Residents: New Boating Regulations Aren’t Fair, Consistent

By JOSHUA YOUNGQUIST
COOPERSTOWN

As the Village of Cooperstown’s new boating amendments take effect, residents and lake users continue to debate both the intent and the impact of the changes. While village officials have framed the amendments as a targeted effort to protect Otsego Lake from shoreline erosion and invasive species, many community members say the law has raised broader questions about fairness, scientific consistency, and how decisions affecting the lake are made.

Some residents argue that wakeboard boats were singled out as a symbolic culprit rather than the true source of the lake’s challenges. Several pointed to the fact that bass tournament boats, which routinely travel between multiple lakes each season, also carry water in their live wells. They questioned why those vessels were not addressed in the amendment, given that they move between waterbodies far more frequently than many wake boats on Otsego Lake.

In response to questions about the number of wakeboard boats on the lake, Watershed Coordinator Jake Gillette said, “We do not currently have an exact count of wakeboard boats operating on Otsego Lake. Based on discussions with the municipalities surrounding the lake, we estimate that there are currently approximately five to seven wakeboard boats in use.”

He also noted that wakeboard boats are designed to carry significantly larger volumes of ballast water than most recreational vessels, and that their ballast systems are often harder to fully inspect, drain or disinfect.

“A study by Campbell et al. (2016) found that wake boats retained, on average, more than eight gallons of water even after draining,” Gillette wrote.

Gillette added that, based on current information, “we believe there may be one wakeboard boat utilizing a slip at the Cooperstown Village Docks in the 2026 season.”

But for many residents, the debate extends beyond ballast systems.

Serena B. Martin, a village and Town of Otsego property owner, said she is “very familiar” with the amendment, having attended the public hearing, submitted written testimony, and reviewed the adopted law. She emphasized that the amendment does not ban wake boats outright.

“A wake boat operating with empty ballast and with a wave under 12 inches inside the village’s 1,500‑foot jurisdictional boundary is not in violation of this law,” she said. “That distinction matters and has been widely misunderstood.”

Martin said her concern is not the intent of protecting the lake, but the way the law divides the community.

“Many vessels on this lake create wakes exceeding 12 inches—fishing boats, pontoons, cabin cruisers, tour boats—yet this law singles out one category of boat,” she said. “When a community starts dividing itself along those lines, when neighbors are pitted against neighbors over what kind of boat they own, something has gone wrong in the process.”

She argued that a universal setback applied to all vessels would be more effective and less divisive. Citing research from the University of Minnesota’s St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, she noted that the study recommends a 500‑foot operational setback in water at least 20 feet deep.

“Lake Otsego has an average depth of 82 feet and a maximum depth of 167 feet,” she said. “A universal 500‑foot shoreline buffer applied equally to every vessel would still leave a 1,400‑foot operational corridor of deep open water.”

Martin also questioned whether the amendment addresses the lake’s most significant invasive species risks. She pointed to the Susquehanna Bass Association, which runs a 10‑tournament season across multiple lakes, including two tournaments on Otsego Lake.

“Their boats trailer between lakes throughout the entire season…filling their live wells with 20 to 60 gallons of water from those other lakes and bringing it directly into Lake Otsego at weigh‑in,” she said.

She noted that the National Park Service has documented live wells as a primary vector for zebra‑mussel larvae.

“A wake boat that has lived on this lake its entire life and never trailers to another body of water is by definition a lower invasive species risk than a [bass] tournament boat that moves between lakes every two weeks all summer long,” she said.

Martin also raised concerns about equity and access. The launch ban applies only to the village’s two public ramps, which serve boaters without private lakefront property.

“Those who own lakefront homes with private docks are entirely unaffected,” she said. “This law draws a line—not intentionally perhaps, but effectively—between those with private lake access and those without it.”

Martin also questioned whether residents had adequate opportunity to participate in the decision‑making process.

“The hearing notice appeared in the legal notices of ‘The Freeman’s Journal,’ but was notably absent from the ‘Village Voices’ newsletter,” she said.

She added that the law was amended on the same day as the public hearing under the authority of Public Health Law §1100, meaning the version adopted differed from the version noticed.

“The public came to a hearing on one version of the law and left with a different version having been passed,” she said.

Another Cooperstown resident, who asked to remain anonymous, said the concerns go beyond vessel type and speak to a deeper sense of how the process unfolded.

“We can preserve the lake if everyone is kind and respectful to one another,” the resident said. “Residents love this lake—we want nothing but the best for it and for our community.”

They added that many felt the “law was passed through a loophole,” referring to the village’s use of Public Health Law §1100, which allowed the Board of Trustees to revise and adopt the amendment on the same day as the public hearing.

“People aren’t upset about protecting the lake,” the resident said. “They’re upset about how this was done, and they feel the situation was handled wrong.”

As the boating season approaches, residents continue to call for broader dialogue and clearer guidance. For many, the debate is no longer just about wake boats—it is about how the community balances lake protection, public access and trust in the policymaking process.