Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Norfolk commission to tighten oversight of pond maintenance after milfoil concerns
Summary
Residents and commissioners raised concerns about milfoil and other invasive plants in Highland Lake and other town waters; the commission asked staff to review the lake-management contract, track invoices, and request the contractor return annually to explain surveys and treatment choices.
At its July 1 meeting the Norfolk Conservation Commission heard public concerns about invasive aquatic plants and discussed whether the town’s current contractor is using the most effective treatments. The commission directed staff to review the contract and invoices and asked the lake-management contractor to present annual survey results and treatment plans to the commission.
Resident Arthur Fronzac of 14 Main Street told the commission that neighbors previously coordinated to manage water chestnut and now see milfoil increasing. "I'm trying to understand like who we talk to about are they really updating the plan," Fronzac said, asking for more transparent communication between the contractor and the public. Commissioners and staff acknowledged gaps: they said the contractor has been operating on a year-to-year basis in recent years and that some products used in recent seasons may have been more generic herbicides that “only singe the top of the plant,” leaving milfoil to rebound.
Commissioners recounted past success using Clearcast for managing water chestnut and discussed a specialist product referenced in the meeting (transcript variants recorded: "Priscilla", "Prisil core", "Priscilore") that was described as more effective against milfoil. Several commissioners said the permitting and funding path needs clarity: the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) has reviewed and conditionally funded some treatments but commission members said if a treatment product is not listed in the NOI it may be difficult to apply later without amending permits.
As a result of the discussion the commission asked staff to:
- Check whether the current maintenance contract extends multi-year or is year-to-year and report back; - Compile recent invoices and the contractor’s field notes for review; and - Invite the contractor to a future meeting to present their June survey results, explain the choice of products and treatments, and summarize outcomes by waterbody.
Commissioners said they favor NOI language that allows contractors the flexibility to use permitted, effective products rather than tying the NOI to a specific chemical brand, because product approvals and permitted lists can change.
The commission did not vote to rebid the contract at the July 1 meeting, but several commissioners recommended competitive bidding or clearer annual scopes of work to ensure accountability and cost transparency. Commission staff and members noted they want the contractor to present annually so the board and waterfront residents can ask questions and track treatment effectiveness moving forward.
