This commentary is by Luke Heald, a fishing guide and keen fisherman who lives in Brandon.
Vermont’s lakes are among our most treasured public resources, valued for recreation, ecological integrity and the balance they strike between multiple uses. The Agency of Natural Resources has long been tasked with managing these waters under a clear directive: Protect public health and safety while using the least restrictive approach practicable to address conflicts.
The proposed 2025 amendments to the Use of Public Waters Rules risk departing from that standard.
At the heart of the proposal is a significant statewide restriction on wakesports eligibility, reducing eligible lakes from 30 to just 18. While ANR has emphasized that rulemaking need not rely solely on scientific certainty, it has also committed to objectivity, consistency and avoiding arbitrary decision-making. Those principles matter here. It should also be noted that the proposed rules are petition-driven, rather than a legislative mandate that often accompanies a rules proposal.
In addition, the record shows that the proposed changes are not narrowly tailored to documented problems. Of the 12 lakes that would become newly ineligible, a majority, 58%, did not submit petitions requesting additional restrictions. These lakes were operating under the existing 2024 framework without documented, lake-specific conflicts prompting regulatory action.
Even among the 11 lakes that petitioned, the data tell a nuanced story. More than half, 55%, had little to no established wakeboat activity. In fact, among the six petition lakes that would remain eligible, four reported no wakeboats ever, and five reported either none or just one. In those cases, safety concerns were largely anticipated and focused on what could happen rather than documented incidents.
This distinction matters. Regulation is most defensible when it responds to demonstrated, not hypothetical, conflicts. When lakes without wakeboat activity — or without petitions — are swept into broader restrictions, it raises questions about whether the approach is truly the least restrictive necessary. And is it fair?
Equally important is the role of geometry in determining eligibility. The proposed standards, requiring a 3,000-foot straight run, 500-foot buffers, and accommodating irregular lake shapes, function as de facto exclusions for many smaller or nonlinear water bodies. Yet small changes to these assumptions could materially alter which lakes qualify.
That raises a critical question: Were alternative scenarios evaluated?
Could different buffer distances, operational limits or adaptive management strategies address localized concerns without broadly eliminating eligibility? Could site-specific solutions, rather than sweeping statewide thresholds, better align with Vermont’s tradition of balancing uses?
ANR has stated that the rule is derived from petitions, public input and professional judgment. But when the resulting framework extends well beyond where conflicts were clearly documented, it risks appearing disproportionate to the problem it seeks to solve.
Before moving forward, ANR should more clearly explain how nonpetition lakes were incorporated, how precautionary concerns were weighed against actual use data and whether less restrictive alternatives were meaningfully considered.
A pause for clarification would not weaken the rulemaking process — it would strengthen it.
Vermonters deserve confidence that statewide changes to public water use are grounded not only in good intentions, but in proportional, transparent and carefully targeted decision-making.
