by Compass Vermont

A fishing derby dispute in Barre has sparked a broader conversation about municipal authority, water safety, and public access to Vermont’s lakes

If you wanted to fish in the Thurman Dix Reservoir in Orange, Vermont, you’d face an unusual problem: the City of Barre owns every square foot of land surrounding it. There’s no public road, no boat launch, no legal way to reach the water without crossing municipal property.

So when the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife issued permits for fishing tournaments on the reservoir for the 2026 season—without notifying the city that relies on it for drinking water—Barre officials were caught off guard. When they protested, state officials reportedly offered a creative solution: tournament participants could technically “parachute in” to avoid trespassing on city land.

That suggestion, described in testimony by Barre City Manager Nicholas Storellicastro, has become a symbol of the administrative friction at the heart of Senate Bill S.224. The legislation, introduced by Senators Anne Watson and Seth Bongartz, would give municipalities new authority over activities on their drinking water sources and create rules to prevent invasive species from spreading between Vermont lakes.

The bill raises a question that affects communities across the state: When public recreation and public health collide on the same body of water, who gets the final say?

What S.224 Would Do

The bill addresses three distinct issues, each with its own set of supporters and critics.

Municipal Authority Over Reservoirs: Under current law, the state manages fishing and recreation on Vermont’s navigable waters. S.224 would allow municipalities to regulate surface water activities on reservoirs they own—but only in specific circumstances. The delegation authority applies exclusively to drinking water sources where the municipality already owns or controls all surrounding land.

Fishing Tournament Notification: The bill would require tournament organizers to notify municipalities as part of the state permitting process, giving local officials advance warning of organized events on their water supplies.

The “Home Lake” Rule for Wakeboats: S.224 would require wakeboat owners to designate a single “home lake” for each calendar year. These boats, which use ballast tanks holding thousands of pounds of lake water to create surfable wakes, could only operate on other Vermont waters after professional decontamination at an approved station.

The Technical Argument: Why Treatment Plants Have Limits

The Dix Reservoir holds roughly 588 million gallons—enough to supply Barre’s residents, but not enough to dilute a significant contaminant the way Lake Champlain’s 6.2 trillion gallons might.

Robert Dufresne, a principal-in-charge for design and construction management, testified that surface water treatment plants are designed around “probabilistic risk”—they’re engineered to handle predictable, everyday contamination levels. They are not built to neutralize worst-case scenarios like fuel spills from tournament boats.

Petroleum hydrocarbons pose a particular challenge. Dufresne explained that these compounds often pass through conventional filtration and disinfection processes largely unchanged. A fuel sheen visible on a reservoir’s surface may mean contamination has already entered the treatment system.

Jake Drown, superintendent of Barre’s water treatment facilities, reinforced this point: water quality monitoring is often “retrospective,” documenting a problem after affected water has already begun moving through the distribution system. Operators, he wrote, are “managing consequences, not preventing harm” once a permit is issued.

Barre’s water system costs $2.8 million annually to operate. If a tournament leads to contamination requiring advanced treatment upgrades, those costs fall on local ratepayers—not the state or the tournament sponsors.

The Sportsmen’s Response: Notification Yes, Control No

Chris Bradley, president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, acknowledged that the failure to notify Barre was the central problem in the Dix Reservoir controversy. But he argued the solution shouldn’t involve giving municipalities the power to deny permits outright.

Bradley testified that the “observational history” of fishing derbies in Vermont shows the risk of contamination to be “minimal to non-existent.” Existing Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations on bait, motors, and catch limits, he said, provide sufficient safeguards.

He proposed a two-step approach: require tournament sponsors to notify municipalities as part of the permitting process, giving local officials a chance to be “proactive and observant.” Only if notification proves insufficient to prevent documented water quality problems should the legislature consider granting municipalities denial authority.

Bradley also raised a legal concern. Vermont statute 24 V.S.A. § 2295 generally prohibits municipalities from regulating hunting, fishing, and trapping. Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution protects the public’s right to fish in navigable waters. S.224, Bradley argued, could create a statutory exception that might eventually expand beyond tournament permits to restrict casual fishing.

The Federation’s position: solve the communication gap without surrendering state authority over public waters.

The “Privatization” Dispute

Some sporting groups have characterized S.224 as an effort to “privatize” public waters. The Vermont Traditions Coalition raised this concern in testimony, also asserting that Barre doesn’t actually control all land around the Dix Reservoir due to certain rights-of-way.

Maggie Lenz responded on behalf of the city, calling this a “factual misstatement” and noting that tax maps confirm municipal control. More fundamentally, she argued that the bill’s delegation authority wouldn’t apply if the Coalition’s claim were true—the provision specifically limits municipal control to reservoirs where no legal public access exists.

The bill, Lenz argued, doesn’t take away an existing right of public access. It clarifies municipal authority over water sources the public couldn’t legally reach in the first place.

Wakeboats and the “Forever Curse”

Beyond the tournament controversy, S.224 addresses a threat that lake advocates describe in stark terms.

Diane Lehder, testifying before the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, explained that wakeboats pose a unique risk for spreading aquatic invasive species. Their ballast tanks, which hold lake water to create wakes, cannot be fully drained or visually inspected for microscopic organisms like zebra mussel larvae.

Once invasive species establish themselves in a lake, Lehder testified, eradication is “virtually impossible.” Management becomes a permanent, costly burden for local volunteers and lake associations—a “forever curse.”

Vermont currently lacks the statewide decontamination infrastructure needed to safely manage wakeboat transfers between water bodies. The “Home Lake” rule would address this gap by requiring wakeboat owners to choose a single lake for the season, with professional decontamination required before operating elsewhere.

Pat Suozzi of the Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds noted that interest in wake sports is projected to grow 5% annually, making this a preventive measure for lakes that remain AIS-free—including Caspian, Echo, and Seymour.

National Standards and Local Costs

The debate over S.224 echoes guidance from the American Water Works Association, the primary professional organization for North American water utilities.

AWWA policy states that “protection of public health and drinking water quality should be the highest priority” for domestic water supply reservoirs. The organization specifically discourages gasoline-powered boats and live bait on such reservoirs due to contamination and invasive species risks.

Notably, AWWA recommends that “where feasible, costs for monitoring, evaluations, and mitigation should be borne by those proposing or benefiting from the recreational activity, not by the utility or its customers.”

S.224 includes a provision requiring tournament sponsors to reimburse municipalities for costs incurred to protect drinking water sources during events. Bradley objected to this language, arguing it would force the Department of Fish and Wildlife Commissioner into an inappropriate role as a financial “collection agent” for municipalities. He suggested reimbursement should be handled through private contracts between sponsors and local governments, with the state simply verifying that such agreements exist.

The committee has explored whether tournament sponsors carry liability insurance that might cover these costs. Bradley confirmed most sponsors have insurance but noted that many are nonprofit organizations running fundraising events with minimal permit fees.

What Happens Next

The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy continues work on S.224, with Chair Anne Watson and the committee signaling plans to hold separate discussions on aquatic invasive species and access-point management before finalizing a new draft.

Several potential compromises have emerged from testimony:

Placing the notification burden on tournament sponsors rather than the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Clarifying that municipal authority under Section 1 applies only to drinking water reservoirs with no legal public access. Replacing the Commissioner’s reimbursement role with a requirement that sponsors produce signed cost-sharing agreements with municipalities before receiving permits.

The committee’s focus on the “unfunded” nature of tournament management for municipalities—police overtime, additional water testing, cleanup costs—suggests lawmakers are weighing whether current permit fees reflect the true costs these events impose on local taxpayers.

For communities like Barre, the outcome will determine whether they gain meaningful authority over their water supplies or continue navigating a permitting system where state agencies can authorize activities on municipal infrastructure without local consent. For sportsmen’s groups, it will test whether Vermont’s outdoor traditions can accommodate new restrictions on access to navigable waters.