Capt Dave your efforts with this have been truly an inspiration and I know you have a hundred balls in the air. Can I ask a rudimentary question?

It's my understanding GL is a public reservoir owned by the Department of Parks and Forestry that reports up under the State Department of Environmental Protection. Not sure if it's NJ, NY or both.

Because of lake front development, we have a public waterway surrounded by private property, and lake front marinas denying the public access to a waterway they don't own.

If that's true, why wouldn't the state file for an easement requiring business owners to allow the public access since public funds are being used to maintain and stock the lake and flip the narrative on the business owners by denying them use of the lake if they don't play ball and allow access to the public with or without use of an easement.

The reason I ask is your prior post. Why should NJ and it's taxpayers have to pony up money to fund a public access point when a number of access points already exist and have existed for years on GW. Can't the state give marinas two choices. Either allow access at a fair and reasonable fee to public boat owners through an easement or threaten charging marinas a fee for use of their reservoir and associated water rights or flat out tell marina owners they can't use the body of water to moor boats if they continue denying access to the public.

Or since Greenwood is a natural reservoir, why not have the state consider making it electric or non power only like the Newark Watershed (Echo, Clinton, Oakridge and Canistear) since it is a reservoir which also flows into the Wanague River subsequently feeding both the Monksville and Wanaque Reservoirs. I'm sure given those choices, the numerous marinas on the lake and home owners might have a change of heart about their position on public boat access. It would seem to me if my ownership assumptions are correct and the state supports public access, they have all the leverage needed to resolve this matter without the need for Governor Murphy to appropriate funds or Joe taxpayer to ultimately fund the tab.

Curious if that avenue was considered as opposed to the path being taken. Building and finding funding for a completely new public access area seems ridiculous since so many access points already exist. Marina owners just happen to be holding the public hostage by denying them access yet their businesses benefit and survive based on use of that same body of water they don't own. I thought it was scenarios exactly like that which was the basis of easements becoming a legal alternative to counter rights of private property owners.

Not suggesting changing course, just curious if that option was ever considered or if it's valid.