✓ SUCCESS: The community successfully stopped the aeration project!
Through unanimous community opposition and effective advocacy, the motorized aeration system project has been withdrawn. The electrical panel support structure has been removed, and Kaplan's Pond remains the peaceful sanctuary our community values.
The information below represents the successful advocacy efforts and analysis that protected Kaplan's Pond from industrial noise. This material demonstrates how organized community action can preserve our natural spaces.
For current updates about the forming pond association, visit the main page.
Watch the complete Village Board meeting discussion about the Kaplan's Pond aeration project:
Kaplan's Pond Aeration Project Community Feedback Meeting
Mon, 15 Sept 2025
Meeting Summary
Meeting Overview
- Village Manager Brian Healy presented history of Kaplan's Pond acquisition (1991) and proposed aeration system
- Community feedback session on $3,800 installation + $7,275 annual maintenance cost
- John Tucci (Ever Blue Lakes) and Hillary Jufer (Cornell Cooperative Extension) present as technical experts
Community Opposition
- Strong unanimous opposition from all residents who spoke
- Primary concerns:
- No prior public consultation before project initiation
- Noise impact in quiet natural setting (34 decibels baseline - "crickets level")
- Impact on wildlife, especially Canada geese landing/takeoff patterns
- Questioning necessity based on current pond conditions
- Dan Cummings measured baseline noise levels, concerned about "motor in a park"
- Rick Sammon provided photographic evidence showing minimal algae coverage (3-4% duckweed in September, none visible in May/October photos)
Technical Discussion & Root Causes
- Jeff Weber identified curly leaf pondweed as likely root cause of algae blooms
- Grows rapidly when ice melts, breaks down causing algae
- Makes fishing impossible until June/July
- Current pond depth: 5-6 feet at deepest point, 3 feet at shallow end
- John Tucci explained pond aging process:
- Natural process accelerated by human watershed activities
- Muck layer buildup creates oxygen-depleted sediment
- Aeration addresses oxygen deficiency at sediment level
Alternative Solutions Discussed
- Dredging option: $200,000-300,000 cost, one-time solution to continuous problem
- Watershed management as primary focus
- Addressing beaver dam upstream causing water flow issues
- Removing boards from pond drain to improve flow
- Scientific study recommended before any interventions
- Hillary Jufer suggested partnering with NY State Sea Grant
- Anton Wilson mentioned Hudsonia environmental report from 1990s (Brian has copy)
Project Status & Next Steps
- John Tucci withdrew offer to install aeration system due to community opposition
- Will continue maintaining existing Duck Pond system
- Village to focus on:
- Watershed management improvements
- Scientific assessment through Cornell/Sea Grant partnership
- Investigating dredging as long-term option
- Addressing upstream water flow issues
- Meeting recording and documents to be posted on village website
- Email updates to be sent to interested residents
Before altering a quiet, community park, we should answer three plain questions:
- What, exactly, is the problem?
- What options exist to address it?
- Which option best supports both pond health and community well-being?
Here's what's happening: The Village of Croton is planning to install a commercial compressor motor that will run 24 hours a day at Kaplan's Pond—a peaceful park and fishing pond nestled at the top of Lounsbury Rd. The motor will cost taxpayers $4,000 upfront plus $9,100 every year, and run 24 hours a day, forever.
Here's what we know: Three years ago, a single resident mentioned concerns about water quality at Kaplan's Pond. Without collecting any data or exploring alternative approaches during that 3 year period, the Village has just moved ahead with a plan to install a motorized system in this peaceful parkland.
The public still hasn't been told what specific problem this is meant to solve—how severe the issue is, what risks it poses—and no evidence has been shared that other, less disruptive solutions were even considered.
The Village Manager indicates it was one neighbor who asked for information:
"I started having dialogue with ... a neighbor in the area." —Bryan Healy, Village Manager View in transcript
The consultant states they have no data to support their recommendation:
"I don't have several years worth of hard data to say yes, aeration is the right tool for this pond." —John Tucci, Owner, Lake Savers, LLC (an Aeration Company) View in transcript
And no water quality testing has been done:
"We can gather data and water quality data and sediment data on the pond. We've not done that." —John Tucci, Owner, Lake Savers, LLC (an Aeration Company) View in transcript
No resident in Croton asked for this motor. Many neighbors have expressed concern about potential noise and changes to the park's character. While the proposed aeration system could offer ecological benefits, we're asking: Could quieter, non‑industrial solutions deliver similar results at lower cost and with less disruption?
The consultant even acknowledged "I don't have several years worth of hard data to say yes, aeration is the right tool for this pond."
This is a permanent decision that will affect our community for decades. With no data collected to inform the decision.
Our community deserves a clear explanation of what problem this motor is supposed to solve. Before we can evaluate any solution, we need to understand: is there actually a problem that requires intervention?
If it turns out that algae reduction is a high-priority project, then we should start with the basics: excessive algae growth starts with source nutrients, let's look at that first.
Additionally, there are proven, beautiful, non-motorized alternatives worth exploring: natural aeration through multi-step waterfalls, or eco-friendly algae suppression using barley straw floats. These approaches could enhance our pond rather than industrialize it.
Let's reset this process and start with the fundamental questions our village leadership should have asked from the beginning:
What exactly is the problem? What are the options for addressing this problem? And what solution would work best for our entire community?
Join us in demanding a transparent, community-centered approach to caring for our pond.
Recent email and printed messaging from the Village about the Kaplan's Pond aeration plan repeat vendor talking points as if they were settled facts.
Neighbors deserve to know what's been measured, what's merely claimed, and what remains to be studied. Four examples from the bullet points shared in official Village communications:
"The pond does not have adequate levels of dissolved oxygen during the spring and summer seasons."
This is false. Show us the measurements. What, you say... there are no measurements that prove this claim about dissolved oxygen? That is correct. There was no data collection at all (see the transcript). No dissolved-oxygen testing was conducted, and the aeration consultant acknowledged that no testing of any kind was done. This is not due diligence; far from it. We deserve better information from Village officials. This public statement should be officially retracted.
"All wildlife in and around the pond will benefit from aeration because of the increased oxygen."
Just plain wrong. Ecology isn't a fortune cookie. Species have different needs and tradeoffs. Without site-specific data, you can't promise benefits "for all." Let's start with a baseline measurement.
"The system would operate 24/7 between the months of April and October. It would not operate between November and March."
Translation: this may be true but it's a marring of the truth: the constant hum runs precisely when the community uses the pond most. Being "off in winter" is like offering shade at midnight.
"The motor would be located in a weatherproof sound-reducing enclosure. The system would be about as loud as a dishwasher at a range of 10–15 feet; it would be quieter than a home central air conditioning unit."
A dishwasher that never stops is still a noise machine; a grinding dirge during the day, at midnight, continuing through 4am, 7am, 9am, and on and on, forever. The consultant suggested extra insulation "if people complain" after installation. Noise that needs retrofits isn't "minimal"; it's a known nuisance and ongoing risk to wildlife that we shouldn't take.
What "quiet parkland" sounds like
with a commercial compressor running.
This is an actual recording of the Compressor Motor at Duck Pond.
What is happening to stop this?
Any motorized system would add unacceptable noise levels 24 hours a day in what is (right now, still) a peaceful setting where people come to enjoy the sounds of nature. View in transcript
| Initial cost | $4,000 | once |
| Aeration system | $6,400 | yearly |
| Electric usage for 24/7 motors | $2,700 | yearly |
Not adjusted for inflation or contract changes or other issues that might arise
Your neighbors need to hear from YOU! Village officials listen when residents speak up.
Choose any message below that resonates with you—just click to copy it, then paste into a new email to the village manager and board. It takes 2 minutes and makes a real difference.
Dear Village Manager and Board of Trustees,
I live adjacent to Kaplan's Pond and respectfully request that the Village halt construction of the new aeration system until nearby residents can review the plan and explore alternatives.
Key concerns
Visual impact on parkland
The already-installed 5 × 10 ft mounting tower, electrical panel, and planned compressor housing block one of the park's few open vistas and encroach on public green space. Please visit the park and see the current construction to understand the visual impact (with the planned vegetation coverage the view will be blocked even more).
Noise impact on the neighborhood
The design requires 12 aerators driven by a compressor four times larger than the 24/7 unit at Duck Pond park, which already measures about 70 dB (the sound level where you feel like you want to move away from the sound to have a conversation) and is audible 150 ft away—even over highway noise.
A larger, continuously operating compressor would erode the pond's tranquility and depress surrounding property values.
Requested actions
- Issue an immediate work stoppage to allow for public input.
- Share the engineering and environmental analyses that informed the current design.
- Evaluate quieter, less obtrusive algae-control methods—such as targeted pond-weed treatment—together with residents and local experts.
A brief pause now will safeguard the park's character and the neighborhood's quality of life while still meeting algae-suppression goals.
Please contact me at this email or on my cell phone below.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Daniel Cummings
Kaplan's Pond Neighbor
Actually, no. The Duck Pond aerator system is currently not working to clear algae from the pond.
A walking survey conducted on July 21, 2025 revealed that the existing aerator system at Duck Pond is not controlling algae growth. Despite three active aerators (aka bubblers) running continuously, approximately 1/2 acre of algae coverage was observed on the 2-acre pond—with large algae blooms sitting directly next to all three aerators.
This shows that aerator systems may not be an effective solution. Installing an even larger, noisier system at Kaplan's Pond risks creating the same results while compromising the area's tranquility.
Fortunately, there are proven alternatives that work without industrial noise:
- Harvesting - Cutting, mowing, raking, hand-pulling, or skimming unwanted plants from the pond. Skimmers could gather the algae near the waterfall. Then the force of water could carry it over the falls into a catchment and collect it.
- Drawdown - Partial draining of pond to expose shallow bottom to freezing temperatures during winter.
- Dredging - Removing accumulated sediment and organic debris to restore pond's original deeper condition.
Original Budget line for the initial Kaplan's Pond work:
Croton Village Budget Detail Worksheets (PDF)
- $4,000 installation cost
- $9,175 yearly ongoing costs (every year)