Arthur J. Rocque, Jr.
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106

RE: Public Use of State Beaches; Indian Well State Park

An open letter – published at the Shelton Trails website (www.borntoexplore.org/trails)

Dear Mr. Rocque:

I am a local advocate of public open space and a frequent user of Indian Well State Park. Over the years I have often been annoyed by the habitial rudeness of the park staff at the beach area as well as the nonsensical way rules are applied. Both significantly decrease the public’s enjoyment of the park.

This year, however, my annoyance has turned to utter amazement. I was recently given a $60 ticket and treated like a criminal for sitting in 10 inches of water with my two-year-old daughter so that we could watch a flock of geese and ducks feeding nearby. It was one of those truly magical moments that parents treasure. My daughter was so animated with excitement and joy, the day was perfect and the water was warm. This moment was destroyed by a life guard who walked down the shore to tersely inform us that we must go back to the swimming area about 50 feet away. "God forbid something should happen to your daughter," she said, "We’d be responsible". I could almost see little attorney-fairies hovering overhead. But what could possibly happen? My daughter was wearing a Coast Guard-approved life jacket, and I was holding her, literally sitting down in no more than ten inches of water.

We were not swimming, nor could I imagine anyone swimming outside of the designated swimming area as the river is so choked with weeds. Rather, we were exploring the natural world of the Housatonic River shoreline, as many people like to do. As an environmental scientist, I love to walk along the shallows with my kids, turning over rocks to look for crayfish and bugs, watching fish dart away, and teaching them about the natural world. There is absolutely no danger involved, other than the possibility of cutting one’s foot. Exploring the shoreline is not a public nuisance or safety issue. There are no drop-offs or currents in that area. It is, in fact, what our open spaces are there for.

The Connecticut Statutes allow the DEP to create park rules and regulations only to maintain order, public safety and sanitation or to protect the environment. Exploring Lake Housatonic’s shoreline could not possibly threaten public safety, order, sanitation, or the environment, so I would argue that any rule denying the public this recreational opportunity is invalid. Moreover, Connecticut statutes also require that park rules be posted in a prominent location. I checked the rules posted, and there is absolutely no reference to people wading along the shoreline or staying within the designated swimming area (see attached photo).

The DEP should be ENCOURAGING nature study at its parks, not handing out $60 tickets for it.

Because, for the above reasons, I felt the life guard’s order was invalid, and because she was so rude, I chose to disobey her and go back to watching the geese with my daughter for another minute or so before returning to the swimming area. Twenty minutes later I was harassed by park security, who kicked me out of the park, along with the four children in my care, but not before he gave me a $60 ticket.

The rude and bureaucratic attitude coming from the lifeguards and park security was unbelievable. It is a chronic problem. I never hear "please" or "thank you", nor do I see the staff smiling at the park users or trying to be nice, with the notable exception of the staff who man the entrance gate.

The mission statement for the Bureau of Natural Resources is, in part, "...to provide the public with continued recreational and commercial opportunities for enjoyment and use of Connecticut’s natural resources..." In what way does banning the public from the shoreline in natural areas meet that goal?

"The Commissioner of Environmental Protection may adopt regulations in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 for the maintenance of order, safety and sanitation upon the lands in his control and for the protection of trees and other property and the preservation of the natural beauty thereof and fix penalties not exceeding a fine of ninety dollars for violation of such regulations. Such regulations shall be posted in conspicuous places upon such lands." CT General Statutes, Chapter 447, Sec. 23-4

Parking Ticket: Parking at Indian Well takes place in large, grassy fields bordered by guide rails. There are no signs or striping to tell us how to park or where not to park. People naturally drive up to the guide rail closest to the river, and park perpendicular to it. That’s the way it’s always been.

Then the DEP mysterious decided to have everyone park a different way. But rather than erect some indication telling people how to park, what they do is wait until a bunch of people have parked in the "wrong" location, have unloaded their cars, and are in the water. Then the staff go ask all of them to move their cars! When this happened to me, I had two young kids who were wet, full of sand, and a pile of toys, chairs and towels spread across the sand. I couldn’t just leave the kids there while I moved my car – I’d have to clean them up, pack everything, and drag the whole ensemble back to the car just so I could move it a few feet. And it wasn’t just me – there were a whole group of cars parked in the "wrong" spot.

I wasn’t blocking anyone and about 95% of the parking lot was empty, so there was no real problem with the way I parked. I had made a good-faith effort to park correctly. And the park staff wasn’t being particularly nice about it. So I refused. For that I was given a so-called "COURTESY NOTICE" for "refusal to park properly." As there are no indications what so ever that people shouldn’t park in the most obvious and natural place to park, I WAS parked properly. From what I see, the DEP repeats this scenario day after day, significantly inconveniencing park-goers. Why doesn’t the DEP just erect some clear indication as to where they want people to park in the first place? On the day I took the picture on the previous page, five cars were "improperly" parked, out of a total of about 20 cars (the three cars on the right are apparently in "violation").

 A real hazard – really ignored: Shortly after I was told to take my daughter’s water wings off one day because they are a deadly hazard ("one could get a hole in it"), I brought a real hazard to the attention of the lifeguards. There is a new 12" plastic drainage pipe that discharges onto the beach. My daughter, who is pretty fast, kept trying to climb into the pipe. It looks like a playground toy, after all. The pipe goes underground for about 100 yards. If my daughter did manage to climb up the pipe, how would she get out? When I brought it to the lifeguards’ attention (this pipe is located right in front of one of the lifeguard chairs) I was told, in so many words, "That’s not our problem." Spoken like true bureaucrats. A thinking, responsible lifeguard, as a representative of the Department of Environmental Protection, would have said something like, "You know, you may have a point there. I’ll talk to my supervisor about it and see if anything can be done."

My husband, who is a civil engineer, tells me that the pipe should have a grate in front of it to prevent children from climbing in, and that it is common practice to do so. To not have this pipe covered is gross negligence.

"There’s lightning in the area – Everyone go stand under those tall trees!" It makes sense to have everyone get out of the water when there is a thunderstorm in the area. However, at Indian Well State Park, when people are told to get out of the water they naturally go stand under a single line of tall white pine trees, by far the tallest feature around. No one is told about the hazards of standing under a natural lightning rod, or told to get into their cars. Again, park staff isn’t concerned about identifying real hazards within a specific context; they’re only concerned mindlessly following generic procedures. Bureaucratic, dysfunctional, and dangerous thinking.

Water wings and other swimming aids are hazardous: Here’s another sweeping rule, which must have been written by an attorney. The view is that these devices, which help non-swimmers learn to swim and stay afloat, may cause over-confidence and should therefore be banned outright.

But that is true of many things designed to increase safety. Since bicycle laws went into effect, the number of head injuries has increased significantly even as the number of riders has decreased, presumably due to overconfidence.

Anti-lock brakes are also said to promote overconfidence. People begin to drive faster. Four-wheel drive also contributes to accidents in poor weather – it allows people to drive too fast for the conditions (four wheel drive doesn’t help you stop).

These photos show one of the lifeguards telling a mom to take the water wings off of her child, a scenario that is repeated constantly throughout the day. The mom’s reaction was, "You’ve got to be kidding! Even if we’re just sitting here and I’m holding her?"

Even having lifeguards may cause overconfidence ("I don’t have to watch my kids so closely because there are lifeguards present"). My son is currently overconfident because he had swimming lessons last winter and thinks he’s a stronger swimmer than he really is. Does that mean the lessons were a bad thing? No, it means he must be supervised closely, just as children wearing floaties must be supervised closely.

Just about every safety feature risks overconfidence. That doesn’t mean the feature should be banned. The BENEFITS should be taken into consideration. Water wings and other swimming aids are invaluable in helping young children AND their parents enjoy the water. In the case of my two year old daughter, they keep her head up when she falls into the (shallow) water. After the DEP staff forced me to remove the water wings, my daughter twice lost her balance and was unable to get her head back out of the water. Instead, she floundered in 15 inches of water, unable to get air, until I was able to save her. She was very traumatized by the experiences. Neither time did the lifeguards notice her flailing in the water or make any move to save her. Thank goodness I was watching her closely, because otherwise she would have drowned. But the water wings would have prevented these incidents from happening in the first place, prevented her traumatic experiences.  

In addition, flotation devices make it possible for mothers to bring their babies out into deeper water while still holding onto them. Without "floaties", mothers fear dropping their small children into the murky water and losing them, and the children get very heavy very quickly. Floaties take the weight off the mother’s back and enable mother and child to enjoy the water more fully.

The kids in the photo had to lose both the swimming aid and the little inflatable ball.

If overconfidence of swimming aids is a problem, then make a rule saying all children wearing floatation devices must stay in shallow water (common sense) unless an adult is holding onto them, and they must be closely supervised by an adult. Banning the devices is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Cause of death: Deep water. There are many drownings at Indian Well. From what I can tell, it’s usually an inexperienced swimmer in deep water. If the DEP is sincere about wanting to prevent drownings, then cordon off the deep area and make a rule saying that children cannot swim there. I think most park goers would welcome a rope that marks a depth of about four feet, because most of us are parents who have to keep yelling at our kids not to go out so far. A rope would clearly delineate where our children could and could not go.

The Indian Well – an accident waiting to happen: It is common knowledge that many teenagers jump off the cliff and into the shallow water at the waterfalls for which the park is named. I’ve seen them do this myself. Sure, there’s a sign there saying you can’t do it, but people do, and everyone knows it. The sign covers the DEP’s ass if someone gets hurt, but how will the kid’s parents feel? I never see patrols at the Well.

In summary, the bureaucratic, legalistic attitude has gotten way out of hand at our parks. It’s time for an injection of common sense, so that we can fully enjoy our parks as they were intended to be enjoyed. Connecticut residents are not enemies to be fought, nor children who want to be babysat. We are to be treated with respect and allowed to use the parks in a reasonable fashion. And we want the DEP to address REAL dangers at the park and stop obsessing about covering its ass in case of a lawsuit.

Sincerely,

Teresa Gallagher
43 Judson Street
Shelton, CT 06484
(203) 926-9572

cc: Richard Belden