CHAUTAUQUA LAKE–In an odd sense, the possibility–or prospect, or notion, or whatever word you prefer–of New York state government’s designating part of Chautauqua Lake as wetlands is a bit of a joke.

A bad joke, one that’s not funny, but in an odd sense a bit of a joke.

The reason is that in the ordinary sense–not the legal sense, but the ordinary sense–of the word “wetlands,” this part of Chautauqua Lake has long been somewhat like wetlands.

Just ask those who have lived there.

Or ask those who have tried to get a boat with a propeller through there, or tried to ski through there, at the height of weed season.

In this odd sense, the possibility, prospect, notion, or whatever of a wetlands designation–now–now, mind you–is a bit of a joke. The state government is a little late in getting to the party.

♦♦♦

However, in the legal sense, this would be no joke. This would be serious stuff. To their credit, state-government executive-branch officials have taken this seriously while discussing this with the press in on-the-record statements that are both carefully thought through and carefully worded.

And remember: It’s not only this part of the lake but also adjacent land that would be wetlands.

The ramifications of this designation are far greater than would fit into any one column.

So let’s take a look at some of the primary ramifications. One expert with extensive experience in such matters notes that in wetlands, both weed harvesting and herbicide application can proceed only with a special permit from the state government, a permit that is difficult to get.

Now, maybe you prefer weed harvesting, as some do. Maybe you prefer herbicide application, as some do. Maybe you prefer both, as some do. Whatever you prefer, it would be difficult to do.

But there’s more.

The expert says that under another state regulation, “(a)lmost any activity which may adversely impact the natural values of the wetlands, or their adjacent areas is regulated. Some activities requiring a permit include:

�–� Construction of buildings, roadways, septic systems, bulkheads, dikes, or dams.

�–� Placement of fill, excavation, or grading.

�–� Modification, expansion, or extensive restoration of existing structures.

�–� Drainage, except for agriculture.

�–� Application of pesticides in wetlands.”

Another such expert adds that dredging in any part of the lake designated as wetlands would be off the table.

♦♦♦

Now let’s turn to one secondary effect and some of its ramifications.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a wetlands designation would reduce the value of property so designated and perhaps other property as well.

Since property taxes are based on the value of property, the owners of property whose value declines would, in all likelihood, pay less in property taxes.

Then, for entities receiving property taxes to collect the same amount, they’d collect more from other property owners.

To be clear: It’s not that they’d set out to collect more from other property owners.

Rather, to put it simplistically, it’s this: An entity apportions its property-tax levy–the total amount it collects in property taxes–among all non-tax-exempt properties in the jurisdiction.

The higher the total value of such properties, the lower the rate to collect the levy. Conversely, the lower the total value of such properties, the higher the rate to collect the levy.

All other things being equal: If anything, including a wetlands designation, decreased the total value, the tax rate would have to increase if–if–the entity is to collect the same levy.

If, for whatever reason, the rate didn’t rise enough to collect the same levy, then the entity would obviously have less money.

It wouldn’t matter what the entity was. It might be a school district. It might be a local government. It might be a county government.

For property owners, for schools, for local governments, and for county governments, a wetlands designation would be no joke.

Not in the short term. Not in the long term. Not in any term.

♦♦♦

And that doesn’t even begin to mention that any wetlands-designated part of Chautauqua Lake would soon look like a weed farm.

How long would it take for those weeds to spread to adjacent parts of the lake?

Then, would you suppose, the state government would seek to designate those adjacent parts of the lake–and their adjacent lands–as wetlands too?

Just how would this end?

However this ended, it wouldn’t end well. Not even close. Not even close.

♦♦♦

Dr. Randy Elf’s paternal grandparents had a cottage at Cheney’s Point on Chautauqua Lake for 40 years.

COPYRIGHT © 2024 BY RANDY ELF