In June, Bruce Leicher and I had a direct email exchange about pond water levels. We went back and forth on a few points, but our key difference of opinion was whether and how worldwide climate change should be factored into future decisions.
I wrote, “I don’t think it is wise to hold that last spring’s drought was another one of those putatively ‘once in a hundred year events’. It seems foolish to presume that Bare Hill Pond is a meteorological carve-out.” Bruce replied, “Assuming the same rainfall next year is speculative and not supported by the last 25 or 50 years experience.”
I believe where one comes down on this matter is crucial to wise drawdown decision-making. With all due respect to Bruce and the great work done by the committee through the years, 25 or 50 years of data matter only as much as the conditions under which that data was collected remain within something like historical normal limits. Should we count on this? If so, how much?
Even if we assign low probability to another drought next spring, should we not at least develop contingency plans? If these are in place, what are they? Might a reduced drawdown somewhat buffer us against another dry spring and give us a better chance of fuller pond use in 2027, or does “weed control” trump other legitimate considerations?
These questions need answers. I believe wisdom dictates that we plan for the worst and hope for the best.
Robert C. Cummins and Karen Panasevich-Cummins
Clinton Shore Drive
