Discussion over a submerged aquatic vegetation plan proffered by the Chautauqua Lake Partnership at this week’s Lakewood Village Board meeting typifies why we are so good at studying Chautauqua Lake and not so good at doing anything on the lake.

Cooperation has improved in recent years – and we’re glad that is happening. The Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance has helped, as has insistence from foundations that everybody involved in the lake play nicely with each other. But that’s easier to do when we’re getting money for studies and to support existing operations. It’s different when groups want to start actually doing something. Then, we default back to study and public comment.

It should go without saying that for all the time, expense and bloviating about weeds in the lake that an actual plan is needed. Unless there is something new to say there really isn’t a need for a long, drawn out process for a county plan to deal with vegetation in the lake.

In our opinion, comments in Lakewood last week shine a light on the biggest non-funding issue facing Chautauqua Lake – too many cooks and the lack of a chef. Members of the Chautauqua Lake Property Owners Association have spent two weeks speaking before various town, village and county governments asking for their support for a five-year submerged invasive vegetation plan. They’ve been met warmly in areas that support herbicides and with no firm commitments in areas that don’t. We are predictably falling into our familiar old camps, lemmings marching to our eventual demise on opposing cliffs.

Non-profits operating around the lake are getting along better, but old divisions die hard. It’s why we continue to think an outside, non-partisan set of eyes is needed to lead these efforts. It’s time to hire a lake manager. Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance members have broached the idea, according to minutes of recent board meetings. The idea of having a five-year plan to deal with lake weeds shouldn’t be controversial. It’s something we should be doing now. Frankly, it’s something we should have been doing decades ago. On our current pace, it’s something we will actually start following in the 2030s.

Doing anything new shouldn’t require 12 trips to various points around the lake to beg for support, rounds of public hearings in each of those locations and then, perhaps, approval from members of the Chautauqua Lake and Watershed Management Alliance if we can overcome decades-old slights, differences of opinion and personality conflicts.

We need someone objective. We need someone not beholden to any one lake group or faction. We need a lake manager.