Flood control a state concern

The dissolution of the HRBRRD has been batted around for several years...it's easy to see why when you drive by the Taj Mahal on Bunker Hill Rd. Residents both on and off the lake have a lot at stake here. The Sacandaga is one of the last remaining crown jewels in this area. Just a few yrs ago, One of the bureaucrats in DEC was pushing a proposal to make the Sacandaga "forever wild". If that happens, then hammer the final nail in Fulton Co's coffin.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Well I guess that throws cold water on it.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Does this mean I can launch a boat from the state launch and spend the day on the beach in someones backyard???

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The cost associated with operation and maintenance of the Hudson River and Black River reservoirs in the state's ownership and control need to be funded by the entities who are benifitting from them. The HRBRRD was created for 3 purposes: 1. flood control, 2. power generation, and 3. low flow augmentation to the Hudson River. Those are the only entities who should be responsible of the reservoir's O&M. This was the basis for the recent determination to charge downstream counties for the flood control benefits afforded by the reservoir. The remainder of the state and their taxpayer's should not be responsible for cost associated with the HRBRRD's O&M.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

that's "the only lake"

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kickman, your idea is correct, give the lakefront owner rights to the waters-edge, have them responsible for maintaining the riprap at the waters edge. You could then get rid of the complete HRBRRD. Besides, we are the lake in the U.S. the pays a fee to us the lake by your property

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dave, the problem with charging the permit holders for this land is that they would be paying for the land under the lake. Besides, at this point the state, or DEC, doesn't even pay the taxes on the campsite or boat launches!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I think its high time the government minted coins that had only one side so there would be less argument.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

There's two sides to this coin. It was about 20 years ago when a local assessor, who shall remain nameless, saw the land around the Sacandaga as an untapped cash cow and jacked up the assessments to unprecidented levels. By all rights, those assessments should have been added to the permit fees charged to landowners around the lake, but they were so high that it would have been onerous.

I'd like to see a LH reporter dig into the history of property assessments of HRBRRD land around the lake, and compare that to the history of permit fees. I think it might shed some light on the problems HRBRRD has faced over the years.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Well said, Knickman.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I think we are just dancing around a better solution to this problem. The participation of the HRBRRB needs to be eliminated as far as the Sacandaga is concerned and just become the Black River Regulation District.(BRRD). The agency, which includes high paid political patronage employees does not need to exist on Bunker Hill Rd. The power****operator could take care of the lake level under the oversite of NYSDEC. The lake front beach properties could be disposed of and the maintenance of the property up to the beachfront owner. DEC could also enforce regulations on how these beach properties are used. Overall it would probably cost a lot less tax money to maintain.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »