Vol. 15—1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

531.
It would be beneficial to remove this material. We have never seen it removed.
It becomes a rich compost by Spring. When the lake is filled this
shore line compost is already there as a fertilizer.
There is another aspect to be considered. Many owners of lake front
property build masonry walls at considerabl.e expense. Hhile it is true that
many of the walls are not properly built, the gct of lcnfering the lake increases
the risk of 'Winter damage. The water under the ice is obviously above
freezing. It is about 38 degrees Fahrenheit. If the protection of this 38
degree Fahrenheit water is removed by l.owering the lake, masonry walls are
subject to the usual heaving and cracking that a deep freeze creates.
From 'fhat has been said it is obvious that we are generally opposed to
lowering the lake level, and specifically opposed to it in connection with
Lake Mohawk. In northern New Jersey many have watched with keen interest the
fine work of Mr. Horrocks, your next speaker, in connection with control activities
at Lake Hopatcong. His work has been so convincing that many people
at Lake Mohawk have asked why we do not lower our lake as they do at Hoptacong.
Mr. Horrocks has unknowingly forced me into a rebuttal.
In c.onclusion, we find we have independently developed practically the
same techniques and obtained the same results as outlined in the report of
1958 published by the Committee of Water Pollution, Madison, vlisconsin. In
some respect our approach is different as to rooted and unrooted vegetation.
vlhere these differences occur have been pointed out in this report. Our
best progress from the standpoint of exhausting the seed supply stored in
the mud has been in the last three years, when double application was made in
the manner described - and at lower cost. To what degree we have been able
to lower the overall fertility of the lake by lessening the decomposition of
algae within the water by chemical treatment cannot be stated 'With certainty .
.Although we consistently have the water analyzed to determine one of the main
fertilizing agents, nitrates, no clear correlation can be drawn between the
growth of vegetation and nitrate content. Nevertheless, we have observed
that 'VTe no longer have a. troublesome second growth of potamogeton in September
as we formerly had. This seems to indicate a lessening of fertility.
What we are trying to do at Lake Mohawk is to bring the paradoxical dilemma
,between the naturalist and the chemist in better aligtUn.ent. Our belief
in the chemical control point of view is supported by the fact that we have
spent some $80,000 in making our water more acceptable. vIe said at the outset
that we could be trapped by our own logic and we think we have proved it.