it has been removed?
Posted
@Than_Bogan.....What is the lake in Boston called? Maybe this guy could get some help from those folks, afte rall it would be the same state allowing things in one lake and not the other. I think this info could help this guy.
  • Baller
Posted

Agree with many of the others...74 acres of public water is way too small for a course if you're trying to keep everyone happy.

 

On the other hand, if you put a portable course in for the day, or a few hours, how is that any different than fishermen tossing out buoys to mark a weedline or dropoff? In either case you've got buoys floating out there that can impede other people's use of a certain area.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...