I have a question for all those in favor of allowing swim at your own risk at Crystal Lake. But first an except from Jeff Goldman’s oped on the topic from this week’s TAB:
What if we could formally absolve the city of any responsibility for people swimming at their own risk by having those residents do the following: sign a waiver of responsibility to the city, take a swim test, and pay a nominal fee to cover administrative costs?
So here’s my question: Let’s say the city adopts Goldman’s proposal, comes up with legally sound waivers and clearly posts signs saying that swimmers “absolve the city of any responsibility.” Then let’s say, as was the case last August, someone calls 9-1-1 and reports that they think they saw someone disappear the middle of the lake. Or let’s say, someone calls 9-1-1 and says there’s someone in the middle of the lake screaming for help? Do the police and fire dept respond? Or do they say:
“C’est la vie. Too bad for them. It’s swim at their own risk. They signed the waiver. We posted the signs. Let em drown.”
Here’s my proposal:
#1 — Dissolve the Parks & Rec Comm; day to day issues go to the dept head; policy issues go to the BoA. This type of issue is a safety issue — I’d rather the BoA got advice from the fire dept or other safety experts.
#2 — Eliminate any and all dedicated policing of this area — push any policing issues to the general force who will respond to calls according to the normal queue.
#3 — Propose to the BoA that we eliminate swimming to only open beach areas. No swimming beyond that. Let us see what hardship the abbutters have as well as general community hardship — but no separate rules at all
Interesting Hoss. But you didn’t answer my question.
Sloppy writing on #3 — no separate rules is the point
Even if the policy is “let ’em drown,” there are real costs involved. We can’t just let bodies stay in the lake and rot – it’s a matter of public health and public nuisance (we don’t want bodies floating into the protected areas), and I expect that recovering bodies is required under some law or other. Just think of the costs involved in looking for the missing BC student who ended up in the Chestnut Hill Reservoir.
Realistically, it’s probably easier and cheaper to rescue somebody while their thrashing and screaming, than to start dragging the lake after the body has sunk.
The only real difference is one of liability (i.e., getting sued for wrongful death if someone drowns because he/she wasn’t rescued, or because responders didn’t get there fast enough).
Greg – “Swim at your own risk” has a very well accepted meaning. It’s not a term being invented in Newton and I think you’re trying to twist it into a new meaning. There’s three general categories.
Lifeguard on Duty – Someone’s job is to protect swimmers
Swim at Your Own Risk – no lifeguard
Swimming Prohibited
There’s all sorts of other activities that are similarly done “at your own risk”. How/if emergency services respond when there’s an accident is something different.
Jerry Reilly’s comment is accurate. “Swim at your own risk” is common parlance and accepted practice at ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams throughout the Commonwealth. It simply means that no lifeguard is watching over you. Certainly, any ethical individual would do what she could to help someone in trouble and most certainly those charged with protecting citizens (such as police and firemen) would carry out their responsibilities.
We do risky things every day. Walking across the street, driving a car, trimming a hedge, even taking a bath, entail risk. Skiing is risky. Biking is risky. Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs are risky. Fortunately, we don’t ask participants in all these activities to sign waivers, and most fortunately we can count on emergency personnel to rush to our side when we need them.
@Rhonda: Do you have kids? Because I know it annoys the heck of me when mine plays the “we allow this so we should allow that” argument.
Some of your “risky things” are indeed riskier than others and in fact some things do indeed merit regulation. Cigarettes, of course, are entirely stupid and regulated. Drugs? Regulated. Alcohol? There’s lots of times, circumstances AND places where alcohol just isn’t appropriate. Biking? We have a recent history in Newton of serious bike accidents that certainly merit enforcement of traffic laws and, yes, restrictions (such as no biking on Route 9 or the Mass Pike). Downhill skiing in authorized areas is entirely foolish and ski resorts do indeed post signs along parts of the mountain where it’s prohibited.
But I wasn’t even trying to make the “it’s dangerous therefore we must not allow it” argument. My point was the “swim at your own risk” doesn’t place 100 percent of the risk entirely on the waiver-signing swimmer no matter how legally tight that waiver might be.
Maybe we as a community decide that’s OK and allow it anyway; just as other “swim at your own risk” places do. But let’s not pretend that this is entirely a matter of the mean old government infringing on an individual freedom that is devoid of consequences for anyone but the person who opts to dive in.
Anyone (a citizen or not) of the people retains the ancient right to swim in a common body of water, in which the swimming took place previously. Ninth Amendment to U.S. Constitution forbids alienation of this right retained by the people. Therefore, the ban on swimming in Crystal Lake is unconstitutional, certainly.
So, if the “swim on your own risk” proponents has brought the matter to the U.S. District Court, they would prevail, now – on March 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court challenged practicing Massachusetts Gun Laws as being unconstitutional (see a civil action 11-10644-DPW).
@Re: Good luck with that.
@Greg, you’re speaking my language. I’ve been making the argument time and again that as soon as someone gets into to trouble, it’s no longer “swim at your own risk” – it’s simply “swim at a greater risk”. In the case of swimming at the coves, how much more risk somewhat depends upon whether people are swimming while the lifeguards are on duty or not because the very first responders, the people most likely to end up first on the scene – are the kids we employ to guard the beach, not the coves, the beach. They are the ones who were first alerted last summer and started to search for a missing swimmer even though they are not legally obligated to do so.
“it’s probably easier and cheaper to rescue somebody while their thrashing and screaming”
@Miles -This is the Hollywood depiction of drowning but it Almost. Never. Happens. This. Way. A person at or near drowning is unable to keep their mouth above water long enough to breathe properly and can’t speak or shout. Drowning swimmers can’t wave for help. The lack of oxygen makes it impossible for the body to undertake voluntary movements to wave for help or move their legs. Instead, people instinctively and reflexively extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. This flapping motion may help them to raise their mouth above water and while it might look like they are trying to tread water, at this point they do not have the ability to move their arms voluntarily. Unless rescued people usually become submerged within 20 – 60 seconds after the drowning response begins.
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/On%20Scene/OSFall06.pdf#page=16
Re, the gun laws were challenged as they applied to resident aliens, the complaining plaintiffs were denied gun permits because of their status as resident aliens. If the city decides to ban swim at your own risk solely as it applies to resident aliens, then you might have something to complain about in federal court. However, for the entertainment value please do let us know if you decide to once again have the city’s law department waste its time and resources defending your claims as you try to play Clarence Darrow.
Various people have raised various issues of why “swim at your own risk” is an inherently dangerous, problematic or legally dangerous policy. What puzzles me with most of these arguments is why they don’t equally apply to the existing “swim at your own risk” policy that’s been in place for years – i.e. abutters have been swimming at their own risk forever. All these same issues (e.g.how does the city respond if someone gets in trouble etc.) arise from that policy but nobody’s ever been concerned about that in the past.
It would be great to hear from some of the members of Open Crystal Lake on this issue. I know there are a many thoughtful members of that group and that they’ve spent a lot of time considering this matter.
@Lisap:
Again, you see only the external appearance ( Gun Laws), and do not pay attention to the essence, which is that the civil right had been violated and the Court challenged practicing the laws.
The same situation is about Crystal Lake – the civil right of the people was violated, and now the Court may restore it, if the matter has brought before the Court by the party having standing in the matter and willing to bring it before the Court.
Greg is twisting two things together here, and then asking “what if”? It’s a moot point, because the city is not going to adopt Jeff Goldman’s proposal, nor does it have to in order to meet the “swim at your own risk” standard as defined by law, which was articulated in a previous thread by Ted Hess-Mahan. “Swim at your own risk” has a meaning.
And yes, Greg, this is entirely a matter of the government infringing on an individual freedom. The problem is the concept of freedom has been so decimated in this country, most people no longer even recognize it, and even fewer defend it. We’ve whittled away the meaning of “freedom” to a point where it’s practically meaningless.
The question of what to do if a swimmer struggles or drowns while swimming is a separate issue, and the answer is clearly defined. Public safety is a core responsibility of local government. That doesn’t mean the government has the right to eliminate freedom to ensure public safety. It means the government must anticipate dangers, be prepared to respond to ANY emergency, and should be judged based on their performance of that duty.
@Mike – I believe Oliver Wendell Holmes said “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” Fortunately or unfortunately, in exchange for living within society we do accept some limitations upon our freedoms because it is not possible to live as a societal group unless we are willing to conform at least some of our behaviors. I understand that the argument for curtailing the freedom becomes more difficult and less palatable when it isn’t readily apparent what harm we inflict when we exercise that right i.e. swimming at the lake.
What Greg and Lisap said so well.
bottomline, no matter what policy the city adopts, there will always be individual civil disobediance recognizing and accepting the consequences of that behavior. Human behavior cannot be controlled by making a law against it. Common sense cannot be legislated, either you got it or you don’t. Insanity is inherited, we get it from our kids!
Greg:
it seems pretty clear that you don’t support swimming in the lake without a lifeguard. But I go back to the fact that abutters do it all the time. I still think this isn’t really a safety issue, but a neighborhood issue. The neighbors around the lake want the lake but not the problems the lake brings. The swimming is a pain in the butt during the summer, the idea that their neighborhood will be invaded during the fall and spring is something to be fought. The rest of the community is trying to think up ways to open the lake up. Your argument about the police/fire department needing to respond even if it is swim at your risk is weak. They would do so at every lake in town and in the Charles river too. there are no restrictions on swimming in the Charles, and boaters fall in all the time. Do we plan on issueing them fines too?
Swim at your own risk has an accepted meaning. It means that their is no lifeguard on duty. Communities around the Commonwealth use it, and a posted sign is all you need for liability purposes. that has been well established as well.
And Greg, I’d be interested in your view of the issue, laid out directly. Here is mine: the lake should be open during daylight hours. Signs should be posted regarding parking, swim at your own risk, and fines should be detailed regarding swimming after hours and parking illegally. This should be done on a trial basis. If it works without chaos, great. If not, we either tweak the policy or we dump it and go back to the status quo.
Alternatively, the city should expand the lifeguard program. The main purpose to expand the resource’s use (the lake should get used more if folks want to use it more).
@Fig: Actually, I’d love for there to be swim at your own risk at Crystal Lake.
I’d be among those swimming there on a daily basis if it was legal.
But you can’t always do whatever you want in life. I don’t believe swim at your own risk is sustainable at Crystal Lake because of the sheer number of people — residents and non-residents — who would swim there. I worry about the health implications, public safety and environmental sustainability too. That’s why I’m opposed and that’s why I resist temptation and don’t swim at Crystal Lake whenever and wherever I want. (And I’m especially stunned when I see parents swimming in the coves with their children.)
Allowing abutters to use it doesn’t trouble me because it’s just not that many people. (Maybe the rule should be abutters and Newton Highlands Residents who blog! 🙂 )
The larger point I’d been trying to make here and elsewhere is in response to those folks who believe the city has no right to infringe on the rights of individual citizens who are willing to risk their own lives by swimming there. I disagree: The risk (and cost) is larger than that. Regulating the use of a public resource such as Crystal Lake is something I want my government doing precisely because there are way too many people like me that would cause harm to this resource (and maybe even oneself) if it was not regulated.
One more point: It was unfortunate that Parks & Rec slammed the door on holding a public hearing on this issue, even though I agree with their decision. The public deserved the right to be heard.
Demand no water activity in any unguarded area and let the abutters beg for relief.
I thought about this swim risk when seeing the kid struck in the head with a baseball bat at Fenway this weekend. Talk about “sheer number” of people and public risks — don’t such things happen fairly offend at Fenway? Don’t we need to protect everyone?
Hoss: This is another one of those silly arguments but I’ll bite…
Because there is a real risk of being harmed by a fast flying object while watching a baseball game is why there’s a large net behind homeplate and also why its a good thing that fans aren’t allowed to sit in foul territory, the on-deck circle or on the pitcher’s mound. So in fact, just as it make sense to designate specific areas for swimming it is appropriate to designate where the public can sit during a game.
Yes, risks remain even after these precautions. One can drown in a designated swim area or get hit by an object in their seat. But still precautions do reduce the risk to some degree.
Come now Greg. The kid was sitting with Dad. one or both of them was holding a ticket that on the back states various risks of injury including being hit by bat or ball. A lake sign could similarly state lake risks. I’m simply asking why do we invite this risk yet be so concerned about risk where Newton is the park “owner”?
Greg– I’m “especially stunned” when I see parents riding bikes with their kids on busy streets, but I don’t want the government banning that.
As far as “health implications” and “environmental sustainability”… Where’s the evidence that a swim at your own risk policy is going to present negative health or environmental consequences? Village 14 has run three or four threads on this topic. I’ve read about some water sampling that was done in the past, [while the current n0-swim policy has been in place], and the results of that seem ambiguous at best.
@Mike: I believe the crowds under a swim at your own risk policy would be massive on hot days. Large crowds swimming in a body of water that is not fed by a spring or other source of water, with no public sanitation facilities, can’t possibly be good for the pond’s ecosystem.
As for your other question, I believe there are few things a parent can do for their children that are as important as being a good role model, setting a good example and teaching respect.
Taking your child swimming at a place where the signs clearly say “no swimming” and teaching them that it’s OK to ignore the police by jumping back in the water as soon as they drive away, is setting a very bad example.
If your goal is to teach your children about civil liberties or help them understand your views about the proper role of government, then join Open Crystal Lake and other efforts to rewrite the rules. Bring them along to meetings or marches around the lake. Instill in them a passion for democracy not anarchy.
The local disagreement at Crystal Lake looks like a spark from the U.S. problem of overregulation of American private lives, which slows down the economy.
Today the U.S. is in stagnation, which will continue until the overregulation has been substantially diminished, and if not, the U.S. would disintegrate into a number of secondary states, as it was not once in history.
The overregulation was caused by the excessive knitting of big capital and government accompanied by the suppression of the people’s liberties (today the U.S. is the world champion of incarceration), which has been going since about 1985, the last stage (1985-1991) of Cold War (1945-1991). As a result, the free market society has been converted into the society with the market excessively regulated by the big capital and the government, which is much closer to a totalitarian society, than it had been before 1985. The lack of freedom at the market depresses the economy; communist China (formally a totalitarian society) allowed more free market relations and, as a result, became a creditor of the U.S.
For the sake of the people’s liberty, the “swim at your own risk” regime at Crystal Lake should be established – if it has happened, then unlikely hordes of swimmers will ruin the Crystal Lake, likely the lake will better serve the needs of the people, as esthetical, as physical ones.
Greg:
Do you have any facts to back-up your opinion regarding overuse? I’m sure other communities have lakes…and to be frank, I think anyone taking the T to go to the lake is more likely to go to the ocean. You can swim in Quincy and South Boston now most summer days…
Once again, why don’t we try it for a year and see what happens?
At Fig. There were record breaking crowds at the Bath House several times last summer and I can only imagine many of those folks would skip paying the fee to swim in anther part of the lake. In addition, we’ve all seen the crowds of people who do so illegally now and I saw a couple hundred people at the Open Crystal Lake march who presumably would all use it too. I’ve already said I would swim there if legal and I’m quite certain many, many others would as well. If you open it, they will come.
Greg– You said… “Large crowds swimming in a body of water that is not fed by a spring or other source of water, with no public sanitation facilities, can’t possibly be good for the pond’s ecosystem.”
I have three comments about that…
First, it’s Crystal Lake, not Crystal Pond.
Second, The city could easily place a couple of porta-pottys in strategic locations, just like we do at every other Newton park.
Third, the question is not whether the swimming “can’t be good” for the lake. “Cant be good” is just a guess. The real question is, is swimming bad for Crystal Lake? There has not been one single fact in any of the posts–on any of these threads, to support the contention that swimming would harm the lake.
Actually Mike, I think you’re the one who was just guessing. Crystal Lake is not a lake, it’s a pond. It was once called Baptist Pond and in the colonial era it was known as Wiswall’s Pond.
You can read about the differences between the two here. A full list of the state’s great ponds can be found here.
And yes this is a guess but I suspect it’s a pretty good one: Stick a whole lot of sweaty people, many of whom are covered by sun screen and who knows what else; some of whom choose not to use those porta potties you just used to enhance the scenery; and stick em (and some dogs) in a stagnate body of water on a 100 degree day and the pond will not be as healthy as it would if there were far fewer people doing the same thing.
This whole thing is getting just a bit ridiculous. We have both City and State agencies that should be able to research and answer a few simple questions, like:
– what are other communities doing?
– what are the facts about impacts of swimmers on water quality in similar bodies of water?
Seems to be that the Parks & Rec Commission should be doing some homework and publishing some results. Then, based on some facts, it might make sense to experiment for a season.
Personally, I think we tend to go overboard when it comes to regulating things in this town (and MA in general) – seems to me that swimming holes are there to be used. At the same time, Crystal Lake is only 3o acres or so, and adjacent to a T stop; compared to, say, Spy Pond, also a Great Pond, but 103 acres and NOT as easily accessible – sort of gives me pause as to what might happen if we opened up Crystal Lake to the world.
Is it too much to ask for some research and experimentation by those we pay to manage such things for us?
This report from the Parks & Rec Commission meeting of February 27, 2012 provides some very good information about the City’s thinking on “Swim at your own Risk”, the question of whether there should be a hearing and the City’s concerns for the lake. http://ci.newton.ma.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=41545
A couple of points to mention:
1) high voltage aqualator – the aqualator is used for the beach swimming area only. It is not a filter, but rather it circulates the water about 275 feet to prevent an algae bloom.
2) per Dr. Zaleznick, the city has years of water testing results in the beach area and it is “comfortable with the water quality in the beach area but nowhere else in the lake. Bacteria multiplies quickly, if a sample is delayed getting to the lab the data could be inaccurate.” The city has no plans to test water quality in other areas of the lake and Dr. Zaleznick further points out that when the city does test the water quality, samples are taken off share, one foot below the surface and two feet above the bottom.
Seems to me that the report is relatively content free when it comes to potential impacts of additional swimmers on the lake. Nothing (by anyone) regarding experiences in other communities, and/or other ponds. And the City “The city has no plans to test water quality in other areas of the lake.” Seems to me that someone has some serious homework to do. One might argue that it’s the proposer’s responsibility. Personally, I argue that we have a Parks & Rec commission and a health dept. with paid staff – who should be doing due diligence on behalf of our citizenry.
Greg– It doesn’t matter what Crystal Lake used to be named. And according to the distinctions between lakes and ponds you provided with a link, I believe Crystal Lake falls into the Lake not Pond category. To quote your source in part… “Lakes are natural”–“Ponds are usually man-made.”
Crystal Lake’s distinction as a Great Pond stems from Chapter 91, which [ironically] was written to preserve the public’s right of access to bodies of water for all sorts of uses. I remember former Mass. Senate leader Billy Bulger using this law as a foundation to expand the publics right to cross private beaches, after he and his family were denied access to the Atlantic Ocean by a private land owner.
The most relevant thing in your responsive post, was that you are in fact just guessing about the environmental impact of swimmers. Of course you’ve thrown in some swimming dogs to prop up your argument, but no one has proposed allowing dogs to swim in Crystal Lake. Before we go infringing on people’s rights, is it not prudent to have some [any] evidence to support a need to do so? “Guessing” just seems like a pretty lousy regulatory tool.
Mike… as far as I can tell from online sources, Crystal Lake is actually a “kettle pond” – a naturally occurring depression left by receding glaciers. “Kettle lakes” are fed by rivers, underground streams, and such. “Kettle ponds” are fed by precipitation, runoff and/or the groundwater table.
FYI, the Crystal Lake Conservancy’s web site – http://www.crystallakeconservancy.org – has some pretty good and recent information about water quality, legal status of the Lake, and so forth.
A kettle pond can be fed by various means, including large pristine springs such as the kettle pond at blue hills (Houghan’s pond?). The fact that this lake has an outlet hints that there’s some active source in addition to precipitation. In addition, a lake or pond is not stagnant – there are thermals circulating most parts of the lake/pond that has some depth. Specifics about the make-up of this lake would be helpful to general understanding. But it appears this is secondary to the notion that a public lake with a swim at risk rule would attract all sorts of unbathed, sweaty sorts with questionable hygiene and bathroom ethics.
There’s no outlet on this pond. It is fed only by rain water and runoff.
Greg, The first paragraph in the following link mentions both an outlet and subterranean supply: http://www.crystallakeconservancy.org/crystal-lake-a-brief-history.html But this wording seems to have come from a study done 100 years ago; this one: http://www.newtonconservators.org/images/crystallakebook1911.pdf It is possible that either the make-up has changed over time, or was incorrect to being with. Do you recall any more recent study?
@Miles– I’m not a lake vs. pond expert. I was simply responding to the link provided by Greg, which included definitions of both. Based on that, I felt Crystal Lake fell into the “Lake” category more so than “Pond.” But for the sake of argument, I’ll concede the point, and I appreciate your information.
@Greg– I acknowledge the public safety issue. Public safety has always been a consideration for me, to the point where you’ve called me a “curmudgeon” for expressing concerns about things like the safety of rides at traveling carnivals etc. I should ask, who’s the curmudgeon now? But I’ll let that slide.
However, since “guessing” has now been established as a legitimate debating tactic, I’ll take a little guess of my own. Betting that the storm water runoff poses a much more substantial environmental threat to Crystal Lake than swimmers.
This latest news is disturbing
Actual fine for having a pit bull off leash: $10
Proposed fine for swiming in Crystal Lake: $500
Demonstrating to the world that this city is run by idiots: Priceless